Fun with Bush's Speech
Here's a passage from Bush's speech on Thursday:
Now here's the same paragraph with one minor alteration. See if you can spot the difference.
Funny how anyone who said something along these lines in 2002 (and there were people) was considered profoundly unserious, but now we're treated to sermonizing lectures--that track almost verbatim the warnings of those who advised us not to invade Iraq--by the very people who assured us that all of these concerns were nonsense.
I also liked this part of the speech:
I don't know, Mr. President. It seems to me that the fact that Osama bin Laden is proclaiming anything--as opposed to being dead and silent--is a pretty sure sign that this war is in fact a major diversion. You created an opportunity for Bin Laden and he seized it. And now we're bogged down in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Well done.
This is a classic, too:
Actually, "victory" in Iraq--i.e., the best case scenario--will result in a semi-democracy that is a friend of Iran and an ally to the "Islamo-fascists." Assuming Iran qualifies as one of "our enemies,"--and judging by the rest of the speech, it certainly seems to--it is extraordinarily unlikely it will see this outcome as a "crushing defeat." In fact, the Iranians would probably describe the Iraq War as the gift that keeps on giving.
Speaking of Iran, I thought this line was particularly nonsensical:
Oh really. What if the voters want the government to develop weapons of mass destruction? We're a democracy. We've pursued such weapons throughout our history. So have Great Britain, France, and Israel; all democracies last time I checked. And just a few years ago, the democratic government of India tested its first nuclear weapon, an event which triggered celebrations in the streets of New Delhi and Bombay. Let's not kid ourselves, voters very much want their countries to develop such weapons. It's a matter of national pride. Iran is no different. Even those Iranians who detest Ahmadinejad largely support Iran's nuclear ambitions.
And finally, no Bush speech would be complete without this groaner:
It's hard to think of a dumber statement, especially in light of the fact that the last three major terrorist busts have been in the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain. But, for reasons I've explained previously, Bush is forced to invoke this tired canard in every speech. Continued support for the war depends on it.
CORRECTION: A commenter below notes:
A good point. I do suspect, however, that a clear majority in the U.S. would have supported such efforts had they known about them. The same is likely true of Great Britain and France at the time they were developing such weapons. Moreover, I suspect Iran's situation is much more analogous politically to that of India and Pakistan, whose populations take pride in their countries' recent admission to the nuclear club. This is an important point that needs to be addressed by Iran hawks. Even if we were somehow able to bring about regime change in Iran, even magically create a liberal democracy there, Iran's leaders would likely continue to pursue nuclear weapons. There is, therefore, a major disconnect between our stated policy objective--stopping Iran from going nuclear--and our myopic focus on regime change.
If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the
consequences would be absolutely predictable — and
absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our
worst enemies — Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups
with ties to Iran, and al Qaeda terrorists from all over the
world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more
valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban. They would
have a new sanctuary to recruit and train terrorists at the
heart of the Middle East, with huge oil riches to fund their
ambitions.
Now here's the same paragraph with one minor alteration. See if you can spot the difference.
If America were to invade Iraq, the consequences would be
absolutely predictable — and absolutely disastrous. We would
be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies — Saddam's
former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al Qaeda
terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a
base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under
the Taliban. They would have a new sanctuary to recruit and
train terrorists at the heart of the Middle East, with huge oil
riches to fund their ambitions.
Funny how anyone who said something along these lines in 2002 (and there were people) was considered profoundly unserious, but now we're treated to sermonizing lectures--that track almost verbatim the warnings of those who advised us not to invade Iraq--by the very people who assured us that all of these concerns were nonsense.
I also liked this part of the speech:
Here at home we have a choice to make about Iraq. Some
politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from
the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin
Laden, who proclaimed that the "third world war is raging" in
Iraq.
I don't know, Mr. President. It seems to me that the fact that Osama bin Laden is proclaiming anything--as opposed to being dead and silent--is a pretty sure sign that this war is in fact a major diversion. You created an opportunity for Bin Laden and he seized it. And now we're bogged down in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Well done.
This is a classic, too:
Victory in Iraq will result in a democracy that is a friend of
America and an ally in the war on terror. Victory in Iraq will
be a crushing defeat for our enemies, who have staked so
much on the battle there.
Actually, "victory" in Iraq--i.e., the best case scenario--will result in a semi-democracy that is a friend of Iran and an ally to the "Islamo-fascists." Assuming Iran qualifies as one of "our enemies,"--and judging by the rest of the speech, it certainly seems to--it is extraordinarily unlikely it will see this outcome as a "crushing defeat." In fact, the Iranians would probably describe the Iraq War as the gift that keeps on giving.
Speaking of Iran, I thought this line was particularly nonsensical:
Governments accountable to the voters focus on building roads
and schools -- not weapons of mass destruction.
Oh really. What if the voters want the government to develop weapons of mass destruction? We're a democracy. We've pursued such weapons throughout our history. So have Great Britain, France, and Israel; all democracies last time I checked. And just a few years ago, the democratic government of India tested its first nuclear weapon, an event which triggered celebrations in the streets of New Delhi and Bombay. Let's not kid ourselves, voters very much want their countries to develop such weapons. It's a matter of national pride. Iran is no different. Even those Iranians who detest Ahmadinejad largely support Iran's nuclear ambitions.
And finally, no Bush speech would be complete without this groaner:
We will fight the terrorists overseas so we do not have to face
them here at home.
It's hard to think of a dumber statement, especially in light of the fact that the last three major terrorist busts have been in the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain. But, for reasons I've explained previously, Bush is forced to invoke this tired canard in every speech. Continued support for the war depends on it.
CORRECTION: A commenter below notes:
A minor quibble with today's post. Our pursuit of the atom
bomb was not done with the endorsement or knowledge of
the voters. The Manhattan project was clandestine. In
addition, majorities of voters in both Britain and France
would like to see the destruction of their states' wmds.
A good point. I do suspect, however, that a clear majority in the U.S. would have supported such efforts had they known about them. The same is likely true of Great Britain and France at the time they were developing such weapons. Moreover, I suspect Iran's situation is much more analogous politically to that of India and Pakistan, whose populations take pride in their countries' recent admission to the nuclear club. This is an important point that needs to be addressed by Iran hawks. Even if we were somehow able to bring about regime change in Iran, even magically create a liberal democracy there, Iran's leaders would likely continue to pursue nuclear weapons. There is, therefore, a major disconnect between our stated policy objective--stopping Iran from going nuclear--and our myopic focus on regime change.
34 Comments:
The title alone was enough to elicit a chuckle, but when you have a fool using fear based emotionally targeted lying rhetoric to promote war and violence the humour dissipates rapidly.
I often ask myself, "do they take us for being THAT dumb?" I'm afraid we are. Or at least a lot of us. They keep shoveling the shit, and a A LOT of America eats it up. "Fighting them there..." JESUS. Another load, served up daily....
AL,
A minor quibble with today's post. Our pursuit of the atom bomb was not done with the endorsement or knowledge of the voters. The Manhattan project was clandestine. In addition, majorities of voters in both Britain and France would like to see the destruction of their states' wmds. I do believe that the development and continued maintenance of nuclear arsenals is supported by the Indian and Israeli voters -- and considering who their neighbors are, you can understand why.
We will fight the terrorists overseas so we do not have to face
them here at home.
While this and many other Bush quotes are pretty dumb, there is one statement that is the mother of all dumb presidential statements. One that is immortal: "Bring it on!"
The absolutle dumbest thing I have heard uttered by a U.S. president, ever.
Not only immortal, but immoral. His prepared speeches suffer from the same problem. The speciousness and outright dishonesty of these speeches is bad enough. They are insulting to Americans and everyone else, and reek of the totalitarian. But when this clown is unleashed upon the world without a script, beware. He is reckless, ignorant, and entirely unaware of and unconcerned with the ramifications of his own words.
- JLB
In the final analysis, one has to answer the question AL does not seem to want to consider: Is there a qualitative difference between, say, the U.S. or Britain developing nuclear weapons, and an Iran or a North Korea developing them? I would humbly suggest that there manifestly is a difference, and if you don't recognize that fact you are impossibly hung up with form and process. What, you may ask, is the difference? Well, for openers, neither the U.S. nor Britain has placed the control of such weapons in the hands of people with avowedly apocalyptic views of the world. Both the U.S. and Britain have been engaged in innumerable military conflicts since acquiring these weapons, yet neither has used them in more than a half century--and neither, for that matter, have the Soviets or the Chinese. If you believe that Iran and North Korea will exercise comparable restraint, whether or not they are democracies, you are delusional.
A minor quibble to the minor Quibble.
If the voter's didnt knowningly support the manhattan project, and Bush brought it up as a point of contention , what then exactly would he be saying?
GOVERNMENTS SHOULD IGNORE THE VOTERS WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT!?!?
Far worse insinuation.
-Brandon M
yrm etc:
Except that the "restraint" which you seem to think exists is being eroded. There used to be a policy of "no first use" that the US adhered to. The Bush/Cheney administration has publicly backed away from that, and also has funded research into tactical nuclear "bunker buster" munitions.
So your comment about "comparable restraint" becomes amusingly ironic -- and while there's delusion going around, it isn't about restraint on the part of Iran and North Korea. Not that anybody should trust anybody with nuclear weapons, but do please note that the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war is the US, and they were used against (predominantly) civilian targets.
Finally, hasn't George Bush and his administration welcomed Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's input at several levels? That's been reported, at least. Take a look at "http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm" for example. And if you don't think these people have an apocalyptic view of the world, I don't know who does.
I should add: Is there any doubt in the mind of anyone who visits this site that Iran is now, and has been for roughly twenty years, the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world? Does that make a difference?
Does it matter at all that when the U.S. developed its nuclear weapons it was engaged in a world war against fascism? (The principal animus of the American left used to be anti-fascism, but in the modern era the left has scarcely found a fascist it doesn't like.)
As to the comments about Falwell and Robertson, I have nothing to say except that at some point the left's paranoia becomes delightfully comical.
Iran and North Korea are different. First, the former does not have such weapons, while the latter, by all estimates, seems to already possess them. Second, there is ample evidence to suggest that, rhetoric aside, the Iranian regime is in fact perfectly rational -- at least insofar as national survival (and, in particular, the survival and maintenance of power by the leadership) is a top priority. Only a suicidal nation would use nuclear weapons against the west. Iran is also, presumably, well aware that if such an attack (the dreaded suitcase mushroom cloud) were undertaken by terrorists, they would be blamed, and would suffer the same fate as if they launched the attack directly. For better or for worse, for right or for wrong, they know this to be the case. Recent history suggests as much. Thus, one would think, Iran is not, in fact, looking to launch nuclear attacks against anyone, but looking to enhance its own power, to fill the vacuum created by our reckless policies. It's worth reading this article: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=113D64EAA99B8510&p_docnum=1
It offers some evidence for the dreaded third option -- as opposed to the false choice between crazed, nuclear Iran and military strike for regime change. Perhaps Iran, as many have suggested, is a country that might be able to reform internally, with time, and in a manner consistent with its culture and history. Despite whatever Bush and his cronies want to say, Iran had a democracy not long ago, and we overthrew it. There is a democratic tradition here, and the populace is educated and restless. They want reforms, and a population that effects its own changes from within will be successful in a way that can never come about through the application of outside force. What they don't want is Bush or any of U.S. sticking our combat boots anywhere near them.
- JLB
jrm...,
You're missing the point. I think everyone, save the Iranians, would prefer that Iran not have nuclear weapons. My point was that lack of democracy in Iran is not the driving force behind its desire to go nuclear. That particular policy is supported by most Iranians, including the moderates. That's a fact that needs to be addressed by those advocating regime change in Iran.
kgrddk
To A.L. and jrmetc.:
There's another point worth making: there's a fairly reasonable argument that the main reason the Iran regime wants nuclear weapons is because we keep insisting on regime change (by military force, if necessary). Specifically, compare and contrast Iraq and North Korea, charter members of the axis of evil. Which one got invaded, and why? Does anyone outside of farthest wingnuttia think we're about to take on North Korea?
Surely the current Iran regime sees this, and views nuclear weapons as their best insurance policy against regime change by outside intervention.
As for nuclear weapons as a matter of national pride, I'm not so convinced. In a country with a thriving economy, reasonable modernization, and no pressing reasons to fear invasion, appeals to "national pride" carry much less weight, and citizens may question why so many resources are being invested in something that should never be used. It's only when the population feels poor and picked-upon that appeals to national pride become the ticket to electoral success. From that perspective, attempts to bring Iran into the community of western modernized and liberal nations are more likely to ultimately lead to a slowdown, if not abandonment, in the drive for nuclear weapons
AL:
Yes, on not wanting Iranians to have nuclear weapons. It's probably worth repeating this so as not to allow for confusion. My position, as I think is the only sensible position to hold as an "ideal" or "principle," even if it cannot be actualized in the current world situation, is that absolute, 100% nuclear disarmament is the only acceptable ethical position. I think this in the way that Gore thinks a change in environmental policy is a moral issue above all else. Of all people, Robert McNamara is perhaps the strongest proponent of this position. Nobody should have nuclear weapons. They amount to what Michael Walzer calls an "immoral threat," one that has no business in the exchanges of men.
