Would you flip the switch?

[Woodruff]

America fought the most devastating war its every fought (not including the civil war)

Good Lord, find an education. (That comment does NOT have anything to do with your spelling.)

What war would be more devastating to America than world war 2 to America? well? and NOTICE I say civil war would have been worse!

I did notice. That was the point of my comment. You said "the most devastating war it's ever fought!" and then you said "well...except for". GET A FREAKING EDUCATION!

nuclear weapons where not invented back then so that is not the issue!

Is there a fucking language barrier going on here? Is English your second language? Are you mentally retarded? I do not understand!

sorry for the miss clarification That is why i would say America fought its most devastating war and it had nuclear capability. I know what i what i said there smart one

No, I don't think you do. Otherwise, you'd be embarrassed.

[Woodruff]

Plz tell me why you would press the button to kill 10 millions people when you beleive that all these people have rights? Shouldn't they have a chance, just like your familly would?
Contraditions contradictions...

the only way America would launch a nuclear weapon is if we where losing a war or it was launched on us first

You keep saying this, and yet it continues to be a load of horse manure. Are you really so stupid? I cannot imagine that an actual history major would believe this is the case, when it is demonstrably false using...you know...actual history.

yes cause we launched nuke in the KOREN, VIETNAM, The first golf war, the war on terrorism, wow LOOK AT ACTUALLY HISTORY THERE WAS ONLY ONE WAR WE LAUNCHED A NUKE IN WORLD WAR 2 cause we wanted a fast a speedy end and did not want to risk more American lives!

Oh...so close! You actually almost clued in to my point. Come on boy, try just a little bit harder and you can get there! Here, let me help...WE DID NOT LAUNCH A NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST JAPAN BECAUSE WE WERE LOSING THE WAR (we clearly weren't) NOR DID WE DO SO BECAUSE ONE WAS LAUNCHED AGAINST US (we were the only ones with them).

LOOK AT THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS WE STILL DID NOT LAUNCH A NUKE!!!!!
tell me to get in education? maybe you should not be so paranoid.

Please...PLEASE remind me that you're a freaking history major. I really need to know what university you are an embarrassment for.

[targetman377]

THIS IS A NOT A REAL ACCOUNT OF THE CREW OF ENOLA GAY

http://www.larrydewitt.net/Foxes/enola.html

....Questioner: "But what you were doing was historic and unprecedented. You were dropping the first atomic bomb in history."

Response: "It always puzzles me how people talk about the bomb we dropped on Japan, like it was somehow different than what hundreds of other guys were doing every day.

Look, when our three planes arrived on Timion Island to prepare for the raid on Hiroshima, we weren't the only planes there. There were 145 bombers already there, and they were flying daily bombing runs against Tokyo and other cities in Japan. If you just somehow took all those thousands of conventional bombs and melted them together into one big bomb and instead of dropping them from 145 planes, dropped them from one, what would be the difference? In effect, that's what we did. That's what the technology of nuclear weapons is, a kind of mechanical alchemy in which thousands of little bombs are fused to create one big one."

Questioner: "But 80,000 people were killed instantly. Isn't that unimaginable devastation."

Response: "Yes. That's precisely what it is--unimaginable devastation. But I never have understood this strange kind of math by which killing 80,000 unarmed civilians with thousands of bombs over the course of many days is somehow less devastating than killing these same people in one day with one bomb. The only difference is that it's easier for us to get our minds around the devastation when it happens all at once--we see it more vividly--than it is when the devastation happens slowly over time.

Once we decide that bombing unarmed civilians is an acceptable form of warfare, which was decided long before the Enola Gay was ever conceived, isn't that the point at which the moral choice is made? Do you really think it matters to the dead what kind of weapon killed them?"

Questioner: "After meeting some of your victims, after seeing that they are people just like you and me, don't you wonder how you could have done such a thing."

Response: "We were very young. Those who go to war are always very young, and not just because the young have the necessary vitality. The young are sent to war because they lack the wisdom which comes with age. With this wisdom you begin to understand some things, like the fact that all people are just people, that the Japanese are just like the neighbors down the street. And this makes it harder to kill the enemy when you don't see them as alien in some fundamental way.

