Unilateral disarmament
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14431424
Scottish anti nuclear types are commemorating the Hiroshima bombing as an argument for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Presumably, they think that if Japan hadn't had nuclear weapons of their own the US wouldn't have nuked Hiroshima. WTF?
Scottish anti nuclear types are commemorating the Hiroshima bombing as an argument for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Presumably, they think that if Japan hadn't had nuclear weapons of their own the US wouldn't have nuked Hiroshima. WTF?
Never forget that Japanese casualties in WW2 (3 million) are dwarfed by those of Germany (8 million) and Soviet Union (26 million), the vast majority of all these being civilians.
When you reckon the Soviet Union lost nearly 15% of its total population you get some idea about why they were somewhat "touchy" after WW2.
For perspective UK, USA and France lost about 500,000 each. Completely different order of magnitude.
When you reckon the Soviet Union lost nearly 15% of its total population you get some idea about why they were somewhat "touchy" after WW2.
For perspective UK, USA and France lost about 500,000 each. Completely different order of magnitude.
exgtt said:
Can't ignore the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were utterly horrific though. Can speculate all day on how many lives were saved as a result of those two bombs but to drop 2 nuclear devices on civillian cities???
Not on my watch - let the soldiers dog it out in the trenches.
Interesting pov. How do you see the difference between conscripted soldiers and civilians?Not on my watch - let the soldiers dog it out in the trenches.
exgtt said:
Can't ignore the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were utterly horrific though. Can speculate all day on how many lives were saved as a result of those two bombs but to drop 2 nuclear devices on civillian cities???
Not sure about Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was an accident in terms of civilian casualties as the target was Japan's industrial infrastructure (where my grandad was toiling away incidentally)Due to unfavourable weather conditions they "missed" the yards and hit the city proper.
Just goes to show how ignorant some people are, the carpet firebombing of Japanese cities killed FAR in excess of the two atomic bombs, and if you want to be blunt, rate fairly high up the list of possible war crimes....http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM
The civilian death toll in Japan from Allied bombing was between 330,000 and 900,000 with an additional 112,000 killed from the atomic bombs.
The civilian death toll in Japan from Allied bombing was between 330,000 and 900,000 with an additional 112,000 killed from the atomic bombs.
DieselGriff said:
exgtt said:
One wears a uniform, is armed and Mostly informed. One Could be a 90yo or a pregnant woman on their way to the laundrette/hospital/school. Is there no difference
One could also be an armed, informed and not agree and not want to be there. If the Conscript is informed and is still a conscript this surely means that their information did not ally with joining up?
DieselGriff said:
Sorry felt the need to add.
If the Conscript is informed and is still a conscript this surely means that their information did not ally with joining up?
If you can't see the difference between a fit young man armed to defend himself, and a woman going about her business at home then you're either an idiot or being obtuse for the sake of it.If the Conscript is informed and is still a conscript this surely means that their information did not ally with joining up?
Just because the soldier was conscripted does not make him the same as the woman. He would have a 'fighting chance', whereas she would not.
mrmr96 said:
If you can't see the difference between a fit young man armed to defend himself, and a woman going about her business at home then you're either an idiot or being obtuse for the sake of it.
Just because the soldier was conscripted does not make him the same as the woman. He would have a 'fighting chance', whereas she would not.
Okay this is getting difficult I can see that.Just because the soldier was conscripted does not make him the same as the woman. He would have a 'fighting chance', whereas she would not.
How about then a conscripted man and a man in a protected occupation? (coal miners for example) Is there a difference in morals when it comes to killing one and not the other?
DieselGriff said:
Okay this is getting difficult I can see that.
How about then a conscripted man and a man in a protected occupation? (coal miners for example) Is there a difference in morals when it comes to killing one and not the other?
Still yes, because one can defend himself and the other can't. The difference between a fight and an execution it you like.How about then a conscripted man and a man in a protected occupation? (coal miners for example) Is there a difference in morals when it comes to killing one and not the other?
mrmr96 said:
DieselGriff said:
Okay this is getting difficult I can see that.
How about then a conscripted man and a man in a protected occupation? (coal miners for example) Is there a difference in morals when it comes to killing one and not the other?
Still yes, because one can defend himself and the other can't. The difference between a fight and an execution it you like.How about then a conscripted man and a man in a protected occupation? (coal miners for example) Is there a difference in morals when it comes to killing one and not the other?
Just out of interest there is also a definition of armed - my Father spent 22 years in the RAF and spent 1 day a year on the rifle range with a weapon, other than that completely unarmed - My friend's father was a civilian during WWII but spent the whole time with a revolver.
Who was armed?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff