The greatest tragedy in human history

[BicycleTree]

And you know we're cutting our arsenal by a significant fraction, right (can't remember if it's 1/2 or 1/3...)?

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. So now we can only scourge the Earth's surface a hundred and fifty times over instead of three hundred times, huh?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't really understand this. If the US gets rid of all nuclear arms, that's basically just giving up a huge amount of leverage. Giving up some of them doesn't make sense either because just a few, maybe 10, are still enough to take on the rest of the world. The logical thing would be to keep all existing arms.

Well, politics isn't logical. By giving up a significant fraction, we lose little deterrence value, but it does give the rest of the world a nice warm, fuzzy feeling. All the hippies get to pretend we're making progress toward a nuclear free world, and it doesn't hurt us any, so we may as well do it.

One thing that is logical about it though - nuclear weapons cost money to maintain.

 

[alexandra]

But greatest tragedy in human history? Easy: Marxism. Marx's work is at least partially responsible for the largest of the problems in the 20th century).

Too right, Russ - Marxism effectively and absolutely is the most dangerous invention of the human mind because it completely and utterly exposes the inhumanity and absolute callousness of capitalism, which you are an ardent supporter of. It reveals that which all capitalists and their supporters want to remain hidden - so it IS responsible for what you call 'the largest of the problems in the 20th century'. I would strongly encourage everyone to delve into this dangerous method of analysis and see what it reveals about the sorts of societies we are living in. Ask it to explain anything: social problems, economic problems, environmental problems, problems with the education system, with the health system, anything - it can do so. No other system of analysis can.

It played only a small part in Hitler's rise (Hitler did use some of Marx's ideas), but played a large part in Stalin's work (he killed millions in an effort to promote Marxism), Vietnam, China, North Korea. Hundreds of millions of deaths have resulted from that ill-conceived idea this century (both directly and indirectly).

You cannot link Marx and Hitler and expect to get away with it. It is unfair and totally not true. People who read such things and believe you without checking for themselves are being very naive. And Russ, I do believe you know that you are making a very false statement here, and that you are doing this knowingly and deliberately. Neither Hitler Nor Stalin were Marxists. Hitler killed all the socialist leaders of the strong Trade Union movement in Germany (and, by the way, that was WHY the western powers allowed Hitler to get as far as he did - they needed him to clear up the real threat to their imperialist-based wealth: the socialists). Read history.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . heck, Canada is talking about splitting, not the US.

I thought the Blue States were going to split from the Red and join Canada.

 

[Bladibla]

I would say the emergence of superpowers.

 

[ShawnD]

I thought that was the idea...they're not needed for leverage, so just get rid of them.

That's not what I said. We (NATO, not just US) do need them for leverage. Russia didn't attack us because we had nukes. We didn't attack them because they had nukes. China too has immunity from the world because they have nukes as well. The only thing keeping countries like North Korea in check is the fact that we have the ability to destroy everyone and everything in those countries at the push of a button.
If we give up our nukes, we lose every bit of leverage we ever had. Disarmament is absolutely never the answer.

 

[BicycleTree]

The greatest tragedy has been the invention of nuclear weapons. Probably it was unavoidable but you must admit that nuclear weapons have absolutely no positive value and carry great danger. Mutual assured destruction is a joke. When North Korea has ICBMs and we can't invade them because of MAD, well well. When every little country has ICBMs and we can't invade any of them because of MAD, invasions will still go on. There are crazy people who do not care about MAD. And then you will have nuclear warfare.

Nuclear weapons are becoming increasingly widespread.

A similar great tragedy was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians murdered needlessly on a mass scale.

 

[ShawnD]

Russ - Marxism effectively and absolutely is the most dangerous invention of the human mind because it completely and utterly exposes the inhumanity and absolute callousness of capitalism

Oh I'm sorry I must have missed the part where extreme socialist countries had higher living standards than capitalist countries. Please remind me which part of North Korea is better than South Korea, and why an overwhelming number of people left Hong Kong just before it was handed back to China, or why people always try to defect to capitalist countries and not the other way around.

 

[alexandra]

Oh I'm sorry I must have missed the part where extreme socialist countries had higher living standards than capitalist countries. Please remind me which part of North Korea is better than South Korea, and why an overwhelming number of people left Hong Kong just before it was handed back to China, or why people always try to defect to capitalist countries and not the other way around.

