-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 89 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
Special Report
Holier Than Obama
The National Council of Churches calls for unilateral nuclear disarmament — by the U.S. of course.
Potential nukes for an apocalyptic-minded and rabidly anti-American (not mention anti-Semitic) Iranian president do not much interest the National Council of Churches (NCC). So the NCC, whose board met in late September, is insisting that the U.S. unilaterally disarm, as an example to others.
According to the NCC, American nukes have “siphoned off untold billions” away from “more just” causes, “poisoned our air, our water, and our children,” “produced toxic waste” and engendered “inordinate pride, much resented by other nations,” serving to “degrade the status and esteem accorded to the U.S.” by other nations.
Others might argue that the U.S. nuclear umbrella preserved Western Civilization, deterred world war, facilitated a growing global economy generating unprecedented wealth for countless millions across 6 decades, and deterred countless other less responsible regimes from contriving their own nukes. But since the NCC sees the world through a utopian and chronically anti-American lens, it cannot imagine the likely sinister consequences if U.S. predominance were replaced by likely alternatives.
The NCC board’s anti-nuke stance is called “Nuclear Disarmament: The Time is Now,” and barely registers a quibble about Iran or North Korea, since it is American nukes that are the most uniquely threatening to world peace. (Read my associate Jeff Walton’s on-site account of the NCC board meeting here.)
At least a few on the NCC board tried to amend the 10-page NCC declaration by citing other nations’ nukes as causes for concern. “People will get to paragraph 2 [the main anti-U.S. litany] and roll their eyes saying, ‘there goes the NCC again,’” cautioned one Greek Orthodox board member. But a member of the NCC’s Justice and Advocacy Commission countered: “You own your own stuff before you start pointing fingers at others.” Virtually the entire board agreed with this version of sandbox justice, and the near exclusive focus on the U.S. as primary global nuclear villain remained.
“There’s a sense that this had fallen off the agenda of the ecumenical movement,” explained NCC General Secretary Michael Kinnamon about the NCC’s renewed anti-nuke interest, not having issued a manifesto in over 20 years. During the 1980s, the NCC naturally joined the Soviet-supported nuclear freeze movement and condemned President Reagan’s military build-up, especially his refusal to abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative, or missile shield. When Reagan refused to abandon missile defense at the 1986 Reykjavik summit with Gorbachev, the NCC predictably denounced Reagan for not accepting the Soviet chief’s “compromise,” which would have jettisoned missile defense altogether. According to the NCC then, Reagan’s “Star Wars/SDI dream” was the “obstacle which dimmed the bright hopes for serious arms reduction.” The NCC also nonsensically prophesied that missile defense would cost up to $2 trillion (in 1980s dollars), and insisted that many scientists doubted that missile defense was “technically achievable.”
Ironically, the NCC is very concerned about the cost-benefit analysis for U.S. nuclear weapons, a preoccupation not typical towards other more expansive government programs. “Considering how many trillions of dollar we have spent on nuclear weapons over the last seven decades, and how little we have to show for it, these words are sadly prophetic,” the NCC mourned, citing its own supposedly prescient declaration of 1951, which warned the U.S. would not inspire the world by “making its own security its chief end.” By one count, the U.S. spent about $52 billion on nukes last year, compared to overall federal spending of nearly $3 trillion, and military spending of over $600 billion. Whatever their morality or utility, nukes are not expensive relative to other government spending, especially when compared to the conventional military forces required to replace them.
In truth, the NCC, which is virtually pacifist despite the Just War traditions of nearly all its member denominations, sees all U.S. defense efforts as wasteful and immoral. Nukes just make a more convenient target. Claiming that U.S. military spending, including nukes, played no role in defeating totalitarianism over the last 70 years and deterring even greater conflicts, is of course absurd. Even more ridiculous is the NCC’s expectation that the U.S. will motivate North Korea, Iran and others to disarm by moral example. “We must rely on the diplomatic weight of the entire rest of the world coming down on them, peaceably, in order to induce change,” the church bureaucrats suggested. Yet the NCC implores that its dreamy “commitment should not be dismissed merely as a knee-jerk ‘liberal’ reaction to the new of the day,” but is actually “based on solid theological grounding, which goes back to the earliest years of the organization.”
