That's a bit unfair - they were part of an extended military campaign in two theatres before they Nuked japan.
Because that totally justifies the intimidation tactics employed. There is no excuse in the universe that can be made for the fire-bombing and nuking of innocent citizens when military targets are a possibility that would've resulted in a similar show of power and intimidation into surrender. Ending a war by threatening to escalate to genocide makes being labelled a violent fuck easy.
Because that totally justifies the intimidation tactics employed. There is no excuse in the universe that can be made for the fire-bombing and nuking of innocent citizens when military targets are a possibility that would've resulted in a similar show of power and intimidation into surrender. Ending a war by threatening to escalate to genocide makes being labelled a violent fuck easy.
No, it doesn't.
But that doesn't mean the just went "Oh, we lost at Pearl Harbor? Well fuck it, Nuke Japan!" You're technically correct - it was after they lost a naval base - but it ignores everything that happened in between the two events, on both sides, which is bullshit.
If you want to make a Scott argument about it, go ahead, but quite simply, you can condemn the US for nuking japan without ignoring the other parts of the war they participated in.
But that doesn't mean the just went "Oh, we lost at Pearl Harbor? Well fuck it, Nuke Japan!" You're technically correct - it was after they lost a naval base - but it ignores everything that happened in between the two events, on both sides, which is bullshit.
If you want to make a Scott argument about it, go ahead, but quite simply, you can condemn the US for nuking japan without ignoring the other parts of the war they participated in.
You are stupid and you should feel bad and I am right and you are wrong and nya! It's easier to be a huge dick and make a giant contrast by utilizing the two well known events. Very few people have a single clue what the fuck happened in the 4-ish years in between. Either way, it shouldn't surprise many that "violent fucks" is not the craziest thing you can say about the US.
There was no justifiable cause for employing the second nuke at the very least; the first one is arguable, as the war was winding down and Japanese imperial resources were diminishing.
An invasion of Japan proper would more than likely have incurred significantly more casualties, American and Japanese alike, than both of the two nukes combined. You can argue the morality of targeting civilian centers re: military targets, however I doubt you would see the same Japan today if we invaded.
The first one would only be arguable if it was on a non-civilian target. Which is not the case. The end of the war on that side is known mostly as the US just stomping with overly heavy-handed and overly far escalated measures.
An invasion of Japan proper would more than likely have incurred significantly more casualties, American and Japanese alike, than both of the two nukes combined. You can argue the morality of targeting civilian centers re: military targets, however I doubt you would see the same Japan today if we invaded.
And I'm glad it didn't escalate to that, but the decisions made were more abhorrent than they had to be.
Doubtful. Invasions leading up to Okinawa indicated that the Japanese were ready to fiercely defend their homeland tooth and nail. It would have been an extremely bloody affair that would have ravaged the landscape. It's super easy to say that the decisions made were wrong in 20/20 hindsight, but they were not made lightly.
Of course, one thing to keep in mind was that no one knew how horrible the after effects of dropping nukes would be at the time. They basically just viewed it as a "big huge bomb" not much different from conventional munitions except for the explosive yield. It wasn't until they saw the after effects of radiation sickness in the survivors that they realized the true horrors of nuclear war.
As far as the firebombing of Japan and such, it was the kind of stuff that both sides did during the war. Partly due to the inaccuracy of the bombs used at the time and partly because the whole "civilians are not fair game" notion hadn't quite been developed/established by that point. In addition to the Blitz, you also have the firebombing of Dresden by a combined UK/US force. Also, the UK decided to bomb Germany, at night, civilian casualties be damned, to make things easier for their air crews to survive their bombing raids. I can also go on about the Japanese using the Chinese territory they conquered to test weaponized Bubonic plague and whatnot on the civilian population as well.
Doubtful. Invasions leading up to Okinawa indicated that the Japanese were ready to fiercely defend their homeland tooth and nail. It would have been an extremely bloody affair that would have ravaged the landscape.
I agreed with you that invasion would have been worse. I still think that the solution decided upon could've been made better by not targeting civilians. Especially after already fire-bombing civilian targets.
In addition to the Blitz, you also have the firebombing of Dresden by a combined UK/US force. Also, the UK decided to bomb Germany, at night, civilian casualties be damned, to make things easier for their air crews to survive their bombing raids. I can also go on about the Japanese using the Chinese territory they conquered to test weaponized Bubonic plague and whatnot on the civilian population as well.
