North Korea or Iran which one is more threatening?

[Saint Therese]

There will never be peace in the world, until the end of time. Only God can bring peace. Even if North Korea or Iran were overcome or completely reversed themselves and declared friendship with us, it would be no guarantee of peace.
And, btw, I think it Dresden was[i] fire[/i] bombed. More lives were lost during the fire bombing of Tokyo than were lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Saint Therese

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='16 February 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1266337930' post='2057882']
There will never be peace in the world, until the end of time. Only God can bring peace. Even if North Korea or Iran were overcome or completely reversed themselves and declared friendship with us, it would be no guarantee of peace.
And, btw, I think it Dresden was[i] fire[/i] bombed. More lives were lost during the fire bombing of Tokyo than were lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
[/quote]
Dresden was carpet bombed with high explosive and/or incendiary devices. Same with some Japanese cities like Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe.
More Japanese civilians were killed than German in those attacks, nuclear bombs aside. On the scale of hundreds of thousands. I read in all it's near 600 000, which is apalling.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Saint Therese]

It our assumption that civilians are non combatants, but re the Japan of that time I don't think that would necessarily have been true. If there had been an invasion of the Japanese mainland there would have been millions of lives lost. Look at the horros of the battle of Okinawa.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='17 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1266437369' post='2058447']
It our assumption that civilians are non combatants, but re the Japan of that time I don't think that would necessarily have been true. If there had been an invasion of the Japanese mainland there would have been millions of lives lost. Look at the horros of the battle of Okinawa.
[/quote]
I don't think you can justify carpet bombing of cities based on the idea that the citizens may be somewhat more radical than your average non-military. The fact is that they weren't soldiers, and we as Catholics forbid the intentional attacking of civilians.

[Saint Therese]

If we had invaded the Japanese mainland, the Japanese would have fought to the last man woman and child.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='19 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266601390' post='2059473']
If we had invaded the Japanese mainland, the Japanese would have fought to the last man woman and child.
[/quote]
Every single citizen of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Osaka, Kobe, etc., would have died rather than allow Japan to be taken?

Well I'm skeptical (very much so), but even if it was the case, that still doesn't make the carpet bombing and atomic bombing morally right. In this, our just war doctrine is exceedingly clear.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Ed Normile]

I voted for n.korea, it has not had nuclear weapons for years, its relativeley a new thing for them. The reason I voted for N. Korea is their leader is a sick man, mentally as well as being old and at the end of his life. He has nothing to lose, and he could gain infamy for starting the nuclear world war. He already starves his people to death, unless they are in the countries armed forces or are brains for building infrastructure or weapons.

ed

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='19 February 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1266601390' post='2059473']
If we had invaded the Japanese mainland, the Japanese would have fought to the last man woman and child.
[/quote]

First, your argument is an argument of morality from utilitarianism, whether you recognize it or not.

It was unnecessary to invade the Japanese mainland. Read up on what the contemporaneous generals and admirals actually said about the "necessity" of dropping the atomic bomb or invading Japan. People like MacArthur. Halsey. Nimitz. Spaatz. Eisenhower. (Though he was ETO.) It was unnecessary to invade the Japanese mainland. Total sea and air superiority had been achieved. The threat to other countries had been neutralized. The principles of a just war are simply the macrocosm of the principles of self-defense. If someone is attacking you, and you have neutralized the threat he once posed, there is no need to invade the body "to ensure the job is finished." It is like shoving dirt in someone's mouth when he is down and no longer a threat. It is childish, immoral and unnecessary behavior.

~Sternhauser

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 February 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1266672185' post='2059902']
First, your argument is an argument of morality from utilitarianism, whether you recognize it or not.

It was unnecessary to invade the Japanese mainland. Read up on what the contemporaneous generals and admirals actually said about the "necessity" of dropping the atomic bomb or invading Japan. People like MacArthur. Halsey. Nimitz. Spaatz. Eisenhower. (Though he was ETO.) It was unnecessary to invade the Japanese mainland. Total sea and air superiority had been achieved. The threat to other countries had been neutralized. The principles of a just war are simply the macrocosm of the principles of self-defense. If someone is attacking you, and you have neutralized the threat he once posed, there is no need to invade the body "to ensure the job is finished." It is like shoving dirt in someone's mouth when he is down and no longer a threat. It is childish, immoral and unnecessary behavior.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

