Re: Terrorist aquire WMD?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The bomb didn't win it
Saturday August 6, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
Greenpeace isn't the most reliable source on nuclear weapons policy.