Yup, those things were also atrocious monstrosities. Even with not knowing the full effects of nuclear bombing, "BIG BOMB" still means a big fucking bomb. Nuclear or not, that shit's lunacy on primary civilian targets.
We also killed more people with carpet bombings in Germany and firebombings in Japan.
If you want some fuel for the fire, the fact that such weapons were used once, in an era before anyone in the world could retaliate in kind, probably did more to ensure that such weapons are never used again than anything else we could ever have done as humans. The fact that the entire world has seen what the weakest, simplest, and most minimal iteration of such a weapon can do, must surely give pause to any person who will ever have the capacity to use such a weapon again.
The fact that such a thing can exist means that it must exist. It means that it does exist, for it can be made by anyone with the will to do so. World disarmament is impossible. Our only hope is to make it impossible for a human to actually, willfully make the decision to use one. We can't will them out of existence, but we can create a world where no intelligent person, no matter how inclined toward malice, can expect a positive outcome from their use. For some, that's a matter of personal morals (our own "no first strike" policy). For others, it's a matter of deterrence (the guarantee of a retaliatory strike erasing all gains).
I fear living in a world where nuclear weapons are commonly held and easily deployed, but I fear far more living in a world where the major powers of the world do not possess any possibility of deterrence. Major powers are too entangled to benefit from a nuclear launch: it is small actors, regional powers, and terrorists who have the most to "gain" from an uncountered nuclear strike.
probably did more to ensure that such weapons are never used again
Premature to say so. It'll be premature to say something like that for as long as humanity exists with the knowledge.
The topic of deterrence of terrorists is a bit silly when you look at suicide bombers. There are people that are content/happy with mutually assured destruction.
Granted, in the case of the Cold War, we actually had two (at the time) very stable states who by and large were ruled by fairly rational people who were very paranoid about the other launching a first strike while not particularly wanting to launch one themselves -- preferring to duke out their differences in ideology in conventional proxy wars, for better or worse.
The bigger fear today is that A) some less stable state with nuclear technology throws caution to the wind and uses it or some less stable state lets nuclear technology fall into the hands of suicide bombers either willfully or due to negligence.
We got through the Cold War without launching one. It's not premature at all.
So you can look into the future? Just because we got through the first Cold War doesn't mean there might not come a second one in the history of humanity. The Cold War was also between nations that did not desire their own destruction. If you start talking about terrorists such things fly out the window.
A mature responsible citizen with a firearm is no more dangerous that a responsible citizen with a car.
A psychotic nutburger with a firearm is dangerous, but not anymore dangerous than a psychotic nutburger with a car. (Please do not take this as an excuse to argue whether or not cars are more dangerous that guns, I think we can agree that an F-150 hitting a crowd of people at 60mph would be pretty hideous.)
We take precautions to ensure that those who use cars have the proper training to use them competently and safely. In some states we do the same with firearms, and in states where we don't we should.
Draconian anti gun-measures will not solve our problems anymore than mandating open carry would. I don’t care if someone wants to make me pass a test to carry my pistol, provided it's a test that any competent citizen can pass. I think most other gun enthusiasts would agree.
I just don’t think that taking guns away from folks will help curb violence. Desperate and disturbed people will do horrific things. They have done so since long before the invention of gunpowder, and will continue to do so for as long as any of us can hope to live.
I agree. Combine that with improved mental health resources in the US, and better healthcare, you'd be well on your way to never having something like this happen again.
A firearm can hurt a lot of people, in the hands of a person who has descended so deeply into psychosis that they believe it is a good or justifiable idea. Take their gun away, they can't shoot anybody with it, but they have other options - for example, how many people did Ted Kaczynski kill without ever firing a single shot?
However, if you treat that root cause, and they are never allowed to sink so far into their psychosis, then you're removing the cause, not just trying to treat a single symptom.
Are we really going to humor the gun=car false equivalency again?
This was in the link I posted before and I think it pretty well demolishes that:
...I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?
I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.
What is a "more lethal payload"? I'm fairly certain my dad's .30-06 hunting rifle will induce more damage than 5.56x45. It also fires farther and more accurately. Are we arguing about magazine sizes? Hell, a fucking Beta-C mag is more likely to jam than a STANAG 30 round. Are be banning receivers or magazines? Are we banning calibers? Gas operation cycling? Barrel length? Muzzles?