Cheers,
JLB
yrm etc,
A.L. has commented about Iran. I agree with his point.
As to the noble effort to build the bomb before the fascists did, versus the vile effort by the Iranians to develope a nuclear capability to gain status -- and protection against a superpower that just invaded two of its neighboring countries, well, I guess if you were Iranian you might see things a bit differently.
And your jibe about the left vs fascism, no, we don't like fascists whether in foreign countries or in this country. The way the Bush/Cheney/Rove political machine is currently operating looks more and more fascist to a lot of us. Challenge: name a fascist we "like". Evidence, please.
What you call paranoia, I call only-too-justified fear. Just how many "faith-based" programs has this administration got?
Y)(&&^%^%$%$# has no concept of what the term "fascist" means.
Fascism is governmental control by oligarchs (private enterprise and those who wield equal power and influence) that is the definition.
Communist and Socialist regimes are NOT fascist by definition, they are antifascist, they ARE however totalitarian a lot of times, dictatorships, authoritarian style.
The right throws the term fascist around like a cheap whore, they rarely know what it actually means.
-Brandon M.
"Is there any doubt ... that Iran is now, and has been for roughly twenty years, the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world?"
interesting qualifier. without it, my impression is that among people who actually look objectively at such things, there are many who would argue - with substantiation - the the US holds that position. we are just better at hiding, excusing, or relabeling our actions than are less powerful and prosperous countries. with it, I'm not so sure.
between ahmadi-nejad and bush, which one has the more "apocalyptic views" depends on how much of a liar bush is. I'm inclined to think his religiosity is an act, but if not, he might get the nod. (it also appears that ahmadi-nejad is smarter and better educated, two qualities I admire.) and the dismissive response re bush's pandering to the nut-case fundamentalists just avoids the issue - any substantive rebuttal?
the US is a wonderful place - nowhere I'd rather be. but it's run by and for plain old humans who sometimes have hidden agendas and often make mistakes. nothing unpatriotic about pointing that out. very unpatriotic to naively buy government propaganda used to sell militarism and imperialism and avoid uncomfortable evidence suggesting that we don't always act with admirable motives.
You get the argument wrong, in my opinion.
The left can say many things about the US policy creating terrorists, the insurgency in Iraq not being a threat to the US on our own land, etc. But you said:
"It's hard to think of a dumber statement, especially in light of the fact that the last three major terrorist busts have been in the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain."
This is wrong and easy for the right to shoot down.
In saying this, you have to ignore all of the violence by terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east; and you are linking groups who had little if any direct connection to the middle easterners with them, while an independant group in the west launching an attack says little about whether the military actions in the middle east are preventing middle eastern groups from launching attacks in the US.
Many experts have said that the terrorist groups see the US troops in Iraq as a good target, much easier than attacking the US in its own land.
It's at least conceivable that this makes the claim somewhat true that the resources are being used in Iraq and might be instead of attacks in the US.
It doesn't mean the policies are anything less than a disaster, but the attacks on them should be accurate, and I don't see the argument as solid.
I understand the term "fascist" all too well. If Anonymous does not believe that it applies to the governments of Italy, Germany and Japan circa 1935-45, he is free to say so, but he is living in some parallel universe.
CTW, I'll simply say that your assertions re the US and terrorism are risible. Reasonable minds can quibble about the definition of the term, but most sensible adults are able to draw a distinction betwen those who, in waging war, go to great pains to avoid civilian casualties, and those whose goal is to inflict them, and who yearn for them to be inflicted upon themselves.
All of you regulars here should bear in mind that in 2 1/2 years Bush will no longer be president, but the radical Muslims of this world will still want to murder you as much as they want to murder me. If you are relying on your friend Ahmajinedad to refrain from providing atomic bombs to those would detonate them anonymously in American cities simply because of his wisdom and humanity, I believe you are in error, but you are clearly not susceptible to persuasion.
I believe I read somewhere in an earlier post that someone was actually citing the moral colossus Robert McNamara as an authority on something-or-other. Will wonders never cease! And if we all agreeed that no one "should" have nuclear weapons, how, precisely, would we progress to that happy state? And suppose one cheater held out? And do you not imagine that the existence of nuclear weapons prevented further Soviet expansion into Western Europe, perhaps prevented a war between China and India, and often and otherwise deterred incalculable human losses that would have occurred in their absence?
I regret that, finding a dearth of adult commentary here, I must now knife into the darkness. This is not a place for serious people.
I regret that, finding a dearth of adult commentary here, I must now knife into the darkness. This is not a place for serious people.
It's a shame that not everyone can be as "adult" and "serious" as yrm.
Yrm, like so many other neocon-ish commentators, you are very good at spotting bad things in the world and very bad at providing any analysis regarding how to deal with them. It may make you feel tough and churchillian to label all the bad guys in the world "fascists", but it's not particularly accurate or helpful. How do you suggest we go about keeping Iran from going nuclear? How do we reduce the forces of radicalization in the world? Have you thought at all about the actual logistics and real world consequences of whatever course you recommend?
You like to engage strawmen, to suggest that those who disagree with you don't understand the nature of the threat we face. This may be true with respect to some people, but the vast majority of people understand that terrorists are bad and that a nuclear Iran is undesirable. The question is this and always this: how best do we go about reducing or eliminating those threats? This is the question you never seem to want to address. The primary disagreement of our times is not what the threat is: it is what strategy we should pursue to reduce that threat. I'd be interested in your "adult" commentary on that question.
Yrmstobtsvt&c&c,
How very intellectually DISHONEST of you to try and put words in someones mouth. Yes Italy and Germany were indeed fascist states. Noone says otherwise.
However YOU stating that Iran IRaq and North Korea are fascist states is COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS.
Fascism was based upon private industry (aka republicans in this country) attempting to control the government, with the ideas of War being a goal and a matter of pride in ones abilities, and nationalism as well.
Iran is a theocracy not a fascist state.
North Korea is a communist state.
Both are relatively dictatorial in nature, but NEITHER are fascist.
This is precisely what I mean by right wingers throwing this term around loosely. They NEVER get it right, because fascism almost always refers to the extremists in their own ideology (and frankly that should embarrass you)
Fascism has nothing to do with whether one tries to avoid civilian casualties or tries inflict damage on themselves or not. YOu are completely out of the park there.
When liberals and progressives rail against fascism, it is precisely BECAUSE we fought it in WW2, (Roosevelt was a Dem remember) , WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE SPEAK OF WHEN WE SAY "No corporate giants, you will not run our country as you please". You however have no basis on which to speak of such things.
This blog is a place for serious people , not "my gut tells me fascism is THIS and if you disagree, youre just being difficult" people. Ask us why we care about definitions: because it sets the standard for debate, if you want to use a different definition, there's only ONE REASON WHY, and thats that your points are not strong enough for scrutiny, thats a typical rightwing tactic, use different terms than everyone else and proclaim that your opposition is stupid afterwards for not using the "new definitions".
In this case, it is DECIDEDLY IMPORTANT to define fascism correctly, because FASCISM is PRECISELY WHERE WE ARE HEADED WITH THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. Iran is NOT headed towards fascism, neither is NK for that matter, (they have their faults of course, but thats besides the point here)
If you are looking for "adult commentary" that involves making definitions as you go, and yelling "well you're just being difficult, we all know XYZ" rhetoric as if it's going to substantiate your points, I think Freerepublic.com would be a good place for you.
Just to reiterate: what my comment said, if YRM had bothered to read it, or to understand, in general, the difference between words and things, concepts and reality, principles and the struggle to achieve them, was this: as a principle, the only morally acceptable position is to support the elimination of nuclear weapons. There is no good purpose to which these weapons can ever be used. The consequences of their use -- anywhere from total annihilation of a city to total annihilation of a civilization -- are such that the threat alone of their use is immoral. To hold the option of using nuclear weapons is to announce oneself as unethical.