For very liberal religious groups like the NCC that aspire towards but rarely achieve deep political relevance, the anti-nuke manifesto may seem bracing. But there’s little “theological grounding” in claims that tyrants and maniacs will disarm in response to moral example. Maybe the NCC, at least unconsciously, stopped pronouncing on nukes after the 1980s, at least until now, because its counsel for unilateral disarmament during the Cold War’s final acts was so sweepingly rejected and discredited. Once the premier voice for American mainstream churches, the declining NCC, amid theological and political confusion, never recovered from its missteps of 25 years ago. Fortunately, American leadership, however flawed, has usually shown more “theological grounding” regarding national defense than has the NCC.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (44) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/29/holier-than-obama
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Robbins Mitchell| 9.29.09 @ 6:26AM
I wonder if any of these clowns lock their doors at night...I recall sometime back seeing a statue of St Paul....with a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other...even the Lord Himself knew how to make good use of a flail when the occasion called for it...he damn well didn't sweet talk the moneychangers out of the temple
KyMouse| 9.29.09 @ 3:53PM
Christian saints are often depicted holding the instruments of their own deaths, which in Paul's case is a sword, since tradition says he was beheaded. However, your point is still valid, because Paul wrote (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) in Romans 13:4, "...if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he [the ruler] bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister [servant] of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil." I often point out that verse (and others) to churchgoers who are against the death penalty.
Louis Jenkins| 9.29.09 @ 8:22AM
"poisoned our air, our water, and our children," "produced toxic waste"
If they think it is bad now, just wait until the other nuclear powers of the world start lobbing nukes into their sanctuaries. Talk about turning the other cheek. It is a bad scenario gone worse. Soon every tin horn dictator will have a nuke, thanks to the likes of Pakistan, Russia, China, and N. Korea, and a weak administration. Confrontation with a couple of pit bulls is bad enough, but a pack of nuclear armed wiener dogs is more than one can handle.
Andrew B| 9.29.09 @ 8:33AM
Ah, another pronouncement from the Church of Jesus, The Purple Dinosaur! Yes, we should sweet-talk genocidal madmen into seeing the error of their ways!
Funny, the Jesus I find in the Bible is a pretty scary fellow, talking at length about judgement and Hell, about burning unfruitful vines and the gnashing of teeth.
It seems the NCC has a different edition of that particular book.
victor| 9.29.09 @ 9:20PM
It's only scary to those who turn their back on Him.
God wants no one to perish, but if you insist, He won't stand in your way.
Eric R.| 9.29.09 @ 8:51AM
The left-wing religious intelligentsia has acquiesced in pushing God off the throne of human conscience and replacing him with utopian big bully government.
But as soon as you depose God as the source of grace, you’re back in the sad old human condition of having to earn salvation through works, which is why the left is so obsessed with their own moral superiority for supporting “progressive” causes. (Tell me you don’t smell a strong whiff of perverted New England Puritanism among blue-state descendents hysterically demanding PC conformity). This is also why they are so blind to the profound pain, misery, and death caused by socialism/collectivism over the ages. They are too busy thinking about themselves to see clearly. A true evangelical Christian has already accepted his unworthiness, his redemption through God’s grace, and is now free to stop worrying about earning his own salvation; i.e. he can stop thinking about himself and start seeing others’ problems clearly.
As soon as you start lauding yourself for your progressive moral earnings, you start the “us and them” thinking; your political opponents are not merely wrong, they are bad people. (Hence the aphorism “conservatives think leftists have bad policies; leftists think conservatives are bad people”.) Soon you dehumanize them and justify hating them – which explains the shocking level of viciousness of leftist punditry, and their refusal to argue ideas, facts, and policies. Show a leftist hard data proving the benefits of moderate tax rates to the economy of the poor; he will launch a non-sequitur personal attack your motives.
