Ukraine

[Cyborg Girl]

@Fisher: I overreacted the first time around, and I'm sorry for that. Seriously. Please see my more recent post, wherein I try to be a bit more civil.

Really? You honestly beleive that by critizing someone for commiting treason in the name of the greater good for humanity that it makes me a hypocrite or a jingoist? When have you ever heard me justify a war crime or a crime of any type simply because of patriotism?

As for the greater good of humanity.... there is no way I will EVER beleive that giving the soviets or the chinese the secrets to atomic weapons was an act that was for the greater good of humanity. And at the end of the day it does not matter what the rationalization was. Commiting a crime for any reason is not Ok.

Patriotism no. Necessity (or perceived necessity), yes. Hiroshima for instance was a war crime by any reasonable definition. It was also (probably) necessary, it (probably) did the world a favor, it (probably) saved more lives in the long run than were lost... But it was still a war crime. And I have seen you (and others) try to justify it.

You know what? Maybe it was justified. No other recourse, etc. The long term results are still somewhat ambiguous, though it looks like things may have turned out much worse otherwise. Point is, how can you be sure that the "bleeding heart scientists" didn't see things the same way?

For that matter, how can you be sure that they didn't draw the right conclusion? We may have the benefit of hindsight, but we can't examine alternate histories outside of pure theory.

[SciFiFisher]

@Fisher: I overreacted the first time around, and I'm sorry for that. Seriously. Please see my more recent post, wherein I try to be a bit more civil.

Really? You honestly beleive that by critizing someone for commiting treason in the name of the greater good for humanity that it makes me a hypocrite or a jingoist? When have you ever heard me justify a war crime or a crime of any type simply because of patriotism?

As for the greater good of humanity.... there is no way I will EVER beleive that giving the soviets or the chinese the secrets to atomic weapons was an act that was for the greater good of humanity. And at the end of the day it does not matter what the rationalization was. Commiting a crime for any reason is not Ok.

Patriotism no. Necessity (or perceived necessity), yes. Hiroshima for instance was a war crime by any reasonable definition. It was also (probably) necessary, it (probably) did the world a favor, it (probably) saved more lives in the long run than were lost... But it was still a war crime. And I have seen you (and others) try to justify it.

You know what? Maybe it was justified. No other recourse, etc. The long term results are still somewhat ambiguous, though it looks like things may have turned out much worse otherwise. Point is, how can you be sure that the "bleeding heart scientists" didn't see things the same way?

For that matter, how can you be sure that they didn't draw the right conclusion? We may have the benefit of hindsight, but we can't examine alternate histories outside of pure theory.

Ok, now I am going to lawyer up on you. Hiroshima was NOT a WAR CRIME. I am not justifying it. I am telling you a cold hard fact. The act of making war on a civilian population as part of "total war" was not a war crime in WWII. The Dresden fire bombings, The V2 rockets and the Luftwaf bombings of London, and etc, were all part of a concept called "total war". They were considered legitimate targets of war.

You can argue that it should have been a war crime. And in the aftermath of WWII international laws were passed that made it a war crime to commit "total war" on civilian populations. But, when they dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was not a criminal act. It was a legitimate act of war. Japan had been called upon to surrender repeatedly and had refused. They were still actively at war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, based on the laws of war at that time, were legitimate military targets.

Telling you that does not make me a hypocrite. Nor does it mean that I think the means justifies the end.

the following is a justification and quite a good one
The bombing of Hiroshima has been credited with a total death toll of 200,000. Nagasaki approximately 245,000. The total death toll may be approximately 500,000 depending on whose numbers you beleive.

According to conservative estimates an invasion of Japan would have cost 1.7 million US lives and 5 million Japanese lives. The high estimates werre 4 million and 10 million respectively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... d_Nagasaki

500,000 lives vs upwards of 14 million. OK, lets assume it really wouldn't have been that bad. Lets say it would ONLY have been 500,000 US lives and 2 million Japanese lives. the math still adds up. at a bare minimum dropping the bombs potentially saved 5 lives for every one that was taken.

And the one thing we can be certain of is that Truman had this information when he made the decision to drop the bombs. He knew that he was potentially saving millions of lives in exchange for 500,000 or less.

Now lets look at your hypothesis that the scientists who through espionage committed a crime of treason. No wiggle room here. Treason and Espionage are crimes punishable by death and imprisonment at the time the crimes were committed. I will refrain from using the term "bleeding heart liberal" as it seems to be a hot button for you.

They claim that thier ideology and desire to serve humanity and a higher cause justify thier actions. That because they were trying to prevent a "horrible crime against humanity" thier crimes were neccessary.

They made this decision based on ideology and "principles". They had no facts to support thier supposition that communisim was a better steward of humanity. Quite the opposite was true in fact if they had bothered to study the methods used by the Chinese communists or the Soviet communists during WWII.

As for those who betrayed thier country for idealism and the belief that war would be eliminated and a "crime against humanity" would be averted. Well, they had no assurance of any kind that what they beleived would be true. They didn't even have the kind of data that Truman had to base his decision on. They justifed the means and the ends purely on a theory and a strong hope that the future would be brighter because everyone would see the horror that atomic war would bring and world peace would ensure for the next thousand years. Well, I guess we know how that turned out don't we.

So, the short answer to your question "how can you be sure that the "bleeding heart scientists" didn't see things the same way?" is this. I am sure that they may have thought they saw things the same way. But, they were wrong because as scientists they should have known better. They had lots of hard data that did not support their beliefs and they ignored the data. And they had scanty or no data to support thier belief.

What they did was rationalize a bad decision. They committed crimes and then tried to convince themselves and others that they did it for noble purposes.

That is the difference between Truman's decision to drop the bomb and Fuchs or Halls decision to commit treason.

[Cyborg Girl]

Ok, now I am going to lawyer up on you. Hiroshima was NOT a WAR CRIME. I am not justifying it. I am telling you a cold hard fact. The act of making war on a civilian population as part of "total war" was not a war crime in WWII. The Dresden fire bombings, The V2 rockets and the Luftwaf bombings of London, and etc, were all part of a concept called "total war". They were considered legitimate targets of war.

Not a war crime by the definitions of the time, then. Still an example of an atrocity committed for the greater good. In all seriousness, you cannot say that killing ~200,000 people by violent means is not an atrocity, even if it is utterly necessary. Necessity doesn't make their pain and fear nonexistent. Necessary evils are still evil, no matter what you call them; let's not split hairs.

Re "lack of information," remember the argument we had on FWIS 2 about the "fog of war"? How civilians don't get to second-guess field decisions by soldiers, because they're trying to make the best decision with what tools and information they have? Seems to me something similar applies here. If you're going to suspend judgment of soldiers who end up making a bad decision, but were pretty sure it was right at the time based on bad data... Why not the same for civilian traitors who are motivated by ideology?

What they did was rationalize a bad decision. They committed crimes and then tried to convince themselves and others that they did it for noble purposes.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of them probably did fully intend well, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[SciFiFisher]

Ok, now I am going to lawyer up on you. Hiroshima was NOT a WAR CRIME. I am not justifying it. I am telling you a cold hard fact. The act of making war on a civilian population as part of "total war" was not a war crime in WWII. The Dresden fire bombings, The V2 rockets and the Luftwaf bombings of London, and etc, were all part of a concept called "total war". They were considered legitimate targets of war.

Not a war crime by the definitions of the time, then. Still an example of an atrocity committed for the greater good. In all seriousness, you cannot say that killing ~200,000 people by violent means is not an atrocity, even if it is utterly necessary. Necessity doesn't make their pain and fear nonexistent. Necessary evils are still evil, no matter what you call them; let's not split hairs.

If by atrocity committed for the greater good you mean all acts of war then I may agree with you. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were larger in scale than other acts of war but in essence were no more horrible or evil than any other act. The fire bombing of Dresden for example caused approximately 25,000 causalities. Yet, it took over 4 raids and more than 1000 heavy bombers to inflict that much damage. Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in approximately 400,000 to 500,000 deaths and took only 2 heavy bombers. The shear scale of destruction in relationship to the size of the force used is overwhelming. Yet, the killing of approximately 25,000 people who were primarily civilians and/or industrial workers is no less an "atrocity of war" than Hiroshima was. Both were considered to be legitimate targets with legitimate strategic goals. But, in relationship to the military, strategic, and global effects the dropping of the atomic bomb was no more evil than the fire bombing of Dresden or the Luftwaffe attacks on London.

War is not inherently good or evil. War can be just. or it can be considered evil (not just). The way the Japanese and the Nazi's or even the Soviets and the Chinese fought wars has ultimately been determined to be evil for the most part.

Re "lack of information," remember the argument we had on FWIS 2 about the "fog of war"? How civilians don't get to second-guess field decisions by soldiers, because they're trying to make the best decision with what tools and information they have? Seems to me something similar applies here. If you're going to suspend judgment of soldiers who end up making a bad decision, but were pretty sure it was right at the time based on bad data... Why not the same for civilian traitors who are motivated by ideology?

