Photos, vids, etc ....

Rigby5 said:
{... Kristoffer Kristofferson #2,820
Click to expand...
in 1961, Kristofferson joined the United States Army and was commissioned as a second lieutenant. He attended U.S. Army Ranger School and completed helicopter pilot training at Fort Rucker, Alabama.[18]
... Kristofferson was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford in Oxford, England ...
Kristofferson graduated with a master's degree in English literature.

BUT !!

sear said:
"Lame Duck"? #2,819
Click to expand...
Let's not overlook the current condition of potentially monumental consequence.
Elected public officials seeking re-election are obliged to maintain viable candidacy.

Trump, a lame duck, has no such constraint.

- dangerous -
 
fb62b46047f0013fc18c005056a9545d
 
Rigby5 said:
"I side with Iran since we have no authority over what they wish to enrich." R5 #2,824
Click to expand...
As a libertarian I'm both philosophically and emotionally committed to respecting autonomy, both of persons and Peoples.
It seems to me a concept worthy of merit not just for decades or centuries but millennia,
until now.

The principle hasn't changed.
What has changed is WMD.

Seemingly rational experts on this precise detail seem to support the consensus that a nuclear armed Iran would be a catastrophe for humanity.

If Iran wishes to worship Allah instead of Santa Claus, that's their problem. BUT !
We can't unring the bell.
It seems the best, if not the only way to avoid such Iranian global blackmail is to prevent Iran from obtaining the means.

The mainstream criticism I've encountered regarding Trump's Iran War quagmire is not the intent, but the hideously botched execution.

Shiftless2 said:
"Citizen Disposal Facility" S2 #2,825
Click to expand...
Is there a Canadian partisan puzzle piece missing here?
 
sear said:
As a libertarian I'm both philosophically and emotionally committed to respecting autonomy, both of persons and Peoples.
It seems to me a concept worthy of merit not just for decades or centuries but millennia,
until now.

The principle hasn't changed.
What has changed is WMD.

Seemingly rational experts on this precise detail seem to support the consensus that a nuclear armed Iran would be a catastrophe for humanity.

If Iran wishes to worship Allah instead of Santa Claus, that's their problem. BUT !
We can't unring the bell.
It seems the best, if not the only way to avoid such Iranian global blackmail is to prevent Iran from obtaining the means.

The mainstream criticism I've encountered regarding Trump's Iran War quagmire is not the intent, but the hideously botched execution.


Is there a Canadian partisan puzzle piece missing here?
Click to expand...

I understand the extreme nature of nuclear weapons, but I think trying to scale it up is just an illusion.
The reality is that once firearms were invented, murder has already been trivially easy.
And the only thing that prevents murder has always been the threat of retaliation and retribution.
So the scale of murder being increased with nukes changes nothing.
Iran is still not going to push the button, knowing it would be suicidal.

Nor is there a way to "prevent Iran from obtaining the means".
There is no way to tell if Iran is enriching or not.

Nor does the US compare well with Iran as far as ethics.
Iran has only supported local liberation organizations that deserve support, like Hamas.
While in contrast, the US has illegally attacked oil producing countries like Iraq, Venezuela, Iran, etc., based solely on greed.
 
Rigby5 said:
"I understand the extreme nature of nuclear weapons, but I think trying to scale it up is just an illusion." R5 #2,827
Click to expand...
Two kinds of inventions:
- those that enable us to do what we've done before, but better / faster / etc.
- those that enable us to do what we were not able to do before.

Murder was possible, even in the suburb of the Garden of Eden, Cain slew Able. But !
Killing an entire city, the human population of a modern city like Hiroshima, not easy without tools equal to the task.
For that reason I consider nukes in that second category.

Nuclear blackmail is not merely a hypothetical never experienced on Earth.
Putin already threatened it regarding Ukraine.
That's why Western response to the Russian invasion has been so tepid.
We endeavored, and years into it (so far) succeeded in avoiding Russia escalating to nuclear weapons. BUT !
The more nuclear-weapon nations, the greater the risk.

Whether it's cultural bias or not, the Middle East seems to concentrate homicidal / genocidal ambitions.
Discouraging Iran from arming up seems a good idea. It appears Obama did a superb job of it.
Trump has not only opened Pandora's Box, he's ripped the lid off the hinges.

Another serious problem:
"MAD" mutual assured destruction only works if BOTH sides wish to survive.
We have already suffered doomsday cultists willing to mass-murder & die for boink-wit reason.
Jim Jones even engrained into our language "drank the kool-aid".
In that case iirc, hundreds, a serious mess. BUT !
Substitute a nuke for a pitcher of kool-aid and the problem scales up by orders of magnitude.

Rigby5 said:
"The reality is that once firearms were invented, murder has already been trivially easy.
And the only thing that prevents murder has always been the threat of retaliation and retribution.
So the scale of murder being increased with nukes changes nothing." R5
Click to expand...
That may seem so, in the abstract.
It would depend upon whether the intended homicide was against a specific individual or group,
or whether simply racking up the maximum tally was the objective.

Rigby5 said:
"Iran is still not going to push the button, knowing it would be suicidal." R5
Click to expand...
Unless Iran's own demise is included in the intended objective, or considered immaterial.

Rigby5 said:
"Nor is there a way to "prevent Iran from obtaining the means".
There is no way to tell if Iran is enriching or not." R5
Click to expand...
Obama's JCPOA did.
Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, & U.S. disagree with you.
One might imagine Obama was simply swindled, a naïve dupe.
That doesn't explain Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia.
 
sear said:
Two kinds of inventions:
- those that enable us to do what we've done before, but better / faster / etc.
- those that enable us to do what we were not able to do before.

Murder was possible, even in the suburb of the Garden of Eden, Cain slew Able. But !
Killing an entire city, the human population of a modern city like Hiroshima, not easy without tools equal to the task.
For that reason I consider nukes in that second category.

Nuclear blackmail is not merely a hypothetical never experienced on Earth.
Putin already threatened it regarding Ukraine.
That's why Western response to the Russian invasion has been so tepid.
We endeavored, and years into it (so far) succeeded in avoiding Russia escalating to nuclear weapons. BUT !
The more nuclear-weapon nations, the greater the risk.

Whether it's cultural bias or not, the Middle East seems to concentrate homicidal / genocidal ambitions.
Discouraging Iran from arming up seems a good idea. It appears Obama did a superb job of it.
Trump has not only opened Pandora's Box, he's ripped the lid off the hinges.

Another serious problem:
"MAD" mutual assured destruction only works if BOTH sides wish to survive.
We have already suffered doomsday cultists willing to mass-murder & die for boink-wit reason.
Jim Jones even engrained into our language "drank the kool-aid".
In that case iirc, hundreds, a serious mess. BUT !
Substitute a nuke for a pitcher of kool-aid and the problem scales up by orders of magnitude.


That may seem so, in the abstract.
It would depend upon whether the intended homicide was against a specific individual or group,
or whether simply racking up the maximum tally was the objective.


Unless Iran's own demise is included in the intended objective, or considered immaterial.


Obama's JCPOA did.
Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, & U.S. disagree with you.
One might imagine Obama was simply swindled, a naïve dupe.
That doesn't explain Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia.
Click to expand...

But using nukes gains nothing for Iran.
An individual might commit murder out of mental deraignment, but not a whole country.
There is zero evidence to suspect Iran would be any worse with nuclear weapons than India, Pakistan, North Korea, China, or even the US, the worst abuser of all.

For Iran to complain about the Zionists in Palestine and to support Hamas is a plus, and shows they are better than the US.
The US is the bad guy, giving Israel all those weapons to massacre Palestinians with.