You could be quite correct but not necessarily so. Saddam was defeated and 'neutralised' in the first invasion. But it didn't solve the problem, the critter was so dumb that he stood up to the US again and a second invasion was needed. Not disagreeing with you, just saying.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='20 February 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1266704602' post='2060065']
You could be quite correct but not necessarily so. Saddam was defeated and 'neutralised' in the first invasion. But it didn't solve the problem, the critter was so dumb that he stood up to the US again and a second invasion was needed. Not disagreeing with you, just saying.
[/quote]
(We're talking about Japan at the end of WWII. )

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 February 2010 - 09:31 AM' timestamp='1266705118' post='2060068']
(We're talking about Japan at the end of WWII. )
[/quote]

I was using Iraq as an example that it can be a mistake to not bring an enemy to unconditional surrender because of the possibility that they may be given time to develop nuclear weapons. Personally I think nuking Japan was horrible and a land invasion may or may not have been worse. That is to say that more casualties of the alliance would have been incurred by a land invasion and possibly more Japanese civilians. But what I'm saying is that just defeating Japan in the air and sea may not have ended it. The outcome of each strategy is quite unpredictable, at least by us who were not even born then. We can only hope that the course taken was the best one and that the motive was not to just to see what damage can be inflicted by nuclear weapons. They should have made them drink Sakai out of a wooden box until they surrendered it shouldn't take long. Never drank Sakai out of a wooden box? Well I have and believe me it's horrible.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've read about drinking sake that way. Can't say I like the idea of drinking out of a wooden box.


I wonder if a complete blockade of a nation could be considered moral under certain circumstances........ hm...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='20 February 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1266704602' post='2060065']
You could be quite correct but not necessarily so. Saddam was defeated and 'neutralised' in the first invasion. But it didn't solve the problem, the critter was so dumb that he stood up to the US again and a second invasion was needed. Not disagreeing with you, just saying.
[/quote]

A second invasion was not needed. Neither Saddam Hussein nor the military under his command were about to attack anyone. Then, they probably wouldn't have had to worry about his having weapons of mass destruction if they hadn't sold them to him in the first place.

The powers that be were already honing their plans to invade when W. achieved power.

If any place "needed to be invaded," it was Sudan, during the slaughter of tens of thousands of Christians. There's a "regime change" they could have undertaken. If Iraq was 80% a big humanitarian endeavor, as they tried to claim, Sudan should have been invaded years before Iraq. But then, where would the "defense" contract money come from? Sudan would have been a far messier situation, and it isn't [i]nearly [/i]as stocked with black gold.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 21, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='20 February 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1266718499' post='2060192']
They should have made them drink Sakai out of a wooden box until they surrendered it shouldn't take long. Never drank Sakai out of a wooden box? Well I have and believe me it's horrible.
[/quote]

Torture is also immoral.

Sake tastes like watered-down isopropyl even from a traditional sake cup.

~Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 February 2010 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1266720407' post='2060221']
A second invasion was not needed. Neither Saddam Hussein nor the military under his command were about to attack anyone. Then, they probably wouldn't have had to worry about his having weapons of mass destruction if they hadn't sold them to him in the first place.

The powers that be were already honing their plans to invade when W. achieved power.

If any place "needed to be invaded," it was Sudan, during the slaughter of tens of thousands of Christians. There's a "regime change" they could have undertaken. If Iraq was 80% a big humanitarian endeavor, as they tried to claim, Sudan should have been invaded years before Iraq. But then, where would the "defense" contract money come from? Sudan would have been a far messier situation, and it isn't [i]nearly [/i]as stocked with black gold.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Stern, many of the weapons of mass destruction were actually engineered by chemical Ali at home. Then there is the matter of a reported 100 suitcase nuclear bombs that were sold on the black market after the fall of russia, which were reported to be in Iraq. Saddam used home brewed mustard gas to take out 300.000 of his countrymen who were revolting against him. Sodam insane also promised to wipe out israel. I guess you realize that America has not profited from or taken one ounce of oil from Iraq, we are also rebuilding the structures we destroyed and helping the citizens there in many humanitary ways. This leader was taking monies that were tobe directed to helping his poor and sick and using them to amass a war chest of munitions, which were smuggled out during the early part of our invasion to places such as sudan, there was clear evidence of trucks leaving brudened with weapons to kuwait turkey and syria. this was not a perfect war, is there such a monster? But this was a war which was needed in many ways, just ask the people of Iraq.

ed