Because you are comparing a lawful act to an unlawful act. Let's look at an analogy. A Police officer is engaged in a shoot out with an armed criminal who has already shot several people. An innocent bystander is shot. After the shoot out it is determined that the police officer shot the innocent bystander. The police officer is not charged with attempted murder because he was engaged in a lawful action. i.e. stopping an armed and dangerous criminal from killing himself or others. It's considered an accident. In war we call it collateral damage.

In war soldiers engage in lawful combat. Sometimes they make decisions or commit acts that cause harm or damage. It is similar to the police officer. If it is a legitimate act while engaged in war then they are not charged. OTOH look at the case of the soldier who went into a village and shot approx. 14 people. He was charged with murder and is currently facing life in prison. Because at the time he did this there was no way he could say he was engaged in a lawful act of war.

In the case of the scientists who committed treason they are analogous to the soldier who shot the villagers. They knew they were committing an unlawful act and chose to do it anyway. It's analogous to knowing the difference between right and wrong. Their ideology may have driven them to do it but they still knew that what they did was illegal.

[Sigma_Orionis]

The Lithuanians are getting restless.....

Lithuania pleads for US gas exports to counter Russia

[Cyborg Girl]

@Fisher: I covered that earlier. Systems of law are designed to enforce ethical standards, not the other way around. And if the ethical standards are a bit biased, or just totally screwed up, well then you can get arbitrary or outright unethical laws.

(In Nazi Germany it was a crime to offer Jews shelter from the Gestapo. And some people deliberately broke the law and hid away complete strangers, because they knew that in that case the law was evil. Would you argue that that wasn't brave or righteous, because it involved violating the law? I shouldn't have to point this out either BTW; you probably know the history a lot better than I do...)

[SciFiFisher]

@Fisher: I covered that earlier. Systems of law are designed to enforce ethical standards, not the other way around. And if the ethical standards are a bit biased, or just totally screwed up, well then you can get arbitrary or outright unethical laws.

(In Nazi Germany it was a crime to offer Jews shelter from the Gestapo. And some people deliberately broke the law and hid away complete strangers, because they knew that in that case the law was evil. Would you argue that that wasn't brave or righteous, because it involved violating the law? I shouldn't have to point this out either BTW; you probably know the history a lot better than I do...)

I don't think the two acts are comparable. What you are describing comes under the heading of civil disobedience. Done so because they had a pretty good hunch that the Jews in question would be put to death or worse if they were handed over to the Gestapo.

Committing an act of espionage with the intent to hand over the secret of atomic bombs to the soviet or Chinese communists is not an act of civil disobedience. What you are implying IMO is that forbidding anyone to share this information was evil. That the law which made these scientists criminals was evil or un-ethical.

Why would it be evil or un-ethical to prevent Joseph Stalin from having atomic bombs? Possibly one of the most evil men to ever walk the earth. He made Hitler look like a piker. Mao Zedong is credited with the genocide of upwards of 64 million people. Please tell me how it would be un ethical to have prevented Joseph Stalin's main competitor for most ruthless psychopath of the 20th Century from having the atomic bomb?

Also note that one of my premises is that the reason that Mao and Stalin were able to get away with genocides that made Hitler look like a small time piker was because they had the atomic bomb and could say "if you mess with us we will start turning the whole damn planet into a glow in the dark neon message for aliens who stop by 10,000 years from now".

[FZR1KG]

And yet oddly enough neither country ever used a nuke in anger.
Not making any point here other than the one of fact.

[Swift]

But GJ, I am of the old school "if you are a carpenter then every problem is a nail" type person. So, of course, there is a military solution to every problem.

And I've become a member of the school that when it comes to these sorts of geopolitical problems (Ukraine, Syria, Venezula, Egypt, etc.) that there are actually no solutions and we actually cause harm when we think there are solutions, and we cause the most harm when we think there are simple or easy ones.

I'm truly not an isolationist, but I also think that any leader or politician that claims there are solutions to these problems is either trying to delude us, or is deluding themselves.

[geonuc]

I'm of the opinion that there usually are solutions - and by solutions I mean things that can be done to improve the situation. The problem is that there is no way to predict the outcomes in almost all cases. Too much depends on how various people will react and the people controlling these countries do not generally act predictably. As an example, say there is a situation with North Korea. Would you trust any politician to say he or she can predict the response of Kim Jong Un, or the generals that might be in a position to depose him? I sure wouldn't.

