The article is not controversial in my view. I think it conflates different issues, as you do. I also think that you give too little credit to the American people. The war(s) were bad when Bush was president according to the media. The war is not so bad now with a different president because the media has not said it is as bad. Dropping the bombs were a economical way to accomplish the same goal in Japan as the Dresden raid did in Germany, nothing more and nothing less, regardless of the stated or inferred justification. The next war will likely not involve many soldiers, but many computer geeks.
Japan has acknowledged, sort of. Also, Russian controls some of the northern islands of Japanese island chain, the Kuril Islands. This territorial dispute technically means that Japan and Russia are still at war, WWII, that is.
Right. No government has ever imposed its will on the majority, or rendered their consent irrelevant.
Leave it to statists to turn the notion of "government by consent" against its original aims.
Leave it to the statists to decry theory as unrelated to practice at every turn when it benefits them, but then to instantly twist and distort a theory, with no regard for practice, when that suits them.
"Listen, so you're about to be attacked. What we should so is leave you to your own devices, because that doesn't concern us. Instead, we really want to save you from the evil Soviets. We've decided that the best way to do that is to nuke you."
