Ive been following this discussion with some interest and there are just a few points I want to make:
Bobs title for the thread is easily open to criticism as hypocritical but the basis of that criticism is superficial and unfair unfair because much of the criticism was based on Bobs nationality and assumed Bob was responsible for decisions made by a US government of over 60 years ago.
It is no surprise to me at all that such a line of argument caused offence that has led to a debate that generated more heat than light. Yes, the US dropped 2 atomic weapons on Japan. Any other nation faced with what the US faced would almost certainly have done the same though some countries may have hit Tokyo instead.
Those arguing the drops were done simply to warn the Soviet Union know little of WW2 history. The US was very late in understanding the danger posed by the Soviet Union and ignored warnings from Churchill. The atomic bomb carnage warned the world including the Soviet Union.
I still believe the A-bomb drops on Japan were appalling appalling in the carnage caused and the ruthless planning that chose the cities and delivered the
devices. Its easy to sit 60+ years adrift and condemn. Personally, I try to understand why sensible people did terrible things.
For those living in a black and white world what the US did was wrong. But, to the Allied Nations fighting that war it was good news. Perhaps its easier for me to understand having had relatives that fought in that war 1 survived being a Japanese POW, 1 grandfather killed during the blitz (no known resting place), 1 grand uncle sunk by a U-Boat and 1 grand uncle killed by the Japanese in the Far East. I only knew the survivor hed become a sick and violent man.
When its not your grand-father or grand-uncle but instead your father, your brother or your son, then you might think youve little right to judge much less condemn.
For those thinking Iran is entitled to develop nuclear energy nobody is objecting to that. The EU offered a deal that would deliver Iran exactly that but required waste material remained in EU control for re-processing. Its the re-processing that could generate weapons material. Iran rejected that offer.
Without doubt a global power game is going on here but its premise is based on exploiting a religiously extreme government in Iran to generate wealth for Russia while creating a new political power in a highly volatile area. This could lead to a nuclear launch against Israel.
Once that launch becomes the stuff of political discussion the Cuban missile crises will be small beer. Israel will not accept such a threat posed by a government that has declared an intention to wipe it off the map. Those happy with Irans nuclear programme have a lot of work to do to convince people that this programme is not part of wiping Israel off the map.
If you faced that risk personally what would you expect of your government?
The debate took a tangent on the right to bear arms. Ive a LOT to say on that but I think Ive said enough.
Discussion is good it helps understanding. Ive lived in a society where talking was thought bad manners. It took to weapons and more than 3,000 people died, many more were maimed. When talking happened everybody wanted to know why it couldnt have happened earlier.
Id still like an answer to that question.