That being said, the geopolitical situation is filled with obstacles preventing the attainment of an ethical utopia. Only an idiot would fail to see this, in the same way that only an idiot could fail to see the distinction I make, here and elsewhere, between principles and pragmatic solutions, the latter of which is what A.L. was asking you, with all your grown-up and serious wisdom, to suggest. My point is that the best and most ethical way to go about our pragmatic lives is to be guided, in the process, by principles which, if impossible, are at least desirable and morally sound.
Best Regards,
J. Barnard
And, yes, I cited McNamara. Look it up.
JLB
yrm etc,
I think your comprehension might benefit from re-reading the comments. Sure, Italy and Germany were fascist in the 1930's and into the 1940's. Japan, well, when the emporer is a god, you don't really need fascism to get the same effect, but the result was the same.
Nobody said different, and what has that got to do with the current situation? I notice that you didn't answer anyone's questions to you, you simply left.
As to the US sponsoring terrorism being "risible", well, I don't think the people whose family members were killed in Central America by CIA-involved death squads have laughed it off.
As to Bush not being president in 2.5 years, please -- don't build up any false hopes. I personally doubt that, in that time, Bush/Cheney/Rove/co will have managed to make everyone love each other -- it doesn't seem to be in their game plan, which appears to make as many people angry as possible -- and also I sincerely doubt they'll have managed to kill everybody who wants to kill us (since that would just make more people want to kill us.)
It is asinine to refer to Ahmadinejad as "your friend", speaking of anyone here. If hit-and-run insults and strings of logical fallacies are your concept of "persuasion" and "adult commentary", then I think you need some more experience at the art of convincing people.
AL,
I disagree with the comment -- not posted by you -- that the use or even possession of nuclear weapons is by definition immoral, and that there is no good purpose to which they can be used.
First, nuclear weapons have likely prevented tens of millions of deaths that might have resulted had the cold war powers engaged in a hot war. Nucelar weapons possessed by both the US and the Soviets made both countries that much more careful and cautious in dealing with each other so as to prevent a nuclear strike. As a result a fifty year great power competition resulted in thousands of deaths in small proxy wars (afghanistan, vietnam, etc.) rather than in the tens of millions.
Second, while many disagree, I think the evidence is fairly clear that the use of nucelar weapons in hiroshima and nagasaki -- while terrible seen in isolation -- had the utilitarian effect of preventing far greater numbers of americans, britons, russians, and especially japanese from dying in what would have been a horrifically costly invasion of Japan.
Third, Israel's possession of nukes and India/Pakistan's possession of nukes have arguable prevented India and Pakistan from fightin another hot war, and have prevented Israel's hostile neighbors from engaging in open hostilties against Israel. Israel was invaded by its neighbors with almost regularity prior to their obtaining nukes, and not at all since then (excepting Saddam's lobby scuds, and Iran/Syria's sponsoring of terrorists).
Nukes are terrible, the use of nukes are terrible, but there are worse things.
Anonymous:
I think you are arguably right that the existance of nuclear weapons may actually have saved lives during the Cold War. It's a difficult debate to reach any definitive answer on because it involves counterfactual speculation, but it's still a reasonable argument.
I think you're wrong about the use of nukes in Japan, though. While I think the morality of dropping the first bomb (on Hiroshima) is debatable, I think the dropping of the second bomb (on Nagasaki) is indefensible. I think it was a fog of war mistake, but a particularly eggregious one. It was utterly unnecessary.
Having visited Hiroshima several times and been moved by the experience each time, I also think there's a strong argument to be made that the use of that bomb was premature. My personal opinion is that we should have first detonated a bomb either in the air or at a remote, less populated site in Japan as a show of force. Had that not achieved the intended result, a subsequent detonation at a site like Hiroshima or Nagasaki would have been easier to justify.
You're missing the point. The objections you raise are in the area of the "pragmatic," not the principled. Yes, once these weapons were introduced into the world it was all but inevitable that an arms race would begin, which is continuing today, only not on the immense, manichean scale of the U.S./Soviet standoff. My point is that the standoff itself is wrong. A world defined by the prospect of mutual annihilation has gone beyond any situation in which we can really choose anything other than the avoidance of this annihilation, which makes it difficult to make any other ethical choices. It reduces the world to a simple choice of annihilation or -- well, or what?: constant fear of annihilation. This is an unacceptable situation, wouldn't you say?
And I disagree categorically with your conclusion.
