Would you flip the switch?

[Symmetry]

Well- if we're getting back on topic, I'll repost the original article:

Maj. Harold Hering and the forbidden question that cost him his career

And another part from it:

"So there you are, having just received the order to launch nuclear genocide. Should you suppress any doubts, twist your launch key in the slot simultaneously with your fellow crewman and send death hurtling toward millions of civilians halfway around the world? Without asking questions? That's what you're trained to do, not ask questions. Trainees who asked questions were supposed to be weeded out by the Air Force's "psychiatric consideration of human reliability" requirement. I've read this absurd Strangelovian document, which defined sane and reliable as being willing to kill 10 or 20 million people with the twist of a wrist, no questions asked."

[thegreekdog]

Trainees who asked questions were supposed to be weeded out by the Air Force's "psychiatric consideration of human reliability" requirement.

This seems like a scary sentence.

[targetman377]

Were we losing World War II? I don't remember that part.

thank your for pointing out women (was not trying to be sexists i support women in the military)

The reason we did that are many! first reason they started it (i had to say that ) ok no we had been fighting them for years. and we had lost lots of soldiers! At this point Europeans had been defeated the us was economical broke and exhausted from a world war every one wanted it to be over. Yes we had the choice to drop the bombs however then we would have had to invade japan killing and displace more civilians that where killed in the attacks and on top of that risk American life also Russian life they where moving to help us finish off japan. It was the right thing to do. i stand by them!

[Aradhus]

Only weakly interacting massive particles take orders. I'd give the order. Taking orders is for waiters.

[Symmetry]

Were we losing World War II? I don't remember that part.

thank your for pointing out women (was not trying to be sexists i support women in the military)

The reason we did that are many! first reason they started it (i had to say that ) ok no we had been fighting them for years. and we had lost lots of soldiers! At this point Europeans had been defeated the us was economical broke and exhausted from a world war every one wanted it to be over. Yes we had the choice to drop the bombs however then we would have had to invade japan killing and displace more civilians that where killed in the attacks and on top of that risk American life also Russian life they where moving to help us finish off japan. It was the right thing to do. i stand by them!

Come on, your argument was that launching missiles would only happen if a country faced imminent military defeat. People argued against you, using the example of the only use of atomic weapons. At least admit that other scenarios are plausible.

The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind as a point where nuclear weapons were close to being launched without a military defeat being close.

[PLAYER57832]

Trainees who asked questions were supposed to be weeded out by the Air Force's "psychiatric consideration of human reliability" requirement.

This seems like a scary sentence.

It is, but that is also how the military works. When you put on that uniform you effectively give up your right to be a truly free citizen.

Even so, one does wonder if that is truly the best plan in today's world.

Most particularly, it is one thing to tell people "you are a soldier, you may be ordered into gunfire, knowing you are likely to die... but that is your job if needed". And something else to make that same unquestioning requirement of someone sitting in Arizona setting up a drone attack on an Afghanistan village. .. or pushing a button to kill 10 million people at no risk to themselves.

[Symmetry]

Trainees who asked questions were supposed to be weeded out by the Air Force's "psychiatric consideration of human reliability" requirement.

This seems like a scary sentence.

It is, but that is also how the military works. When you put on that uniform you effectively give up your right to be a truly free citizen.

Even so, one does wonder if that is truly the best plan in today's world.

It was one of the sentences that bothered me most. I can't vouch for its truth, but I do stand by the idea that duty and obligation are important values in a soldier. What worried me was the idea that they should be the only things that were being looked for. It made me wonder what kind of people have their hands on the buttons.

[targetman377]

Well- if we're getting back on topic, I'll repost the original article:

Maj. Harold Hering and the forbidden question that cost him his career

And another part from it:

"So there you are, having just received the order to launch nuclear genocide. Should you suppress any doubts, twist your launch key in the slot simultaneously with your fellow crewman and send death hurtling toward millions of civilians halfway around the world? Without asking questions? That's what you're trained to do, not ask questions. Trainees who asked questions were supposed to be weeded out by the Air Force's "psychiatric consideration of human reliability" requirement. I've read this absurd Strangelovian document, which defined sane and reliable as being willing to kill 10 or 20 million people with the twist of a wrist, no questions asked."

