Support Politirant Through Amazon
Visit our sister site at the Political Forums

Author Topic: Moral Equivalence  (Read 4419 times)

Offline Peter1469

  • V.I.P.
  • Full Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 5
  • -Received: 22
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 30
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2011, 09:25:40 PM »
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us? 

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten? 

What if they're given time to regroup and resupply though?

Resupply with what?  Their islands were devastated. They were eating dirt pies. 

The nukes were a message to the world.  Not to Japan.   

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2011, 09:32:08 PM »
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us? 

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten? 

What if they're given time to regroup and resupply though?

Resupply with what?  Their islands were devastated. They were eating dirt pies. 

The nukes were a message to the world.  Not to Japan.

True. Japan was pretty much done as far as their offensive capability was concerned. The weird thing is that there were still large but poorly supplied Japanese armies in China and the Pacific. Rabaul had something like 100K men. I forget where Rabaul is but since the Japanese navy was non-existent by 1945 all they could do was fortify their base there. They were totally cut off from the home islands.
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Peter1469

  • V.I.P.
  • Full Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 5
  • -Received: 22
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 30
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2011, 09:40:36 PM »
Agreed.

Still I would have used the nukes to set America up as the superpower. 

But I would have done a better job in preventing our enemies from stealing our nuke designs. 

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2011, 09:46:55 PM »
Agreed.

Still I would have used the nukes to set America up as the superpower. 

But I would have done a better job in preventing our enemies from stealing our nuke designs.

I'm not saying that wasn't a factor. I'm just not convinced that it was the primary factor.

Our government was riddled with Soviet spies throughout the 30s and 40s. Essentially, McCarthy was right. He did some good work.  ;D
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Peter1469

  • V.I.P.
  • Full Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 5
  • -Received: 22
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 30
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2011, 10:25:00 PM »
agreed

 


Support Politirant Through Amazon