And I disagree that Putin used nuclear blackmail over the Ukraine.
I think it is the US who tried to use nuclear blackmail against Russia, by trying to get the Ukraine to put US nukes on Russia's border.
That would prevent Russian retaliation, so I believe that the US then would certainly initiate a first strike attack against Russia, from the Ukraine.

I believe the JCPOA was successful in getting Iran to stop nuclear enrichment, but not by force.
It was totally voluntary.
If it were not voluntary, then Iran would just have moved enrichment to a new location and kept it up.
So then within a few years, Iran would have already had nuclear weapons no one knew about.
The point is there is no way to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment by force, since all they would have to do is make it secret.
So all the use of force now by the US does is make Iranian nuclear enrichment more likely.
 
Rigby5 said:
"But using nukes gains nothing for Iran." R5 #2,829
Click to expand...
"Nothing". That's zero %.
Consider the history of nuclear weapons use in War.
They were used to obtain formal "unconditional surrender".
They succeeded.
That's 100%.

Even if you're right, you're arguing it would go from first use by the U.S. at 100% to second use by Iran to zero %. Possibly so.
But your presentation is an unsubstantiated prediction, not a logical argument.

Rigby5 said:
"An individual might commit murder out of mental deraignment, but not a whole country." R5
Click to expand...
?
It doesn't take a whole country to push "the" button.
If you have any doubt about whether a madman can take control of a country, read a newspaper.

Rigby5 said:
"There is zero evidence to suspect Iran would be any worse with nuclear weapons than India, Pakistan, North Korea, China, or even the US, the worst abuser of all." R5
Click to expand...
"Evidence"?
There's a long list of Iranian sponsorship of Middle East woe.
There's expert opinion, including from key U.S. negotiators on the JCPOA.

Rigby5 said:
"And I disagree that Putin used nuclear blackmail over the Ukraine." R5
Click to expand...
Early in Russia's invasive presence on the sovereign territory of Ukraine Putin asserted that:
the ONLY legitimate first use of nuclear weapons was to defend sovereign territory, AND
since Russia occupied Ukraine, if Russia were to employ first use of nuclear weapons it would be justified, legitimate by international standards.
Biden (& the rest of the world) smacked Putin down on that.

Rigby5 said:
"I believe the JCPOA was successful in getting Iran to stop nuclear enrichment, but not by force.
It was totally voluntary." R5
Click to expand...
What rational-minded person thinks anything different? BUT !

Not only that.
Obama achieved both peacefully and at low cost that which Trump has contemptuously forfeited,
and then hoped to re-achieve by use of military force.
Trump if failing overwhelmingly and at gargantuan cost. Earth's entire economy is severely disrupted, all thanks to Trump's unilateral OJT caprice.

Rigby5 said:
" there is no way to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment by force, since all they would have to do is make it secret.
So all the use of force now by the US does is make Iranian nuclear enrichment more likely." R5
Click to expand...
I know.
Tell Trump.
 
sear said:
"Nothing". That's zero %.
Consider the history of nuclear weapons use in War.
They were used to obtain formal "unconditional surrender".
They succeeded.
That's 100%.

Even if you're right, you're arguing it would go from first use by the U.S. at 100% to second use by Iran to zero %. Possibly so.
But your presentation is an unsubstantiated prediction, not a logical argument.


?
It doesn't take a whole country to push "the" button.
If you have any doubt about whether a madman can take control of a country, read a newspaper.


"Evidence"?
There's a long list of Iranian sponsorship of Middle East woe.
There's expert opinion, including from key U.S. negotiators on the JCPOA.


Early in Russia's invasive presence on the sovereign territory of Ukraine Putin asserted that:
the ONLY legitimate first use of nuclear weapons was to defend sovereign territory, AND
since Russia occupied Ukraine, if Russia were to employ first use of nuclear weapons it would be justified, legitimate by international standards.
Biden (& the rest of the world) smacked Putin down on that.


What rational-minded person thinks anything different? BUT !

