2
   

Terrorist aquire WMD?

 
 
Reply Sat 6 Aug, 2005 06:52 am
Heres what i dont understand and see if anyone can explain it to me...If terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians than how is the USA administration not terrorists?
The two nukes dropped on Japan did not bring about the Japanese surrender and the claims to the contrary have been discredited.

But why is it okay to bomb 2 cities KILLING LITERALLY EVERYTHING?
Men, women, children, plants, trees, animals.....why is THIS indiscriminate killing okay?

Why is it not terrorism?
Why is it 'colletral damage' and not murder say if a terrorist commited the act.
The USA administration fears that terrorists may get hold of a WMD....I would say they already have and not only that they have used it!!!



Quote:
St. Augustine describes a confrontation between King Alexander the Great and a pirate whom he caught. Alexander the Great asks the pirate, "How dare you molest the sea?" The pirate turns to Alexander the Great and says, "How dare you molest the whole world? I have a small boat, so I am called a thief and a pirate. You have a navy, so you're called an emperor."



I think everyone should give up all WMD's everywhere. They are vile and unecessary, the NPT should reset its parameters and everyone should just give them up entirely.


Quote:
The bomb didn't win it

Dominick Jenkins
Saturday August 6, 2005
The Guardian

The idea that it was militarily necessary to drop the atomic bomb in 1945 is now discredited. The first exhaustive examination of Japanese, Soviet and US archives, by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, confirms the argument that Truman went ahead in order to get Japan to end the war quickly before the Soviet Union came into the Pacific war and demanded a say in Asia.

The use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not provide the US with the free hand it had wanted and has proved disastrous for the world.

Article continues
It did not bring about surrender. With 62 Japanese cities destroyed by firebombs and napalm, Japan was not overwhelmed by the destruction of one more. The army minister, General Korechika Anami, told the supreme war council that he would fight on. What actually brought about surrender was the combination of the Soviet Union's entry into the war on August 8 and the US decision to let Japan retain the emperor.

The use of the bomb led to an atomic arms race. Truman had been warned that the Soviet Union would interpret the use of the bomb as a threat but went ahead. After Stalin heard about the bomb from Truman at Potsdam, he said the US would try to use its atomic monopoly to force the Soviet Union to accept its plans for Europe, adding: "Well, that's not going to happen." The USSR exploded the atomic bomb in 1949 and the hydrogen bomb in 1953, far more quickly than Truman had believed possible.

Truman also helped to start the cold war. With a working atomic bomb, he believed that the US no longer needed Soviet help in Europe to make sure there was no re-emergence of a German threat, and went ahead with rearming the former Nazi state. All of which took America and Russia a further step from wartime cooperation to the cold war.

Max Hastings, on these pages last week, gave the impression that most of Truman's contemporaries thought he did the right thing. Eisenhower urged Henry Stimson, the secretary of state, not to use the bomb on the basis of his belief "that Japan was already defeated and that the dropping of the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary". Other commanders made similar statements. The men in command and on the ground did not share Hastings's argument that the "inexorable logic of war" meant the US had to drop the bomb.

What can we learn from this history? It is not one of damning Truman. What this history shows is that George Bush's dream of dominating the world through massive investments in new nuclear weapons repeats a failed project. It is no alternative to the hard work of developing political solutions to problems such as Iran and North Korea, or to building up disarmament treaties.

The end of the cold war has given us a second chance. Preparations at Aldermaston to build a nuclear weapon to replace Trident should stop, and the government should support Jack Straw's initiative to save the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and restart nuclear disarmament.

· Dominick Jenkins is Greenpeace UK's disarmament campaigner and author of The Final Frontier: America, Science and Terror

[email protected]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,199 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 08:51 pm
Re: Terrorist aquire WMD?
stevewonder wrote:
Heres what i dont understand and see if anyone can explain it to me...If terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians than how is the USA administration not terrorists?


Because they've never targeted innocent civilians.



stevewonder wrote:
But why is it okay to bomb 2 cities KILLING LITERALLY EVERYTHING?
Men, women, children, plants, trees, animals.....why is THIS indiscriminate killing okay?