Interesting article. Yes you guys all seem to think that some pres. is going to go bonkers and kill 100 million people interesting you say that EXCEPT!!!!

1. Foreign policy- NO COUNTRY WOULD SIT IDEAL BY IF AMERICA LAUNCHED A NUKE AT A PEACEFUL NATION!!! meaning many counties would help the country we just nuked are close allies would distance themselves if not impose economic sanctions on the US.

2 Domestic Policy- what do you think would happen to a president that launch a nuclear bomb against a peaceful nation? Let me give you a hint he would be impeachment would happen faster then you could say toma... see also they would never get that far as they would have to convince one other cabinet member to agree with them. and not to mention what about when he gets reelected you think he will.

3. Do you think some who is not of a sane mind can fool everyone in America for years and years? until he gets elected pres. then snaps. without any signs?

4.The only time i can preserve us launching one now a days is if a country did it to us first or we where loosing a war! or a war raged for 10 years the ruling party still refused to surrender. and the situation was much like japan with there civilians agreeing with there government.

[targetman377]

Were we losing World War II? I don't remember that part.

thank your for pointing out women (was not trying to be sexists i support women in the military)

The reason we did that are many! first reason they started it (i had to say that ) ok no we had been fighting them for years. and we had lost lots of soldiers! At this point Europeans had been defeated the us was economical broke and exhausted from a world war every one wanted it to be over. Yes we had the choice to drop the bombs however then we would have had to invade japan killing and displace more civilians that where killed in the attacks and on top of that risk American life also Russian life they where moving to help us finish off japan. It was the right thing to do. i stand by them!

Come on, your argument was that launching missiles would only happen if a country faced imminent military defeat. People argued against you, using the example of the only use of atomic weapons. At least admit that other scenarios are plausible.

The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind as a point where nuclear weapons were close to being launched without a military defeat being close.

close where they launched? NO reason is cause even if one person has sole power to use nuclear weapons the consequences of such actions means even the most unstable people will think twice why do you think soviet and united states never declared war cause each knew what was at stake THE ULTIMATE PEACE MAKER IS A DESTRUCTION OF MASS DEATH!

[jay_a2j]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

Accurate it is not. I can testify to the absurdity of that statement both from people who receive such "help" and from my own personal experience. It's designed to keep people "in need" because if you somehow find that you no longer need "help" you will no longer support the party that champions free handouts! Thus, you must keep them down in order to secure their votes. And this is about as sick and corrupt as politics can get.

What is sick and corrupt is that you try to make out some of these programs to be partisan in nature.

That's because they are.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Were we losing World War II? I don't remember that part.

thank your for pointing out women (was not trying to be sexists i support women in the military)

The reason we did that are many! first reason they started it (i had to say that ) ok no we had been fighting them for years. and we had lost lots of soldiers! At this point Europeans had been defeated the us was economical broke and exhausted from a world war every one wanted it to be over. Yes we had the choice to drop the bombs however then we would have had to invade japan killing and displace more civilians that where killed in the attacks and on top of that risk American life also Russian life they where moving to help us finish off japan. It was the right thing to do. i stand by them!

Come on, your argument was that launching missiles would only happen if a country faced imminent military defeat. People argued against you, using the example of the only use of atomic weapons. At least admit that other scenarios are plausible.

The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind as a point where nuclear weapons were close to being launched without a military defeat being close.

close where they launched? NO reason is cause even if one person has sole power to use nuclear weapons the consequences of such actions means even the most unstable people will think twice why do you think soviet and united states never declared war cause each knew what was at stake THE ULTIMATE PEACE MAKER IS A DESTRUCTION OF MASS DEATH!

Yeah, if everyone had the capability to kill everyone else at a whim, we'd have absolute peace ...

You're a history major? And you state with 100% certainty that bombing Japan was the right choice? Perhaps you can explain to us why these guys are all wrong.

[Valykrie]

Were we losing World War II? I don't remember that part.

thank your for pointing out women (was not trying to be sexists i support women in the military)

The reason we did that are many! first reason they started it (i had to say that ) ok no we had been fighting them for years. and we had lost lots of soldiers! At this point Europeans had been defeated the us was economical broke and exhausted from a world war every one wanted it to be over. Yes we had the choice to drop the bombs however then we would have had to invade japan killing and displace more civilians that where killed in the attacks and on top of that risk American life also Russian life they where moving to help us finish off japan. It was the right thing to do. i stand by them!

Come on, your argument was that launching missiles would only happen if a country faced imminent military defeat. People argued against you, using the example of the only use of atomic weapons. At least admit that other scenarios are plausible.

The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind as a point where nuclear weapons were close to being launched without a military defeat being close.

close where they launched? NO reason is cause even if one person has sole power to use nuclear weapons the consequences of such actions means even the most unstable people will think twice why do you think soviet and united states never declared war cause each knew what was at stake THE ULTIMATE PEACE MAKER IS A DESTRUCTION OF MASS DEATH!

Yeah, if everyone had the capability to kill everyone else at a whim, we'd have absolute peace ...

You're a history major? And you state with 100% certainty that bombing Japan was the right choice? Perhaps you can explain to us why these guys are all wrong.

(Not who you were talking to, but I want to interject.)
The U.S. officials said they could have won the war by going after mainland Japan, but it would cost (as an estimation by the U.S. commanders) 1 million more U.S. lives. The bombing of Japan was in order to quickly end the war without the loss of of thousands of lives. Nobody knew the kind of effect those missles would have on the world, nor did they know it would be so devastating, so you could say the bombing of Japan was completely justified. Not that it was right, but justified.

[targetman377]

I am a history major i do believe they did the right thing. yes i am aware of all the other things. there reason of why we should not have dropped the bomb is purely speculation! and "what if history" the number one thing all historians try to stay away form. instead a more correct statement would be looking back what are the positive and negatives based on the decisions based on the past. Also we have more knowledge and a different set of morals and we live in a completely different way of looking at the world. when you make choice you do not have the luxury of knowing all consequences

[targetman377]

(Not who you were talking to, but I want to interject.)
The U.S. officials said they could have won the war by going after mainland Japan, but it would cost (as an estimation by the U.S. commanders) 1 million more U.S. lives. The bombing of Japan was in order to quickly end the war without the loss of of thousands of lives. Nobody knew the kind of effect those missles would have on the world, nor did they know it would be so devastating, so you could say the bombing of Japan was completely justified. Not that it was right, but justified.

good point thats one of the main arguments to be justified! and i do believe as long as something is justified it is ok.

[BigBallinStalin]

thank your for pointing out women (was not trying to be sexists i support women in the military)

The reason we did that are many! first reason they started it (i had to say that ) ok no we had been fighting them for years. and we had lost lots of soldiers! At this point Europeans had been defeated the us was economical broke and exhausted from a world war every one wanted it to be over. Yes we had the choice to drop the bombs however then we would have had to invade japan killing and displace more civilians that where killed in the attacks and on top of that risk American life also Russian life they where moving to help us finish off japan. It was the right thing to do. i stand by them!

Come on, your argument was that launching missiles would only happen if a country faced imminent military defeat. People argued against you, using the example of the only use of atomic weapons. At least admit that other scenarios are plausible.

The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind as a point where nuclear weapons were close to being launched without a military defeat being close.

close where they launched? NO reason is cause even if one person has sole power to use nuclear weapons the consequences of such actions means even the most unstable people will think twice why do you think soviet and united states never declared war cause each knew what was at stake THE ULTIMATE PEACE MAKER IS A DESTRUCTION OF MASS DEATH!

Yeah, if everyone had the capability to kill everyone else at a whim, we'd have absolute peace ...

You're a history major? And you state with 100% certainty that bombing Japan was the right choice? Perhaps you can explain to us why these guys are all wrong.

(Not who you were talking to, but I want to interject.)
The U.S. officials said they could have won the war by going after mainland Japan, but it would cost (as an estimation by the U.S. commanders) 1 million more U.S. lives. The bombing of Japan was in order to quickly end the war without the loss of of thousands of lives. Nobody knew the kind of effect those missles would have on the world, nor did they know it would be so devastating, so you could say the bombing of Japan was completely justified. Not that it was right, but justified.

ther U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[77][78] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[76] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[79]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[69]

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[80]

That one million more US soldier lives argument is rubbish.

