From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 16 14:42: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812A337B40C for ; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mindspring.com (dialup-209.245.132.139.Dial1.SanJose1.Level3.net [209.245.132.139]) by robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (8.11.5/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f8GLfWD16709; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3BA51CBA.BB366813@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:42:18 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Piet Delport Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Stephen Hurd , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror References: <3BA33CB6.FE0102C8@mindspring.com> <20010916024154.B57021@athalon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Piet Delport wrote: > > I'm certain that, had the Germans pointed out a more direct route to > > defeating them, including precisely the targets to concentrate on in > > order to make them lose, the Allies would have been very happy to undo > > the one bolt that held everything together, instead of maniacally > > blasting away with a shotgun. > > So, to paraphrase, it was Germany's fault that the Allies carpet-bombed > their cities, because Germany didn't conveniently point out to their > enemies where all their most important military targets are instead? No. It was their fault for starting a war: no matter who wins, casualties are always the fault of who started it. For example, in the action against Manuel Noreiga, the U.S. was at fault for starting the violence -- Noreiga goaded them into it, but the violence was initiated by the U.S.. The carpet bombings of Germany in Word War II were the result of starting the war PLUS the lack of data on hard targets. Likewise the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the fault of the aggressor nation. > Expecting the country you're at war with to conveniently reveal all > their key military weak spots to you is absurd, and taking the fact that > they (obviously) didn't do so and using it as a moral excuse to carpet > bomb their cities and civilians is just as absurd. The intent was to bomb everything, and hope you destroyed military targets and leadership. The intent to destroy military leadership makes the Pentagon a military target, as well, but, again, the U.S. was not the aggressor nation. > The fact is that thousands of civilians died in those bombings, and > while war in general is a Bad Thing, i think the mass-killing of > civilians like that is one of the worst examples of it. Collateral damage is always a bad thing. Prior to the advent of guerilla warfare, soldiers marhed in straight lines and took turns firing arrows at each other, after which they rushed at each other with hand weapons. Civilian targets were generally spared any collateral damage at all. If you are an agressor nation, and you use your own civilians as "chaff" to hide your military targets, then it is _you_ who are attacking your population, by proxy, not the nation whom you attacked. > Whether it's the Allies, the Germans, or even Bin Laden's terrorists > that do the said killing doesn't make it any less wrong. I never said it wasn't wrong. [ ... nuclear fear is driven by collective remorse ... ] > These are indeed many excellent examples of how Americans want to get > rid of nuclear power plants, despite their superiority in every way over > older technologies. > > However, i sincerely doubt that they has anything whatsoever to do with > guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More likely is that this is because > a large number of Americans (statistically speaking) perceive nuclear > power as dangerous to *themselves* (cue cancer scares, and public > paranoia of reactors melting down a la Chernobyl). [1] [ ... First let's point out that what the U.S. generally feels is "remorse", _not_ "guilt". ... ] That's actually not correct. The Japanese have a cultural phobia regarding cancer; even prior to the bombings, their cancer rates are significantly higher, generally due to the contents of their telomers (i.e. a genetic predisposition). In the U.S., the public is confident that medical science can cure anything. In fact, we are so confident of this, that we sue doctors, nurses, and hospitals when they fail to cure a fatal injury or disease, on the theory that the reason for the failure was not the injury or disease was beyond current capability to cure, but instead, the result of the medical community failing to "try hard enough". To add to the lack of fear of cancer thesis: in California, a fuel additive, MTBE, is used, even though it is known to be highly carcinogenic. It is a trade, consciously made, in order to "protect the environment". The ignorance here is that any car manufactured since the late 1980's has an Oxygen sensor, and these cars actually pollute _more_ when Oxygenated fuels are used. In any case, until recently, where it was proven that more environmental damage results from MTBE in the waterways, Californians were happily accepting the cancer risk on the theory that, if they got it, it could be cured, but damage to the environment has always been portrayed as "forever". I don't think the U.S. fears Chernobyl; for one thing, there was significant public spin-doctoring at the time, and for another, there was significant dissemination of real information on reactor designs, indicating that a Chernobyl-style accident could not occur here, because U.S. reactor technology precludes that -- Three Mile Island was