Tags
American Liberty, Bombing of Japan, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Hiroshima, Hiroshime, Imperial Japan, Iran Nukes, Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Sam Harris, Nuclear Winter, Sam Harris, Samson Option, Theodore Dalrymple
This past week saw the anniversary of America’s demolition of the city of Hiroshima, then a major manufacturing hub of the Imperial Japanese Empire. As we are always reminded, this was the first and as yet only use of nuclear weapons in warfare.
I’ll let it be known where I stand on that episode without hesitation. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the coventrations of Tokyo and Kyoto before them, were not only justified actions (in a strategic sense) but represented an act of profound kindness to the peoples of Asia. Just as Germany had arrogantly sought to enslave the peoples of Europe against their will, so Japan – with its terrifying efficiency – was actively seeking to imprison the whole of East Asia under a Yamato herrenvolk.
Americans should rightly be proud of this stroke of moral and military genius. It saved many more lives than it took.
From their creation, nuclear weapons have always provided a philosophical as well as strategic dilemma for policy-makers. Does anyone really have the right to unleash the forces of hell on another country? Can the death of innocents ever be necessary?
As I’ve already suggested, the answer to both of these questions is ‘yes’.
There are many different kinds of war. It is not always a war between rational actors, or even between states. Sometimes a whole society is mobilised in a shared hysteria and must be dealt with accordingly. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had thoroughly indoctrinated populations as well as governments. In Germany, the concept of a master-race was believed by judges and street-sweepers, government officials and housewives. Similarly, there is an ocean of evidence to suggest that millions of ordinary Japanese believed in the divinity of Hirohito and were ready to kill and die for him. The nuclear bombing of Japan was thus designed to avoid a lengthy (and bloody) confrontation with a whole nation. A US occupation (without prior surrender) would have been opposed by civilian suicide attacks too numerous to be humanely controlled. One word from the emperor could have mobilised a million men, women and children into crazed violence.
In 2007, the neuroscientist and irreligionist Sam Harris was quoted as having said the following: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”. He was broadly condemned for this (including bizarrely by Theodore Dalrymple), despite it being the active policy of the Western World in regard to armed jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Harris if correct of course, and Islam (his main concern) is a bigger threat than Japan could have ever mustered. If Islam cannot be dealt with by our conventional forces, we will eventually have to consider the use of a nuclear pacifier.
The objection to the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstance is (whilst moral in origin) energised largely by exaggeration. The use of nuclear weapons on Tehran, Riyadh and Ankara for example (and this would represent the most obvious opening salvo in a Western offensive against Islam) would not for certain lead to a ‘nuclear winter’. The environmental effects of nuclear explosions have been subject to significant pacifist hype. Since the Second World War, there have been over 2000 nuclear bomb blasts in many different environments. None have caused lasting environmental damage. This is considerably more than would be used in the situations we are talking about. And even if the objection is raised against me that nuclear tests do not actually burn structures and therefore don’t emit smoke into the atmosphere, we still have the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to draw from. About these very real test cases, Skeptoid’s Brian Dunning wrote the following:
“Hiroshima developed a firestorm… that peaked two to three hours after the explosion. Six hours after the explosion, nearly everything combustible within a one-and-a-half kilometer radius had been consumed, and the fire was almost completely out, leaving over 8 square kilometers destroyed… Photographs taken of Hiroshima over the next few days do not show any significant evidence of vast amounts of smoke.”
Other examples of nuclear over-hype are given in the article: I shall post the link in the comments section.
Of course, there are some circumstances in which nuclear weapons are too powerful to be safely deployed by a state. Israel for example could not use nuclear weapons on Jordan or Egypt without the threat of environmental risk to its own population. But in general, both Israel the West cannot permanently discount this kind of arsenal as a tool of resistance.
We have the moral right to defend our happiness and to preserve the possibility of happiness for mankind. When you compare our relaxed, macchiato lifestyle against the desert mutilations of Planet Sharia, ask yourself this: Isn’t the preservation of one from the other worth a nuclear explosion or two?
There is only one earth for humans to inhabit. What worth can human life have if freedom is abolished on it? When you’re fighting for reasons as big as that – heaven against hell, light against eternal darkness – all options must remain firmly on the table.
D, LDN
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4244
LikeLike
It’s scary as to what we would have to contemplate!
A far easier and less risky option is to engender an Age of Enlightenment in Planet Sharia and make its inhabitants look at and deal with the elephant in the room, which is the root cause of their misery.
But, how is it to be done? Do we ex-muslims have something to contribute?
LikeLike
Salman Rushdie suggested that things like social networks and YouTube could eventually break open the closed societies of the Islamic world. I’m not so sure. Islamic regimes are beginning to restrict social networking and this happening even in ‘moderate’ places like Turkey. The Western message would be difficult to get through. As an ex-Muslim, you certainly have a role to play in the West itself. However, you’d be killed in most of the Middle East and South-Asia. For now, the West should be devoting its energies to restricting the spread of Islam into non-Islamic areas, rather than interfering with the world of Islam directly.
LikeLike
You’re right.
The Western message does not get through even among the Muslims living in the West, if anything,from my experience in the UK, they tend to be more fanatical.
However, it’s the West, where we Ex-Muslims have a space, through restricted, to come out of this religion and expose it for what it is.
We are some of the most die-hard allies of the West and it’s values, and we have only one request to make to the Western people and their governments: “DO NOT APPEASE.”
LikeLike
I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you make this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz respond as I’m looking to construct my own blog and would like to know where u got this from. thank you dcekefaefcee
LikeLike
A person necessarily help to make seriously articles I might state.
That is the first time I frequented your web page and so far?
I amazed with the research you made to create this particular post amazing.
Excellent job!
LikeLike
Completely Agree.
LikeLike
That’s a lot of words for “nuke their ass, take their gas”.
LikeLike
co sleeping rolling baby
LikeLike
does butter go bad in the freezer
LikeLike
Nuclear devastation of key Muslim cities just seems so … drastic, David. I echo the Age of Enlightenment comment or a reformation- however the tricky part is that that has to come from within Islam, which would apparently be haram and take far too long.
I thoroughly connected with your post about Israel waiting a lot longer in its most previous attempt to neutralise Hamas in Palestine. Playing the same game as the Palestinians did with a lot less casualties than Palestinians did – this way the media would do half the job of selling the destruction. For nuclear destruction to be justified in this day and age there has to be some pretty major provocations!
LikeLike
I would only justify the use of nuclear weapons if there was a nuclear threat from a Muslim country or if the survival of the Western way of life demanded it.
LikeLike
I’m very worried about Iran.
LikeLike