I don't even think we can accurately predict Putin's responses and he's not a crazy or stupid man.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I'm of the opinion that there usually are solutions - and by solutions I mean things that can be done to improve the situation.

I tend to agree. The problem with saying "any choice we make is bad, so we should not interfere" is that non-interference is also a choice. The thing to do is evaluate all your choices (including inaction) to determine which will do the least harm. And then you do that thing.

Yes, you could be wrong. Yes, you are always acting on incomplete information. Yes, there are always unintended consequences.

But what else is there to do? There's no better course of action than to try to muddle on along as best we can.

[SciFiFisher]

And there is the rub. There are always solutions. But you can never predict the first, second, or third order effects with 100% precision. So, you make your best shot at getting it right and then you wait to see what the results are. Or if you are the American public you keep messing with the solutions because you don't see the results fast enough.

[FZR1KG]

I tend to agree. The problem with saying "any choice we make is bad, so we should not interfere" is that non-interference is also a choice. The thing to do is evaluate all your choices (including inaction) to determine which will do the least harm. And then you do that thing.

That's not the way politics work.
The choice isn't what will cause the least harm, it's which choice gives us the most interest/profit/position of power.

That's why you will often here that someone up in the ranks saying the US won't interfere because it has no interests or that some form of action is against American interests.
Now I'm not saying it's just the US that does this, all countries do.
It has nothing ever to do with least harm. Even peace keeping missions, aid missions, humanitarian operations etc are all based on a countries interest.

Not sure if you were aware of that or not so I thought I'd point it out.

[SciFiFisher]

I tend to agree. The problem with saying "any choice we make is bad, so we should not interfere" is that non-interference is also a choice. The thing to do is evaluate all your choices (including inaction) to determine which will do the least harm. And then you do that thing.

That's not the way politics work.
The choice isn't what will cause the least harm, it's which choice gives us the most interest/profit/position of power.

That's why you will often here that someone up in the ranks saying the US won't interfere because it has no interests or that some form of action is against American interests.
Now I'm not saying it's just the US that does this, all countries do.
It has nothing ever to do with least harm. Even peace keeping missions, aid missions, humanitarian operations etc are all based on a countries interest.

Not sure if you were aware of that or not so I thought I'd point it out.

This is a good point. I often find myself saying to people, who are screaming 'WE ARE ONLY GOING TO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST BECAUSE OF OIL" , "and you are surprised by this?" Anyone who has read the national security strategy or policy papers put out by the President should realize that oil and our dependence upon is a big national security factor. At least Obama has made reducing our dependence on foreign oil one of his strategic policies. And all countries have a vested interest in protecting their national security and the things that make their economies work.

Of course, I think that we don't just go to war only because of the oil. I like to think it's not quite that simple.

[geonuc]

National interests are always a factor when deciding whether or not to intervene. An over-arching factor, I'd say. But there are other considerations that I believe do come into play, particularly humanitarian interests. Some of our (the US) leaders actually do care about that. Bill Clinton said that his biggest regret was failing to intervene in Rwanda. The US had no security interests there, but he thought, in hindsight, that he should have committed the US to do something anyway.

The other big factor is alliances, although one might consider that within the sphere of national interests. An example might be the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands. The US obviously couldn't give a shit who controlled those islands except for our close alliance with the UK. So, we assisted the Brits in taking them back. Had the Royal Navy needed and asked for more overt and substantial help, I'm sure it would have been forthcoming.

[Cyborg Girl]

@Fisher, the flip side to that is: how would you like it if some foreign power invaded your country and started bombing things for "national security reasons"? Those reasons might be very legitimate for the country in question, but I'm sure you'd still object if people in your immediate family started getting blown to pieces.

[Cyborg Girl]

Why the hell am I still even trying to be polite...

Fisher, does the word "lebensraum" ring a bell?

[FZR1KG]

National interests are always a factor when deciding whether or not to intervene. An over-arching factor, I'd say. But there are other considerations that I believe do come into play, particularly humanitarian interests. Some of our (the US) leaders actually do care about that. Bill Clinton said that his biggest regret was failing to intervene in Rwanda. The US had no security interests there, but he thought, in hindsight, that he should have committed the US to do something anyway.

The other big factor is alliances, although one might consider that within the sphere of national interests. An example might be the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands. The US obviously couldn't give a shit who controlled those islands except for our close alliance with the UK. So, we assisted the Brits in taking them back. Had the Royal Navy needed and asked for more overt and substantial help, I'm sure it would have been forthcoming.

