Your opinion about the Hiroshima And Nagasaki bombings

Miscellaneous History
101

@Rettoper

All Austrians are not Anarchists and not all Anarchists are Austrians.

It is futile to talk to an anarchist whether they be Austrian or not. They have no clue what so ever on how to get to their dream society, it is as Utopian as communism. They don’t live in the real world of facts on the ground, they live in a perfect ivory tower of dogmatic purity i.e. they only discuss sematics and issues like and most of them only discuss sematics, thymology, metaphysics (objective values and morals), or other “why is there air?”

Austrian non Anarchists however is of a very different flavor. Unfortunately most on Mises.org are Rothbardian Anarchists so you unfortunately rule out Austrians when in fact its the Anarchists you should rule out. Anarchists, Noam Chomsky is an archetypal anarchist, come very close to the pacifist point of view as regards to war i.e. turn the other cheek plus all war is wrong, even self defense. Michael Moore, not an anarchist but a pacifist, when asked if WWII could have been stopped by intervention 1936 when Hitler invvaded Sudetenland if he would have been for that. He said no. The typical pacifist and anarchist position. SIC!

For those of us that believe that Austrian Economics is the way of the future and is the closest there is to a comprehensive understanding of human economic interaction most discussions on Mises.org are extremely off putting, in fact extremely counterproductive for Austrian Economics. They scare away 99 % of those interested. Austrian Economics have now become synonymous with the Tea Party and/or radical Anarchism. Nothing could be further from the case.

It’s a shame. Austrian Economics coudl have had a great comback, unfortuantely it won’t! Who needs enemies when you have friends such as the Community on Mises.org?

102

**

You didn’t even read the link I sent you did you. You’re in danger of becoming as bad as Rettoper on ideology.

103

@Snowflake

What link? Where did you send it? Post it as response to this post.

All Austrians are not Anarchists, von Mises and F.A Hayek definitely wasn’t. Rothbard was. I’m did not come to Austrian Economics through Rothbard but through F.A Hayek and later von Mises. Rothbard turns me off big time as does Agorism.

104

Rothbard’s work is full of real world facts and analysis:

Economic Thought Before Adam Smith

America’s Great Depression

History of Money and Banking in the United States

The Panic of 1819

Conceived in Liberty

Even if you disagree with Rothbard’s anarchism, his analysis of historical events is concrete, factual, and incredibly enlightening.

105

We don’t really have a pure democracy, we have a republic, just saying.

106

Oh, sorry. I’ve posted it several times on this thread to Rettoper and gotten in the habit saying one ought to read it :stuck_out_tongue: I did mention it to you as “If you haven’t read Hoppe’s paper on privatized national defense, you need to read it”

The work I had in mind is this. It is very long. I do not want to waste your time reading through all of it.

This is a shorter version. It is less complete. The reason I wanted you to read it is not because I think its a perfect case for market-defense, but that its a good jumping off point.

The small bit of game theory that modern economists/political theorists are willing to touch is limited to the effects of welfare programs on worker incentives. The envelope can be pushed much further, and I think Hoppe does a decent job of this.

You might also find this useful. Roderick T Long considers several possible objections to Market Anarchism, and addresses them.

Sorry to spam you with so much material. I don’t want to waste your time or act like i’m schooling you. But the framework really is essential…

Rothbard is just abrasive. When you agree with him, he’s great. If you have objections to him, he’s annoying. I remember watching a Q&A session with him, and someone asked a really good question about economics, he didn’t understand it and just kind of implied the speaker was confused. Made me sigh…

107

“We don’t really have a pure democracy, we have a republic, just saying.”

Not enough mob rule?

Oooohhh noooo!

108

All I did was point out that your statements are invalid because you don’t know what thymology or methodological individualism are. So, your response is an argument from ignorance. I don’t expect better from you. Before you denounce “Austrian dogma”, maybe you should get a clue what you are talking about.

IN the example you cited, it is a historical fact that the overwhelming majority of the USA military leadership believed in August 1945 that, in the absence of the atom bomb, an attack on the Japanese home islands was necessary to force japan to surrender unconditionally.

Source? I gave two quotes from high ranking military which is at odds with this. There were quite a few more and there are lots of historians who don’t agree with your apologist myth.

Moreover, the majority of the US public supported the dropping of the bombs then, (85%) and they support it today (57%).

This is an appeal to public opinion. So what? The majority of Americans still think that the gold in Fort Knox is backing the value of their dollars. The rest of your post is just stupid and/or irrelevant.

109

How could it be, you try to stop the brutal despotism by imposing another one? You think we set up a democracy in Iraq? Not that there is much difference, democracy always ends up as a sort of ‘soft’ despotism. Much like we have here in the US today. You can not use state sponsored action to bring about anarchist society, if you even know what that means. Based on the context of your writing, you do not.

Now that I have adressed that my thoughts on the bombs being dropped:

The bombings were wrong. Plain and simple. The targets, while there may have been of some military value, were population centers. I can not fathom knowing that I was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people all to achieve a political goal. Morally, I find it absolutely disgusting.

110

Well there is a semblance of democracy in Iraq (more than in the US certainly) but it was brought not by the gracious US but by Iraqi pressure. The US plan was to have a long transitionary period where Iraq would be ruled by Coalition Provisional Authority which would pave the way for the rule of puppet Ahmed Chalabi. But then the Shias forced elections to be held ahead of time and dully elected pro-Iranian parties.

111

@Andrew Ryan,

I like our Republican government. The mob gets what it wants. Works for me.

112

“I like our Republican government. The mob gets what it wants. Works for me.”

Did you know you answer everything in “Nothing I can do about it” “It is what it is” “If it helps me, I’m fine with”

113

Well, that’s my basic set of values.

114

All Austrians are not Anarchists and not all Anarchists are Austrians.-- Illuminatus

Thanks for straightening that out, I assumed as much.

I will preface my arguments with emphasis on the anarchists as opposed to austrians.

Note that anarchists wouldn’t have a “pot to piss in” if they stood alone. It is typical of extremists fringe groups to anchor to respected dogma, theory, or school in order to promote themselves.

I think many of these anarchists are more suited to an extreme leftwing forum, than this.

115

“Well, that’s my basic set of values.”

Alright. It’s just that it feels that when your in sort of a debate and you say, well there’s simply nothing you can do about it. It feels like an easy way out of the discussion.

Not that I meant my previous question as an insult. Just something I noticed recently.

116

I think many of these anarchists are more suited to an extreme leftwing forum, than this.

Well, many of us anarchists simply take the libertarian ideas to their logical conclusion.

I will preface my arguments with emphasis on the anarchists as opposed to austrians.

So you’re placing “austrians” and “anarchists” in different groups here. Was Rothbard not an Austrian, then? Nor Hoppe now, or any of the other Rothbardians? Austrian economics is a science, anarchism is a political system. Anarchists can certainly do economic science in the Austrian tradition and allow the conclusions of that science to color their political beliefs. It’s like saying that I don’t believe in mathematics because I’m an anarchist.

117

As Block has explained, you can be an Austrian (accept Austrian theory) and still be a Socialist. That just means you’re aware of Socialism’s shortcomings but still want to inflict it on others.

118

‘However, the primary motive for dropping the bomb was to preserve the lives of the anticipated 1 million dead US servicemen and the 3-4 million dead Japanese.’

Well if that were the case then why not agree to allow Japan to surrender on conditions? If what you are saying is the truth then what quicker way to save a million US people, because let’s be honest they weren’t interested in saving Japanese lives as can be seen by the firebombing of Tokyo, then to allow Japan to surrender? I mean you are trying to do this silly cost/benefit analysis with human lives where the greater number is saved at the sacrifice of a few then what is a million lives compared to a few petty concessions?

119

@Rettoper

I grew up in Sweden during what is called the Crazy Quarter Century (1968-1993), the functional socialist years, and went to the most limousine liberal High School in Sweden, however they were not limousine liberals but what my grandfather called “salon bolshevists” discussing Marxist theory and preaching revolutions whilst drinking vintage champagne and eating Persian black caviar.

They were so secterist and dogmatic, so purist and aggressive in their belief system that it forever turn me off ideological purity and dogma. They were Utopian dreamers and visionaries without a roadmap and any the tools making it possible to reach their Utopia. I also came to dislike the vitriolic hatred they felt for pragmatic, small step change as well as those willing to compromise. They seemed to hate them more than they hated me, their polar opposite.

I see the same, unfortunately, here on Mises.org and when talking to US anarcho-capitalists and US libertarians. That is way I stopped calling myself libertarian and instead has chosen the name F.A. Hayek started using (Old Whig) Classic Liberal.

That said any movement need the zealots, the fanatics and the true-believers to grow but they have to be the fringe not the core as is the case with the US libertarian movement.

As to regards to the issue in this thread nobody has yet been able to explain to me how the US should have reacted in WWII in general and particular in how to get Japan to unconditionally surrender without losing millions of Allied soldiers lives.

All I get an answer is theories on market force military solutions. That is all well and done but it does not address the issue in this thread.

“Your opinion on the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings”

The facts on the ground facing the Allied high command were twofold:

  1. How to make Japan surrender at as low a cost as possible? (Given that Japan had to unconditionally surrender, conditional surrender was not an option after the Potsdam Ultimatum stated that without surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in “the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland”.

  2. The Public Opinion in the Allied countries in general and the US in particular since the Asian theatre of operations were mainly consisting of US troops. Generals have to take into account what politicians want and politicians need to take into account what the voter want. The voter wanted as shown by an overwhelming majority to end the war as fast and as painlessly as possible with minimum loss of Allied soldier’s life.

We are taking about what is (or was), not what ought to be or as my law school professor said:

“- I’ll give you an F if you discuss what you think ought to be, de lege ferenda, instead of solving the case at hand on the facts and its merits, de lege lata.”

120

Well if that were the case then why not agree to allow Japan to surrender on conditions? If what you are saying is the truth then what quicker way to save a million US people, because let’s be honest they weren’t interested in saving Japanese lives as can be seen by the firebombing of Tokyo, then to allow Japan to surrender? I mean you are trying to do this silly cost/benefit analysis with human lives where the greater number is saved at the sacrifice of a few then what is a million lives compared to a few petty concessions?

Conditions of this sort of peace would have almost certainly included retaining of Japanese possessions that it had siezed in aggressive actions against the Chinese people. That’s hardly a surrender as much as it is an appeasement, but then for a nation-state that hardly knew the meaning of surrender I’d suspect there wasn’t much room for negotiation, certainly not amongst the pro-war cabinet of the Empire. We might have diffused one conflict for now, but sowing the seeds of the next one by rewarding such behavior to save our own hides is hardly a desirable outcome as far as curbing aggression is concerned.