It isn't OK legally. It is a war crime.



stevewonder wrote:
Why is it not terrorism?


Because, although it is a war crime, civilians were not directly targeted.

Also, terrorism is said to refer only to acts by non-government organizations. Even if the US government did target civilians, it would be a crime against humanity instead of terrorism.



stevewonder wrote:
Why is it 'colletral damage' and not murder say if a terrorist commited the act.


Collateral damage refers to inadvertently killing a civilian in the process of legal bombing.

When a government engages in indiscriminate bombing, it is not legal, and thus the dead civilians cannot be excused as collateral damage.

When a terrorist attacks civilians, it is not collateral damage for two reasons. First because the civilian is the target of their attack, and second because the terrorist is not a legal combatant even if they had been attacking a military target.



stevewonder wrote:
The USA administration fears that terrorists may get hold of a WMD....I would say they already have and not only that they have used it!!!


Nah. It would have been detected.



Quote:
The bomb didn't win it

Dominick Jenkins
Saturday August 6, 2005
The Guardian

The idea that it was militarily necessary to drop the atomic bomb in 1945 is now discredited. The first exhaustive examination of Japanese, Soviet and US archives, by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, confirms the argument that Truman went ahead in order to get Japan to end the war quickly before the Soviet Union came into the Pacific war and demanded a say in Asia.


Actually, the historical record shows that Truman was doing everything he could to get the Soviets to go to war against Japan.




Quote:
Article continues
It did not bring about surrender. With 62 Japanese cities destroyed by firebombs and napalm, Japan was not overwhelmed by the destruction of one more. The army minister, General Korechika Anami, told the supreme war council that he would fight on. What actually brought about surrender was the combination of the Soviet Union's entry into the war on August 8 and the US decision to let Japan retain the emperor.


One problem with that is the fact that we gave them no guarantee that we would keep the Emperor.

In fact, we forced them to accept a guarantee that MacArthur could strip the Emperor of power at will.



Quote:
Max Hastings, on these pages last week, gave the impression that most of Truman's contemporaries thought he did the right thing. Eisenhower urged Henry Stimson, the secretary of state, not to use the bomb on the basis of his belief "that Japan was already defeated and that the dropping of the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary".


Ike claimed to have done that, but he was lying.

First, Stimson always recorded dissent that various officials raised against the bombs, and never recorded any such dissent from Ike.

Second, Ike's own ealier accounts of the meeting undercut his later story about objecting vehemently.

Third, Ike's claim to have been present when Stimson actually received the wire confirming the bomb's success at Trinity (which he claimed was the beginning of the conversation where he vehemently objected to the bombs), is completely at odds with the historical record.



Quote:
Other commanders made similar statements.


Some made such comments in hindsight.

And some made such comments without having any factual basis for making such a decision (like not having any access to the MAGIC intercepts).



Quote:
The men in command and on the ground did not share Hastings's argument that the "inexorable logic of war" meant the US had to drop the bomb.


Actually, the sentiment that the bombs saved many US lives was widely shared by the men on the ground.



Quote:
What can we learn from this history? It is not one of damning Truman. What this history shows is that George Bush's dream of dominating the world through massive investments in new nuclear weapons repeats a failed project. It is no alternative to the hard work of developing political solutions to problems such as Iran and North Korea, or to building up disarmament treaties.

The end of the cold war has given us a second chance. Preparations at Aldermaston to build a nuclear weapon to replace Trident should stop, and the government should support Jack Straw's initiative to save the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and restart nuclear disarmament.

• Dominick Jenkins is Greenpeace UK's disarmament campaigner and author of The Final Frontier: America, Science and Terror

[email protected]


Greenpeace isn't the most reliable source on nuclear weapons policy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:26 pm
Re: Terrorist aquire WMD?
oralloy wrote:
Because, although it is a war crime, civilians were not directly targeted.

