dilemma . terrorist . freedom fighter . friend . enemy . good . evil .

[gorski]

Indeed.

What I find frightening in these debates is the lack of "sideways thinking" or just straight forward one, sometimes.

Why?

It's the "analytical", "positivist", "pragmatist", "utilitarian" etc. "schools of thought" that dominate these conservative Anglo-American lands, in which - by default - "there are only 2 possibilities", just "either - or", "black or white", and at any case only that which we have already seen, only that which is already available to us, what we know, what we have tested.

No, it's not limited just to Anglo-American lands, of course. Conservatism knows no bounds, as it's much easier, since it requires no critical effort towards creativity... But in "Continental Europe" there are strong voices from the Left, too - much more strongly backed up by some Union power, Left parties, including those which are "all the way to the Left" [at least by American standards], Academia and so on.

So, my quarrel with all of those Right wing "positivist" shisters is this - and not just mine, of course, but the rest of progressive Humanity, too, where I got my thinking from - the lack of strategic thinking, the lack of innovative thinking, the lazy thinking, the non-thinking, simply regurgitating what is already "out there". And that is the result of poor thinking as such: the "insufficient understanding of 'reality'" to begin with.

Whatever "reality" might mean, in any given case, there are always many more options "out there", even if they haven't yet been thought of, "tried and tested". We have done it so many times, so why not again and again and yet again?

In fact, that is the essential part of us: imagination, creativity, capacity to think anew, to imagine and hence produce New Reality, a New Beginning - as an essential, indomitable principle, from the very core of Humanity: we are grounded in Future!

That means we can produce new, not yet seen options! At all times. And if we are to embark on something potentially seriously dangerous and destructive, because of the power we posses, we better think carefully what the consequences of our actions might be and weigh in all the options we can possibly envisage...

In this case, the "victor's understanding of the options" won the battle of minds, without ever being properly investigated - in a large scale debate. "We have done it, so it's OK", verifiably justifiable. Had the Japs done it - they would have been BARBARIANS! But if we have done it - fully justifiable! [See the British wars in South Africa and concentration camps etc. or "discovery of America" etc.]

Why? Well, "we had no other choice. There was just this one other choice. Had we not used it [and then the "scary part", which justifies it and removes the need to careful, critical thinking, follows "rather beautifully"] we would have had to sacrifice our soldiers. Y'all don't want that. Stop thinking. Relax. We are your wise leadership".

No thanx! I can think for myself. I can understand things for myself. All things. If I put time and energy into it I don't need their [victor's historians, propagandists and ideologues] to tell me what the options were/are.

And it's not as if it's all that difficult to understand anyway... Just a bit of good will... not to become conservative...

 

[kyser_soze]

What I find frightening here is the lack of understanding of Japan, it;s leaders and citizens and their state of mind and being at the time the bombs were dropped.

we would have had to sacrifice our soldiers

Not to mention the millions of Japanese civilians who would have been killed defending their islands. The idea that the Japanese leadership would have surrendered after a demonstration on an island (if they believed the footage they were shown) is at best a slim possibility. So you suggest dropping another on a larger installation, then another, escalating until surrender, then what if there was no surrender? Not to mention the environmental damage of continually dropping bombs, the questions over selection of targets...

I don't disagree that it was an evil act, but there are many evil acts committed in war. Altho obviously it gives Gorski a chance to have his 'Europe is so much more creative than the Anglosphere' rant...

 

[gorski]

Again, those possibilities have not been explored and clearly they were there, as opposed to KS, who thinks only the possibilities of which the Anglo-Americans have thought of ever existed, exist and will ever exist...

No effort required, just give your judgement over to their ideologues, strategists, historians, apologists and the rest of the merry crowd of well paid experts in pulling the wool over the gullible many...

Because we did it - it's OK... If the Japs ever thought of doing it - BARBARIANS!

I would think again about your argument how less, especially civilian deaths, are less desirable an outcome... How less careful thinking of all the options is better... How bombing military targets and then negotiating is not so desirable... on the basis that "there is a slim possibility it would work"...

You base your understanding of what you've been told about the Japs and without thinking about whether or not they are minimally intelligent not to go into a complete annihilation you advocate what the US ideologues are telling you was the only option.

It wasn't. And they are guilty. Of war crimes. Disproportionate use of overwhelming force against a civilian population, with the main purpose of terrorising Japan. Pure and simple. Anyone does it - it's wrong!

Ask G. Bush, just pretend it's the Arabs doing it, see what he "thinks"...

 

[kyser_soze]

You base your understanding of what you've been told about the Japs and without thinking about whether or not they are minimally intelligent not to go into a complete annihilation you advocate what the US ideologues are telling you was the only option.

Hmm, so you are now claiming to know what my reading about Japanese society is? Your use of the term 'Japs' is indicative of this.

I'm not going to bother continuing this debate - I've never said that they were morally correct, or not guilty of war crimes. I also think that you need to learn more about the Shinto code, and then start thinking about intelligence and imagination.

I would think again about your argument how less, especially civilian deaths, are less desirable an outcome...

Eh? This makes no sense.

 

[fela fan]

So, my quarrel with all of those Right wing "positivist" shisters is this - and not just mine, of course, but the rest of progressive Humanity, too, where I got my thinking from - the lack of strategic thinking, the lack of innovative thinking, the lazy thinking, the non-thinking, simply regurgitating what is already "out there". And that is the result of poor thinking as such: the "insufficient understanding of 'reality'" to begin with.

And where does that lack of clear thinking come from...?

From lazy language! From cliches, from fixed phrases, from corny slogans, all that enter the lexicon via the media.

Expressions are uttered by politicians, printed in the media, read by people, and such expressions, such words, all come with their fixed meanings. Thinking is thus shut down by language. It is the purpose of political language to shut thinking down, or rather, restrict it.

Iraqi people fighting US and UK invaders into their country become known as 'insurgents' and other such terms by the US and UK politicians and journalists. When we hear or read 'insurgent', then their death becomes more palatable.

 

[gorski]

K, you need to understand that everyone in the end has to cede to a brutally superior force, and Japs [like Yanks, no difference, a shorthand] are no different, as it turned out.

The Q is whether or not there were other options - and there clearly were.

You keep claiming they were stupid enough to continue if...

I say no one is that stupid.

 

[Aldebaran]

I agree with what Gorski wrote.

For me the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an evil act, it was not necessary at that stage.

The evilness is even more monstrous because it was decided to refrain from giving out a warning by which the civilian population would be given time to evacuate. This issue was - for as far as I am informed and I have no reason to doubt it - at some point discussed.
They didn't because nobody could guarantee the explosion would go as planned. Not loosing face was for the USA far more important than hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. In the light of this the evilness of Nagasaki gets yet an other dimension.

salaam.