jean.jordaan at gmail.com
Fri Jan 8 00:58:07 PST 2010
This debate probably doesn't have an answer, but ..
> The thinking was that the atomic bombings were likely to save many
> more lives than they took.
I've also heard that they couldn't pass up the opportunity to
test/demonstrate the bombs, even though they weren't necessary and Japan
didn't have any effective army left at that point.
> It seems plausibly true even now although not provable either way.
> The West tried not to do more than it took to bring the most efficient
> end to the barbarism they felt they were combating.
How about Laos, the most heavily bombed place ever, sown with cluster
bombs designed to explode when you touch them, still making large areas
uninhabitable and killing daily?
> Additionally, we, generally speaking, work hard to shield the young
> from things that would traumatize them. There's plenty to quibble
> about, but we don't take toddlers to public hangings or let children
> play soccer with heads or whatever.
Hmm .. kids are completely immersed in and desensitized to video
violence, as are we of course. The news in South Africa is a slough of
murders that beggars belief. It's not as hands-on as a hanging, but it's
still making a hypnotic spectacle of death. Whole satellite TV channels
are dedicated to gloating over natural disasters, or wars, or live
coverage of suicide bomb aftermaths, re-enactments of school shootings,
etc. I think even a viking did not live with the relentless barrage of
carnage that we consume in the background.
jean . .. .... //\\\oo///\\
More information about the FoRK