Also, terrorism is said to refer only to acts by non-government organizations. Even if the US government did target civilians, it would be a crime against humanity instead of terrorism.


I personally consider you to be mincing words here. I consider that your statement to the effect that "terrorism is said to refer only to acts by non-government organizations" is an unsupported statement from authority, which authority i have no reason to believe you possess. It has long been recognized that terror is an "accepted" means of waging war. By accepted, i mean that some governments have considered the attempt to break the will of an opponent nation's population a reasonable military doctrine. Hitler's attempt to accomplish that end through the bomging of residential areas is an obvious example. Although initially seen as a failure, and since widely considered to be a failure, newer scholarship suggests that after the end of the blitz, the renewal of terror attacks with the V-rockets had a significant demoralizing effect on the people of England. To suggest that this was an example of a rogue government would be disingenuous, as well. Churchill's reasoning that the area bombing of German industrial cities would be effective because factory workers who get little or no sleep will not be effective at work the next day is a lame attempt to explain away the use against the Germans of a tactic visited upon his own nation. I also consider that this was a significant factor in Curtis LeMay's bombing of dozens of Japanese cities.

From William the Bastard/the Conqueror's "harrying of the North" in the late twelfth century through Wallenstein's devastation of North Germany in the Thirty Years War right up to the Second World War, terror has been a weapon in the military arsenal. One might well wish it were not so; nevertheless, it is by no means reasonable to state that terror is by definition only practiced by non-governmental groups.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 10:54 am
Re: Terrorist aquire WMD?
Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Because, although it is a war crime, civilians were not directly targeted.

Also, terrorism is said to refer only to acts by non-government organizations. Even if the US government did target civilians, it would be a crime against humanity instead of terrorism.


I personally consider you to be mincing words here. I consider that your statement to the effect that "terrorism is said to refer only to acts by non-government organizations" is an unsupported statement from authority, which authority i have no reason to believe you possess. It has long been recognized that terror is an "accepted" means of waging war. By accepted, i mean that some governments have considered the attempt to break the will of an opponent nation's population a reasonable military doctrine. Hitler's attempt to accomplish that end through the bomging of residential areas is an obvious example. Although initially seen as a failure, and since widely considered to be a failure, newer scholarship suggests that after the end of the blitz, the renewal of terror attacks with the V-rockets had a significant demoralizing effect on the people of England. To suggest that this was an example of a rogue government would be disingenuous, as well. Churchill's reasoning that the area bombing of German industrial cities would be effective because factory workers who get little or no sleep will not be effective at work the next day is a lame attempt to explain away the use against the Germans of a tactic visited upon his own nation. I also consider that this was a significant factor in Curtis LeMay's bombing of dozens of Japanese cities.

From William the Bastard/the Conqueror's "harrying of the North" in the late twelfth century through Wallenstein's devastation of North Germany in the Thirty Years War right up to the Second World War, terror has been a weapon in the military arsenal. One might well wish it were not so; nevertheless, it is by no means reasonable to state that terror is by definition only practiced by non-governmental groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism


If every act that targets civilians is taken to be terrorism, then is terrorism just another term for crime against humanity?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 11:57 am
In some cases the two terms might be consonant. My point, which i felt i had clearly made, is that when a government targets civilians for the express purpose of inducing terror to their advantage, i see no qualitative or substantive difference between such acts and those of stateless, murderous fanatics.

In the opening phases of the wars of Louis XIV, the French burned and plundered throughout the Palatine, on orders from the King, with the express purpose of convincing the German principalities of the "unwisdom" of opposing French moves to establish hegemony or to actually take possession of the Netherlands (all of it, Belgium, Holland and the lower German Rhineland). The actions were universally condemned in Europe. Subsequently, in 1704, Marlborough and Eugene visited the same destruction on Bavaria, pointedly excepting the properties of Max Emmanuel, both to drive the people from their support of the Prince Elector and to attempt to create resentment toward him among the people. I consider those to have been effectively terrorist acts.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 01:21 pm
bm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Terrorist aquire WMD?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/20/2021 at 01:42:40