Was the deployment of the two nukes justified?

[IAR80]

Sure, Starinov. NOW people are smarter, NOW people get along, NOW people are civilized. Hail to the tri-colored tooth brush and the laser guided bomb! Hail to the western democracies where your sole purpose in life is to spend all the money you get and buy stuff even when you don't need it! Overweightness is a slight side effect! F**k all those unfortunate enough to be born in other countries even though they would probably work more for far less and also see the world big enough for something else than their own ego!Hail to the the western student that goes on a killing spree over a test or a teacher and f**k the students in the rest of the world toiling in the 12th grade over homeworks only MIT graduates see! Hail to the american democracy where presidential contributions dictate fruture policies! Power to the people, nothing like it baby! Year right! Hah, hah!
Haven't laughed so hard since our mate from down under posted on the what ifs section!
STOP KIDDING YOURSELF! We are born no smarter, nobler, or less prone to our instincts than our ancestors 10.000 years ago. You think the inventions made us smarter? No. When KNOW more things, but if you take a african from a remote tribe as a child(to avoid culture shock) and bring him up in US he will KNOW all the stuff we KNOW. We are genetically identical to those that founded civilization thousands of years ago. We are not smarter, or less greedier in any way. Today people embark on killing sprees just like the migratory hordes hundreds of years ago. We are still capable of horrendeous crimes just like any time in history. We have the same genetic make up like the primitive people 10.000 years ago. Only difference it's now easier to kill. You don't have to stab, jab ,pound, cut, bash the life out of your enemy; you just pull a trigger or push a button. But deep down animal instincts still overrule ration. We still need to feel we belong to a "tribe", social group, we still would rather bury the hatches in our enemies' head than bury <period>. We still let ourselves get carried off by the will of the society and we even feel good about it because we feel accepted by the group, regardless of what's right and wrong. Did you read "Lord of the flies"? We are rather prone to reverting to primitivity than maintain social order. It's what our subcouncious dictates. When the day comes and we are born good, considerate to others, when we override the survival instincts that leaves us gathering resources for a winter that will never come and since children be sharing and lenient, that's the day when "politically correct" and "moral" will have a meaning. Until then everyone is rushing to become the richest in the grave, a reminescent drive since our hunter-gathering days. And we will gather until there is nothing left, and we will gather from others and become extincts unless we realise that the "rat race" has no point.

[Starinov]

Hello IAR80

This is not about being smarter or eating more burgers than your neighbour.

It is about he difference about using the nuclear bomb in august 1945 and using it in Afghanistan

In 1945, there was a open war with Japan. In 2001/02, there is no open hostilities with Afghanistan but with a politico-religious movement that laid its base in that country. This is not the same struggle.

By the way, try to stay on topic without writings about burgers and stuff for a whole page. thanks

[Ebusitanus]

Guess we can't escape yet those nice genetic instincts.
Hinsight is what is so useless now when critizing the % point of a certain "massacre" to acertain if its "acceptable" or not.
There is no much diference between a Rotterdam 1940 a Dresden or Hiroshima of 1945. How many dead or destructive power of the ordenance thrown makes us call on act tactical/strategical necesity or propells us to yell "murder". Those who send those flying crews out to devastate Tokyo or Warsaw had some clear objectives in mind that fitted with their greater strategic plan to make their side win better/faster/optimally, etc...We can turn and twist it as much as we want but certainly none of them was most likely drooling over themselves at the prospect of killing enemy people. Its just present day view of Good/Bad regarding those sides battling that make somehow pounding Hamburg with cold calculation to an all consuming firestorm somehow "juster" or "better" than those loosers who did the same over Guernica, Coventry or Belgrade. War is war and chavaleristic behaviour died long ago in the Verdun trenches.
To "Nuke", knowing nowadays the long lasting repercusions over the terrain bombed for ages to come and its lasting second effects is what stops us from using it more often...even then we let some radiocative munition loose now and then like at the Gulf.

[MVSNConsolegenerale]

I got out of this 'discussion' a long time ago but I keep reading up on what you guys are saying. I just have some small and general problems with some statements that IAR80 said.