The thing that is so silly about "assault weapons" arguments, is that they expose people who don't really understand nuances about guns.
Furthermore, if you are going to use this incident to argue stricter gun regulations, you need to rationalize that Norway, a country with significantly stricter gun laws, had a more lethal mass shooting just a year ago. Also, gun deaths due to AR-15s are mere fraction of the deaths due to gun violence every year. The most lethal weapon in terms of deaths on the streets is probably a 9mm Beretta or Glock.
It's cute that people get all emotional when these events happen, but they also like to ignore any real statistics and facts.
Are we really going to humor the gun=car false equivalency again?
If you can provide me with another commonly used object that someone could us to kill dozens of people that we issue liscenses for, then I would be happy to use it in my analogies.
I'm not trying to say that cars and guns are the same thing, only that they are both objects of geat destructive potential that require some amount of regulation.
I own a few firearms, and i'm not going to shot anyone with them. I just dont want anyone telling me that I cant own them because someone else shot someone with thiers, and I dont think you would be OK with someone taking your things or making your hobbies illegal just because some people are assholes who misuse them.
Lastly, Mr. Alexander doesn't know much about firearms. An AR15 fires a much smaller and less devastateing round than most hunting rifles, and with less acuracy at that. Perhaps he should write about things he's qualified to speak on and jabber less about my profession.
What is a "more lethal payload"? I'm fairly certain my dad's .30-06 hunting rifle will induce more damage than 5.56x45. It also fires farther and more accurately. Are we arguing about magazine sizes? Hell, a fucking Beta-C mag is more likely to jam than a STANAG 30 round. Are be banning receivers or magazines? Are we banning calibers? Gas operation cycling? Barrel length? Muzzles?
The thing that is so silly about "assault weapons" arguments, is that they expose people who don't really understand nuances about guns.
THANK YOU.
Furthermore, if you are going to use this incident to argue stricter gun regulations, you need to rationalize that Norway, a country with significantly stricter gun laws, had a more lethal mass shooting just a year ago. Also, gun deaths due to AR-15s are mere fraction of the deaths due to gun violence every year. The most lethal weapon in terms of deaths on the streets is probably a 9mm Beretta or Glock.
Exactly, its a lot harder to conceal a AR-15 in your pocket than it is a Glock.
The AR-15 mostly gets its bad rap due to being the civilian version of the military M-16. However, it does use a relatively small 9mm bullet and was designed so that your front line grunts can spray a wide swath of enemy targets with a hail of lead. Hunting rifles are more designed for one-shot kills and they typically do use larger bullets and are designed for more accuracy. The AR-15 is more accurate than the AK-47, but the AK is also designed more or less just for spewing large quantities of lead.
Edit: I want to clarify that only the fully-automatic versions are designed for spewing large quantities lead. The semi-auto versions available to civilians don't. Frankly, I can't see what the advantage is of an AR-15 over some other hunting rifle (speaking as a non-expert with a modest interest in firearms, FYI), unless they think it looks cooler or they like it because they used it during military service.
Holy fuck, that is stupid. It's just a torrent of ignorance, and I'd even wager he's PROUD of being so ignorant.
What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve?
So, precisely, what is the difference between an AR-15 and this nebulous idea of a "Hunting rifle", mechanically? Fuck all. The AR-15 is not significantly different to any semi-automatic rifle, hunting or otherwise. In fact, many hunting rifles fire significantly more powerful rounds, and will accept magazines of equal size. The difference is that they have nice wood furniture, rather than coloured plastic, so they're not black and scary, and have shoulder things that go up.
does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes.
Yes, If you MAKE it that way. If you want to get really pedantic, then they hold an exactly equal amount of rounds - One. The magazine holds the rest, and magazines come in a large variety of sizes and shapes. And guess what? You can put a larger magazine on a semi-auto hunting rifle. Hell, there are even plenty of bolt-action rifles that are magazine fed, either fixed internal or external.
Oh, and yes, I'm comparing Semi-Auto to Semi-Auto, not Semi-auto to Bolt-action, because I don't need to manipulate reality to suit my opinion. Also, Because "Hunting rifle" is simply a rifle that is used primarily for hunting, it doesn't have any specific definition that I'm aware of - in fact, the AR-15 is one of the most popular hunting rifles in America.
