Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Despite the fact that 'appeals to authority' are not admissible debate
> tactics.
This is a debate?
> However, whether Hiroshima or Nagasaki were legitimate targets
> is a completely separate issue from whether using an atomic weapon is
> legitimate for military forces. It can be said that nukes are
> specifically political, not military, weapons.
Well, I'd say they are a bit of both, depending on their use. Tactical
nukes are not very political, unless you are a german farmer.
> However, note that Leahy's statement uses the qualifier "Materal
> assistance". Whether a weapons use is of material assistance or not is
> completely separate from whether it is of psychological assistance.
Um. I would suggest he was saying "did it end the war or not?"
If it had so terrified the japanese that they had changed from a stance
of "death before surrender!" to "JESUS CHRIST WE'RE GIVING IN NOW! NOW!
NOW!" I'd say it *would* be considered of "material assistance"
I think you are engaging in some sophistry here.
Dwayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:22 MDT