We are born no smarter, nobler, or less prone to our instincts than our ancestors 10.000 years ago

Wrong. Since we first emerged as a seperate species. Homo Sapians have created and annihilated a subrace, and we have evolved to a noticable degree. It is written by evolutionary scientists that within every 100 years there is a significantly noticable change in the average population. For example, since the beginning of the century, average intelligence has increased more than one point by our current IQ tests. A height change world wide has also been noticable, especially when comparing people of 500 years ago. This is all averages obviously. So in your 10.000 years there have been traits destroyed, traits gained, etc. Our aggression probably has not been decreased, but you mentioned intelligence and I believe that over that period we would have evolved our brains to some extent.

Second, IAR80 wrote:

...if you take a african from a remote tribe as a child(to avoid culture shock) and bring him up in US he will KNOW all the stuff we KNOW.

I'm not really a racialist in the sense of a neo-nazi, but that statement is not exactly correct. Under perfect conditions there are still subtle differences between the races - AVERAGE intelligence being one that is constantly found to be significant in scientific studies. For those of you out there who are not in the science world, for something to be significantly different, there has to be a more than 5% discrepancy between findings. I know the example most of you are thinking, but the discrepancy between japanese asians and european and north american caucasians points towards the former being on AVERAGE more intelligent.

You are correct in the average sense though, an african child grown up in a middle class society in north american will not really have any really noticable differences in intelligence.

I'm not arguing with your general sentiments, I don't think we Canadians/Americans are more civilized than the germans were in ww2.

I'm generally on the side against racism, but my reasons for posting here are that I hate hate hate hate hate hate political correctness, especially at the expense of scientific findings. There might only be a .001% genetic difference between a north american white and a japanese asian or an african negroid, but there is only a 99.9% difference between homo sapians and chimps...and that obviously makes a big difference .

[IAR80]

"Since we first emerged as a seperate species. Homo Sapians have created and annihilated a subrace, and we have evolved to a noticable degree. It is written by evolutionary scientists that within every 100 years there is a significantly noticable change in the average population. For example, since the beginning of the century, average intelligence has increased more than one point by our current IQ tests. A height change world wide has also been noticable, especially when comparing people of 500 years ago. This is all averages obviously. So in your 10.000 years there have been traits destroyed, traits gained, etc. Our aggression probably has not been decreased, but you mentioned intelligence and I believe that over that period we would have evolved our brains to some extent. "

Hmm... We're getting a bit off topic, but I'll wrap this up in a jippy. The so called "evolving" every 100. I'm not entirely convinced. Recent studies have shown that the average human only uses a small fraction of its brain for volutary thought and thinking. I'd rather see this as discovering our potential, since the latest inventions mean we have to use our brain more and less our body, and also the fact that science is advancing naturally results in more things to learn and the brain is more solicited, therefore our general intelligence increaces by constantly flexing our "brain muscles", if you will. So by using our brain we push its boundaries farther and farther. So I see the general advance of civilization as responsible for this "evolution", that is in fact discovering our true potential, IMHO. You could be fooled by the fact that humanity learns from its predecessors, so we KNOW, again, KNOW more things, even though we didn't invent them, we LEARNED about them. So I doubt that evolution acts as quick as 100 years, instead we are just discovering our ability to "soak" information and make connections, larger and more complex.

[Pumpkin]

Keeping this thread far off topic, ehum, I'd like to make following point. Sexual selection is a very important and quick force when it comes to shaping the genes of a population. 100 years means 3 or 4 generations which is significant. However I am not so sure that sexual selection favours intelligence. Any gene that helps promiscousity will quickly multiply while such genes that tend to make its bearer die childless, quickly will be erased. This is of course strongly related to what is fashionable in society. Cowardness (if in any way genetic) would be a trait that is strongly favoured by war, for instance, while heroism quickly will be exterminated. Unless state propaganda makes heroism attractive and hence compensates youthful death with more frequent opportunities for reproduction, if you know what I mean.

[Marcus Wendel]

Off topic.

/Marcus