Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]

---

Never satisfied

207.91.86.5

Posted by Bruce from DC on May 26, 2001 at 14:01:05

In Reply to: nuclear policy posted by late on May 25, 2001 at 20:32:13:

Certainly one of the 20th Century's "contributions" to warfare is the concept of the militarized state -- wherein the entire productive capacity of the society is conscripted into the service of military objectives, either in weapons production or in actual fighting. That was certainly the case for all of the WW2 combatants; and it would not be hard to make the case that those allied with the US, the only combatant immune from attack and therefore able to continue to produce these weapons, were guaranteed to win the war so long as they were able to continue attacking their adversaries' means of weapons production.

This is so because in 20th century warfare, weapons became as important as soldiers, if not more so. In modern war, it is the weapon that gives the soldier his destructive power. Compare the destructive power of a squad of 19th century soldiers armed with muskets or rifles with that of an equal number of 20th century soldiers driving tanks or flying airplanes. Or compare the destructive power of a WW2 regiment, with the destructive power of about the same number of men as the crew of a 21st century ballistic missile submarine. The latter group controls more explosive power than that total of what was used in WW2. The point is, under these circumstances, in 20th century war, winning required destroying these large weapons -- and the means of producing them.

And that requires bombing "civilian" targets and, indeed, doing everything possible to disrupt the organization of this militarized society, so that weapons production can be reduced or eliminated.

So this talk of the "immorality" of targeting "civilian" populations in WW2 strikes me a peurile. There was no such thing as a "civilian" population under these circumstances.

Likewise for the race-based argument that the US only used bombs on Asians because they were viewed as inferior. While that could have been the case hypothetically, the facts don't support it. The Bombs were used as soon as they were ready; by the time they were ready, the war in Europe was almost over. Germany was being overrun by Allied troops; and its army was virtually prostrate. By contrast, the conquest of Okinawa was extraordinarily costly in US and Japanese lives. It was viewed as a preview of what would be required to take the home islands. The home islands of Japan were in far greater shape than was Germany.

Firebombing caused more loss of life than the nukes. Tokyo was firebombed; so was Dresden.

Yes, nukes leave a nasty residue, about which we knew very little at the time. But Japan today, including the two cities nuked, is hardly a radioactive wasteland that glows in the dark. Non-nuclear war also leaves other nasty residues in the form of unexploded ordinance and mines. The point is not to minimize the significance of nuclear weapons use, but to point out that the differences between nukes and non-nukes do not have as much of a moral dimension as folks would argue.

I recall in the 1970s something called the neutron bomb was developed. It was a nuclear bomb that maximized neutron radiation and minimized blast effects. It's attractiveness was that it would kill people but not destroy property, produce lots of radioactive fallout or much lingering radiation after use.

It was denouced by those who always denounce such things as "immoral."

Go figure.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---