However, in the interest of fairness, I'm not comparing AR-15s to themselves, but to other semi-auto hunting rifles.
Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes.
In what universe, precisely, does this moron live? Because it sure as hell isn't anything resembling the reality we know and love.
First of all, AR-15s do not, generally, fire further and more accurately than most other semi-auto hunting rifles, they're equal. Unless Mr Alexander is speaking of only bolt-action hunting rifles, like the Remington Model 700. Which coincidentally, is also the basis for the US millitary's two standard sniper platforms.
Also, since when is the .233 round more accurate and longer range than, say, a 30.06 or a .308? Allow me to answer, never.
Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes.
What the fuck is he even talking about? Does he genuinely think that a .233 round is more lethal than a nice, big 30.06 or .308, despite being a smaller and (generally)slower round?
Well, while we're talking about the homeopathic theory of ballistics, I'm going to go grab a .22 and BLOW UP THE WORLD.
This is just abject nonsense. At this point, you can't correct him with basic knowledge of firearms, because this is venturing into the realm of denying the laws of physics.
So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality.
Sure, I'd go with that, if you weren't absolutely wrong on pretty much every single point you were going for, to the degree that you are literally contradicting fundamental laws of reality.
I think it pretty well demolishes that:
Yo dawg, I heard you like things getting demolished.
Edit - Oh hey, ninja'ed by four people, but Andrew in particular.
So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality.
Sure, I'd go with that
Yo dawg, do any of the technical inaccuracies contradict the central point; that the only purpose of assault weapons is to make is easier to kill large numbers of people? Apparently not.
Comments
But that doesn't mean the just went "Oh, we lost at Pearl Harbor? Well fuck it, Nuke Japan!" You're technically correct - it was after they lost a naval base - but it ignores everything that happened in between the two events, on both sides, which is bullshit.
If you want to make a Scott argument about it, go ahead, but quite simply, you can condemn the US for nuking japan without ignoring the other parts of the war they participated in.
There was no justifiable cause for employing the second nuke at the very least; the first one is arguable, as the war was winding down and Japanese imperial resources were diminishing.
As far as the firebombing of Japan and such, it was the kind of stuff that both sides did during the war. Partly due to the inaccuracy of the bombs used at the time and partly because the whole "civilians are not fair game" notion hadn't quite been developed/established by that point. In addition to the Blitz, you also have the firebombing of Dresden by a combined UK/US force. Also, the UK decided to bomb Germany, at night, civilian casualties be damned, to make things easier for their air crews to survive their bombing raids. I can also go on about the Japanese using the Chinese territory they conquered to test weaponized Bubonic plague and whatnot on the civilian population as well.
If you want some fuel for the fire, the fact that such weapons were used once, in an era before anyone in the world could retaliate in kind, probably did more to ensure that such weapons are never used again than anything else we could ever have done as humans. The fact that the entire world has seen what the weakest, simplest, and most minimal iteration of such a weapon can do, must surely give pause to any person who will ever have the capacity to use such a weapon again.
The fact that such a thing can exist means that it must exist. It means that it does exist, for it can be made by anyone with the will to do so. World disarmament is impossible. Our only hope is to make it impossible for a human to actually, willfully make the decision to use one. We can't will them out of existence, but we can create a world where no intelligent person, no matter how inclined toward malice, can expect a positive outcome from their use. For some, that's a matter of personal morals (our own "no first strike" policy). For others, it's a matter of deterrence (the guarantee of a retaliatory strike erasing all gains).
I fear living in a world where nuclear weapons are commonly held and easily deployed, but I fear far more living in a world where the major powers of the world do not possess any possibility of deterrence. Major powers are too entangled to benefit from a nuclear launch: it is small actors, regional powers, and terrorists who have the most to "gain" from an uncountered nuclear strike.
The topic of deterrence of terrorists is a bit silly when you look at suicide bombers. There are people that are content/happy with mutually assured destruction.
The bigger fear today is that A) some less stable state with nuclear technology throws caution to the wind and uses it or
A psychotic nutburger with a firearm is dangerous, but not anymore dangerous than a psychotic nutburger with a car. (Please do not take this as an excuse to argue whether or not cars are more dangerous that guns, I think we can agree that an F-150 hitting a crowd of people at 60mph would be pretty hideous.)