You know, we hated and despised the Japanese. We thought and believed they were sub-human in some way. Even when we didn't say it or consciously think it, we had to look at them in this way to make it all acceptable in our minds. Everybody thought this. Not just the crew of the Enola Gay, the foot soldier shooting it out on the islands of the Pacific saw the enemy as alien is some basic way. We never thought about innocent women and vulnerable children. We only thought about "Japs."

No one ever asks the average soldier or airman from the War if they thought about their victims, and whether they feel guilty about what they did. They only ask us.

So yes, meeting these people now, and seeing them as regular people like everyone else, is hard. If I had been able to see them this way back then, it would have been impossible for me to do what I did. But it was never possible to see them like this before, only now, all these many years later."

Questioner: "They say that dropping the atomic bombs shortened the war, saving thousands of lives in the long run. This is the usual justification for the decision. Do you agree?"

Response: "I don't know about all that, and I don't need any kind of justification. I was just doing what I had been doing for several years by that point, trying to kill the enemy to win the war. That's all the justification I needed in my mind at the time.

I will tell you one thing though, it is true that dropping the bombs did end the war very quickly. In that sense they worked very well. And I am sure that if those bombs hadn't worked so well, and if the war had dragged on, we would have produced more atomic bombs and we would have begun using them as regular weapons of war just like all the others. In time, people would have become inured to the atom bomb just like they have become to every other weapon of war ever invented. It is because only two atomic bombs were dropped that this cult of specialness has grown up around these weapons. If hundreds of them had been used, they would have become nothing special in the ways of war.

I suppose it's good that we have this taboo about the use of nuclear weapons. I don't want to see them used. But if you think these weapons are somehow different in kind, morally, from grenades and machine guns and ballistic missiles and all the rest of it, you are deluding yourself."

Questioner: "What are your key insights about the role in history of the crew of the Enola Gay."

Response: "Look, the role of the crew of the Enola Gay is nothing special in history. The basic gestures of warfare have remained the same throughout human history. The crew of the Enola Gay didn't do anything which was different in any way from the millions of other warriors who have slaughtered their fellow men since time immemorial.

You have got to stop dramatizing us and start facing the truth about yourselves. Don't look to us for insights, look in the mirror."

HOWEVER HE MAKES GOOD POINTS about dropping it. This is just like our question but it answers some of the question you guys had.

[Symmetry]

Plz tell me why you would press the button to kill 10 millions people when you beleive that all these people have rights? Shouldn't they have a chance, just like your familly would?

Contraditions contradictions...

the only way America would launch a nuclear weapon is if we where losing a war or it was launched on us first as for where it would it first and foremost the attacks would be on key military complexes, buildings, other things of that nature war is not pretty and civilians die that is the fact of life. If a nuclear bomb was launched at us would you guys still not launch? well would you or would you not

Once again you're assuming stuff. The question NEVER specified a thing about what you're saying.

It says 10 millions people. Not military complex. Not 10 millions armed to teeth barbarians runing to get you.

Just 10 millions people wirh rights, like yourself.

You're 1 life that is willingly going to end 10 millions others simply because you're told to, without any background info at all. That is what scares me.

Exactly. Well said.
Not only is he willing to do that, but he thinks that not doing that would make one a coward and unpatriotic.
Well, I guess rational thought does tend to get in the way of patriotism.

If a nuclear bomb was launched at us would you guys still not launch? well would you or would you not

So your question is: "If another government decided to attack us, would you kill 10 million of their civilians as retaliation?"
Hey, and eye for an eye, right? ...

The only point in launching the bombs would be if they somehow destroyed all the enemies nuclear capabilities. Otherwise, by responding with senseless deaths of civilians of a nuclear power, you've probably just assured the end of humanity.
But hey, who cares about that when you get to hit your chest and shout your contry's name.

Absolutely- patriotism shouldn't be blind loyalty to whoever is in charge and tells you what your country is about. It should be about respecting what was good in the past and ensuring those values continue. It should also be an acceptance of what was bad in the past and how to make sure those things change. They go hand in hand.

I'm not exactly phrasing this as well as possible, but patriotism seems to be an increasingly polarised word used more to exclude people than to bring people together as a nation with a shared set of values.

[PLAYER57832]

HOWEVER HE MAKES GOOD POINTS about dropping it. This is just like our question but it answers some of the question you guys had.