[jay_a2j]

i do believe as long as something is justified it is ok.

And who decides what is just?


Is a gunman justified in shooting an abortion Dr. because of all the unborn it will save?

Is a man justified in killing his wife because she was unfaithful?

Was W. Bush justified in killing hundreds of thousands because Saddam "might" have WMD's?

Did not Hitler "justify" the slaughter of millions of people? And was he just?

Is it just for a man to kill someone who just raped his wife?

You obviously meant to say whatever YOU deem just, is ok.

[Haggis_McMutton]

i do believe as long as something is justified it is ok.

And who decides what is just?


Is a gunman justified in shooting an abortion Dr. because of all the unborn it will save?

Is a man justified in killing his wife because she was unfaithful?

Was W. Bush justified in killing hundreds of thousands because Saddam "might" have WMD's?

Did not Hitler "justify" the slaughter of millions of people? And was he just?

Is it just for a man to kill someone who just raped his wife?

You obviously meant to say whatever YOU deem just, is ok.

Damn it Jay, if you make one more post that I agree with I might just crack.

[Woodruff]

Trainees who asked questions were supposed to be weeded out by the Air Force's "psychiatric consideration of human reliability" requirement.

This seems like a scary sentence.

It is, in the sense of the civilian world...no doubt. But within the military structure, it's really...well, maybe not NORMAL...but not that out of place, either.

[Woodruff]

Were we losing World War II? I don't remember that part.

The reason we did that are many!

Of course they were...THAT WAS MY POINT. You made it an either-or which clearly just from our own single use is proven wrong. You made a statement that didn't make sense, so I pointed out why.

[Woodruff]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

Accurate it is not. I can testify to the absurdity of that statement both from people who receive such "help" and from my own personal experience. It's designed to keep people "in need" because if you somehow find that you no longer need "help" you will no longer support the party that champions free handouts! Thus, you must keep them down in order to secure their votes. And this is about as sick and corrupt as politics can get.

What is sick and corrupt is that you try to make out some of these programs to be partisan in nature.

That's because they are.

Only if you're a partisan, Jay.

[Woodruff]

(Not who you were talking to, but I want to interject.)
The U.S. officials said they could have won the war by going after mainland Japan, but it would cost (as an estimation by the U.S. commanders) 1 million more U.S. lives. The bombing of Japan was in order to quickly end the war without the loss of of thousands of lives. Nobody knew the kind of effect those missles would have on the world, nor did they know it would be so devastating, so you could say the bombing of Japan was completely justified. Not that it was right, but justified.

good point thats one of the main arguments to be justified! and i do believe as long as something is justified it is ok.

So then you DO believe in abortion. Glad that's cleared up.

[Valykrie]

Actually, US was wrong here. Japan was ready to surrender, but on certain terms. The US said "screw that" and demanded unconditional surrender. Japan said no. the US could only either bomb Japan or invade the mainland, as I stated earlier. The US generals wanted to end it their (as you showed), but the US demanded unconditional surrender. The president also wanted to intimidate Stalin, keep him out of the Pacific war (He planned on invading Japan), and deny him a share of the peace that the US was supposedly going to impose on Japan.
Edit: for some reason, it wouldn't let me qoute, but I meant to qoute "Million US live is rubbish".

[Valykrie]

(Not who you were talking to, but I want to interject.)
The U.S. officials said they could have won the war by going after mainland Japan, but it would cost (as an estimation by the U.S. commanders) 1 million more U.S. lives. The bombing of Japan was in order to quickly end the war without the loss of of thousands of lives. Nobody knew the kind of effect those missles would have on the world, nor did they know it would be so devastating, so you could say the bombing of Japan was completely justified. Not that it was right, but justified.

good point thats one of the main arguments to be justified! and i do believe as long as something is justified it is ok.

So then you DO believe in abortion. Glad that's cleared up.

Lol.

[Ray Rider]

Damn it Jay, if you make one more post that I agree with I might just crack.

lol

As for the topic, it's a really good question and I seriously don't know what I would do in a situation like that.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I think kittens can be cute...sometimes. Mostly they're annoying. Plus you get tiny scratches all over you.

-TG