I had an interesting exchange below which has nagged at me. In the post, I noted that American scientists had studied the possibilities for weaponizing the Ebola virus, but that doing so only meant that if such a weapon could be developed, it would be the U.S. using it. It could be no other way.
Further, I offfered the following hypothetical:
Imagine the following passage from a book written, say, in 1943:
“The splitting of an atom can release massive amounts of energy, and can be potentially deadly. American scientists at White Sands, New Mexico, have tried to see if there is a way Nazi scientists would be able to come up with a way to make a bomb capable of destroying entire cities.”
In the exchange that followed, a commenter said
To our great detriment, nuclear weapons _are_ feasible and therefor, inevitable. I’m very glad the Nazis did not succeed.
Evil exists. We can’t wish it away.
I suppose that we are all glad that the Nazis did not succeed. Who knows -might they have done something crazy, like incinerate two cities?
Piece of Mindful 
…doing so only meant that if such a weapon could be developed, it would be the U.S. using it. It could be no other way.
Um, no. Our only use would be in response to someone else using it first.
The Japanese instigated hostilities in the Pacific and set the rules of engagement. They are not totally blameless for the ensuing destruction.
LikeLike
???
LikeLike
I don’t understand what you write, either.
I maintain that America largely responds to aggression on the international stage. You cast America as actively aggressive promoting a somewhat evil corporatism. I maintain that our weapon development is done largely to counter potential threats. You contend that our weapon development is done to enhance our offensive ability to further our hegemony.
Our weapons are not made with evil intent, which makes them qualitatively different than those made by Nazi Germany or modern day Iran.
LikeLike
So if I get you right, you’re saying “we’re rational, and they’re not.”
You do know that all countries, including WWII Germany, said the same of themselves. Hitler justified the invasion of Poland as self-defense.
And if the Iranians build a bomb (they would be crazy not to),the only outcome is that we would be unable to attack them, as they would have a credible deterrent.
LikeLike
Weapons are made to kill (living) things. We are the #1 weapons manufacturer, and #1 exporter, including land mines and cluster (magnesium) bombs. We have military bases all over the world. No evil intended, I’m sure. A timely post. Alexander(Bombs-away)Haig died today. Henry Kissinger said he was a great patriot. Halleluja.
LikeLike
Not to change the subject, but…. Terrorists flew planes into the twin towers. Some guy flew his plane into an IRS building. Apparently it has been determined he is not a terrorist. What makes a terrorist a terrorist?
LikeLike
Glaubst du, sie würden nur zwei Städte aufgehört haben? Wir wären alle sprechen Deutsch.
Translation: http://tinyurl.com/yh4r8o4
LikeLike
Ja, weil wir vernünftig sind, und sie sind es nicht.
LikeLike
“we’re rational, and they’re not.”
…if the Iranians build a bomb (they would be crazy not to)…
It is fallacious to break it down into a rational/irrational dichotomy. I say it was better that we got the bomb and the Nazis didn’t.
It is better that the Iranians stay nuclear free, considering the regional instability that involves, Israel considerations not the most relevant (think Shiite/Sunni).
LikeLike
If the Iranians get a bomb, the US and its Israeli servant-state will not attack it. That’s win/win, as far as they are concerned.
I do not use the rational/irrational dichotomy, by the way. I merely expose it when it is in operation. My view is that everyone is irrational, and those who both irrational and have uncontestable power are most dangerous. That would be us.
LikeLike
I’m doubtful about our uncontestable power. Our demographic power is nil, and economically we are rapidly becoming owned.
A nuclear or soon-to-be nuclear Iran is more likely to be attacked/embargoed by Israel et al, and the respondingly (wd?) nuclear Saudi, Egypt gives them a danger zone I don’t count as in Iran’s interest.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree that spread of nuclear weapons is not a good deal, but I maintain that the only country actually irrational enough to have used them is the one to fear most. Iranians are no more irrational than anyone else, but do remember that countries don’t commit suicide. The idea of an Iranian first strike is not credible. Egypt is bought and part of the U.S. team.
LikeLike
the only country actually irrational enough to have used them
A bit of a cheap shot there, sport. It was profoundly rational in that it shortened the war and saved lives on both sides. The stark demonstration value sent a message to everyone forevermore.
The problem is that we now have people who seek that kind of destruction, and it ain’t us.
but do remember that countries don’t commit suicide.
They most certainly do. Look at Zimbabwe commit financial suicide. Look at Europe commit demographic suicide. It is not that suicide is the explicit goal but policies are adopted, chances are taken, and institutions go into decline. Compare Japan: as the War Cabinet met to discuss Hiroshima, they got word of Nagasaki. Still, they voted 3-3 to continue the war, with the forceful General Anami arguing that they might well still prevail. Only back room dealing by Tojo and Suzuki got the Emperor to overrule.
LikeLike
Read some time Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima nad Potsdam by Gar Alperovitz. This is the book that everyone ignores, as it follows the diplomatic record through the dropping of the bombs on Japan. There is nothing in there indicating that “saving lives” was ever a consideration. However, there was the threat the the Russians would enter the war in August, as they pledged to do – that is why the US dropped the bombs.
What you said and what everyone assumes to be true about that is folk wisdom, nothing more.
And countries do not commit suicide in this sense: If Iran were to launch a missile with a bomb on it, Israel woudl obliterate it. They know this. (Your notion of what is suicide is really just a chain of uncontrollable events.)
On the other hand, if Iran has the bomb, and the US/Israel attack it, the bomb creates a deterrent, and make them think twice.
LikeLike
This is the book that everyone ignores
Because it is a bunch of cherry picked revisionism. Folk wisdom is far closer to the truth.
If Iran were to launch a missile
The nuclear tango you describe is true enough, but it is just one flavor of the 64+ that might itch a trigger finger in a region prone to institutional breakdown and rule by the likes of Ayatollah Khomeini and chemical Ali. It might be worthwhile for some kids with dangerous toys to take dangerous toys away from other kids.
Your notion of what is suicide is really just a chain of uncontrollable events.
I find this interesting coming from you, a person of regulation and conspiracy theories.
LikeLike
The only scholarly work on the subject is “cherry picked revisionism”? That is as ignorant a comment as you have ever made.
I will say this – it is not just you right wingers who choose to live in ignorance. Most of the Democratic party is there too.
Here in George Bernard Shaw: those who have not been reasoned in cannot be reasoned out. Your emotions guide you to your ass-pulled comments. No amount of reasoning will dissaude you.
LikeLike
I probably should have tempered my criticism of one of the canonical texts. I see that the Knights Templar have mounted and went for the righteous Holy War.
If we start giving out medals for emotional commitment to fringish political beliefs, I know someone here I would nominate for the Brezhnev starter kit.
After dismissing a call for surrender prior to the atomic bombs, after the bombs fell, Hirohito gave the word at the final cabinet meeting: “Continuing the war can only result in the annihilation of the Japanese people and a prolongation of the suffering of all humanity. It seems obvious that the nation is no longer able to wage war, and its ability to defend its own shores is doubtful…The time has come to bear the unbearable” In his address to the nation: “The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives.” (Martin Gilbert, 1989)
Operations Olympic and Coronet, the invasion plans of the Japanese home islands, were fully formed, slated for November 1st and March 1st. The Soviets were not expected to have any operational strength in the East until September of that year, and likely not until 1946. They would then have to deal with the 700,000 man Japanese army in Manchuria. “Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics.” A lot of things were being said then. Some high staffers didn’t think the bombs would have much effect, calling it “a professor’s dream.” My favorite story is that after the test at Alamogordo, a grad student, a professor, and a general drove out in a jeep for the initial inspection. They came upon the crater in the desert, the sides fused to glass by the intense heat, and the general said, “Is that all?”
LikeLike
There is plenty of defense of the American act in the public pronouncements of officials. What else do you expect? The state of mind will only be found in official documents which are saved for historians but normally kept secret for decades. The documents surrounding the deeds of August of 1945 are out now, and they do not support you or the apologists for the US. It is that simple.
And again, every patriot is blind to the crimes of his own country.
LikeLike
In his post-9/11 editorials Lewis Lapham stressed that public pronouncements in the WWII era carried quite a bit more truth than public pronouncements of today.
If you want to buy into the historical narrative found in the Nation and Mother Jones magazine, go ahead. The bulk of historical data points in other directions.
LikeLike
You have it in your mind that there is only one narrative. I’m not the one with the problem. I subscribe to neither the Nation or Mother Jones, but emphasize one point to you: If the events of that time unfolded as you say and for the reasons you say, the official record would support you. It does not.
Public pronouncements are meant to influence public opinion and perceptions, and do not carry information, then or now. Serious historians go to the contemporary internal records to try to piece together the climate in which events take place.
LikeLike
Just as every state electorate seems blind to the corruption of its own politicians. Appealing to the unconscious wins every time, and good politicians (and big business) know how to fool most of us most of the time by simply repeating back to us what we already believe.
LikeLike
So what is your motivation in these matters? Does your incessant invalidation of America’s accomplishments build a better society?
LikeLike
I only seek to live free. Do you know the feeling of freedom? Very few of us do.
LikeLike
I feel free enough.
What about your descendants? Do you think they are facing a more degraded culture that will limit their opportunities?
LikeLike
We are in the era of the corporation – it’s a dark time and I don’t see it ending soon.
LikeLike
I say we are in the era of big government that is subsuming corporations, pace GM, AGI.
Lots of corruption out there.
LikeLike
You’ve never heard? Capitalism will never fail because socialism is always there to bail it out.
LikeLike