• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hiroshima Bombing vs. Torture

Hiroshima Bombing vs. Torture

  • Hiroshima was worse

    Votes: 10 41.7%
  • Torture is worse

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Hiroshima was neseccary

    Votes: 20 83.3%
  • Torture was neseccary

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • Total voters
    24
Which also wouldn't have been necessary had negotiations been opened up.
Because negotiations solve everything? That's some hefty idealism you're toting around don't you think?

Your assumption: negotiation = less conflict. The flaw in this argument can be examined by the analogy to golf. That is, golf is easy because one simply has to put a ball in a circular hole. What could possibly be so difficult about that? Therefore, golf is an easy sport. Likewise, you simply present "negotiations" as the turnkey to all conflict and carelessly move on despite the many problems and issues inherent in such a proposition.

So that's why they were willing to surrender?
when multi quoting please specify the poster you are responding to. The above is NOT my post.
 
Last edited:
War is what happens when two or more sides disagree over something that neither can do without. This will -always- exist, so long as there are people.

Oh? What products or resource was the United States lacking that drove it to war with Japan?

Answer: None.

It takes two sides to fight a war, only one side to start it.

Never forget Japan started it.

Never forget Islam started it.
 
War is what happens when two or more sides disagree over something that neither can do without. This will -always- exist, so long as there are people.

I can agree with this up to an extent. I don't think there will always be wars for the simple reason that most wars are, at the end of the day, fought over resources: availability to produce food, water, and living space is at the core of most battles. In the future, energy technologies will eliminate such material inequities. With energy surpluses, anything can be made. (Fusion reaction is one example that will become a reality in the next 50 years.) Until then, wars will be on a basis of needs.

As for wars over social values, like religion... those will continue to happen, but with higher energy economy comes higher access to education for all. As our technology allows for higher social development and removes excuses for war, wars will be more rare... and the powerful people who continue to try and wage them for selfish reasons will become more and more transparent.

That's my theory anyway. In any case, you cannot say with concrete certainty that wars will always be a reality. I think humans have the capacity now to evolve past that.
 
Unless you intended to discuss changing someone's skin color through a dyeing process and you just misspelled the word, yes, the body has to be killed for someone to die.

The cessation of life is the noun death. To die is the verb.

What I mean is... the body doesn't have to be killed by another human being in order to die. So yeah, how you die actually does make a difference.

I am god, I don't play god.

Refute that.

Simple. God isn't a moron.

Meanwhile, dead is dead, more people were killed by conventional weapons in that war than were nuked.

Conventional war is also heinous. You're trying to refute a point that I never even made.
 
Oh? What products or resource was the United States lacking that drove it to war with Japan?
Answer: None.
The 'irreconcilable difference' concept goes further than conflict over available resouces -- Israel fights for her survival against those that wish to see her destroyed; in that case, the disagreement is based on the right of Israel to exist, with the two sides having irreconciably opposing views.

That said...
The Nips attacked us so they might guarantee their access to industrial resources, resources that we denied them because of their Imperialism in China. For them, the conflict -was- about resources.

For us? No so much -- we fought because we were attacked, and becaise the Imperial expansion of Japan theatened the free world (such as it was in the region).
 
Last edited:
That's my theory anyway. In any case, you cannot say with concrete certainty that wars will always be a reality. I think humans have the capacity now to evolve past that.
Quite the optimist!
War is, at its base, a product of human nature.
Human nature does not change.
 
. In the future, energy technologies will eliminate such material inequities. With energy surpluses, anything can be made. (Fusion reaction is one example that will become a reality in the next 50 years.) .
Electricity from fission will be so cheap that it won't be metered.
Fusion is just around the corner.
I read both those lies in Popular Science, in the early 60's.......
Fusion has a lot of problems that you don't read about in the papers. If all the problems were known to the politicians voting in the funding for fusion research, the funding would dry up....
I hope you are young enough to see it, but don't count on it. How old will you be 50 years from now?
 
Electricity from fission will be so cheap that it won't be metered.
Fusion is just around the corner.
I read both those lies in Popular Science, in the early 60's.......
Fusion has a lot of problems that you don't read about in the papers. If all the problems were known to the politicians voting in the funding for fusion research, the funding would dry up....
I hope you are young enough to see it, but don't count on it. How old will you be 50 years from now?

If you do web searches on the latest research, you'll see promising innovations. The biggest hinderance to research right now is lack of investment. Governments are still held captive by the fossil fuel industries.

As for my age... that's not really relevant to my belief that human kind will progress to higher standards of living, balance with the environment, and each other. If I'm not alive to see it, then that's unfortunate, but it's still going to happen.

We simply cannot continue on our current path if we want to survive the coming global challenges. This goes for all countries, not just the ones that are developing.
 
Quite the optimist!
War is, at its base, a product of human nature.
Human nature does not change.

Human nature does change, but very slowly. There have been several large paradigm shifts in the past 1000 years. It takes time. I think the shifts are coming at quicker intervals now because of how the world is interconnected. We are having to realize things faster than ever.

I'm curious to see if we can continue to maintain the current momentum without letting critical things slip by that could destroy us all.
 
No, they didn't. No bomb drops were needed, as the Japanese were already willing to surrender.

No they weren't far from it. Man I hate the when folks make this stupid comment and have no clue about WWII History.
 
Neither was necessary.
NO !
The use of the nuclear bomb was necessary...I cannot see how any sane man can dispute this.
The torture, during the war was also necessary, effective, I do not know..
Today, I'd say that the torture is wrong.
War, at any time is wrong, is hellish, but usually necessary...
Man is supposed to learn from his mistakes, sometimes he does....thus far.
 
Prove that.

He's responsible for Obama supporters, isn't he?

Human beings have free will. It is not god's nature to monitor and control everything humans do, because god isn't a person who is fallible like we are. God is a verb, not a noun. At least, that is my perception of the matter.

Humans voted for Obama, not god.

Nice try though.
 
Human nature does change, but very slowly.
Nah.

People will always act in what they find to be in their best interest.
What one person finds in his best interest will, eventually, conflict with what someone finds to be in HIS best intrest. If no arrangement can be made, conflict will ensue, and the issue will be resolved with force, or the credible threat thereof.

Societies are just groups of people.

There have been several large paradigm shifts in the past 1000 years.
The paradigm I describe, above, is not one of them.

I'm curious to see if we can continue to maintain the current momentum without letting critical things slip by that could destroy us all.
In all reality, societies are 'evolving' farther and farther away from basic human instincts; this evolution, driven by technology, is accelerating.
This almost certainly will lead to some sort of catastrophic collapse.
 
If you do web searches on the latest research, you'll see promising innovations. The biggest hinderance to research right now is lack of investment. Governments are still held captive by the fossil fuel industries.

As for my age... that's not really relevant to my belief that human kind will progress to higher standards of living, balance with the environment, and each other. If I'm not alive to see it, then that's unfortunate, but it's still going to happen.

We simply cannot continue on our current path if we want to survive the coming global challenges. This goes for all countries, not just the ones that are developing.

I agree with parts 2 and 3, but not with the first part.

fossil fuel has almost zero connection to the generation of electricity, which is all fusion is good for....apples and oranges.
If and when it happens, it will take 50 years to replace a substantial number of the existing coal plants.
as for lack of investment, no, not at all. Billions have gone into fusion research, there are some horrendous problems to overcome, and money alone won't fix that. You would get better results spending those billions on public schools. :2razz:
Promising innovations? I spent some time working around nuclear research in Idaho. Promising innovations is what they say when they are seeking more funding to support research in areas where they have yet to succeed, and see no light at the end of the tunnel.

and, to beat my favorite dead horse, our ubersmart leaders have yet to ask us to conserve energy.....the ONE thing we can do now, can do now for free, and definitely works, no research needed.

We waste a very large percentage of our energy, and will continue to do so until the meter is on the "E".....

THEN, there will be a big war, one where we will be the aggressor and we will be killing innocent civilians in other countries because they were using "our" energy....:(
 
Last edited:
Nah.

People will always act in what they find to be in their best interest.
What one person finds in his best interest will, eventually, conflict with what someone finds to be in HIS best intrest. If no arrangement can be made, conflict will ensue, and the issue will be resolved with force, or the credible threat thereof.

Humans acting in their own best interest vs. using war to accomplish such an end are mutually exclusive values. Just because humans act selfishly does not mean they will always use the same means to achieve that end.

Societies are just groups of people.

And wars are on the decline, despite what popular media would have you believe. There is not nearly as much war in the world today as there was even 200 years ago.

The paradigm I describe, above, is not one of them.

Well, the country you live in is a warring nation, so of course you have been brought up to believe this. Part of your country's current paradigm is that war is a reality and humans will always be at war. The establishment in your nation requires you to belief this in order to manufacture your consent for campaigns.