Look, people are going to argue forever that we should not have dropped the bomb, that we "really were not losing", etc. The truth is that no one really knows what would have happened had we not dropped the bombs, BUT there is ample evidence that the US administration fully believed it was the best option to end the war quickly and to save lives. AND.. more than a few Japanese experts of the day (that is important because later speakers often have revisionist agendas) fully agreed that Japan would have fought "to the last woman and child", killing many on BOTH sides.

Claiming that something else is the "new truth" is nothing but revising history.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not exactly phrasing this as well as possible, but patriotism seems to be an increasingly polarised word used more to exclude people than to bring people together as a nation with a shared set of values.

It is not just patriotism, it is words like "faith", "morality",e tc.
the problem is that people are no longer sitting down and talking together, instead they go to the internet and find mostly people who agree with themselves. So, all those terms get redefined in people's minds until communication is no longer even possible.

Look at Phattscotty and I. Supposedly we both speak English, but do we really speak the same language, understand the same facts, etc?

[Pirlo]

OOOOO lemme tell you something about PATRIOTISM...

actually ,... ummm

how about you just read my profile??? it's funny

AC

[Woodruff]

OOOOO lemme tell you something about PATRIOTISM...
actually ,... ummm
how about you just read my profile??? it's funny
AC

I personally find your idea of patriotism to be odd, inaccurate and silly.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure if this is patriotism per se, but it's definitely nationalism... Ignoring morality for a second, if someone told me that my country (and therefore I) could be better off by my country doing something that would harm another country, I would agree to do that particular thing. Ignoring morality again, if someone told me that doing something for people in another country would harm my country, but help them, I would agree again that we should not do that particular thing. Selfish? Yes, but I'm ignoring the morality in this little post here.

The point is that I think nationalism is good, being selfish is good... it makes sense. But it should be balanced by some sort of morality.

[Eddy_26]

I wouldn't. I think I could, but I don't see launching a nuclear missile as being logical in any situation I can think of. Feel free to point one out.
My thinking is that the main idea behind these is mutually assured destruction. If they launch theirs, you launch yours. So, a few million of your (innocent) citizens are dead, and a lot of your land is going to be screwed up. But what purpose does it serve to do the same to theirs? It's basically a case of "If I go down I'm taking you half a country of innocent people with me". You're effectively holding a bunch of their citizens hostage. You're threatening to kill them for a decision they had nothing to do with.
I can see the use of tactical nukes in war, when you're close to defeat, but missiles targeting cities? No.

Interesting point. why defend ourselves at all? Who cares if we are overrun. As for you innocent civilians some countries Elect there leaders what if they attacked us then would they still be innocent? I agree with you guys if a president went crazy i would not launch it but lets face in reality that would never happen.

What? Damnit, try to actually think through what you say.
You're saying that defending yourselves, or trying to win your war in Iraq is in a similar boat as nuking a city thousands of miles away. Sooo, if you were a soldier in Iraq, you wouldn't have a problem going from house to house exterminating that city, because the president wanted you to do it?
As for your whole election thing, let me repeat: it's a decision they had nothing to do with. Did you elect Obama to nuke Russia? Pretty sure that wasn't one of his talking points. Would he ask you guys if he was about to do it? No. So, in the nuclear aspect at least, they're innocent.

I'm not sure how much point there is in discussing the whole Hiroshima thing, you guys got away with it because there was no one who could drop them on you. You don't have that luxury anymore. Anyone that you would have the inclination to fire on (barring middle east, probably a good possibility ) would fire back. So there is no "It's to save lives" option. The fact is you would just be killing millions of "enemy" citizens and millions of your own.

[Pirlo]

OOOOO lemme tell you something about PATRIOTISM...
actually ,... ummm
how about you just read my profile??? it's funny
AC

I personally find your idea of patriotism to be odd, inaccurate and silly.

it depends on how we define 'Patriotism'..

for me, Patriotism is to love one country and, as a result, you'd accept to kill people from other countries for the purpose of making your GOVERNMENT proud... well, this is the best I can be for the favor of Patriotism... don't get me started about how much I could be against that sickness....

being martyr and dead for your nation bla bla bla sound sweet & nice, but only in poetry... IN REALITY, trust me, death killing are disgusting...

- AC

[natty dread]

The point is that I think nationalism is good, being selfish is good... it makes sense. But it should be balanced by some sort of morality.

Nationalism is not good. It's short-sighted, and only makes sense in a limited perspective. And morality is relative, so it's no good as a balancing factor, if it happens to be the wrong kind of morality.

[PLAYER57832]

OOOOO lemme tell you something about PATRIOTISM...

actually ,... ummm

how about you just read my profile??? it's funny

AC

You have confused Patriotism with militant nationalism.
Patriotism is about the feelings within a country, not necessarily physically defending it. (though if you feel strongly about anything, you will defend it)

"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons." - Bertrand Russell "Nationalism + Patriotism = BULLSHIT" - Andrea the Charmer

However, given your history/location, it might not be surprising. For Palestiniens, any type of patriotism has been illegal for decades, leaving violance as almost the only option.

[Woodruff]

OOOOO lemme tell you something about PATRIOTISM...
actually ,... ummm
how about you just read my profile??? it's funny
AC

I personally find your idea of patriotism to be odd, inaccurate and silly.

it depends on how we define 'Patriotism'..
for me, Patriotism is to love one country and, as a result, you'd accept to kill people from other countries for the purpose of making your GOVERNMENT proud... well, this is the best I can be for the favor of Patriotism...

That doesn't sound at all like patriotism to me. To me, patriotism is believing in and living for the ideals of a nation.

being martyr and dead for your nation bla bla bla sound sweet & nice, but only in poetry...

Again, I disagree. I can think of many circumstances where I would be not only willing but eager to put my life on the line for my nation.

IN REALITY, trust me, death killing are disgusting...

I don't have to trust you. I was in the military for 23 years. That being said, sometimes disgusting things must be done for the greater good.

[freezie]

Target, if you're not going to answer a question without changing the question itself, don't bother answering.

QUESTION: Would you launch a nuclear bomb on 10 millions people WITHOUT ANY BACKGROUND INFO ( There is no war, you know nothing about these people, you are not in danger and you only know you're launching a bomb on 10 million people ( Not military, not another nuclear complex, not another army's base ).

Stop the crap about your country wouldn't and would and you would if they did this...answer the question or don't bother.

Answer: your line.


The only thing I am gathering here is that, even if you have no damn info but the order to launch, you would make all sorts of excuses to remove yourself from any responsability just like you are to answer a single question here.

Take account the bold part and answer. that's it.

Yes or no, that's the post I want to see.

[Pirlo]

Interesting point. why defend ourselves at all? Who cares if we are overrun. As for you innocent civilians some countries Elect there leaders what if they attacked us then would they still be innocent?

OMG... this is the stupidest & most ignorant America guy I ever known

Americans elected and RE-ELECTED George W Push who destroyed Iraq (FOR NO GOOD REASON).

according to your shit, any Iraqi shall have the right to kill any American citizen for electing (not to mention the re-electing part) the asshole who destroyed their country.

oh wait, lemme guess, you are gonna tell me that Iraqi people deserve to die I won't be surprised if you said something like that... no kidding

here is an example of Patriotism

fucked up like 24 million people in Iraq in 2003 because a bunch of American corporations needed new contracts

- AC

[Woodruff]

Interesting point. why defend ourselves at all? Who cares if we are overrun. As for you innocent civilians some countries Elect there leaders what if they attacked us then would they still be innocent?

OMG... this is the stupidest & most ignorant typical America guy I ever known

Please do not call targetman "typical". You only do yourself a disservice that way.

[Pirlo]

Interesting point. why defend ourselves at all? Who cares if we are overrun. As for you innocent civilians some countries Elect there leaders what if they attacked us then would they still be innocent?

OMG... this is the stupidest & most ignorant typical America guy I ever known

Please do not call targetman "typical". You only do yourself a disservice that way.

yeah sorry, edited & NO OFFENSE meant

[PLAYER57832]

The point is that I think nationalism is good, being selfish is good... it makes sense. But it should be balanced by some sort of morality.

Nationalism is not good. It's short-sighted, and only makes sense in a limited perspective. And morality is relative, so it's no good as a balancing factor, if it happens to be the wrong kind of morality.

Its interesting. At its essence, basic pride of self is, well, selfish and short-sighted. Yet, without it, we become either fodder or even downright evil. This is true for nations as well. Without come pride in a country, you wind up with no country. Yet, too much is as bad or worse.

