Brighter Than A Thousand Suns

[Anonymous]

These Colours Don

- I believe that sometimes violence is necessary, and you don't.  It's that simple.

I never said that. I only said that it's not good- and therefore should be treated with the necessary respect in the aftermath.

 

[Anonymous]

These Colours Don

As some would say: "Even the Church justifies war, if it's necessary!" Killing in combat, besides being discounted as a crime, is not considered a sin either, as far as I know.

 

[Anonymous]

These Colours Don

The Church has waged wars and obviously would come up with nonsense like that.

But let me tell you that killing, in combat or not, is not justifiable by a long way. Both my great-grandfather and grandfather have fought in WWI and WWII, respectively, and they weren't proud of what they did, whatever it was. They both, independently of each other, told me as a kid that nothing -- nothing -- justifies killing. Only maybe in self-defense, which could be considered the case on a battlefield, although this is another fallacy I could carry on about for hours (as the German saying goes, Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr vom Leben... yeah...  ).

Ah well, what do I know? I'm just a naive pacifist...

 

[Anonymous]

These Colours Don

Ah well, what do I know? I'm just a naive pacifist...

Sadly, it seems to me that people on both sides are naive.

 

[Anonymous]

These Colours Don

Maybe we should listen more to those people who have studied combat extensively through textbooks and reports distributed by the high command than those who have actually been in combat. After all, the latter are only sure to give us subjective views which hardly have anything to do with the actual truth.



This is irony mixed with cynicism.

 

[LooseCannon]

These Colours Don

I would actually label that more extreme sarcasm.

Nobody has the right to declare which lives continue and which lives end, and fighting for most reasons is 100% foolish, wasteful, horrific, miserable, and generally, bad.  However, only through analyzing the horrors of the past can we come up with any sort of solution for the future, neh?  If I've never pointed a gun at a living thing, so be it - I consider that a blessing, not a curse, considering the state of the world today.

But in analyzing the past, be it through textbooks or personal experiences, we still have to try and find, and assign, value to the choices given before us, or in some cases, by those above us.  Respect for the dead is one thing - each person who has been slain before his or her time deserves that.  But realizing that things could have been worse is something else.

 

[Anonymous]

These Colours Don

That is correct, but we learn nothing from saying "Dresden was worse than Hiroshima" or studying which calibres were used in the battle of the Ardennes.

 

[Anonymous]

These Colours Don

While you are all stumbling over yourselves to be more pacifistic than the next, you're missing a crucial point... Humans aren't peaceful creatures. We are descended from opportunistic scavengers, which places us in the same category as jackals and hyenas. We are, by our very human nature, a violent, brutal, bloody-minded species and no amount of moralistic belly-aching is going to change that. You say fighting is bad? Well tell me, O Wise Ones, how do you suppose we convince the rest of the world of this? Lead by example? Sorry, been tried. Didn't work. Force everyone to be nice? Well, I'm sure there's some nutcases who think that's a viable option, but exerting force to prevent the exertion of force just seems counterproductive. Pray for peace and hope it magically happens? Sure... While you're praying, I'll be getting on with my life.

Am I saying there's no hope and we shouldn't keep trying? Nope. Not saying that at all. Just saying that we've all accepted that we have a problem, so now it's time to move on to the next step to recovery. Do I know what that step is? Not really. I believe it has something to do with spreading understanding to all corners of the Earth and having the bravery to keep trying in the face of adversity, but I may be wrong. I do know that wringing one's hands going on about how horribly wrong war and violence is won't do a anyone a damned bit of good until someone decides to stop hand-wringing and start doing something useful.

 

[LooseCannon]

These Colours Don

That is correct, but we learn nothing from saying "Dresden was worse than Hiroshima" or studying which calibres were used in the battle of the Ardennes.

To be fair, we do learn some things - we learn where people died, and how they died (to which studying the weapons of the time is important).  Understanding this is imperative to understanding *any* period of history.  Maybe to you it is dismissive, but to me, it isn't.  That's why I'll choose to study a seperate area of history to that which you'll choose to study.  Luckilly, the discipline is big enough for the both of us.

 

[Anonymous]

These Colours Don

That's why I'll choose to study a seperate area of history to that which you'll choose to study.  Luckilly, the discipline is big enough for the both of us.

If you are referring to Military and Cultural History, you are right.

 

[oscar_a_wiggy]

These Colours Don

trying to second guess a desision that was made more than 60 years ago is a waste of time. the world was a different place then. the war and expereinces of that "day" influenced truman's decision to do it. trying to look back based on our own expereinces and opinions 60 years later and say that what was done was wrong or right is very difficult. it happened. we have to accept it, learn from it (both the good and the bad) and move on a wiser people.

by the way.... i love this song. its heavy. its interesting. i have always been very interested in the atomic bomb and how it was invented/designed. maiden has a real winner with this one.

 

[Forostar]

These Colours Don

This one is not much happier either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grqehs0Zysc

alternative vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PemWdb- ... ed&search=

 

[Genghis Khan]

These Colours Don

The first YouTube video has some interesting and controversial (maybe) points to make at the end.  Some I know are true, like the fact that 350,000 lived in Hiroshima, that residential areas were mostly affected and about the black rain.  I'm not sure about the rest.  Maybe a historian can help with my lack of knowledge here. 

The images of sloughing skin and children at that were pretty disturbing.  Well, we all knew this happened, but seeing some specific photographs was, well, sad and informative.
 

What's with Naruto and Iron Maiden? 

 

[Yax]

These Colours Don

It's about time that I contribute a bit in these threads.

This is one of my favourite songs of the post 80's. I'd say that this song is Nicko's finest drum performance ever. To me it seems as if he sometimes in the song doesn't play along with the others, but plays towards them. A fine piece of art indeed.

The galloping riff in the middle of the song is refreshing, and makes me jump up in the air every time I hear it even though it's not very original. Yes, galloping was quite common in the earlier days, but now they don't use it so often in the newer material as you surely have noticed and when they do it just drives me crazy with happiness. Yes, that comment was not very important but I thought I'd add it anyway. I have nothing to complain about at all about this song except for one thing. It's the intro. I don't like the vocal melodies in that section. When Bruce sings 'We are not his chosen people now' I get annoyed every single time I hear it. In my ears it sounds like 'now' is sang too low. Yes, it's a matter of taste but still! But the instrumental part of the intro is awesome with the classical harmonics. I keep playing it all the time with my guitar and just can't stop! Amazing!

Now it's time for a grade. 96/100

Yes, I had to do it in that scale, since the vocals on the word 'now' forces me to not give it a perfect score.

Cheers

 

[Raven]

These Colours Don

Now it's time for a grade. 96/100

Yes, I had to do it in that scale, since the vocals on the word 'now' forces me to not give it a perfect score.

Cheers

Good post, but I would advise you (in future) to use positive marking (as in giving points for what's there, rather than taking points away for what's not) instead.  Don't say 'I'm taking marks off for X, Y, and Z'; just give it a score you feel comfortable with...giving your opinion on the song is great, but you don't want to get bogged down in petty details.  Just a thought.

 

[Cornfed Hick]

These Colours Don

For those interested in reading more on the subject of Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project, I recommend American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.  It won the Pulitzer Prize for biography earlier this year. 

Also, I attended a lecture at Stanford by Nobel Prize-winning economist Kenneth Arrow, in which he applied decision analysis principles to the decision to drop the atomic bomb, as well as the decision to drop a second.  His conclusion was that it was probably justified in terms of saving lives, and in particular JAPANESE lives -- the premise being that the alternative, invasion and a land and air war in Japan, would kill far more Japanese.  He also reasoned that it probably deterred further aggression by one economic power against another, though obviously there is really no way to be certain what would have happened in the "but for" world. 

 

[Genghis Khan]

These Colours Don

Here is a recent look at the 'Was Truman justified in dropping the bomb?' question - from Aug. 2005, with apparently new evidence.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5894

Some points are:
- Japan's key military personnel were indecisive about surrender.
- Japan's key military personnel not only wanted to keep their emperor, but also their military government structure -- the same one that launched the war in Asia and against Pearl Harbor.
- "Several American historians led by Robert Newman have insisted vigorously that any assessment of the end of the Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan's conquests. Newman calculates that between a quarter million and 400,000 Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war continued."
- The planned Operation Olympic of the Japanese home islands was not seriously considered during the time of the nuking except by one man General Douglas MacArthur.
- Many consider MacArthur to have believed that Japan was going to surrender, but this article contradicts that claim.
- Japan was aware of Operation Olympic and was strengthening its forces on southern part of Kyushu island where the invasion was intended to take place.

This bit was meant to add to the general discussion (which I realize has died down or slowed down recently). 

 

[Natalie]

These Colours Don

This may or may not already have been posted/ be of any use to this discussion, but I think the idea of Kamikaze (sp?) plays a big role in this. I once saw a documentary on the nuke bombings where veteran Japanese soldiers were interviewed and they said that they were being trained to run under vehicles and blow themselves up in the days preceding the nuke bombings. Perhaps the U.S. was scared of this determination and knew that they would be no match for the Japanese if it came down to a battle man-to-man?

 

[Genghis Khan]

These Colours Don

This may or may not already have been posted/ be of any use to this discussion, but I think the idea of Kamikaze (sp?) plays a big role in this. I once saw a documentary on the nuke bombings where veteran Japanese soldiers were interviewed and they said that they were being trained to run under vehicles and blow themselves up in the days preceding the nuke bombings. Perhaps the U.S. was scared of this determination and knew that they would be no match for the Japanese if it came down to a battle man-to-man?

Good.  Praise be to you.  Also, judging by that link from my last post the Japanese were amassing troops so that their army head number was the same as that of USA (1:1).  Apparently, military strategists say that for a victory the attacker needs at least 3:1 odds.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

These Colours Don

I think that 3:1 ratio is only true when several assumptions are taken into account:
1. The attacker does not have the element of surprise.
2. The defender has high ground or a fortified position.
3. The attacker doesn't mind massive casualties, and intends to win through sheer force of numbers.

In other words, 3:1 is the approximate maximum necessary when the defender has the best possible advantage. There are plenty of examples in military history of small attacking forces winning victories against larger defending forces when they catch the defenders with their pants down.