Not only that.
Obama achieved both peacefully and at low cost that which Trump has contemptuously forfeited,
and then hoped to re-achieve by use of military force.
Trump if failing overwhelmingly and at gargantuan cost. Earth's entire economy is severely disrupted, all thanks to Trump's unilateral OJT caprice.


I know.
Tell Trump.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the first part.
When I read the "Potsdam Diaries" by Truman, he said the Japanese had been trying to surrender over a year before we dropped the nukes on Japan.
Since there were no US ambassadors in Japan after war was declared, the only way for Japan to negotiate was through the Russians, and Truman told Stalin to pretend to not understand, in order to stall the Japanese until we were able to test our plutonium and uranium devices, so we could compare them.
And in fact, all Japan wanted was to ensure the Emperor was not prosecuted, which the US was fine with.
So it was not really an "unconditional" surrender actually.
Which means the actual success of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 0%.

And you are also forgetting that the napalm raids we had perfected at Dresden had higher casualty rates than the nuclear bombs did.
So there is no evidence the US gained anything from the use of nuclear weapons, other than experimental data.

As for Iran, I do not like or trust any religion, and it clearly is a religion in control of Iran.
However, the US is vastly worse since instead of religion, the US is totally dictated by greed.

And I totally disagree with your assessment of Putin's nuclear threat.
He clearly said that the attempt by Kyiv to join NATO was a treaty violation that amounted to an act of war, and that if the current government in Kyiv was not removed, that Putin would have no choice but to destroy the US with a pre-emptive first strike.
And I agree.
Since the Ukraine is INSIDE the Russian defense grid, nuclear cruise missiles launched from the Ukraine could not be detected until they exploded.
So the reality is this US takeover of the Ukraine is about a gazillion time worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
And in my opinion, this was all a deliberate US plot ever since Hunter Biden delivered the bribes back in 2013.
So Putin really does have no other choice than the utter destruction of the US if this ever looks like the Russians might lose in the Ukraine.

But I agree with your second part, about how Trump totally dropped the ball with Iran for no reason.
Obama's solution was the only viable one, and we know it worked because otherwise Iran would have used nukes by now.
 
Rigby5 said:
I disagree with the first part.
When I read the "Potsdam Diaries" by Truman, he said the Japanese had been trying to surrender over a year before we dropped the nukes on Japan.
Since there were no US ambassadors in Japan after war was declared, the only way for Japan to negotiate was through the Russians, and Truman told Stalin to pretend to not understand, in order to stall the Japanese until we were able to test our plutonium and uranium devices, so we could compare them." R5 #2,831
Click to expand...
Wiki list's Truman's presidency from April 12, 1945 – January 20, 1953.
I've read Truman was unaware of the details of the Manhattan Project until FDR was gone.
So if your:
Rigby5 said:
"the Japanese had been trying to surrender over a year before we dropped the nukes on Japan" R5 #2,831
Click to expand...
is correct, it would have been FDR's policy.
Truman had 4 months to change it, but in that environment (WWII) apparently didn't.

Rigby5 said:
"And in fact, all Japan wanted was to ensure the Emperor was not prosecuted, which the US was fine with.
So it was not really an "unconditional" surrender actually." R5
Click to expand...
False.
You're conflating what terms were eventually agreed to, with the U.S. demand on Japan for cessation of hostilities. They are entirely different.

Rigby5 said:
"Which means the actual success of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 0%."R5
Click to expand...
False.
It may mean the pressure imposed by the nukes had zero% military consequence.
It does NOT mean their awesome power was not demoralizing, reducing Japan's willingness to slog on, sustaining further destruction that they could terminate / avoid with the stroke of a pen.
So they surrendered. That's not zero% success. That's 100% success.

Rigby5 said:
"And you are also forgetting that the napalm raids we had perfected at Dresden had higher casualty rates than the nuclear bombs did." R5
Click to expand...
Even if true, immaterial.
Germany was a sovereign nation, and was the only entity that could tender its own surrender.
Same for Japan, even if Germany's fall was recognized as an indication recognized within Japan about the inevitable outcome of Japan's portion of the War.