[Pirlo]

I don't have to trust you. I was in the military for 23 years. That being said, sometimes disgusting things must be done for the greater good.

OOOO the army... interesting. tell me about the army...

did you have to go to Vietnam to fight those 'evil Russians???' and for the same reason, Russians came to fight 'those evil Americans'. wanna tell us how America & USSR made a country like Vietnam a battle ground to keep their own countries safe and off damage? same for Cuba except Castro woke up in the right time...

I have seen the same method when USA and Iran fought each others via "Zionists & Hezbulla" and I have seen how Lebanon & Palestine, rather the whole region was fucked up because of this... let me see your reaction when your own state or city is used as a battle ground under the name of "patriotic sickness"..

I better go to bed cuz I have to work 12 hours tomorrow, plus, discussing country love for more than 30 minutes gets me a headache

- AC

[PLAYER57832]

I have seen the same method when USA and Iran fought each others via "Zionists & Hezbulla" and I have seen how Lebanon & Palestine, rather the whole region was fucked up because of this... let me see your reaction when your own state or city is used as a battle ground under the name of "patriotic sickness"..

Now you are confusing patriotism with economic and political greed.

[Woodruff]

I don't have to trust you. I was in the military for 23 years. That being said, sometimes disgusting things must be done for the greater good.

OOOO the army... interesting. tell me about the army...

I wasn't in the Army. I was in the Air Force.

did you have to go to Vietnam to fight those 'evil Russians???'

No, I defended Tutsis from the Hutus in Rwanda and I'm proud to have done so, you sanctimonious ass. You want to know fucking disgusting and brutal...try on a machete being wielded against your comrades and those you are trying to defend. You don't have the first fucking clue what war is like, but you sure can sit there in your comfortable chair behind your big computer screen and pretend that it's what you think it is.

and for the same reason, Russians came to fight 'those evil Americans'. wanna tell us how America & USSR made a country like Vietnam a battle ground to keep their own countries safe and off damage? same for Cuba except Castro woke up in the right time...
I have seen the same method when USA and Iran fought each others via "Zionists & Hezbulla" and I have seen how Lebanon & Palestine, rather the whole region was fucked up because of this... let me see your reaction when your own state or city is used as a battle ground under the name of "patriotic sickness"..
I better go to bed cuz I have to work 12 hours tomorrow, plus, discussing country love for more than 30 minutes gets me a headache

Ignorance does that. You should try to fix it.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure if this is patriotism per se, but it's definitely nationalism... Ignoring morality for a second, if someone told me that my country (and therefore I) could be better off by my country doing something that would harm another country, I would agree to do that particular thing. Ignoring morality again, if someone told me that doing something for people in another country would harm my country, but help them, I would agree again that we should not do that particular thing. Selfish? Yes, but I'm ignoring the morality in this little post here.

The point is that I think nationalism is good, being selfish is good... it makes sense. But it should be balanced by some sort of morality.

Isn't nationalism actually bad and good? It just depends on how the state uses it:

It's a tool that sets off an emotional response, or knee-jerk reaction, typically from political rhetoric, which has some goal of getting people to think illogically in order to justify that politician's agenda. For example:

1. Declaring war on Iraq because (to paraphrase) "god damnit, we're American, and Americans stand for freedom, and yada yada yada".

2. National socialism relies heavily on nationalism in order to fulfill its agenda, which I think we can all agree wasn't that beneficial.

3. But Stalin used nationalism in order to muster up morale and support from the masses (well, it was conscription "convincing" people to fight), so that he could defeat the Russians.

I'm using the terms "patriotism" and "nationalism" inter-changeably.

[BigBallinStalin]

OOOOO lemme tell you something about PATRIOTISM...

actually ,... ummm

how about you just read my profile??? it's funny

AC

"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons." - Bertrand Russell

Nice. Bertrand Russell is an interesting guy. He also said:

The Earth is but 5 minutes old.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Americans elected and RE-ELECTED George W Push who destroyed Iraq (FOR NO GOOD REASON).

As easy as it is to blame W for everything, he only advocated it. Ultimately, it was passed through our legislative branch, where it became "legal". So really our Senate allowed it to happen.

-TG