We take precautions to ensure that those who use cars have the proper training to use them competently and safely. In some states we do the same with firearms, and in states where we don't we should.
Draconian anti gun-measures will not solve our problems anymore than mandating open carry would. I don’t care if someone wants to make me pass a test to carry my pistol, provided it's a test that any competent citizen can pass. I think most other gun enthusiasts would agree.
I just don’t think that taking guns away from folks will help curb violence. Desperate and disturbed people will do horrific things. They have done so since long before the invention of gunpowder, and will continue to do so for as long as any of us can hope to live.
A firearm can hurt a lot of people, in the hands of a person who has descended so deeply into psychosis that they believe it is a good or justifiable idea. Take their gun away, they can't shoot anybody with it, but they have other options - for example, how many people did Ted Kaczynski kill without ever firing a single shot?
However, if you treat that root cause, and they are never allowed to sink so far into their psychosis, then you're removing the cause, not just trying to treat a single symptom.
The thing that is so silly about "assault weapons" arguments, is that they expose people who don't really understand nuances about guns.
Furthermore, if you are going to use this incident to argue stricter gun regulations, you need to rationalize that Norway, a country with significantly stricter gun laws, had a more lethal mass shooting just a year ago. Also, gun deaths due to AR-15s are mere fraction of the deaths due to gun violence every year. The most lethal weapon in terms of deaths on the streets is probably a 9mm Beretta or Glock.
It's cute that people get all emotional when these events happen, but they also like to ignore any real statistics and facts.
I'm not trying to say that cars and guns are the same thing, only that they are both objects of geat destructive potential that require some amount of regulation.
I own a few firearms, and i'm not going to shot anyone with them. I just dont want anyone telling me that I cant own them because someone else shot someone with thiers, and I dont think you would be OK with someone taking your things or making your hobbies illegal just because some people are assholes who misuse them.
Lastly, Mr. Alexander doesn't know much about firearms. An AR15 fires a much smaller and less devastateing round than most hunting rifles, and with less acuracy at that. Perhaps he should write about things he's qualified to speak on and jabber less about my profession.
Edit: I want to clarify that only the fully-automatic versions are designed for spewing large quantities lead. The semi-auto versions available to civilians don't. Frankly, I can't see what the advantage is of an AR-15 over some other hunting rifle (speaking as a non-expert with a modest interest in firearms, FYI), unless they think it looks cooler or they like it because they used it during military service.
Oh, and yes, I'm comparing Semi-Auto to Semi-Auto, not Semi-auto to Bolt-action, because I don't need to manipulate reality to suit my opinion. Also, Because "Hunting rifle" is simply a rifle that is used primarily for hunting, it doesn't have any specific definition that I'm aware of - in fact, the AR-15 is one of the most popular hunting rifles in America.
However, in the interest of fairness, I'm not comparing AR-15s to themselves, but to other semi-auto hunting rifles. In what universe, precisely, does this moron live? Because it sure as hell isn't anything resembling the reality we know and love.
First of all, AR-15s do not, generally, fire further and more accurately than most other semi-auto hunting rifles, they're equal. Unless Mr Alexander is speaking of only bolt-action hunting rifles, like the Remington Model 700. Which coincidentally, is also the basis for the US millitary's two standard sniper platforms.
Also, since when is the .233 round more accurate and longer range than, say, a 30.06 or a .308? Allow me to answer, never. What the fuck is he even talking about? Does he genuinely think that a .233 round is more lethal than a nice, big 30.06 or .308, despite being a smaller and (generally)slower round?
Well, while we're talking about the homeopathic theory of ballistics, I'm going to go grab a .22 and BLOW UP THE WORLD.
This is just abject nonsense. At this point, you can't correct him with basic knowledge of firearms, because this is venturing into the realm of denying the laws of physics. Sure, I'd go with that, if you weren't absolutely wrong on pretty much every single point you were going for, to the degree that you are literally contradicting fundamental laws of reality. Yo dawg, I heard you like things getting demolished.
Edit - Oh hey, ninja'ed by four people, but Andrew in particular.
Edit: Please define "assault weapon" without the use of a brand or model name.