- JLB
To clarify with an example: you argue that the nuclear weapons prevented a "hot war" between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. This is in fact a case in point: ethical decision-making is eliminated in this case: MAD made the question of fighting as opposed to diplomacy (or any other approach to international relations) a moot one. It removes ethics from the scenario, reducing our choices to a matter of bare survival or total annihilation. In such a situation, there is little room for moral and/or political self-evaluation, and very little to say to one another. As Socrates said about such a situation, where examination of one's motives and principles and ways of life is absent, that "is no kind of life for a human being to live."
- JLB
AL,
I think you make excellent points, particularly re: the use of the second bomb at nagasaki. And I also think you may be right that it was a "fog of war" type mistake. ALthough, a rather inexcusable one.
I disagree, however, with the contention that use of the first bomb was premature. Every day the pacific war continued, thousands were dying in the island-hopping battles (okinawa, iwo jima, etc.) and in China. Meanwhile, Russia's impending entry into the war presents the counter-factual possibility, that had the US held out on use of the bomb, the soviets might have rushed into northern japan, and today sixty years later we would have a North Japan/South Japan, like the way we had split Germanies and have split Koreas. A Northern Japan likely would have been a pretty awful place to live in.
I think one can argue that use of the nuclear weapons by rescuing Japan from the soviets, preventing millions of conventional military deaths and civilian deaths, and putting the exclamation mark on the total military defeat of Japan, actually benefitted the Japanese in the long run. Seeing their military regime totally discredited, yet being saved from soviet occupation, Japan emerged from WWII as the most successful axis power -- and a good deal more prosperous than many of the allies. In an way, the timing of and devastation of the bomb helped make that possible.
JLB,
Are you arguing that by removing the possibility of "political self-evaluation" and requiring our choosing self-preservation over mutual annihilation, MAD was a bad thing? Because it shifted our philosophical compass (and incidentally saved milions of lives) nukes were wrong? I think you have lost me on this one.
Yes and no. I think the absence of self-evaluation is, indeed, a bad thing. Why would it be good? You should read my post today about Emerson. (www.tragos.org)
I'm conceding your point about MAD working. It most likely did prevent a "hot war," and, thus, in a backwards way, saved lives. But it also cost of lot of them, incidentally, in places like Viet Nam, Afghanistan (where it's still costing them), the Israeli wars, and all the other "little" hot wars that were required by the cold war.
What I'm saying is that it didn't just "shift" the compass, it entirely polarized it, reducing options to kill or be killed, which ultimately amounted to doing nothing, and waiting for somebody to blink so we could just stop the madness. Fortunately, this happened. What I'm saying is, as people all across the spectrum seem to agree -- from the anti-war left to the hard-right, who, for instance, are upset that the Fox journalists "converted" -- that as human beings we believe in the value of the moral faculty, however we choose to understand this. One of our moral principles (advocated by Christ and others) has been (though it has mostly been disregarded) to try to find ways to transcend our instincts for conflict. This requires ethical self-examination as well as ethical communication and exchange. Hunkering down in bomb shelters, building more and more missiles, and hoping that nobody makes any mistakes, never mind going nuts and intentionally launching them, has nothing to do with any of that. It is a fundamentally inhuman situation.
If I'm still failing to explain myself clearly, I'll have to try to address this later.
- JLB
Here's maybe a quick way to clarify: there were other alternatives to "cold war" or "hot war." (Like, for instance, "no war." But I'll leave that in parentheses.) Because of nuclear weapons, which were and are a fact, the results of an opened Pandora's Box that may never be closed, no other options could be considered.
Have a good weekend.
- JLB
I disagree, however, with the contention that use of the first bomb was premature. Every day the pacific war continued, thousands were dying in the island-hopping battles (okinawa, iwo jima, etc.) and in China. Meanwhile, Russia's impending entry into the war presents the counter-factual possibility, that had the US held out on use of the bomb, the soviets might have rushed into northern japan.
I didn't mean that the use of the first bomb was premature in the sense that we should have waited and pursued conventional fighting a little longer. What I mean is that I don't think the first target should have been a well-populated city like Hiroshima. I think they should have first detonated the bomb in the air or somewhere more remote. That might well have done the trick. If it hadn't, we could have upped the ante. This would have added, at most, a week or so to the war. I don't think that is nearly enough time for the parade of horribles you're describing to transpire.
33 (34 with this one) comments in 1 thread?
AL...you're coming UP!
(or going down depending on how you look at it :)
-Brandon M
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home