cited as supporting evidence, as the reactor containment vessels did _exactly_ what they were designed to do, and _contained_ the accident. The thing that upset people, by the way, was the use of the alarming word "accident". Finally, the most compelling reason that the U.S. doesn't fear a Chernobyl type accident is the same that it does not fear a Bhopal type accident: the U.S. was not down wind. > Even besides that, what do electricity-generating nuclear _power plants_ > (which Americans are opposed to) have to do with nuclear _weapons_ > (which you hardly even mention) in this context? Regular nuclear power plants do not produce enriched Uranium or Plutonium, and so only breeder reactors are required in order to produce weapons fuels (I thought general knowledge of nuclear technology was better than it is, apparently). This is why I made the comment on the disparity between the number of breeder and classical nuclear reactors: the U.S. population is generally aware enough of that, and guilty enough over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that they forego the use of breeders to prevent themselves from making a ready supply of nuclear weapons fuel which could be stolen and incorporated into weapons (it is common that U.S. high school students can design such weapons these days; hydrogen bombs aren't much harder). > If Americans are so soul-struck with guilt over their bombing of Japan, > why isn't there an outcry over the fact that even more nuclear weapons > are being manufactured? Apparently, you have never visited the gates outside the Brookhaven facility, where the protest has become a vigil. > Why aren't they trying to get rid of the *bombs*, instead of civilian > reactors? They are. Or they were, prior to this incident. I rather suspect that the incident has convinced many, close to the decision line, that it's just as well we have the weapons, and it's just as well we have the capability of manufacturing more. FYI: The current manufacturing rate is only to keep up with the half life of existing components, which must be changed out every so often to keep the weapons active. The U.S. is reducing the total number of its weapons, not stockpiling more. The U.S. is conforming to the terms of its treaties. > > So you are an idiot if you don't think that America does not suffer > > _profound_ guilt over the use of nuclear weapons in the Japan > > conflict; it does -- to the point of abandoning money, working lights > > and heat, efficiency, and rabid environmentalism... all to assuage > > that guilt. > > Guilt over the past use of nuclear weapons and irrational fear of > civilian nuclear reactors are two entirely separate things. I doubt > *anyone* paying that fee to support the de-commissioning of existing > reactors are thinking about Hiroshima/Nagasaki when they do so. I am. I would just as well not pay the fee, or change it to a fee to build _more_ reactors, rather than decomissioning old ones -- I, for one, _am_ concerned about the pollution caused by fossil-fuel burning plants. The majority of power plants in California burn natural gas, a fossil fuel, imported mostly from Texas, at userous rates. The new plants being brought on line over the "power emergency" (what a joke: that's not worthy of the name "emergency") are generally natural gas burning as well. > Instead, are there any public memorials dedicated to the tragedy, any > public days of mourning, or anything like that which would indicate real > guilt? (This is an honest question, i really haven't the faintest > idea.) Yes. One was recently dedicated in San Francisco, on the anniversary of the bombing. I guess the U.S. public does have a short attention span. > > PS: How profound do you think is the guilt of the perpetrators of the > > September 11th atrocity?. > > Even less than the guilt of Joe Average American over America's own > atrocities, i imagine. Any attrocity is justifiable in self defense, when the alternative is your own destruction. In any case, I will not act as an appologist for everything which you choose to label "attrocity", any more than I would expect you, as a South African, to justify Apartheid. To bring this down to earth, consider the case of a person breaking into your bedroom with a deadly weapon. You have the means to kill them, and they have the means to kill you. They do not leave as a result of this, but press the issue, and you have no means of leaving, either: it is now either you or them. I would argue that you are now put in the position in deciding which of two human beings merits continued existance, and that by acting, you decide in favor of you, and by not acting, you decide in favor of the invader. To compound the issue, you believe it is wrong to kill; but you bear responsibility for the death, either way, as it is your decision to make. Would a "human being" put someone in the position where they are forced to make such a choice? I would argue that the answer is "no" -- and therefore, the invarder has less of a right to their continued existance than you do. So really the only thing you have to decide is whether to act by commission or by omission, with the knowledge that acting by omission will endanger other people in the future (perhaps your wife, children, or total strangers in the next home this person invades). I think it is important to protect the lives of human beings, but I also thingk it is possible to forfeit one's status _as_ a human being. I think the terrorists in this case have forfeited their status as human beings. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message