The final price of the sin of pride is to become detached from reality, i.e. madness. The New Deal is a debt tsunami of $100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities that is about to crush the lives of millions of people, and cripple the government’s ability to help the needy. Yet far from being on their knees in contrite tears over the sinful disaster created by their utopian hubris, the leftists are doubling down on the collectivist religion, and indulging dangerous levels of guilt projection.
Margie| 9.29.09 @ 6:12PM
"Communism is the opiate of the intellectuals with no cure except as a guillotine might be called a cure for dandruff."
~Clare Booth Luce
Ryan| 9.29.09 @ 9:00AM
The NCC knows nothing about "solid theological grounding." If their starting point is not the Gospel - the essential message that we are sinners and our only chance for salvation is through the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, and His resurrection - then ANY religious perspective from ANY angle falters. Period.
Kevin, Meath| 9.29.09 @ 10:32AM
I find the idea that the US military have enough nuclear weapons to turn the world into a smouldering wasteland the stuff of nightmares. However I find the idea of the US ( & UK,France) having no such power with other ,shall we say less stable, nations, having such weapons much, much worse. Nuclear weapons are very expensive and horrific but they can not be uninvented 'we' have opened Pandora's we have to live with it.
martin j smith| 9.29.09 @ 4:29PM
Actually Hitler was trying to get an A Bomb as well and we knew it. I am glad we got their first -or would you like to have seen the consequences of Hitler having an A Bomb first given his nature as we learned about his regime ?
Kevin, Meath| 9.29.09 @ 5:02PM
Fair point, Adolf would have used it without doubt. The Germans were well behind the Allies and years away from a viable bomb. My point was nuclear weapons are disgusting and meant for genocide, but rightly or wrongly (I think we had little choice) we have open Pandora's box they are out there we can not put them back. We can not disarm and simply say the things don't exist, most countries would say thank god but a few would see it as an oppertunity.
victor| 9.29.09 @ 9:22PM
Actually, Hitler had the first jet, the ME-109, but fuel was scarce and we bombed the refineries and starved them. If he had enough fuel he would have bombed us all in the stone age.
Kevin. Meath| 9.30.09 @ 4:38AM
You mean the ME 262 but the point is broadly correct, if not the stoneage certainly stopped Operation Overlord (D-Day). Hitler also helpfully demanded it be redesigned to carry bombs which delayed its arrival in service.
Yosemeti Sam| 9.29.09 @ 11:08AM
Really though - how many Trojan Horse outfits
are there harpooning America - the white whale.
Son Of Sam | 9.29.09 @ 11:09AM
I guess my copy of the Bible must be defective or something. Otherwise, it would be plainly stating that the purpose of Christianity is for good men to commit suicide in the face of advancing evil
stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Pingback| 9.29.09 @ 11:15AM
The American Spectator : Holier Than Obama - Pasarici.NET Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.29.09 @ 11:27AM
The American Spectator : Holier Than Obama | kozmom news links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Anthony| 9.29.09 @ 12:00PM
Might I suggest that these board members at the NCC demonstrate to our 7th century fanatical friends and their allies, that Christian martyrdom is alive and well. Think of it as a religious special olympics or cultural exchange.
I can think of no better demonstration of their theological grounding than for these NCC board members to offer themselves up as human shields and chain themselves to Ahmadinejad's newly disclosed secret nuclear facility. Hopefully Bebe Netanyahu will see this as a twofer.
Let's really show these 7th century amateurs what good old fashioned Christian fanaticism can do!!
Pingback| 9.29.09 @ 12:23PM
The American Spectator : Holier Than Obama : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth , no m links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
martin j smith| 9.29.09 @ 4:24PM
When I was in my early twenties I was a peacenik. But part of my informal education so to speak was to rub elbows with all kinds of antiwar groups ( and of course anti nuke types ) including Quakers and Catholics etc. In hind sight I could never be sure whether these groups were religiously blind or they were underneath anti-american anti-capitalist as well. The lgical consequences of their ideas is that if were knocked out by a nuke that is too bad. It doesn't fit their paradigm. The irrationality and the lack of concern for our country in a way I can relate to is why I think such groups must be opposed and
exposed.
Richard Baker| 9.29.09 @ 6:07PM
The World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches are the most irreligious groups in recent memory. They might as well strike the word Churches from their titles. "Useful idiots" as Lenin would have called them. Buy them books, send them to school .....
bobmontgomery| 9.29.09 @ 10:31PM
Where is the "Americans for Separation of Church and State" when you really need them?
bobbymike| 10.1.09 @ 12:04AM
There is a chart somewhere that shows that the first half of the 20th century averaged something like 20 million deaths from all forms of warfare per decade dropping to about 3 million a decade in the second half of the century (I may have the numbers wrong but largely accurate percentage wise) the only difference is the invention of nuclear weapons and their deterrence of large scale conflicts.
So in relaity the "bomb" has arguably saved tens of millions of lives. These people are historically ignorant beyond comprehension. So that means Obama will probably listen to them.
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 12:13PM
The so called National Council of Churches has nothing at all to do with a church OR churches. It is an anti(small a)-Christ organization in reality. It is a haven for Leftist Communists, just as the churches in the Soviet Union were mostly front churches run by Communist stooges. The NCC has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ. Besides the true meaning of Church is~ "For wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." --Matthew 18:20 I doubt that they even pray together, and if they do I am sure it isn't to Him.
Paul Crowley| 10.1.09 @ 2:19PM
“There is a chart somewhere that shows that the first half of the 20th century averaged something like 20 million deaths from all forms of warfare per decade dropping to about 3 million a decade in the second half of the century (I may have the numbers wrong but largely accurate percentage wise) the only difference is the invention of nuclear weapons and their deterrence of large scale conflicts.
So in relaity the "bomb" has arguably saved tens of millions of lives. These people are historically ignorant beyond comprehension.” [bobbymike| 10.1.09 @ 12:04AM].
Hi Bobbymike:
First. I’m only addressing your comment, not Tooley’s essay or anything he’s put up about what I'll call the Religious Left. We’ll all have to put up with these placed in prominence for a few years, as we we had to endure the so-called Religous Right, for the previous eight.
So, as to your comment: This is an amazing foolish statement.
As to ‘historical ignorance,” then this is precisely what you pass on with this statement.
Also contrary to your statement, the historical ignorance is quite “comprehensible,” given the extremely low quality of the information available to the majority of the population, both the citizens of our country, and the other countrids of the world, and the overwhelming amount of it, the misinformation, and the trivial diversions, that we’re all bombarded with (now, non-stop).
The truth is EXACTLY the opposite of what you state.
But, first, the basics.
Weapons don’t save lives. No weapon is designed to save a life.
As to modern weapons development, since the end of World War I, then, in fact, you’re not paying attention.
Weapons development has proceeded in exactly the opposite direction.
Weapons have been developed to increase the loss of human life, while minimizing the destruction of infrastructure.
This has been true since the second world war. The fire bombing of the industrial regions of Japan, resulted in far more people killed than either of the atom bombs, but with damage to communications infrastructure (road, rail, air. . . ) that could be rapidly
repaired, as it was. Hence Japan being able to be used immediately, in June 1950, at the outbreak of the Korean War, for the bulk of the logistical support to U.N. Command in Korea. The additional railway development was accomplished in a matter of only weeks after the outbreak of the war.
This was precisely the trend in weapons development throughout the Cold War (1946-89). This trend has continued since.
The Israeli bombardment campaign last December demonstrated exactly the same design basis in the weapons that were employed and tested: They were highly lethal to human beings, while limiting damage to infrastructure (relative to previous weapons).
It is the intended use of the weapon that determines design.
It is the tactics that determine the intended use.
It is the strategy that determines the tactics developed Nuclear weapons are no different.
Since about the time of the SALT treateies, enacted during the Nixon administration, through to the beginning of the next large military modernization, that began with the Carter administration, and was continued during the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations (and is mislabeled the “Reagan Buildup”), a period covering roughly 1971-79, the distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons began to emerge within the American military, very quietly, and without reporting or fanfare. In reality, the distinction, didn’t emerge at the peon level until about 1979 onward.
No nuclear weapon prior to at least about 1971 was viewed as anything but a strategic weapon.
Today the tactical verus strategic distinction is established doctrine in the American military.
The internet abounds with material that would lead one to believe that it has been so, all the way back to 1955 or so: The advent of thermonuclear weapons, that facilitated the wide range in warhead size. It has not.
The nuclear warheads of the missiles that the missile batteries that I worked on were capable of launching were 1.5 and 2.5 kilton weapons.
When I mentioned the term “tactical nuclear weapons” to a friend in 1981, he looked at me with incredulity and replied:
Oh no, all nuclear weapons are strategic. Nuclear weapons can never be tactical.
He did stay abreast of technological developents and tends since he retired from the Atomic Energy Commission in 1964, and still liked to attend lectures and seminars at Sandia National Labs. However, he obviously hadn’t picked up that particular change yet. As I said, the transformation was made very quietly and was originally quite subtle.
What caught my attention during the debates of the presidential nomination candidates, Democrat and Republican, in 2007 was only due to their debating the use of nuclear weapons.
Obviously, given a batch like those were talking about it, then there’s nothing subtle about the distinction any longer.
And don’t be confused by another quite misleading, and false, statement that I’ve seen. The trend to smaller warheads on nukes does not mean that disarmament is proceeding naturally.
Paul Crowley| 10.1.09 @ 2:50PM
“There is a chart somewhere that shows that the first half of the 20th century averaged something like 20 million deaths from all forms of warfare per decade dropping to about 3 million a decade in the second half of the century (I may have the numbers wrong but largely accurate percentage wise) the only difference is the invention of nuclear weapons and their deterrence of large scale conflicts.
So in relaity the "bomb" has arguably saved tens of millions of lives. These people are historically ignorant beyond comprehension.” [bobbymike| 10.1.09 @ 12:04AM].
Hi bobbymike:
Now your main comment.
This can be “argued.”
Anything can be argued, even if only for the purpose of merely casting doubt.
These days EVERYTHING is argued, it seems, no?
As to deterrence and history, then, your conclusion, is quite false.
Weapons only deter large conflicts, if they do so at all, until the point is reached by an adversary in which his own development is deemed sufficient, and the calculated risk of going to war, and estimated casualties and destruction, by doing so, are determined to be acceptable (sometimes the calculation is a miscalculation, but it is the determining factor, just the same).
Most people believe that its during war that the major scientific and technological developments are made, and tactics developed. In reality, it’s the preparations before one goes to war that are the most critical. This as been true since at least the middle of the 19th century.
Since at least 1714, periods of general peace are the periods in which the developments of tactics, to carry out strategies, and technology and weapons to carry out the tactics, have undergone their most extensive advances, especially when accompanied by punitive expeditions (under whatever names given them publicly) that facilitate testing and further development. This is especially true of the 19th and 20th centuries.
“There is a chart somewhere that shows”
No doubt there’s more than one.
This tactic of employing truncated pieces of data in misinformation abounds.
The same manipulation of numbers, and deductive reasoning based upon them, could be made about the period, 1789-1913 (or 1714-39; 1749-54).
1789-1865: The advent of the Grand armies, in Europe and then in America, via mass conscription, facilitated by societal reforms and new technologies. It was a rough period:
The French Revolutionary wars, Napoleonic Wars, Revolutionary wars in Spanish America, Crimean War, and the American Civil War.
That period coincided with the takeoff of the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution (and the institutionalization of usury in Europe, for the first time in its history, the critical element to both).
Technologically, a change of major interest was the rapid development and expansion of iron production ("better living through chemistry?" Potentially, yes.).
Steel production improved, and increased, primarily following the Napoleonic Wars, but until the 1859, steel remained something produced in very small quantity. Other than such as swords, virtual no steel weapons were used in the American Civil War and no transportation employed steel, except in naval uses: precision instruments such as the chronometer and other navigation tools (‘star shooting’). There were no steel railroads or ships whatsoever. However, the development of processes for iron production, their improvement and expansion, facilitated the development of railroads, steam travel, land and maritime, and development of weapons unimagined in say, 1792.
The fist chemical process for the mass production of steel went online in 1859, in England. Within 15 years, the second major chemical process was online in France.
American mass production of steel began about 1865.
Mass production of steel, coupled with British social reforms over the decades that proceeded it, was the primary reason that the British were able to engage in the punitive expeditions that they did, 1867-1905, as well as those of the French, the Belgians, the Italians, and the new Empire of Germany, beginning shortly eafter the British and the French. It’s the first time that any of these were able to engage in military campaigns, off of the coasts, and into the interiors of the continents of Africa and Asia. The British military defeat of the Ashanti in the first Anglo-Ashanti war, in 1872, would have been impossible in 1858, just as the ease of the United Nations defeat of Iraq, driving it out of Kuwait, in 1991, would have been impossible in 1981. The primary reason in both instances was the technological developments that preceded the wars. In the case of the Anglo-Ashanti war, it was primarily due to the mass production of steel, and the particular inventions and technological improvements, made possible by it.
Between 1859 and 1913, the first metallic sea-going warships were developed, the first powered air flight was made (Germany in 1900), the size and caliber of field and coastal artillery and naval guns steadily increased, while the standard caliber of military rifles decreased form .50 caliber to .30, while increasing in power, ranged and acuracy, machine guns and light field artillery were developed, improved telegraphs, submarine cables were laid around the worlds oceans, railroads proliferated, the Marconi wireless was developed, the internal combustion engine emerged, and new weapons attained a previously unimaginable lethality.
Development of military technology, a principle focus, was further facilitated by the experience gained in the many punitive expeditions of the period, and a couple short major wars (such as the Franco-Prussian war of 1871; the Japanese-Sino War of 1894, the American-Spanish War of 1898, the Anglo-Boer War of 1899, and the Japanese-Russian War of 1904, among some others).
The Japanese: With the addition of manipulation of historical commentary and religion, forming a new culture, Japanese peasants, 4f8" to 5f2", could be transformed from rice farmers into "Samarai Warriors." An impossibility, prior to 1859.
In 1913, a man dissecting the 19th century, and commenting upon it as you have about the 20th century, could easily have stated “So in reality the” massive weapons of today, unimaginable, even 50 years ago, have “arguably saved tens of millions of lives.” He could also have added your snide remark that anyone making any warnings to the contrary, was “historically ignorant beyond comprehension.”
Plenty of comments of this kind were made. Deterence is not a new notion.
No one would even have thought to make such a statement by 1918.
Although, plenty believed that the War to end all Wars had been fought. A man today, 80 years old or younger, should not make the mistake of considering himself any smarter than those men of 1918 who believed this, merely because he was born at a time that has allowed him to see that it didn't happen.
But, hey, beginning with the first school of tropical medicine, opened in London in 1897, and the rapid advances that followed, World War One was the first war in since the advent of the large conscript armies circa 1792) in which more men died due to wounds inflicted in battle than by disease (including those who died like insects hit with a burst of Raid bug spray, in the world’s first use of lethal gas weapons).
World War Two dwarfed World War One.
Technological advances, development, the development of tactics, and design of new weapons to carry them out, and command and control structures, and the development of communications infrastructure (e.g. roads, railroads, aerodomes. . . ) based upon lessons learned in WWI, all developed amazing rapidly, 1919-39, ensured it.
But, hey, for Americans, World War II was the turning point for men dying of battle wounds on the battlefield. It was the first war in which upwards of 95 percent of the men wounded in battle, lived. That was due to the advances in medical evacuation.
This was sustained and improved in Korea and Vietnam due to medical technology and further improvements in medical evacuation.
But just as weapons don’t save lives, and weapons design has trended toward limiting infracstructure damage while increasing lethality, weapons only deter large scale conflicts until the point is reached by an adversary in which the calculated risk of going to war, and estimated casualties and destruction, is acceptable.
Between 1688-1945, no weapons have deterred large scale conflicts.
The reality is that during this period, weapons development has ensured that each successive general war has become larger and more destructive of people than the last.
The tend of the 20th and 21st century has continued. Civilians endure the largest casualties, fatalities, wounded, and maimed.
The real question now is, especially given the events of the past seven years, and the present, and the absurdity of the public explanations from our government administrators, are we moving toward another?
Paul Crowley| 10.1.09 @ 3:18PM
Correction.
The man In 1913:
Dissecting the 19th century, and commenting upon it as you have about the 20th century.
He would not have said
“arguably saved tens of millions of lives” in 1913.
In 1913, it would have been:
“arguably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”
It's not a minor detail.
I apologize for my sloppiness.
Richard Baker| 10.1.09 @ 5:25PM
Crowley:
Weapons don't save lives? Say that to the men who were planning to invade the Japanese Home islands under Operations Olympic and Coronet, the two parts of Operation Downfall, the overthrow of Japan. Revisionism aside, the two atomic bombs stopped the slaughter of at least a million Americans and tens of millions of Japanese. Would you rather that Downfall had been executed instead?
Paul Crowley| 10.2.09 @ 12:41AM
"Weapons don't save lives?" [chard Baker| 10.1.09 @ 5:25PM]
Baker:
No. They don't.
Your example is a poor one. Primarily it confuses tactical with strategical.
The War in the Pacific, 1941-45, did not save any human lives.
I'll stand with my comments as made.
Richard Baker| 10.2.09 @ 9:56PM
Crowle
Ask those men, moron. Word games instead of reality. Mental masturbation is your forte..
Paul Crowley| 10.2.09 @ 11:47PM
"Word games instead of reality." [Richard Baker]
Hi Richard Baker:
I stated that:
"Weapons don’t save lives. No weapon is designed to save a life" [Paul Crowley| 10.1.09 @ 2:19PM]
and
"The War in the Pacific, 1941-45, did not save any human lives" [Paul Crowley| 10.2.09 @ 12:41AM].
If you call these "Word games instead of reality," and if you really are incapable of understanding something as basic as this, then you're in no position to be calling anyone a "moron." You certainly have an extremely weak grip on reality.
I'll still stand with my comments as made, including the ones that addressed bobbymike's main point.
Richard Baker| 10.3.09 @ 6:48PM
Crowley:
Avoiding approximately 1 Million Americans and 10-15 Million Japanese being killed seems to be insignificant to you. The two atomic bombs vitiated the need for a truly horrendous sacrifice. With liberals like yoursef, these equations are just a mental game. Again, ask those who didn't have to execute the invasion. You are truly sick.
Paul Crowley| 10.4.09 @ 2:10PM
"With liberals like yoursef, these equations are just a mental game. . . . You are truly sick." [Richard Baker|
10.3.09 @ 6:48PM]
Richard Baker:
First:
You have a foul mouth and you run off at the mouth and make nasty statements all too easily.
I strongly doubt that you're as stupid as you're comments are.
I also strongly doubt that you speak to people in this manner in person.
Given that, then what a pitiful gutless wonder that runs off at the mouth while sitting behind a computer terminal.
I am quite certain that I you and I were standing, man to man, and eye to eye, then you would not be running off at the mouth the way you are here.
I’m not what can be called a liberal, as liberal has been redefined in this country, since
1972.
You are right. The hypothetical numbers that you’re posting, do mean nothing me to me.
Foremost because your comments are irrelevant to my comments made addressing the comment by bobbymike.
Secondly, what you're posting are not equations.
They're numbers. Highly debatable numbers that you don’t even state where the estimates come from. You might as well inflate your hypothetical to one billion.
Most importantly, it's yourself who is doing what you accuse me of doing: Engaging in a "mental game," in particular in "Word games. Your comments only serve to distract and are a complete diversion from the points I made in addressing bobbymike's comment.
Be sure that I wouldn't hesitate to say this to your face.
You and the other human vermin of American Spectator, and websites like it, left and right, that have to survive by posting comments like these to distract and whip up the vitriol are pathetic.
Paul Crowley| 10.4.09 @ 2:29PM
“Again, ask those who didn't have to execute the invasion” [Richard Baker| 10.3.09 @ 6:48PM]
You’re talking to the wrong guy with this bunk.
I have over eleven years naval service, over eight regular, with four navy/marine expeditionary medals and (I learned later) the one Armed Forces expeditionary medal.
I don’t have to just talk about what “daddy did in the big war,” as is common for so many aged about 40 to 60 years old, or what “granddad did” for those about 35 years old and younger.
My late father did serve in the “big war.” He was maimed for life in it (the same kind of wound as Senator Dole of Kansas; which is primarily a WWII type wound).
Keeping it to only four generations, immediate and extended family, then I have family who served with Pershing in Mexico (“grandaddy”), World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and numerous expeditions throughout this entire period: Army, navy, air corps, marines and air force. And now, with the army, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
None of this is extraordinary. But it does provide personsal familiarity with who the guys are who have to bear the brunt of the worse consequences.
Again, you’re talking to the wrong guy with your foul mouth and your gutless wonder tough-guy talk.
So. To hell with you and these kind of rubbish statements from you.
Paul Crowley| 10.4.09 @ 2:42PM
I'll still stand with my comments as made, to you and the original comments you attempt to confuse that addressed bobbymike's main point. [Paul Crowley| 10.1.09 @ 2:19PM and Paul Crowley| 10.1.09 @ 2:50PM]
It is a false argument that atomic and nuclear weapons have saved lives.
The real question is are we being led into another general war?
Weapons don’t save lives.
Military weapons are not designed to save lives.
Weapons development throughout the 20th century through to the present, has focused on designs to increase lethality (human death) while minimizing destruction of infrastructure.
(The example I gave in my comments was from WWII, the fire bombing of industrial Japan that killed more people than either of the atom bombs, and the Israeli assault in Gaza last December)
Between 1688-1945, the reality is that weapons development has ensured that each successive general war has become larger and more destructive of people than the last.
The trend of the 20th century has continued into the 21st century: Civilians endure the largest casualties in all conflicts: Fatalities, wounded, maimed, homeless and displaced.
As I said to you: The War in the Pacific, 1941-45, did not save any human lives.
In fact, wars in the western Pacific region, 1946-79, were orders of magnitude more destructive of human live than even the War in the Pacific, 1941-45.
Nuclear weapons certainly saved no lives in the Western Pacific during the Cold War.
More than 90,000 of the millions of people killed were Americans, with hundreds of thousands of American casualties total.
This is simple reality and the only point I was making.
Richard Baker| 10.9.09 @ 6:15PM
Crowley:
Your strident ignorance of human life is on display. A true description of your blather is just what it is. Armchair soldiers such as yourself always disregard the true cost of war as an academic exercise. Millions of us fought and died for fools like you to be able to say such stupidity. Remember, the leaders truly responsible for sending men to war and possible death don't ignore the potential numbers of dead in their deliberations. You think its an irrelevancy. Sad.
lay123 | 4.4.10 @ 1:09AM
They are really popular among teenagers or outdoor enthusiasts, famous by 'hip-hop' style in rap and hip-hop videos and also well-known for their strong and enduring work boots varieties www.timberland-outlets.com