In all reality, societies are 'evolving' farther and farther away from basic human instincts; this evolution, driven by technology, is accelerating.
This almost certainly will lead to some sort of catastrophic collapse.

This is an interesting idea, something I agree with. Our urbanized world, where survival is reliant upon the industrial complex, is not meant to last in its current form, IMO. I think a lot about the current system is designed to make greed more efficient for the ruling class, and is not truly helping to eliminate material and social inequities.

I do believe though that innovations in energy technology will make it harder for the ruling class to provide excuses (such as resource allocation) for why such a system of control is needed. I think this is the primary reason why innovations in energy technology don't happen too rapidly.
 
If and when it happens, it will take 50 years to replace a substantial number of the existing coal plants.

Like I said, I don't expect this to happen in my lifetime, but I do believe that a working prototype will exist in 50 years. How it is applied and how the system will be supplemented is anyone's guess. I'm sure it will be a bureaucratic nightmare.

as for lack of investment, no, not at all. Billions have gone into fusion research, there are some horrendous problems to overcome, and money alone won't fix that. You would get better results spending those billions on public schools. :2razz:
Promising innovations? I spent some time working around nuclear research in Idaho. Promising innovations is what they say when they are seeking more funding to support research in areas where they have yet to succeed, and see no light at the end of the tunnel.

From the development side, the biggest obstacle has been innovating some form of magnetic containment for the plasma flow. Small scale reactors are feasible.

and, to beat my favorite dead horse, our ubersmart leaders have yet to ask us to conserve energy.....the ONE thing we can do now, can do now for free, and definitely works, no research needed.

This is why I have thanked your post.
 
Humans acting in their own best interest vs. using war to accomplish such an end are mutually exclusive values. Just because humans act selfishly does not mean they will always use the same means to achieve that end.



And wars are on the decline, despite what popular media would have you believe. There is not nearly as much war in the world today as there was even 200 years ago.



Well, the country you live in is a warring nation, so of course you have been
brought up to believe this. Part of your country's current paradigm is that war is a reality and humans will always be at war. The establishment in your nation requires you to belief this in order to manufacture your consent for campaigns.



This is an interesting idea, something I agree with. Our urbanized world, where survival is reliant upon the industrial complex, is not meant to last in its current form, IMO. I think a lot about the current system is designed to make greed more efficient for the ruling class, and is not truly helping to eliminate material and social inequities.

I do believe though that innovations in energy technology will make it harder for the ruling class to provide excuses (such as resource allocation) for why such a system of control is needed. I think this is the primary reason why innovations in energy technology don't happen too rapidly.



So what you're saying is that war isn't a reality of human nature and that there won't always be armed conflict?

Hmmmm?

Got any proof?

Why are there fewer wars today than before?

Mainly because the United States has been keeping peace in Europe.
 
So what you're saying is that war isn't a reality of human nature and that there won't always be armed conflict?

That's not what I said at all. I said that humans acting in self interest doesn't always have to lead to war. Individual people don't have the capacity to create war, it is always our leaders and governments who declare those wars on our collective behalf, and then seek our consent.

Why are there fewer wars today than before?

Mainly because the United States has been keeping peace in Europe.

There are a variety of reasons. Complex interdependence is a big one. Attacking most major nations is like cutting off your foot in modern times. Another big reason is that the 21st century has seen the biggest wars in all of human history and people learned their lesson.

The rise of international relations as a diplomatic discipline began with the League of Nations... the idea of having international forums for discussion of issues is a new thing.

The list goes on...
 
War is heinous and cruel and also very very human.

It is only human because we admit to it. If we found another way it would be gone and would be seen as heinous as it is and it would be disgusting.
 
It is only human because we admit to it. If we found another way it would be gone and would be seen as heinous as it is and it would be disgusting.

Mind suggesting what that "other way" might be?
 
It is only human because we admit to it. If we found another way it would be gone and would be seen as heinous as it is and it would be disgusting.

It will never be gone.

It will never be gone because there will always be people willing to kill to take what they want. And there will always be people willing to follow them. They have no interest in your utopian fantasies and will laugh derisively at you for them.

That is the truth of human nature. And human nature has never and will never change.
 
It is only human because we admit to it. If we found another way it would be gone and would be seen as heinous as it is and it would be disgusting.

No it is human because we are animals and fighting is a natural part of life. We are closely related to Chimps, so if you want to see real human nature just watch their group behaviors. If you think Humans are somehow different just because we are smarter that is just not supported by the over 7000 recorded history of man. Peace is just a time period between war.
 
Back
Top Bottom