Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 409

Thread: The Hiroshima Myth

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    The Hiroshima Myth

    http://mises.org/daily/4217/

    WW2 is a sacred cow of statist neocons. Interestingly enough for libertarians, fleshing this issue out gives a sound answer to anti-gun nuts question: "Where do you draw the line? Should you be allowed to own nukes?" My answer is no, killing indiscriminately is never right and goes against the non-aggression principle. Where do you draw the line? How about this: If it's too dangerous for me to own it, then it's too dangerous for the government to have it.
    If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Myths of war and histories are written by the victors.

    Are you a veteran?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    http://mises.org/daily/4217/

    WW2 is a sacred cow of statist neocons. Interestingly enough for libertarians, fleshing this issue out gives a sound answer to anti-gun nuts question: "Where do you draw the line? Should you be allowed to own nukes?" My answer is no, killing indiscriminately is never right and goes against the non-aggression principle. Where do you draw the line? How about this: If it's too dangerous for me to own it, then it's too dangerous for the government to have it.
    I preempted this in a gun debate I was in at the local University, the gun control proponent even said "darn I was going to bring that up"

    I said I am not going to say I think individuals should own nuclear weapons, war planes and other weapons of mass destruction, and neither should our government.


    Yea it's a sacred cow for many WWI and WWII were both wars progressives pushed for contrary to the will of the people.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 08-08-2013 at 10:01 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Myths of war and histories are written by the victors.

    Are you a veteran?
    Isn't it amazing throughout all of history the "good guys" always won?
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 08-08-2013 at 10:03 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    D'you mean like at The Battle of Thermopylae, μολὼν λαβέ

    How about the Battle of Gettysburg.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 08-08-2013 at 10:07 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    So, how do you deal with the fact that such devices exist, and even if we destroyed them all, the knowledge and technology to reproduce them exists? Believing that an oppressive regime will not produce such devices given means and opportunity is nave, and as similar devices are the only reasonable means of defense against the same, it would be foolhardy for peaceful countries to eschew them. (Note that nowhere did I make claims as to where any country currently in existence falls in the range from peaceful to oppressive. Also note that this debate is very similar to the debate about the right to keep and bear arms on an individual level, it is most different simply in its scale.)
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    D'you mean like at The Battle of Thermopylae, μολὼν λαβέ
    Since the Greeks eventually defeated the Persians.....that would fit too.
    How about the Battle of Gettysburg.
    Definitely the state propaganda history says the "good guys won".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    So, how do you deal with the fact that such devices exist, and even if we destroyed them all, the knowledge and technology to reproduce them exists? Believing that an oppressive regime will not produce such devices given means and opportunity is nave, and as similar devices are the only reasonable means of defense against the same, it would be foolhardy for peaceful countries to eschew them. (Note that nowhere did I make claims as to where any country currently in existence falls in the range from peaceful to oppressive. Also note that this debate is very similar to the debate about the right to keep and bear arms on an individual level, it is most different simply in its scale.)

    Hydrogen bombs could not exist without big government, at least now and for the foreseeable future. They cost trillions to develop, store, maintain, and deploy. Get rid of statism and you get rid of many WMD's.

    However, some tyrannies abroad will continue to have nukes. So what? I'm over the "lifeboat" mentality. There isn't always a perfect answer, you have to die sometime.

    Still, any regime that commits a preemptive nuclear strike, commits political suicide. If the U.S .gov dismantled its nuclear arsenal tomorrow, I think there is almost a 0% chance of North America being nuked.
    If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    The Hiroshima Myth

    What myth? Japan would not surrender unconditionally. They attacked us to start the war. Unconditional surrender was a reasonable requirement to stop fighting them. Invasion would have been costly to our soldiers and their civilians. If we could end the war at the cost of Japanese civilians and not at further expense of our soldiers, then so be it.

    The bombs brought about that unconditional surrender. Even those claiming "myth" admit that fact. Demonstrating our resolve to win wars has probably saved American lives. An exhibited lack of resolve has likely cost many. So I have zero problem with dropping those bombs on Japan.

    We should be slow to go to war, but once we do, we should kill people and break things until absolute unquestionable victory is obtained.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    So, how do you deal with the fact that such devices exist, and even if we destroyed them all, the knowledge and technology to reproduce them exists? Believing that an oppressive regime will not produce such devices given means and opportunity is nave, and as similar devices are the only reasonable means of defense against the same, it would be foolhardy for peaceful countries to eschew them. (Note that nowhere did I make claims as to where any country currently in existence falls in the range from peaceful to oppressive. Also note that this debate is very similar to the debate about the right to keep and bear arms on an individual level, it is most different simply in its scale.)
    Now that is an intriguing question and not one I have an answer for just lot's of random thoughts.

    I do say it is hypocritical for the empires to say only we can have these weapons. What happens N. Korea defies and gets one and what do we do absolutely nothing, so why wouldn't other countries assume they can too?

    There was no need to nuke Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan was on a verge of surrender, the offered a few "compromises" the government said no, and then bombed them and gave the compromises they wanted anyway.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Here's a humorous take on WWII.....if face book existed then.....

    http://themetapicture.com/if-countri...k-during-wwii/
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What myth? Japan would not surrender unconditionally. They attacked us to start the war. Unconditional surrender was a reasonable requirement to stop fighting them. Invasion would have been costly to our soldiers and their civilians. If we could end the war at the cost of Japanese civilians and not at further expense of our soldiers, then so be it.

    The bombs brought about that unconditional surrender. Even those claiming "myth" admit that fact. Demonstrating our resolve to win wars has probably saved American lives. An exhibited lack of resolve has likely cost many. So I have zero problem with dropping those bombs on Japan.

    We should be slow to go to war, but once we do, we should kill people and break things until absolute unquestionable victory is obtained.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Did you read the article?
    If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Did you read the article?
    Learn about the Narrative Fallacy. In this case, the Denson Myth article, he argues in the first paragraph with a poll, a premise to his extended syllogism, to read beyond requires suspension of disbelief, and of my skepticism that a poll can be true.

    A narration is the witch doctor's tool.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Learn about the Narrative Fallacy. In this case, the Denson Myth article, he argues in the first paragraph with a poll, a premise to his extended syllogism, to read beyond requires suspension of disbelief, and of my skepticism that a poll can be true.

    A narration is the witch doctor's tool.
    I don't believe the poll either. I'd say that at least 99% of people believe the patriotic smut about WW1, WW2, and the A-bombs.
    If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What myth? Japan would not surrender unconditionally. They attacked us to start the war. Unconditional surrender was a reasonable requirement to stop fighting them. Invasion would have been costly to our soldiers and their civilians. If we could end the war at the cost of Japanese civilians and not at further expense of our soldiers, then so be it.

    The bombs brought about that unconditional surrender. Even those claiming "myth" admit that fact. Demonstrating our resolve to win wars has probably saved American lives. An exhibited lack of resolve has likely cost many. So I have zero problem with dropping those bombs on Japan.

    We should be slow to go to war, but once we do, we should kill people and break things until absolute unquestionable victory is obtained.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Duh, no one wants to surrender "unconditionally", that is a tyrannical thing to ask for.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Duh, no one wants to surrender "unconditionally", that is a tyrannical thing to ask for.
    It doesn't matter, as you said, Truman gave them everything they wanted and more anyway. They were determined to murder and maim for the glory of Imperial Amerika (sic).

    Truman, what an evil man.
    Last edited by 77zach; 08-08-2013 at 10:55 AM.
    If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Davis County, Utah
    Posts
    528

    Re: The Hiroshima Myth

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Here's a humorous take on WWII.....if face book existed then.....

    http://themetapicture.com/if-countri...k-during-wwii/

  18. #18
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Churchill said you have to be willing to be more ruthless than your adversary.

    What would be interesting is if they could develop a dependable personal shield, a personal forcefield. Then no one could attack another.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    So, how do you deal with the fact that such devices exist, and even if we destroyed them all, the knowledge and technology to reproduce them exists? Believing that an oppressive regime will not produce such devices given means and opportunity is nave, and as similar devices are the only reasonable means of defense against the same, it would be foolhardy for peaceful countries to eschew them. (Note that nowhere did I make claims as to where any country currently in existence falls in the range from peaceful to oppressive. Also note that this debate is very similar to the debate about the right to keep and bear arms on an individual level, it is most different simply in its scale.)
    It's not particularly similar.

    Dealing with individuals, prohibition is impossible. It has never, and will never, be meaningfully achieved of any object.

    Prohibiting something of government is simple, in principle: you simply don't give it any money.

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I have never, not even once, given my money to the government. It was confiscated by government using my own hand.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I have never, not even once, given my money to the government. It was confiscated by government using my own hand.
    Agreed.

    What I meant was that, while a legislature can "prohibit" a technology or commodity of individuals, it will be to little or no effect. Whereas when the same legislature wishes to prohibit something of government, it can simply deprive it of the necessary funds.

    If Americans refused to elect politicians willing to tax their constituents, the government would probably be unable to afford most of the needless spending that goes on anyway.
    Last edited by marshaul; 08-08-2013 at 02:23 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    425
    Guess one could say that even beaten to a bloody pulp, Japan continued to fight with everything they had, until they received a "double tap", which took the fight out of them.

  23. #23
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40sc View Post
    Guess one could say that even beaten to a bloody pulp, Japan continued to fight with everything they had, until they received a "double tap", which took the fight out of them.
    I never comment on an article I haven't read, at least not in a long time.
    If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Charleston, wv
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What myth? Japan would not surrender unconditionally. They attacked us to start the war. Unconditional surrender was a reasonable requirement to stop fighting them. Invasion would have been costly to our soldiers and their civilians. If we could end the war at the cost of Japanese civilians and not at further expense of our soldiers, then so be it.

    The bombs brought about that unconditional surrender. Even those claiming "myth" admit that fact. Demonstrating our resolve to win wars has probably saved American lives. An exhibited lack of resolve has likely cost many. So I have zero problem with dropping those bombs on Japan.

    We should be slow to go to war, but once we do, we should kill people and break things until absolute unquestionable victory is obtained.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Amen.

    If I was in office no one and I mean no one, would dare attack America.

    It would take only one engagement and they would all be like.... Retreat! That dudes crazy.
    Last edited by Tackett; 08-08-2013 at 03:04 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackett View Post
    Amen.

    If I was in office no one and I mean no one, would dare attack America.

    It would take only one engagement and they would all be like.... Retreat! That dudes crazy.
    Another person who didn't read the article or is too dishonest to rebut it. This is funny. If only millions didn't have to die because of false bravado and ignorance like yours. As eye would say, moving on.
    Last edited by 77zach; 08-08-2013 at 03:21 PM.
    If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •