world peace or world war?

[king_monkey]

[QUOTE=Brasil]I'm calling bull on that one, and advise you to do some study of the Cold War era at the very least, and then read-up on the events that led to President Truman's decision to use the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of WWII.

Leaders losing touch with their humanity? Please. Get out of here with that rubbish. As much as I dislike the current administration, and as much as I feel they're incompetent...I'm not about to say they've lost touch with their humanity (not in this context, at least).

Dude, get a fricking clue and then post again, because right now, you're talking absolute nonsense.[/QUOTE]

killing for any other reason than being opressed is wrong WRONG WRONG!!! :mad:

[Outlaw]

[QUOTE=Brasil]I'm calling bull on that one, and advise you to do some study of the Cold War era at the very least, and then read-up on the events that led to President Truman's decision to use the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of WWII.
[/QUOTE]

I'm confused by this point. I can only assume you are citing this instance as an example of governments being in touch with their soldiers, as Truman claims he used the bomb to save hundreds of thousands of soldiers lives. Now, I'm going to have to disagree with you, seeing as I take the 'bomb wasn't necessary' side of the arguement.

One reason I have come to this conclusion is the fact that General Douglas MacArthur, the head of the US Pacific War Effort during this period, along with soon to be president Eisenhower, denied the nessecity of the bomb. Both beleived that Japan was essential defeated already, and that the bomb was dropped cheifly to intimidate the Russians, anticipating the eventual Cold War.

Another is a reportfrom the committee of scientists designated to find a proper place to drop the bomb. They chose Nagasaki and Hiroshima mainly on a scientific bases, hoping to study the effects of such weapons on massive urban settings. They also cited the fact that they could study the effects the surrounding mountain ranges would have on the blast in chosing their cities. I don't have a copy of the report on hand, but I'll try and find it.

I know this is off topic, but I'm a big fan of the Bomb arguement.

Now, there are only two ways I can see peace coming to the planet, and I may be wrong. One, would be a gathering of like minded and united people coming together and eliminating all those who oppose their point of view. AKA, genicide on a global scale. I think the scariest thing about this idea is that with modern technology it is probobly possible, however unlikely.

The other is a complete re-disribution of all resources amoung all the worlds people, giving all men and women an equal footing. Along with this, uniting all faiths under one god, or atleast the acceptance of other people's faiths. This would take away most any reason for hatred or jealousy amoung the people of this world. Thus, creating a global communism. Now, at the same time, this would require either a global government to oversee the want and need of the worlds people, or a access of resources so great, anyone could basically have anything or do anything they wanted without having to fight others for it. The first would result in the members of that governing body being more powerful than the people within it, eventually leading back to jealousy and envy, which would lead back to fighting and war. And the second just isn't possible with this planet and the number of people on it. So, basically, I think if we want a truely peaceful utopia, its time to find a second Earth.

[Tigervx]

[quote name='king_monkey']killing for any other reason than being opressed is wrong WRONG WRONG!!! :mad:[/quote]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=Teal] Hiroshima and Nagasak, I believe the deaths were about 70,000 something along with another hundred thousand facing radiation side effects. Estimated casualties for the [B]intial[/B] invasion of japan sustained by american marines and soldiers. Japanese casualties skyrocketed into the millions, kamikaze assaults, banzai charges, the Japanese military was teaching women and child to attack the invading americans with sharpened bamboo sticks, not to mention the russians were invading from the west. Lets see how sympathetic the red army will be to the japanese people. The atomic bombs ended up ending the war with less then one tenth the deaths that would have been taken had an initial invasion would have been mounted, and what do you think we should have done, the japanese military had no aspects of surrender at that point and had dug in positions to fight to the death on the mainland of Japan. Conflicts start in blood, they end in blood.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Outlaw]I'm confused by this point. I can only assume you are citing this instance as an example of governments being in touch with their soldiers, as Truman claims he used the bomb to save hundreds of thousands of soldiers lives. Now, I'm going to have to disagree with you, seeing as I take the 'bomb wasn't necessary' side of the arguement.

One reason I have come to this conclusion is the fact that General Douglas MacArthur, the head of the US Pacific War Effort during this period, along with soon to be president Eisenhower, denied the nessecity of the bomb. Both beleived that Japan was essential defeated already, and that the bomb was dropped cheifly to intimidate the Russians, anticipating the eventual Cold War.

Another is a reportfrom the committee of scientists designated to find a proper place to drop the bomb. They chose Nagasaki and Hiroshima mainly on a scientific bases, hoping to study the effects of such weapons on massive urban settings. They also cited the fact that they could study the effects the surrounding mountain ranges would have on the blast in chosing their cities. I don't have a copy of the report on hand, but I'll try and find it.

I know this is off topic, but I'm a big fan of the Bomb arguement.[/QUOTE]
My point was that Truman weighed his options there. Either invade Japan and suffer the loss of many, many, many Americans, or drop the bomb.

Your two suggestions are interesting, but I think best left to conspiracy theorists, because from what I've read/heard/etc., there was nothing to suggest that's what influenced Truman's decision.

Anyone who says that Japan was "essentially defeated" clearly hasn't studied the Pacific theatre of the time...even those saying being actual generals for the US at the time.

There were subterranean passages in some of the islands, so instead of there only being 15,000 soldiers on that island, there were actually closer to 30,000.

The Japanese were trained to fight to the death. When we're talking about Imperalistic militaries, Japan ranks pretty high. We're talking complete and total dedication to the cause.

To this day, you can still read rumored reports of soldiers in hiding. As I recall, there was one Japanese soldier discovered a few decades ago, still believing the war was raging.

The Emperor was basically a god, and if he did not back down, his people would not back down.

I'm sorry, man, but the facts, the evidence and the logistics are there to support what we know regarding Truman's reasoning. All else is pure speculation that borders on conspiracy theory.

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=Brasil]

The reason why we fight today is because with the various new terrorist cells that have popped up "recently," MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction - learn about it) has become outdated. These terrorists don't give two ****s about destroying themselves--because they're already martyring with suicide bombings.

You eliminate the lunatics, you achieve peace, simple as that.
.[/QUOTE]

[size=1][color=crimson] This point is itneresting, because I'm not too sure that MAD is completely outmoded in any regard.

Say, for example, the administration threatened to nuke off Baghdad, and maybe Tehran if the terrorists did not stop, the terrorists in turn threaten to call a worldwide Jihad to erase the infidels, would any side make a move? Would the administration nuke the cities knwoing full well it would be the catalyst for a global jihad? And then, would the terroists call for a global jihad if that meant the annihilation of a good sized portion of the Middle East?

I don't neccessarily think that being all for martyrdom means that they wouldn't give two hoots about their demise, I'm sure the terrorists woudl have in mind that nuclear strikes for their region, any region at all, woudl be catastrophic.

It won't happen anyway, I don't think the Bush administration would have the support, nor the tenacity, to hang that little mistletoe over the insurgents heads.

It's not so much a vote for war to end war as a vote for MAD to cease war, if that makes sense. [/size][/color]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Shinji][size=1][color=crimson] This point is itneresting, because I'm not too sure that MAD is completely outmoded in any regard.

Say, for example, the administration threatened to nuke off Baghdad, and maybe Tehran if the terrorists did not stop, the terrorists in turn threaten to call a worldwide Jihad to erase the infidels, would any side make a move? Would the administration nuke the cities knwoing full well it would be the catalyst for a global jihad? And then, would the terroists call for a global jihad if that meant the annihilation of a good sized portion of the Middle East?

I don't neccessarily think that being all for martyrdom means that they wouldn't give two hoots about their demise, I'm sure the terrorists woudl have in mind that nuclear strikes for their region, any region at all, woudl be catastrophic.

It won't happen anyway, I don't think the Bush administration would have the support, nor the tenacity, to hang that little mistletoe over the insurgents heads.

It's not so much a vote for war to end war as a vote for MAD to cease war, if that makes sense. [/color][/size][/QUOTE]
Shinji, I just consider what we've seen over the past thirty years. If you examine the developments of the Cold War and compare them to the recent developments in the "War on Terror," you're going to see very distinct differences in the respective approaches of the USSR and Al Qaeda, and with little to no change in our own capabilities. If anything, the US has only become more lethal since then. I think the Gulf War's "smart bombs" is testament to that we don't have to use the (by comparison) clunky targeting systems of the past.

Now, if the USSR was any example of a smart adversary (one who recognizes MAD), then any other adversary deviating from that model either is not intelligent, or for some reason, just doesn't care about MAD.

Now, if the US has only become more lethal over the past few decades, and groups like Al Qaeda have routinely pulled things like 9/11, suicide bombings in Iraq, Israel, etc...what does that say about those terrorist groups? We have more than enough technology to destroy them--and they know it.

And yet they continue to attack.

We had the weapons to destroy the Earth back in the Cold War. That's why the USSR didn't attack. They'd be destroying their own country in the process.

We have the weapons to destroy the Earth now. But terrorists still have not stopped. I think that's party due to they believe they'll be rewarded with 70 virgins when they die, and also...they have no country to destroy. For all intents and purposes, they're "hit and runs" on a global scale, with scattered bases of operations.

So, I don't think MAD is a deterrent here at all. They're already willing to die for their cause. Talking about Mutal Assured Destruction wouldn't have any effect. "Surrender or else we'll destroy [insert area here]" doesn't exactly sound like it'll hit them where it hurts.

[king_monkey]

:animestun well it seems that love is winning the poll here (although it is pretty unreallistic) but if every one shared this sentament the world would definitely be a better place.but oh well blow ur enemys to hell or kingdom come or whatever nevermind :rolleyes:

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

Given the two options in the poll, I must agree with Alex and whoever else has called ?peace through war? the more likely of the two to be successful in it?s endeavour. I suppose the old adage ?peace through superior firepower? had been the hallmark of most prevented wars in the last half century, though as Alex has already pointed out, many of these militant groups like Al-Qaeda are worried not by such a disadvantage as inferior firepower.

In all honesty I think that world peace, or at least some measure of it, will occur at some stage in the future, either that or we?ll have all annihilated ourselves in the Third World War and it won?t really matter. Systems of pseudo-government such as the European Union will eventually become full continental governments, and after that it?s only a matter of time before all nations are integrated together and we have a single global nation. I mean given the assimilation of people over the course of human history, from basically herds of people being governed only by themselves, to the creation of kingdoms, empires and other monarchies, to the creation of the Republic to the point now where we are differentiated by what nation we?re part of.

I?m not saying there won?t be violence, corruption or anything we have in our current forms of government at the moment, I?m just saying that world peace as we know it, will come about when there?s only one nation made up of all peoples. World peace as most people would dream of will only come about when people give up those baser emotions that create problems in the first place, greed for instance. [/size]

[nomad19]

the way i see it good wont exist if there is no evil and vice versa.....there is no good and bad just two sides with contradicting point of views...do what you want if you'd like to help but this world isnt complete without war.....remember that....we all have a bloody past at some point our forefathers fought for the freedom we enjoy today...

[Guest Heero yuy]

[QUOTE=Brasil]I voted war because I feel "peace through love" (particularly on a global scale) is trite and naive. Day-to-day life, on an individual level, peace through love? Absolutely.

It's laughable, however, to entertain the idea of a global love for all mankind.[/QUOTE]
I agree, love won't solve "hated times" and keep peace pristine. I don't think, war should be the first choice through in retaining peace.

There's always going to be wars, due to human existence. And I doubt, there's going to be any world-wide peace...cause somewhere, at sometime...someone or some country is in turmoil.