Religion and War

[OrphanPip]

Although I stand on opposite polls of the political and ideological spectrum from Virgil, I agree that war is simply a fact of statecraft. It's not about whether war is justifiable or good, but it's a necessity. Historically, it has been reluctance to intervene more than over-eagerness that has led to the most catastrophes. How much better off would the people of Rwanda have been if the UN Peace Keepers were given the go ahead to seize the military weapons cashes in Kigali, instead UN headquarters told them to stand aside and just try to shelter a few civilians as long as they could, and even that was deemed too risky when a few Belgians died.

Military force is something we shouldn't use without great consideration, but is something we occasionally have to and should use. Pacifism is fine as a political strategy in a functional democracy, but it does little to stop the local crack head from stealing your TV, or to stop the neighbouring dictator from annexing Czechoslovakia.

[BienvenuJDC]

Although I stand on opposite polls of the political and ideological spectrum from Virgil, I agree that war is simply a fact of statecraft. It's not about whether war is justifiable or good, but it's a necessity. Historically, it has been reluctance to intervene more than over-eagerness that has led to the most catastrophes. How much better off would the people of Rwanda have been if the UN Peace Keepers were given the go ahead to seize the military weapons cashes in Kigali, instead UN headquarters told them to stand aside and just try to shelter a few civilians as long as they could, and even that was deemed too risky when a few Belgians died.

Military force is something we shouldn't use without great consideration, but is something we occasionally have to and should use. Pacifism is fine as a political strategy in a functional democracy, but it does little to stop the local crack head from stealing your TV, or to stop the neighbouring dictator from annexing Czechoslovakia.

I agree much with what you say. I like the quote attributed to Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

Sometimes a large force may never have to be used if people know that the one's holding the stick WILL use it....especially to defend humanity.

[.Kafka]

I agree much with what you say. I like the quote attributed to Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

Sometimes a large force may never have to be used if people know that the one's holding the stick WILL use it....especially to defend humanity.

The United States of America has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with reportedly 5,113 operational grade weapons. The United States is also the only country to detonate a nuclear weapon in an urban population, twice. Following your sound rationality, I suppose humanity has been gloriously defended, twice.

[OrphanPip]

Russia actually has the largest nuclear arsenal, but less sophisticated than the American's.

Besides, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings killed around 300,000. The Japanese killed a comparable amount in the Chinese capital of Nanking over a mere 6 week period.

Not to mention the other humanitarian atrocities of the war.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a horrible thing, but they're barely a blip on the scale of human slaughter this century, let alone of WWII even.

[The Atheist]

His whole point was that the instances of pacifism having been attempted are few. There are two grand examples of it having been attempted and greatly succeeding. Can you give any examples of it having been attempted on a grand scale and failing? If not then there's no proof that pacifism is doomed to failure. You see, because if it hasn't even been tried, then how do you know that it won't work?

Saved me the time replying. You clearly got it, so I imagine others can if they put their minds to it.

[OrphanPip]

Saved me the time replying. You clearly got it, so I imagine others can if they put their minds to it.

It's just a bad strategy though, if you try pacifism and it doesn't work you're **** out of luck. On the other hand, military defense has proven more or less a successful strategy.

[.Kafka]

Russia actually has the largest nuclear arsenal, but less sophisticated than the American's.

Besides, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings killed around 300,000. The Japanese killed a comparable amount in the Chinese capital of Nanking over a mere 6 week period.

Not to mention the other humanitarian atrocities of the war.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a horrible thing, but they're barely a blip on the scale of human slaughter this century, let alone of WWII even.

Actually Russia does not have the largest nuclear arsenal. In 2009 Russia was reported to have only 3,909 operational nuclear warheads. The Japanese were going to surrender, the USSR's invasion was two weeks away. The weapons were used only as a pompous show of strength. In terms of semantics, your statement is imbued with undertones of 'Japan had it coming'. I would think carefully of the ramifications of such a statement, for these atrocities do not seem at all that horrible to you, and this perturbs me. What do YOU define human atrocity as? For this is something that I would like to know.

[OrphanPip]

Actually Russia does not have the largest nuclear arsenal. In 2009 Russia was reported to have only 3,909 operational nuclear warheads. The Japanese were going to surrender, the USSR's invasion was two weeks away. The weapons were used only as a pompous show of strength. In terms of semantics, your statement is imbued with undertones of 'Japan had it coming'. I would think carefully of the ramifications of such a statement, for these atrocities do not seem at all that horrible to you, and this perturbs me. What do YOU define human atrocity as? For this is something that I would like to know.

If you think the Russians only have 3,909 warheads, you're either misinformed or naive.

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html

Moreover, the intent wasn't to colour the Japanese as deserving anything, but rather to place the casualty tole into perspective. It's not as if the Americans were the sole murderers of civilians during that war, and overall they killed much less than the Japanese did.

Whether the use of the bombs was necessary or justified is not so simple. If the Japanese had surrendered after a Soviet invasion, we would have had to deal with an extended Soviet empire. How many more would have died in those occupied territories under Soviet occupation? How many were saved from starvation by bringing a surefired end to the killing, and how many combat deaths? A protracted Soviet invasion isn't really as rosy an alternative as it may appear.

[BienvenuJDC]

The United States of America has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with reportedly 5,113 operational grade weapons. The United States is also the only country to detonate a nuclear weapon in an urban population, twice. Following your sound rationality, I suppose humanity has been gloriously defended, twice.

Like I said, the BIG STICK isn't any good unless people know that it will be used. I do not condemn the men who made the decisions to use those nukes those two times. Japan would have send more lives to their graves than that if the US didn't end the war. I'd much rather well intended men doing their best to end a war, than a country who supports terrorism and attacks civilians buildings with civilian airplanes.

[.Kafka]

If you think the Russians only have 3,909 warheads, you're either misinformed or naive.

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html

Moreover, the intent wasn't to colour the Japanese as deserving anything, but rather to place the casualty tole into perspective. It's not as if the Americans were the sole murderers of civilians during that war, and overall they killed much less than the Japanese did.

Whether the use of the bombs was necessary or justified is not so simple. If the Japanese had surrendered after a Soviet invasion, we would have had to deal with an extended Soviet empire. How many more would have died in those occupied territories under Soviet occupation? How many were saved from starvation by bringing a surefired end to the killing, and how many combat deaths? A protracted Soviet invasion isn't really as rosy an alternative as it may appear.

That is precisely why I used the word 'reportedly'. Also a more reliable source would be this:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510203

According to your source, which is unofficial, Russia only has 4000 operational nuclear warheads.

Now if you think that the Japanese killed less than the American's then you are certainly, and actually naive. Please do not patronize me with your history lesson, I am acutely aware of the Soviet-American relationship. In similar mind, I apologize, but I can no longer sustain a conversation with a person who believes the use of nuclear warheads can be justified, in any circumstance, for whatever reasons. For the same person ultimately believes that murder is permissible and excusable.

Like I said, the BIG STICK isn't any good unless people know that it will be used. I do not condemn the men who made the decisions to use those nukes those two times. Japan would have send more lives to their graves than that if the US didn't end the war. I'd much rather well intended men doing their best to end a war, than a country who supports terrorism and attacks civilians buildings with civilian airplanes.

And this reasoning is indicative of exactly why there need not be an aorta of 'religion' for there to be war. I think this thread has been successfully answered.

[BienvenuJDC]

And this reasoning is indicative of exactly why there need not be an aorta of 'religion' for there to be war. I think this thread has been successfully answered.

You'll have to explain that one then...

...neither the Soviet Union NOR Japan was fighting their battle for religion sake, however, many others (like militant terrorist groups) do. There are many reasons that people fight wars, sometimes evil dictators just use "religion" to rally support from the masses...but there will always be an arsenal of statistics to justify one's opinion.

[Leland Gaunt]

In similar mind, I apologize, but I can no longer sustain a conversation with a person who believes the use of nuclear warheads can be justified, in any circumstance, for whatever reasons. For the same person ultimately believes that murder is permissible and excusable.

Is he falling up a slippery slope?

I think this thread has been successfully answered

There was never a question.

[.Kafka]

You'll have to explain that one then...

...neither the Soviet Union NOR Japan was fighting their battle for religion sake, however, many others (like militant terrorist groups) do. There are many reasons that people fight wars, sometimes evil dictators just use "religion" to rally support from the masses...but there will always be an arsenal of statistics to justify one's opinion.

I shudder at the thought of such a gross gap in communication. YOUR reasoning (in justifying America's use of nuclear warheads) is indicative to ME why religion does not even have to factor in this debate of why wars happen. Do I need to be clearer? Or will you again retort to something I have not even mentioned to?

Leland do not take my statements out of context. That is unethical and childish.

[OrphanPip]

According to your source, which is unofficial, Russia only has 4000 operational nuclear warheads.

The CDI is a reliable think tank that compiles data on military technology. If you click on the individual nation subheadings, you can be lead to detailed articles with extensive bibliographies. The list is unfortunately 13 years old, and Americans and Russians have likely both continued to downsize arsenals, but it's silly to think Russia would have significantly less, when they have a history of maintaining a larger arsenal, and continue to keep their arsenal secret.

Now if you think that the Japanese killed less than the American's then you are certainly, and actually naive.

I said the opposite, or maybe you've made a typo here. Either way, the Japanese are responsible for an estimated 10 million civilian deaths in China, Korea, and South East Asia. Any civilian deaths that can be attributed to the Americans during the war don't approach that number.

Please do not patronize me with your history lesson, I am acutely aware of the Soviet-American relationship. In similar mind, I apologize, but I can no longer sustain a conversation with a person who believes the use of nuclear warheads can be justified, in any circumstance, for whatever reasons. For the same person ultimately believes that murder is permissible and excusable.

There was no patronizing involved, I responded with a reason why I don't think the impending Soviet invasion, which you proposed as a reason why the bombing was unjustified, didn't necessarily make the use of the bombs unjustifiable.

Geez, you're awfully self-righteous for someone who started this off by attacking Americans humanitarian efforts. If you were gonna begin with the a priori assumption that the use of nuclear weapons is never justifiable, why begin the discussion at all. What differentiates the use of nuclear weapons from any other weapon, not much if you ask me.

[.Kafka]

Furthermore, Leland as to there not being any questions let me refresh your memory. In your first post in this thread you quoted the following questions:

"Wars not caused by religion? Small mattre of WW2, and the Nazi agression against Judaism? The continuing battles in England between Catholic and Protestant? The wars between England and Wales, or Scotland? The Troubles in Ireland? The continuing punch -up between Islam and The Rest? Priests preaching young men in to the trenches of WW1? Holy Wars all over the place? Crusades? The Israelite Wars? I'm not convinced, I'm afraid."

Are these not questions?