Rigby5 said:
"So there is no evidence the US gained anything from the use of nuclear weapons, other than experimental data." R5
Click to expand...
The logic of the syllogism. Your conclusion is wrong, because your premise is wrong.
Even during the War there was little if any pretense that Hiroshima or Nagasaki had military value to Japan or the allies. Problem was, Japan didn't have enough military assets left, to convert to rubble.

Rigby5 said:
"And I totally disagree with your assessment of Putin's nuclear threat.
He clearly said that the attempt by Kyiv to join NATO was a treaty violation that amounted to an act of war " R5
Click to expand...
I can help you parse the specific treaty language if you quote it.
But I believe if there was a treaty commitment that Ukraine would not join NATO, then that commitment is violated the moment Ukraine becomes a member of NATO.
That has NOT happened, thus no treaty violation I'm aware of. I don't deny there was public discussion. Does the treaty explicitly forbid such discussion?

Rigby5 said:
"and that if the current government in Kyiv was not removed, that Putin would have no choice but to destroy the US with a pre-emptive first strike." R5
Click to expand...
I don't recall any news report consistent with this.

Rigby5 said:
"But I agree with your second part, about how Trump totally dropped the ball with Iran for no reason." R5
Click to expand...
"... for no reason"?
For no benefit.

The reason is conspicuously embarrassing. Trump is immaculately incompetent. Trump has meticulously paved the path to his own failure by removing any but yes-men from his circle.
 
sear said:
Wiki list's Truman's presidency from April 12, 1945 – January 20, 1953.
I've read Truman was unaware of the details of the Manhattan Project until FDR was gone.
So if your:

is correct, it would have been FDR's policy.
Truman had 4 months to change it, but in that environment (WWII) apparently didn't.


False.
You're conflating what terms were eventually agreed to, with the U.S. demand on Japan for cessation of hostilities. They are entirely different.


False.
It may mean the pressure imposed by the nukes had zero% military consequence.
It does NOT mean their awesome power was not demoralizing, reducing Japan's willingness to slog on, sustaining further destruction that they could terminate / avoid with the stroke of a pen.
So they surrendered. That's not zero% success. That's 100% success.


Even if true, immaterial.
Germany was a sovereign nation, and was the only entity that could tender its own surrender.
Same for Japan, even if Germany's fall was recognized as an indication recognized within Japan about the inevitable outcome of Japan's portion of the War.


The logic of the syllogism. Your conclusion is wrong, because your premise is wrong.
Even during the War there was little if any pretense that Hiroshima or Nagasaki had military value to Japan or the allies. Problem was, Japan didn't have enough military assets left, to convert to rubble.


I can help you parse the specific treaty language if you quote it.
But I believe if there was a treaty commitment that Ukraine would not join NATO, then that commitment is violated the moment Ukraine becomes a member of NATO.
That has NOT happened, thus no treaty violation I'm aware of. I don't deny there was public discussion. Does the treaty explicitly forbid such discussion?


I don't recall any news report consistent with this.


"... for no reason"?
For no benefit.

The reason is conspicuously embarrassing. Trump is immaculately incompetent. Trump has meticulously paved the path to his own failure by removing any but yes-men from his circle.
Click to expand...

It is impossible that Truman was denied Manhattan Project information since he was the president when the nukes were dropped and required his approval.
FDR's policies would have ceased with his death.

The point is the Japanese did not want anything the US was against, so the surrender could have been accomplished a year earlier, if not for the desire to see the comparison of the nuke types.
The actual cause of Japan's desire to surrender was the starvation cause by mining the China Sea.

Japan had taken much greater losses with each US firestorm attack, so the nukes had NOTHING at all to do with their surrender.
And in fact, since the nukes wiped out all radio contact, the leadership in Tokyo did not really know what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

And yes, the treaties like the Budapest Memorandum made it an act of war to ATTEMPT to join any alliance hostile to Russia.
Did not require the attempt to succeed, because then it obviously would be too late.

But I agree with you on Trump's violating Obama's Iran deal as having "no benefit".
 
Rigby5 said:
"It is impossible that Truman was denied Manhattan Project information since he was the president when the nukes were dropped and required his approval." R5 #2,833
Click to expand...
Agreed.
I've never asserted otherwise.
My comment was about Vice President Truman, during FDR's presidency.
My recollection is Truman was informed of the details of the power of those atomic weapons AFTER FDR died.

Rigby5 said:
"FDR's policies would have ceased with his death." R5
Click to expand...
False.
FDR's policies would have retained presidential authority, until FDR was no longer president. And we don't leave corpses in that office for very long.
Admittedly, Truman had the presidential AUTHORITY to change such policy, as soon as he was sworn in. BUT !
Because we now know Truman was not fully briefed until after FDR died, it would have taken a while for Truman to first reassess the political and strategic landscape,
and then via policy modification adapt.

The notion that VP Truman would have taken the presidential oath, and immediately initiated drastic policy changes is ignorant, preposterous delusion, at very best premised on 3rd Millennium 20:20 hindsight.
It's preposterous, irrelevant. Truman played the hand he was dealt.

Rigby5 said:
"The point is the Japanese did not want anything the US was against, so the surrender could have been accomplished a year earlier, if not for the desire to see the comparison of the nuke types." R5
Click to expand...
If you say so.

Rigby5 said:
"The actual cause of Japan's desire to surrender was the starvation cause by mining the China Sea." R5
Click to expand...
www.carnegiecouncil.org

Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender?

Ward Wilson, senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, explains that the Soviet declaration of war and not the Hiroshima nuclear bombing caused Japan to surrender at the end of World War II.
www.carnegiecouncil.org www.carnegiecouncil.org
 
sear said:
Agreed.
I've never asserted otherwise.
My comment was about Vice President Truman, during FDR's presidency.
My recollection is Truman was informed of the details of the power of those atomic weapons AFTER FDR died.


False.
FDR's policies would have retained presidential authority, until FDR was no longer president. And we don't leave corpses in that office for very long.
Admittedly, Truman had the presidential AUTHORITY to change such policy, as soon as he was sworn in. BUT !
Because we now know Truman was not fully briefed until after FDR died, it would have taken a while for Truman to first reassess the political and strategic landscape,
and then via policy modification adapt.

The notion that VP Truman would have taken the presidential oath, and immediately initiated drastic policy changes is ignorant, preposterous delusion, at very best premised on 3rd Millennium 20:20 hindsight.
It's preposterous, irrelevant. Truman played the hand he was dealt.


If you say so.


www.carnegiecouncil.org

Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender?

Ward Wilson, senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, explains that the Soviet declaration of war and not the Hiroshima nuclear bombing caused Japan to surrender at the end of World War II.
www.carnegiecouncil.org www.carnegiecouncil.org
Click to expand...

I disagree.
Truman was sworn in as president in April of 1945, and the atomic were not dropped until August of 1945.
Nor would VP Truman have been kept out of the loop even before then since FDR's death was not exactly a surprise.

You are also ignoring the fact that the head of the Manhattan Project, Robert Oppenheimer, was totally against use on a human population.
It was Truman who ordered it use.

The reason the US agreed to not arrest the Emperor is that he was not just their political leader, but also their spiritual leader.
If the US had arrested the Emperor, no peace would have been possible.
 
Last edited:
Rigby5 said:
"I disagree.
Truman was sworn in as president in April of 1945, and the atomic were not dropped until August of 1945.
Nor would VP Truman have been kept out of the loop even before then since FDR's death was not exactly a surprise." R5 #2,835
Click to expand...
On April 25, 1945, President Harry S. Truman learns the full details of the Manhattan Project, in which scientists are attempting to create the first atomic bomb. The information thrust upon Truman a momentous decision: whether or not to use the world’s first weapon of mass destruction.
www.history.com

President Truman is briefed on Manhattan Project | April 25, 1945 | HISTORY

On April 25, 1945, President Harry S. Truman learns the full details of the Manhattan Project, in which scientists ar...
www.history.com www.history.com

That's the date history.com lists as the date Truman was brief on the full details of the Manhattan Project, the secret development of the U.S. first atomic weapons.
You've addressed policy already in place under FDR.
During WWII it wouldn't have made much sense for newly inaugurated President Truman to mow down previous presidential policy, for example the way Trump has former President Obama administration policy.
CERTAINLY during the course of a sober presidency policy would evolve, but in the form of judicious advancement, not high seas, armed to the teeth pirate conquest.
 
sear said:
On April 25, 1945, President Harry S. Truman learns the full details of the Manhattan Project, in which scientists are attempting to create the first atomic bomb. The information thrust upon Truman a momentous decision: whether or not to use the world’s first weapon of mass destruction.
www.history.com

President Truman is briefed on Manhattan Project | April 25, 1945 | HISTORY

On April 25, 1945, President Harry S. Truman learns the full details of the Manhattan Project, in which scientists ar...
www.history.com www.history.com

That's the date history.com lists as the date Truman was brief on the full details of the Manhattan Project, the secret development of the U.S. first atomic weapons.
You've addressed policy already in place under FDR.
During WWII it wouldn't have made much sense for newly inaugurated President Truman to mow down previous presidential policy, for example the way Trump has former President Obama administration policy.
CERTAINLY during the course of a sober presidency policy would evolve, but in the form of judicious advancement, not high seas, armed to the teeth pirate conquest.
Click to expand...


But there was no "policy" to use the nukes on people by FDR.
The premise of those working on the Manhattan Project, like Oppenheimer, was that they would only be demonstrated on an uninhabited target.
They had too large of a radius of destruction to be legal and use automatically constituted an illegal war crime.
After the atomics were used on civilians, most of the people working on the project quit.
Atomics clearly fall under the 1925 Geneva Protocol against biological and chemical weapons.
Most of the deaths are from slow and painful radiation poisoning.
 
Rigby5 said:
"But there was no "policy" to use the nukes on people by FDR." R5 #2,837
Click to expand...
There may indeed have been no comprehensive formal written policy.
But the fact that the Manhattan project was funded indicates those party to it were aware the weapons were being developed for actual use, and likely to kill humans in such use.
Thus there was very much policy, even if those connected to it didn't know enough about Asian geography to know the names Hiroshima, or Nagasaki.

Rigby5 said:
"The premise of those working on the Manhattan Project, like Oppenheimer, was that they would only be demonstrated on an uninhabited target.
They had too large of a radius of destruction to be legal and use automatically constituted an illegal war crime.
After the atomics were used on civilians, most of the people working on the project quit.
Atomics clearly fall under the 1925 Geneva Protocol against biological and chemical weapons.
Most of the deaths are from slow and painful radiation poisoning." R5 #2,837
Click to expand...
LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

But Wait, There's More: Yasukuni, Arlington, Doolittle, and LeMay

More on "victors' justice" and the standards by which we judge the brutality of war.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
sear said:
There may indeed have been no comprehensive formal written policy.
But the fact that the Manhattan project was funded indicates those party to it were aware the weapons were being developed for actual use, and likely to kill humans in such use.
Thus there was very much policy, even if those connected to it didn't know enough about Asian geography to know the names Hiroshima, or Nagasaki.


LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

But Wait, There's More: Yasukuni, Arlington, Doolittle, and LeMay

More on "victors' justice" and the standards by which we judge the brutality of war.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
Click to expand...

In particular, what little war industry that did happen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in caves and totally unaffected by the atomic bombs.
So the human civilian population was the only possible actual target.

And the two B-29s that delivered these bombs went in alone, so then clearly the Japanese no longer had any defense left at all, and we had total control over the air space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top