tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post4951418353030835358..comments2023-12-22T14:04:55.065-05:00Comments on Ehlers on Everything: Dreams of a Nuclear Free WorldMark J. Ehlershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06410705618925284448noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-82556036542255498832010-05-02T17:33:59.871-04:002010-05-02T17:33:59.871-04:00Rich,
As always, you set forth some interesting a...Rich,<br /><br />As always, you set forth some interesting and provocative perspectives. You articulated the case for why many believe that our decision to drop atomic bombs on the civilian populations of two major Japanese cities was not clearly immoral -- though this is a fascinating topic that I hope to explore some time in the future. I understand and fully acknowledge the suggestion that anyone who seriously dreams of a nuclear-weapons free world is perhaps naive, but I also made clear in my essay that such an outcome is not likely in my lifetime; in any event, exploring the possibility of eliminating nuclear weapons from the world puts one in the company of some pretty strong hardliners, including Kissinger, Nunn, etc. Call them a lot of things, but naive is not usually appropriate with them.<br /><br />That the Japanese were willing to die to the last person makes them like Americans -- if we were in an epic struggle on our soil, I believe most Americans would do the same. That the United States is a great country, the greatest on earth even, is a view I share, but whether we are the sherriff of the world, whether we have the unilateral right to use nuclear weapons, whether we are a more moral country than all others, whether our people have more right than the citizens of other countries to flex their muscles, is highly debatable.<br /><br />From a strictly moral perspective, the use of nuclear weapons during a conventional war -- such as Vietnam -- cannot be justified. If one believes that the loss of 58,000 American lives was not worth the effort, that is a reflection on the war itself, not whether nuclear weapons should have been used. The reason we need to rid the world of such weapons (irrespective of whether we ever will), is precisely so that no one ever uses them in an offensive manner again. But this is, for me, a fascinating topic that I hope to explore further, when I have the chance to really look at all angles, moral, philosophical, strategic, and political.Markhttp://ehlersoneverything.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-85955533935380089012010-04-30T11:42:09.829-04:002010-04-30T11:42:09.829-04:00So far the history of nuclear weapons is one of wa...So far the history of nuclear weapons is one of war ending and war prevention and the saving of millions of lives. It can be argued that 58,000 brave American fighting men and the millions of others who died during and after the Vietnam War died needlessly because we failed to put every option on the table. The argument over the decision to go to war there is a valid one, but are you suggesting that once the decision was made, that 58,000 American lives and millions of other lives were a small price to pay for refusing to use our most powerful weapon?<br /><br />Because the world is not as enlightened as the average liberal, strength is the universal guarantor of peace. The one sure way to avoid needing to annihilate your enemy is by having the capability and will to annihilate your enemy. When we exercise our strength, the violence ends. When we stand our ground, as Reagan did when he walked away from negotiations with the Russians at Reykjavik to preserve SDI, we prevent future aggression. We should be investing in new and more accurate (and therefore more humane) weapon systems, such as bunker-busting nukes. We should be weaponizing space in fulfillment of the number one rule of military engagement: control the high ground. Had our president listened more and lectured less to General McChrystal, or if he spent one minute with the “corpse”-men that salute him every day, he would have learned that his promise not to weaponize space, the ultimate high ground, was a sign of weakness and a gift to our enemies.<br /><br />The goal should not be the elimination of nuclear weapons because that will never, never, never-ever, never-never, ever-ever happen, unless, of course we really do destroy ourselves, but even then we will have to hope that no text books survive the firestorm or that the monkeys don’t learn to read. This wish, for a nuclear free world, just makes one look naive. Better to wish that only the good guys have them and that the good guys have steel backbones when it comes to preventing the crazies from getting them. <br /><br />Because our national backbone at the moment seems made of pewter, it looks likely that Iran will get the nuke.<br /><br />But then again, Israel has had, in the past, no shortage of men – or women - with steel backbones . . .<br /><br />Rich R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-1967455667219713642010-04-30T11:36:53.043-04:002010-04-30T11:36:53.043-04:00Mark,
On March 9, 1945, 325 American bombers bro...Mark, <br /><br />On March 9, 1945, 325 American bombers brought hell on earth to Tokyo, Japan, creating “tornadoes of fire” that consumed the lives of 100,000 human beings. According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, “Probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man.” This was war on the eve of the nuclear age: unimaginable brutality and horror; as it had been for thousands of years and still continues in too many places today. Despite this devastation the Japanese people were still prepared to fight to the last child for their false god, or to commit suicide on a mass scale. A few months later, Colonel Paul Tibbets, “the man who won the war,” as Bob Greene’s dad used to say, dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima killing 80,000 more Japanese. The Bushido code, used to justify the brutal murder and torture of American prisoners of war and the slaughter of 15 million Chinese, Koreans, and Filipinos, still proved defiant. It took one more use of the ultimate weapon to force the surrender of an enemy that had declared war on the U.S. more than three years before.<br /><br />If not for these nuclear weapons, American fighting men would have been forced to invade Japan; been forced to kill civilians who were being trained for “Ketsu-Go,” total war; been forced to take aim at children with weapons and decide in a blink of an eye on a course of action that would haunt them forever. . . if they chose correctly.<br /><br />It is estimated that, in absence of nuclear weapons, the continued “conventional” war would have cost the lives of 500,000 Americans and 1.5 million Japanese.<br /><br />Ironically, one of those Americans saved because of the use of the atomic bomb was civil rights activist and Second Amendment defender Charlton Heston, who would go on to level his famous curse, “Damn you, God-damn you all to hell!” upon a future world that had destroyed itself with the ultimate weapon. He was, nevertheless, clear-eyed in his assessment of the use of the war-ending weapon, “The politically correct view is that the atomic bombs were inhumane, even a shameful atrocity. Never say that to any of us who were facing Operation Downfall. Invading Japan would’ve cost millions of lives, most of them Japanese.”<br /><br />Chuck also knew that our actions kept the murderous Soviet Empire in check; quite an accomplishment considering its holocaustic and Imperialistic history. He and Harry Truman understood that much of the world respects only brute strength. President Reagan’s joke about bombing Russia made liberals wet themselves, but sent the exact right message to the Evil Empire (as did his use of “Evil Empire”). His strategy for fighting the Cold War was even more blunt: “We win, they lose.”<br /><br />Years later, President Bush’s use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq and his philosophy that “all options are on the table,” convinced Muammar Gaddafi to give up his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program. Not until recently, while Gaddafi watched, with amusement no doubt, our bowing apologist-in-chief did he resume his chest thumping.<br /><br />Leaders who do not engage in moral equivalence, who understand that America is great because it is, and not because everyone thinks their own country is swell, understand that the greatest and most moral country should and must have the best and most advanced weapons. It follows then that the sheriff of the world has the moral authority to prevent madmen from gaining those same weapons. It is not hypocrisy to say we have them but you can’t. To think otherwise is to imagine the police laying down their guns in hopes that the Crips and Bloods would follow their noble example.<br /><br />(continued...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com