Squad,
I have a couple of more things to say about the invasion of Japan and
then I will shut up.
First, Did your history books mention anything about how many Japanese
prisoners we took during the Pacific campaign. Very few if any at all, and
we never killed anyone who wanted to surrender. There were a few Japanese
left on Morotai when I was there but we just took the perimeter that
encompassed the airfield, threw up a defense perimeter and left the
remaining few Japanese on the rest of the island. There were also about
12,000 on the nearby island of Halmahera who were bypassed and left
stranded because they had no ships or aircraft left with which to harass
us. I never saw a single Japanese prisoner. I am not saying that there
weren't any, just that there couldn't have been many. Our whole experience
with them was that they fought to the death. If anyone has any information
that contradicts this I would be interested to hear it.
As for the bombing of Japan proper, I am sure that all options were
investigated before the final decision was taken. I am also sure that the
global situation was considered, but I am also sure that the overriding
consideration was our stance vis a vis the island of Japan proper.
Remember that I mentioned the Kamakaze pilots a day or so ago. They were
still operating and would have made our position difficult had we just
ringed Japan and waited for surrender. Why should we risk our fleet with
the attendant casualties, to avoid killing a few more Japanese. Keep in
mind that this was a global war and there were no innocent bystanders
among the combatants. I can't think offhand of another war in which so many
people were so totally committed.
As for dropping a bomb or two offshore as a warning. We didn't have any
more, or maybe just one or two more, bombs. If the warning had not worked,
and I don't think it would have, we would have been compelled to invade
with terrible losses on both sides. Many more than the 170,000 or so that
were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ask yourself what the MoQ has to say
about such a situation.
It just burns me up when I hear that the history books imply that we
unnecessarily destroyed two cities just as a warning to the Russians. This
was most definitely not the overriding factor in the decision. I wonder who
originated this idea that became lodged in the history books. It must
generally be there because most of you seem to share the same opinion. I am
firmly of the opinion that if that was the only reason for the bombing that
it would not have been countenanced by our government or the general run of
citizens. It makes me wonder about the motives of the person who was
responsible for it. It would be illuminating to trace that idea back and
see where it originated.
I think it was Bill who said that the war was totally crazy and didn't
make any sense at all. Who would have benefitted had Germany and Japan won?
I agree with that idea but what is one to do if one is attacked by a mad
dog, just let him chew on your leg?
Bill, I apologize if I misunderstood your idea about surrender. I thought
something was wrong because the way I interpreted it it seemed to be
carrying the MoQ a bit too far.
David, your latest posts since returning from your vacation seem to
indicate that you are gaining a better understanding of the MoQ. Those of
us who are aware of Pirsig's idea can use it, if we have all of the facts,
to sort out moral questions but the beauty of Pirsig's idea is that it will
work for everybody whether or not they ever heard of Pirsig. Everybodys
truth, all of which are different, is being driven by Quality toward a
higher level of morality and value.
Quality has operated since the beginning of the universe and has produced a
universe which we consider good because Quality has also produced us as a
part of that universe. Inorganic quality is still operating albeit more
slowly since the inorganic universe has just about reached equilibrium.
However, all of the influences, including any input from inorganic Quality
that reach our subconscious, impinge on our DQ and become potentially a
part of any static latches that result. And, yes, DQ and SQ are continually
interacting to produce, with perhaps a little backsliding here and there, a
continually advancing level of morality in us. It does not seem quite right
to me to say that DQ is working toward DQ. In my mind what is happening is
that DQ is continually at work within our subconscious on the stream of
incoming data which results in static latches of SQ as the situation
warrants. To my mind the basic function of the MoQ seems perfectly clear.
Marsha is here and wants to send an E-mail so I will quit.
Ken
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST