The Hiroshima Myth

77zach · Aug 8, 2013

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.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 8, 2013

77zach said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 8, 2013

Nightmare said:
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?

JustaShooter · Aug 8, 2013

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 naïve, 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.)

sudden valley gunner · Aug 8, 2013

Nightmare said:
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".

77zach · Aug 8, 2013

JustaShooter said:
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 naïve, 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.

eye95 · Aug 8, 2013

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>

sudden valley gunner · Aug 8, 2013

JustaShooter said:
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 naïve, 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.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 8, 2013

Here's a humorous take on WWII.....if face book existed then.....:lol:

http://themetapicture.com/if-countries-had-facebook-during-wwii/

77zach · Aug 8, 2013

eye95 said:
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?

77zach · Aug 8, 2013

Nightmare said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 8, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

77zach · Aug 8, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

b0neZ · Aug 8, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Here's a humorous take on WWII.....if face book existed then.....:lol:

http://themetapicture.com/if-countries-had-facebook-during-wwii/

:lol:

Maverick9 · Aug 8, 2013

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.

marshaul · Aug 8, 2013

JustaShooter said:
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 naïve, 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.

OC for ME · Aug 8, 2013

I have never, not even once, given my money to the government. It was confiscated by government using my own hand.

marshaul · Aug 8, 2013

OC for ME said:
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.

XD40sc · Aug 8, 2013

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.

77zach · Aug 8, 2013

XD40sc said:
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.

The Hiroshima Myth

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member