Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:42:18 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Piet Delport <siberiyan@mweb.co.za> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <3BA51CBA.BB366813@mindspring.com> References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAMEFMCDAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> <xzpelp9s9ga.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3BA33CB6.FE0102C8@mindspring.com> <20010916024154.B57021@athalon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Piet Delport wrote:
> > I'm certain that, had the Germans pointed out a more direct route to
> > defeating them, including precisely the targets to concentrate on in
> > order to make them lose, the Allies would have been very happy to undo
> > the one bolt that held everything together, instead of maniacally
> > blasting away with a shotgun.
>
> So, to paraphrase, it was Germany's fault that the Allies carpet-bombed
> their cities, because Germany didn't conveniently point out to their
> enemies where all their most important military targets are instead?
No. It was their fault for starting a war: no matter who wins,
casualties are always the fault of who started it. For example,
in the action against Manuel Noreiga, the U.S. was at fault for
starting the violence -- Noreiga goaded them into it, but the
violence was initiated by the U.S..
The carpet bombings of Germany in Word War II were the result of
starting the war PLUS the lack of data on hard targets.
Likewise the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the fault of
the aggressor nation.
> Expecting the country you're at war with to conveniently reveal all
> their key military weak spots to you is absurd, and taking the fact that
> they (obviously) didn't do so and using it as a moral excuse to carpet
> bomb their cities and civilians is just as absurd.
The intent was to bomb everything, and hope you destroyed
military targets and leadership.
The intent to destroy military leadership makes the Pentagon
a military target, as well, but, again, the U.S. was not the
aggressor nation.
> The fact is that thousands of civilians died in those bombings, and
> while war in general is a Bad Thing, i think the mass-killing of
> civilians like that is one of the worst examples of it.
Collateral damage is always a bad thing. Prior to the advent
of guerilla warfare, soldiers marhed in straight lines and
took turns firing arrows at each other, after which they rushed
at each other with hand weapons. Civilian targets were generally
spared any collateral damage at all.
If you are an agressor nation, and you use your own civilians
as "chaff" to hide your military targets, then it is _you_
who are attacking your population, by proxy, not the nation
whom you attacked.
> Whether it's the Allies, the Germans, or even Bin Laden's terrorists
> that do the said killing doesn't make it any less wrong.
I never said it wasn't wrong.
[ ... nuclear fear is driven by collective remorse ... ]
> These are indeed many excellent examples of how Americans want to get
> rid of nuclear power plants, despite their superiority in every way over
> older technologies.
>
> However, i sincerely doubt that they has anything whatsoever to do with
> guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More likely is that this is because
> a large number of Americans (statistically speaking) perceive nuclear
> power as dangerous to *themselves* (cue cancer scares, and public
> paranoia of reactors melting down a la Chernobyl). [1]
[ ... First let's point out that what the U.S. generally feels is
"remorse", _not_ "guilt". ... ]
That's actually not correct. The Japanese have a cultural
phobia regarding cancer; even prior to the bombings, their
cancer rates are significantly higher, generally due to the
contents of their telomers (i.e. a genetic predisposition).
In the U.S., the public is confident that medical science can
cure anything. In fact, we are so confident of this, that we
sue doctors, nurses, and hospitals when they fail to cure a
fatal injury or disease, on the theory that the reason for
the failure was not the injury or disease was beyond current
capability to cure, but instead, the result of the medical
community failing to "try hard enough".
To add to the lack of fear of cancer thesis: in California, a
fuel additive, MTBE, is used, even though it is known to be
highly carcinogenic. It is a trade, consciously made, in
order to "protect the environment". The ignorance here is
that any car manufactured since the late 1980's has an Oxygen
sensor, and these cars actually pollute _more_ when Oxygenated
fuels are used. In any case, until recently, where it was
proven that more environmental damage results from MTBE in the
waterways, Californians were happily accepting the cancer risk
on the theory that, if they got it, it could be cured, but
damage to the environment has always been portrayed as "forever".
I don't think the U.S. fears Chernobyl; for one thing, there
was significant public spin-doctoring at the time, and for
another, there was significant dissemination of real information
on reactor designs, indicating that a Chernobyl-style accident
could not occur here, because U.S. reactor technology precludes
that -- Three Mile Island was cited as supporting evidence, as
the reactor containment vessels did _exactly_ what they were
designed to do, and _contained_ the accident. The thing that
upset people, by the way, was the use of the alarming word
"accident". Finally, the most compelling reason that the U.S.
doesn't fear a Chernobyl type accident is the same that it does
not fear a Bhopal type accident: the U.S. was not down wind.
> Even besides that, what do electricity-generating nuclear _power plants_
> (which Americans are opposed to) have to do with nuclear _weapons_
> (which you hardly even mention) in this context?
Regular nuclear power plants do not produce enriched Uranium
or Plutonium, and so only breeder reactors are required in
order to produce weapons fuels (I thought general knowledge
of nuclear technology was better than it is, apparently).
This is why I made the comment on the disparity between the
number of breeder and classical nuclear reactors: the U.S.
population is generally aware enough of that, and guilty enough
over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that they forego the use of
breeders to prevent themselves from making a ready supply of
nuclear weapons fuel which could be stolen and incorporated
into weapons (it is common that U.S. high school students can
design such weapons these days; hydrogen bombs aren't much
harder).
> If Americans are so soul-struck with guilt over their bombing of Japan,
> why isn't there an outcry over the fact that even more nuclear weapons
> are being manufactured?
Apparently, you have never visited the gates outside the
Brookhaven facility, where the protest has become a vigil.
> Why aren't they trying to get rid of the *bombs*, instead of civilian
> reactors?
They are. Or they were, prior to this incident. I rather
suspect that the incident has convinced many, close to the
decision line, that it's just as well we have the weapons,
and it's just as well we have the capability of manufacturing
more.
FYI: The current manufacturing rate is only to keep up with
the half life of existing components, which must be changed
out every so often to keep the weapons active. The U.S. is
reducing the total number of its weapons, not stockpiling more.
The U.S. is conforming to the terms of its treaties.
> > So you are an idiot if you don't think that America does not suffer
> > _profound_ guilt over the use of nuclear weapons in the Japan
> > conflict; it does -- to the point of abandoning money, working lights
> > and heat, efficiency, and rabid environmentalism... all to assuage
> > that guilt.
>
> Guilt over the past use of nuclear weapons and irrational fear of
> civilian nuclear reactors are two entirely separate things. I doubt
> *anyone* paying that fee to support the de-commissioning of existing
> reactors are thinking about Hiroshima/Nagasaki when they do so.
I am. I would just as well not pay the fee, or change it to
a fee to build _more_ reactors, rather than decomissioning old
ones -- I, for one, _am_ concerned about the pollution caused
by fossil-fuel burning plants. The majority of power plants in
California burn natural gas, a fossil fuel, imported mostly
from Texas, at userous rates. The new plants being brought on
line over the "power emergency" (what a joke: that's not worthy
of the name "emergency") are generally natural gas burning as
well.
> Instead, are there any public memorials dedicated to the tragedy, any
> public days of mourning, or anything like that which would indicate real
> guilt? (This is an honest question, i really haven't the faintest
> idea.)
Yes. One was recently dedicated in San Francisco, on the
anniversary of the bombing. I guess the U.S. public does have
a short attention span.
> > PS: How profound do you think is the guilt of the perpetrators of the
> > September 11th atrocity?.
>
> Even less than the guilt of Joe Average American over America's own
> atrocities, i imagine.
Any attrocity is justifiable in self defense, when the alternative
is your own destruction.
In any case, I will not act as an appologist for everything which
you choose to label "attrocity", any more than I would expect you,
as a South African, to justify Apartheid.
To bring this down to earth, consider the case of a person breaking
into your bedroom with a deadly weapon. You have the means to kill
them, and they have the means to kill you. They do not leave as a
result of this, but press the issue, and you have no means of
leaving, either: it is now either you or them.
I would argue that you are now put in the position in deciding which
of two human beings merits continued existance, and that by acting,
you decide in favor of you, and by not acting, you decide in favor
of the invader. To compound the issue, you believe it is wrong to
kill; but you bear responsibility for the death, either way, as it
is your decision to make.
Would a "human being" put someone in the position where they are
forced to make such a choice? I would argue that the answer is
"no" -- and therefore, the invarder has less of a right to their
continued existance than you do. So really the only thing you
have to decide is whether to act by commission or by omission,
with the knowledge that acting by omission will endanger other
people in the future (perhaps your wife, children, or total
strangers in the next home this person invades).
I think it is important to protect the lives of human beings,
but I also thingk it is possible to forfeit one's status _as_
a human being.
I think the terrorists in this case have forfeited their status
as human beings.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BA51CBA.BB366813>