Just straight nonsense, ME2

[OFFENSIVE CONTENT REMOVED. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANOTHER COMMENTER, PLEASE POST AGAIN BUT REFRAIN FROM THE PERSONAL INSULTS. -TYEE EDITOR.]

CLUB....

There is only one nation in this world that has used The Bomb on humans. They did it first on a nation that that knew it had lost and was seeking a way to surrender. Then, having demonstrated the power of its weapon with a first strike, the next day the US dropped a second, different model just as a test of its "efficiency".

When North Korea achieved a nuclear bomb, the US threatened a pe-emptive nuclear stike, leaving the rest of the world holding its breath. Playing the same game, the North Koreans demonstrated the potential of their missiles to deliver their bomb, and all-of-a-sudden the US
decides to seek a realistic diplomatic solution.

GET THE IDEA, CLUB?

Now stick it where the sun don't shine.

While I'd be the last person

While I'd be the last person to defend the US I think the record needs to be recounted with more care:

1) The atom bomb program was meant to and organized to address the war in Europe, not the war in the Pacific. Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt specifically mentions Germany and the ready availability of fissile material in Czechoslovakia as early as August 2, 1939. The Manhattan project (1942) came about in response to the work of Vannevar Bush, the head of American civilian scientific research for the military when he received a report that German scientists were pushing ahead on their own bomb project. On October 9, 1941 President Roosevelt approved intensified research into the feasibility of an atomic bomb two months prior to the Japanese entry into the war.

Had the 'gadget' been operational before the war in Europe ended it would undoubtedly have been used there and its results (aside from the radiation, which is not immaterial of course) would have been more or less commensurate with the consequences of the fire-bombing of Dresden which was no more a military target than was Hiroshima. That raid in fact took place on February 13/14 of 1945 - in very close propinquity to the end of the war.

2) The debate about the 'morality' of using the bomb to force a Japanese surrender and to save American lives is not new. There certainly had been efforts to induce the Japanese to accept surrender terms - in fact, Hirohito had been pressing the Tojo government to sue for peace from as early as 1942 - although there was no 'peace party' in the Japanese government until the spring of 1945.

3) Although the case for using the two extant atom bombs (which were actually dropped on August 6 and August 9, 1945) as a way to end the war without the costs attendant to the invasion of the home islands (the politically correct American explanation) is undoubtedly true as far as it goes; it is also clear that it was as much in Truman and Stimson's mind at the time that the results they could have gotten by modifying the demand for unconditional surrender would be more than achieved by a successful bomb detonation.

(conclusion follows)

While I'd be the last person

While I'd be the last person to defend US I think the record needs to be recounted with more care:

1) The atom bomb program was meant to and organized to address the war in Europe, not the war in the Pacific. Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt specifically mentions Germany and the ready availability of fissile material in Czechoslovakia as early as August 2, 1939. The Manhattan project (1942) came about in response to the work of Vannevar Bush, the head of American civilian scientific research for the military when he received a report that German scientists were pushing ahead on their own bomb project. On October 9, 1941 President Roosevelt approved intensified research into the feasibility of an atomic bomb two months prior to the Japanese entry into the war.

Had the 'gadget' been operational before the war in Europe ended it would undoubtedly have been used there and its results (aside from the radiation, which is not immaterial of course) would have been more or less commensurate with the consequences of the fire-bombing of Dresden which was no more a military target than was Hiroshima. That raid in fact took place on February 13/14 of 1945 - in very close propinquity to the end of the war.

2) The debate about the 'morality' of using the bomb to force a Japanese surrender and to save American lives is not new. There certainly had been efforts to induce the Japanese to accept surrender terms - in fact, Hirohito had been pressing the Tojo government to sue for peace from as early as 1942 - although there was no 'peace party' in the Japanese government until the spring of 1945.

3) Although the case for using the two extant atom bombs (which were actually dropped on August 6 and August 9, 1945) as a way to end the war without the costs attendant to the invasion of the home islands (the politically correct American explanation) is undoubtedly true as far as it goes; it is also clear that it was as much in Truman and Stimson's mind at the time that the results they could have gotten by modifying the demand for unconditional surrender would be more than achieved by a successful bomb detonation.

(conclusion follows)

sorry about that - here's the conclusion:

4) However, it could equally be argued that the use of two bombs (of entirely different design and operation) was as much a consequence of insecurity about the result of a new and mostly unproved technology as it was an example of American overkill – but that’s another argument.

5) Criticizing the USA over the two attacks – and the way in which it was done – also tends to overlook the fact that the actual destructive force of the bombs used was thought to be significantly less (by an order of 1/10 and 1/2) than it actually turned out to be. Attacking the Americans simply because the nuclear terror they unleashed turned out to be more significant and deadly than was thought to be the case prior to August 1945 is a trifle unfair.

6) In the end, I think it’s unwise to be too critical about the American decision to drop the bomb. Like all such ex post facto reasoning, the piquancy of the ‘moral’ debate depends, both then and now, upon the distance the commentator is from the action – both real and metaphorical.

7) As to American policy since then…well, that’s another matter.

Just one quick question:
I'm not aware of an actual demonstrable threat to use atomic weapons against the North Koreans in a pre-emptive way. Can you point me to some evidence that this is the case?

GWest

I'm dead certain there is no perspective on any subject, GWest, about which you cannot find wiggle-room to argue against.

Dresden notwithstanding, the effects of the first A-Bomb on the civilian population of Hiroshima was ample evidence enough to guage the potential effects of another on the civilian population of Nagasaki, since at that time the USAF flew with total impunity over Japan.

And if you somehow missed all the headlines, you might Google the subject line - as I just did - "bush threatens nuclear attack on north korea"

No doubt you'll respond that their search engine neglected to consult with you first.

You misapprehend me entirely

I was simply asking a question.

I wonder if you're aware that two days before the Hiroshima bomb 720,000 leaflets were dropped on the city urging the population to 'get out and indicating that the city was going to be (as the Potsdam Declaration had promised) obliterated.'

Perhaps you're also unaware how many civilians the US firebombing of Tokyo killed in the months before August 6. To say nothing of those who would have been killed subsequently had the atomic bombs NOT ended the war when they did.

I am not for a moment arguing that the current US administration is using and has always used its military power in responsible ways - I just think it's dishonest to imply that we can evaluate the actions of almost 70 years ago with any degree of honesty if all sides of the question are not acknowledged.

In short, if you're interested in pursuing this further I think you'll find that 'wiggle room' is hardly an appropriate description of the distance between an honest and a dishonest appraisal of Truman's decision to drop those bombs: It is hardly a question that is not eminently debatable.

I'm pretty much a non-user of google and wikipedia so if you can point me to reputable sources for that quotation I would appreciate it.

You seem to have a lot of anger, which, I can assure you, I don't reciprocate.

GWest

Then learn to use Google. There's a couple of pages of "reputable sources" which I pointed to. Take your pick.

And yeah, I think you're far more wacko than I am.

Well - I want a reputable source, that all.

I have checked the NEW YORK TIMES archives and there is an indication that the US threatened to make a pre-emptive strike against the North Korean nuclear facility in 2003 - no mention of it being a nuclear strike though. And you definitely said nuclear, didn't you? I think the current US administration is dangerous – but I doubt if even they are that stupid.

So, in the absence of any other 'evidence' on your part I'm gonna call BS on that one, okay?

And any time you want to try and make a case against that "first" atom bomb...I'm prepared to argue the other side of that too. Around here I get pretty used to dealing with cant.

And please, cut the flattery - I just said you seemed angry - not mad.

wiggling?

And if there are others out there who don't use Google, here's a site I found by inserting "pre emptive" in front of "nuclear" in the line "bush threatens nuclear attack on north korea"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071_pf.html

It contains the observation: (Hiliting mine)

"CONPLAN 8022-02 was completed in November 2003, putting in place for the first time a preemptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and North Korea. In January 2004, Ellis certified Stratcom's readiness for global strike to the defense secretary and the president."

Of course I DO have to concede that even a Washington Post story may not be credible if it's found by Googling.

Sorry

I don't think you can go from what CONPLAN 8022-02 says to this:

"When North Korea achieved a nuclear bomb, the US threatened a pe-emptive nuclear stike, leaving the rest of the world holding its breath."

Those are the words you used. Bush is an idiot, but he's not out of his mind - as I suspected, there is no credible evidence that the US ever threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike against North Korea. I've read that WaPo article 3 times - it is very authoritative - but it doesn't come close to saying the words you wrote. It’s not very different, in that sense, from the Times coverage of the same item.

Thanks for the story - I'll add it to my files.

And, in fairness

Moreover, in fairness, if you'd said IRAN (rather than North Korea) in that sentence then I might very well agree with you...although the wording would have to be a little different in Iran's case since it has NO nuclear weapons and likely won't have any for about 10 years - at best.

Former Ambassador Bolton was (probably designedly) very bellicose on that subject when he spoke to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee in Washington in March of 2006. "The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve...We must be prepared to rely on comprehensive solutions and use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat...."

Now, Bolton's gone; Rumsfeld is gone (replaced by a much more pragmatic Gates) and I think (hope might be better) that even Bush realizes America's reputation - tattered though it is - would never recover from a pre-emptive nuclear strike on anyone.

However, there won't be any pre-emptive strikes on Korea - the geo-political balance just wouldn't permit it - nukes notwithstanding.

My view only. And hopefully, even relative to Iran, the US realizes that the consequences of a pre-emptive nuclear strike on that country would set the whole Middle East on fire. Even Hitler arranged to stage a phony incursion on the Polish border before he invaded in 1939. Remember?

GWest

So, even though my quote was pasted directly from the article you admit is "very authoritative" , you say "it doesn't come close to saying the words you wrote".

Even Ronnie couldn't have concocted a less clumsy and illogical segue for your typical trick of pretending to concede the point and then to continue on constructing more argumentation against it. The quote, GWest, was NOT taken out of context.

As far as I'm concerned it is useless to argue the point further with you, and there's been plenty enough information offered for others to form their own opinions.

But the words you quote from the article

But ME2, the words you quote from the article are not the words you wrote above here one day ago. Let me remind you once again that this:

is not this:

(from the WaPo)

But the article also contains a lot of other contextual material, such as:

Reading the rest of the article for context and remembering that conditional qualifiers like 'may' have been used repeatedly, there is just no way that your first statement is accurate, in my view.

And, furthermore, this discussion is about - at least nominally - deterrence, remember?

You implied that the mere 'existence' of a nuclear weapon in Korea was the nominal fuse to set off US retaliation...the article makes it clear that the US policy would only apply if there was an imminent threat of its being used on US targets.

There is a difference and I don't think (especially now given Tony Blair's embarrassment over the infamous 45 minutes) that difference is inconsequential.

In the end, I hope I'm right because if I'm not the US is likely headed for war with Iran before November 2008 - and a discussion about whether or not it involves tactical nukes or not will be largely academic.

The point in the end is that I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm simply stating that, now, as in 1945, these are complex and complicated matters - care needs to be taken.

I was very impressed by what you wrote about Sea Otters, by the way. Your approach there was intelligent, nuanced and sensible.

Have you ever read Ring of Bright Water by Gavin Maxwell?