Hi Shawn

russ_watters and I have been having a discussion about these issues in the ‘Politics and World Affairs’ section of this forum. Rather than talk serious politics here (which I see as a more ‘fun’ part of PF where people come for time out and joking), if you're interested in reading our argument so far perhaps you could go read up the “A question about objectivity in politics” thread. I’ll be happy to respond to further questions on this topic there

 

[Joel]

Imagine the tragedy of confusion, if Russ and Alex had a child. "Teacher told me about capitalism and socialism, what are those really?"

I'll get my coat now...

 

[ShawnD]

The greatest tragedy has been the invention of nuclear weapons. Probably it was unavoidable but you must admit that nuclear weapons have absolutely no positive value and carry great danger. Mutual assured destruction is a joke. When North Korea has ICBMs and we can't invade them because of MAD, well well. When every little country has ICBMs and we can't invade any of them because of MAD, invasions will still go on. There are crazy people who do not care about MAD. And then you will have nuclear warfare.

Nuclear weapons are becoming increasingly widespread.

A similar great tragedy was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians murdered needlessly on a mass scale.

One could also argue that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterant. It's more than coincidence that no country with nukes has ever been attacked after publicly announcing that they have nukes. Major nations of Europe used to fight all the time, but they haven't fought in 60 years since the creation of nuclear weapons.

It's also arguable that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives by ending the war quickly. To give you a sense of how brutal the war between Japan and the US was, think about this: the invasion of Iwo Jima cost 21,000 Japanese lives and 5,000 American lives. That's 26,000 people dying to capture 1 island. Japan has many many islands; how long would it take to capture the entire country? More importantly, how many lives would it take to do so? How many more Iwo Jimas would it take to end that war? Killing 103,000 civilians seems like a small price to pay to end an unbelievably bloody war.

It's also worth mentioning that the 2 nuclear bombs combined did less damage than the conventional weapons used on Tokyo. The fire raid of Tokyo killed roughly 200,000 Japanese civilians; that's in 1 day. Surprisingly, this was before the nuclear bombs were dropped. They sure didn't feel like surrendering did they?

 

[alexandra]

Imagine the tragedy of confusion, if Russ and Alex had a child. "Teacher told me about capitalism and socialism, what are those really?"

I'll get my coat now...

JOEL! Now YOU have a truly evil mind

 

[dextercioby]

Well,immediate effects on both Hiroshima+Nagasaki and Tokyo couldn't be compared to those long-term ones...After all,nuclear weapons are known to IRRADIATE...

Daniel.

 

[ShawnD]

Well,immediate effects on both Hiroshima+Nagasaki and Tokyo couldn't be compared to those long-term ones...After all,nuclear weapons are known to IRRADIATE...

Good point. 103,000 is the number of people that died up to 4 months after the bombs were dropped. That includes most cases of extreme radiation poisoning and what not. After that you're left with increased rates of cancer that you can't exactly keep statistics for.

 

[fourier jr]

It's also arguable that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives by ending the war quickly. To give you a sense of how brutal the war between Japan and the US was, think about this: the invasion of Iwo Jima cost 21,000 Japanese lives and 5,000 American lives. That's 26,000 people dying to capture 1 island. Japan has many many islands; how long would it take to capture the entire country? More importantly, how many lives would it take to do so? How many more Iwo Jimas would it take to end that war? Killing 103,000 civilians seems like a small price to pay to end an unbelievably bloody war.

"Defenders of the U.S. action counter that the bomb actually saved lives: It ended the war sooner and obviated the need for a land invasion. Estimates of the hypothetical saved-body count, however, which range from 20,000 to 1.2 million, owe more to political agendas than to objective projections.

But in any event, defining the issue as a choice between the A-bomb and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false dichotomy. By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, U.S. planes could fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself..."
that's from bill blum's excellent essay "hiroshima: needless slaughter, useful terror"
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/abomb.htm

i would have to agree that the burning of the library of alexandria by a christian mob, the inquisitions, the holocausts (both the one in WWII & the one in the 12/13th centuries) & the treatment of women in the western world (in the last 2000yrs anyway) would rate as the greatest tragedies in human history

check this out:
"Such is their wickedness that no one should be surprised to see a Jew as the personification of the Devil among our people, representing everything that is evil."

"The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan... They are worse than wild beasts... lower than the vilest animals... Their religion is a sickness... God always hated the Jews. It is incumbent on all Christians to hate the Jews."

"The Jews are our misfortune."

Martin Luther, Joseph Goebbels & St John Chrysostom (a Bishop of Constantinople) each said one of those things. whoever matches tham up correctly gets an internet dollar

 

[zoobyshoe]

The only thing keeping countries like North Korea in check is the fact that we have the ability to destroy everyone and everything in those countries at the push of a button.

In general I agree with your argument that everyone with nukes is detering the others from using them, except in the case of North Korea. Don't you get the queasy feeling that that nut job who is letting the country collapse around him is incapable of putting the strategic picture together in such a way in his mind that the rest of the world can count on him not to do anything precipitous?

 

[ShawnD]

Very nicely played.

check this out:
"Such is their wickedness that no one should be surprised to see a Jew as the personification of the Devil among our people, representing everything that is evil."

"The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan... They are worse than wild beasts... lower than the vilest animals... Their religion is a sickness... God always hated the Jews. It is incumbent on all Christians to hate the Jews."

"The Jews are our misfortune."

Martin Luther, Joseph Goebbels & St John Chrysostom (a Bishop of Constantinople) each said one of those things. whoever matches tham up correctly gets an internet dollar

This is exactly why religion has such a bad name.

In general I agree with your argument that everyone with nukes is detering the others from using them, except in the case of North Korea. Don't you get the queasy feeling that that nut job who is letting the country collapse around him is incapable of putting the strategic picture together in such a way in his mind that the rest of the world can count on him not to do anything precipitous?

Never really thought of it like that. I guess we're all pretty screwed right now then.

 

[arildno]

M.L number 2, J.G. number 3, J.C number 1.

 

[Francis M]

This idea came up in another thread and I thought it might make for an interesting discussion. So, what are your thoughts? I have always believed that the loss of the library at Alexandria may be one of the greatest tragedies of all time. Of course we can't know what we are missing, but there is reason to believe that this was a monumental loss to humanity.

Of course loss of life is hard to compare to loss of information, but who knows how much we had to re-discover; say for example medical information that could have saved the lives of millions through the ages.

Not only do I consider it a tragedy to loose that type of information but I also consider it a great human tragedy if this same information is supressed or subverted. Let's not forget that that can also happen.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"...the war was over except for the fighting."

Kind of an important "except for" ennit? I just saw a History Channel program last week on the taking of Berlin by the Soviets. They lost 800 tanks in the streets of Berlin to civilians and remnants of the German military armed with bazookas. The Germans had no chance of stopping the Soviets, but they acted as if they did, which caused the Soviets many casualties. The "terror" of the bomb was parhaps more of a strategic success than the unnecessary waste your essayist contends: the US did not have to take Japan street by street.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Never really thought of it like that. I guess we're all pretty screwed right now then.

Well, let's hope he has one of those undiagnosed heart conditions that flare up suddenly and take people out within a day.

 

[Joel]

JOEL! Now YOU have a truly evil mind

I'm flattered.

I have perveted ways to express my admiration. Both of your comments 'on the dark side' are very interesting.

 

[SOS2008]

I thought that was the idea...they're not needed for leverage, so just get rid of them.

Once the cat is out of the bag, is this realistic? Maybe the best way to solve the problem is for every country to have them. Then the weapons would have no use.

You cannot link Marx and Hitler and expect to get away with it. It is unfair and totally not true. People who read such things and believe you without checking for themselves are being very naive. And Russ, I do believe you know that you are making a very false statement here, and that you are doing this knowingly and deliberately. Neither Hitler Nor Stalin were Marxists. Hitler killed all the socialist leaders of the strong Trade Union movement in Germany (and, by the way, that was WHY the western powers allowed Hitler to get as far as he did - they needed him to clear up the real threat to their imperialist-based wealth: the socialists). Read history.

Looks like you can run but you can't hide. I have noticed a lot more members participating in this thread, which is nice. But maybe people would rather let "rhetoric fly around" and just debate with opinion so are avoiding the serious sections on these topics?

 

[fourier jr]

M.L number 2, J.G. number 3, J.C number 1.

nope. guess again

 

[Joel]

nope. guess again

M.L. number 3. J.G number 2. J.C number 1. ?

Based on some odd guesses and the principle of exclusion.

 

[stoned]

I would have to say the greatest tragedy is the Holocaust and World War II, and following closely the purges and pogroms of Stalin, the Cultural Revolution, and period of Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia (Kamupchea). The level of inhumanity and evil is profoundly sad. Then one could add the Crusades and the Inquisition.

I would say one of the greatest tragedy is the Holocaust of Palestinians right now in this 21th century in occupied terrotories, then Holocaust of Armenians, of course Holocaust of German civilians in Dresden and Hamburg, Holocaust of millions of Ukrainians, whole of WW2 tragedy including Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I would also add indiscriminate killing of Vietnamese civilians by USA army. (not necessarily in this order )

 

[fourier jr]

Kind of an important "except for" ennit? I just saw a History Channel program last week on the taking of Berlin by the Soviets. They lost 800 tanks in the streets of Berlin to civilians and remnants of the German military armed with bazookas. The Germans had no chance of stopping the Soviets, but they acted as if they did, which caused the Soviets many casualties. The "terror" of the bomb was parhaps more of a strategic success than the unnecessary waste your essayist contends: the US did not have to take Japan street by street.

the next paragraph goes like this:
"After the war, the world learned what U.S. leaders had known by early 1945: Japan was militarily defeated long before Hiroshima. It had been trying for months, if not for years, to surrender; and the U.S. had consistently rebuffed these overtures. A May 5 cable, intercepted and decoded by the U.S., dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace. Sent to Berlin by the German ambassador in Tokyo, after he talked to a ranking Japanese naval officer, it read:

"Since the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with disfavor an American request for capitulation even if the terms were hard.""

(not sure what "sue for peace" means)

& later he writes:
"Having broken the Japanese code years earlier, Washington did not have to wait to be informed by the Soviets of these peace overtures; it knew immediately, and did nothing. Indeed, the National Archives in Washington contains U.S. government documents reporting similarly ill-fated Japanese peace overtures as far back as 1943."

 

[alexandra]

But maybe people would rather let "rhetoric fly around" and just debate with opinion so are avoiding the serious sections on these topics?

My thoughts too, SOS2008 Couldn't help myself responding , but it's better when this section doesn't get too serious so there's somewhere to 'hang out' and relax and joke. I'm being good again now, though

 

[fourier jr]

M.L. number 3. J.G number 2. J.C number 1. ?

Based on some odd guesses and the principle of exclusion.

one of those is correct just switch the other 2

 

[klusener]

Rwanda, all imperialistic conquests, Holocaust...

 

[Joel]

one of those is correct just switch the other 2

Ahh, of course, switch 1 and 2. I first thought that 1 had a more ancient language and associated that with JC, but then I realized that Hittler probably didn't want to share his power with God, so the God reference goes to the Bishop. Yes?

 

[zoobyshoe]

It had been trying for months, if not for years, to surrender; and the U.S. had consistently rebuffed these overtures.

I have never heard this before. (History is constantly being reexamined and rewritten.) If this is true, then the case for the two bombs on Japan being "unnecessary terror" becomes very strong.

 

[russ_watters]

Too right, Russ - Marxism effectively and absolutely is the most dangerous invention of the human mind because it completely and utterly exposes the inhumanity and absolute callousness of capitalism, which you are an ardent supporter of.

Um, no. The problem was Marxism itself, not Marxism's exposure of capitalism. Capitalism was then and is today doing just fine.

I'll have more later, but the Japanese surrender myth is just that, a myth. Japan was not near surrender prior to the nuclear bomb attacks - and yes, we've discussed that before.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Capitalism is not fine. Capitalism places people against each other and uses propoganda to perpetuate the will of a small minority. Capitalism may be better than other economic systems that have been tried, but it is far from fine, and it shouldn't be accepted as an ideal economic system.

Karl Marx was a brilliant idealist. He shouldn't be viewed as horrible since, after all, he was acting, from his perspective, in the best interests of humanity. Marx was too moral for this cruel world. The flaw lies in humanity, not Marx.

Humanity's origin, creation, evolution, whatever one wishes to call it, is the greatest tragedy in history.

 

[BicycleTree]

Good point. 103,000 is the number of people that died up to 4 months after the bombs were dropped. That includes most cases of extreme radiation poisoning and what not. After that you're left with increased rates of cancer that you can't exactly keep statistics for.

Shawn, these are civilians. These are not military personnel. Indiscriminate mass slaughter of civilians is not acceptable in any warfare situation. Carpetbombing, if as you say, is on the same level. Bringing up another atrocity does not mean that the first atrocity isn't an atrocity. 100,000 civilians murdered with a couple bombs... compared to 3,000 killed in the WTC.

One could also argue that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterant.

Nukes as a deterrent to warfare are called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as I mentioned. The flaw in it is that not everyone can be counted on to be perfectly sane and perfectly unwilling to risk the lives of their civilians. The other flaw in it is that the more nations have nukes, the easier it is for a lone lunatic or lone lunatic organization to get his/its hands on one. The third flaw in it is that once one madman fires off an ICBM, how will the nations that it might hit respond? They might fire back. Global thermonuclear holocaust.