I know that there are people that "want" to do something and "regret" not doing something but when you look at the track record it's almost always based on national security. You'll notice Clinton "regrets" not doing something but that means several things, the first being that he didn't do anything, the rest will be about the amount of effort and political friends he's distance and political enemies he'd have made by doing so.

I look at it like a trend, it's pretty much all based on national interests with the occasional outliers done for other reasons.
Much like all statistics you pretty much just ignore the outliers and work with the trend.
That's what I see anyway.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Sigma_Orionis' Law of International Politics: EVERYBODY is guilty, ALWAYS.

[SciFiFisher]

And yet oddly enough neither country ever used a nuke in anger.
Not making any point here other than the one of fact.

I tend to believe that was because the US had a deterrent policy in place.

[SciFiFisher]

Why the hell am I still even trying to be polite...

Fisher, does the word "lebensraum" ring a bell?

Like a justification for invading your neighbor.

Also see Manifest Destiny and other rationalizations.

National security interests when they are reasonably rationale are a good thing. Just Google the Presidential National Security Policy and you will see some very nice bed time material for the cure to insomnia. But, if you actually read what it says it does make sense from a national and international POV.

[SciFiFisher]

@Fisher, the flip side to that is: how would you like it if some foreign power invaded your country and started bombing things for "national security reasons"? Those reasons might be very legitimate for the country in question, but I'm sure you'd still object if people in your immediate family started getting blown to pieces.

Of course I would. When it happens to you and people you know its PERSONAL!!! When it happens 10,000 miles away to total strangers it's just foreign policy and besides the latest episode of "The Walking Dead" is on.

A more serious answer is that I do realize that real people and real consequences occur when the US decides to invade a country or bring about regime change. I am not indifferent to the human costs of those decisions. But, I also believe that sometimes you have to go to war. Interestingly enough even your most avowed pacifist will acknowledge that there are times when war might make sense. It's getting everyone to agree on when that time is that is hard. And even when you get them to agree they sometimes change their minds. Look at the whole Iraq War debate. All kinds of Democrats voted for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq. And almost everyone one of them has subsequently said "well, I didn't really mean it".

War is messy, violent, chaotic, and it frequently does not get you the results you thought you would get when you decided to do it. But, speaking strictly from a military view point that is partly because we have civilian leaders who truly do not understand what war really is, what you can realistically expect to gain from it, and how to fight a war. Although to be fair to our civilian leaders there are military leaders who have the same problem.

[SciFiFisher]

National interests are always a factor when deciding whether or not to intervene. An over-arching factor, I'd say. But there are other considerations that I believe do come into play, particularly humanitarian interests. Some of our (the US) leaders actually do care about that. Bill Clinton said that his biggest regret was failing to intervene in Rwanda. The US had no security interests there, but he thought, in hindsight, that he should have committed the US to do something anyway.

The other big factor is alliances, although one might consider that within the sphere of national interests. An example might be the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands. The US obviously couldn't give a shit who controlled those islands except for our close alliance with the UK. So, we assisted the Brits in taking them back. Had the Royal Navy needed and asked for more overt and substantial help, I'm sure it would have been forthcoming.

I know that there are people that "want" to do something and "regret" not doing something but when you look at the track record it's almost always based on national security. You'll notice Clinton "regrets" not doing something but that means several things, the first being that he didn't do anything, the rest will be about the amount of effort and political friends he's distance and political enemies he'd have made by doing so.

I look at it like a trend, it's pretty much all based on national interests with the occasional outliers done for other reasons.
Much like all statistics you pretty much just ignore the outliers and work with the trend.
That's what I see anyway.

There are times when it serves a national and/or international interest to engage in humanitarian efforts. The UN intervention in Kosovo is an example. The humanitarian efforts by the US in response to the tsunami in Malaysia and the disaster in Haiti are good examples.

OTOH there are risks to intervening because it's the "right thing". Look at how Somali went and still is going to a large extent. Talk about a big discouragement to helping people.

[Parrothead]

The UN General Assembly voted that Russia's actions against Crimea were illegal. It's not binding and Russia doesn't care, that's nothing new. It seems what Russia may care about, is the way some of it's neighbours voted (or abstained from voting).

http://www.rferl.org/content/un-russia-sphere-of-influence-cis/25313464.html

About a week and a half ago Russia criticized Estonia over it's treatment of ethnic Russians. I look at this one as rattling of cages:

story

Lavrov apparently wants Ukraine's different regions to have some autonomy and Ukraine's constitution to declare Ukraine neutral, ruling out NATO membership.

On side note: over the last couple of weeks, I again have heard claims on radio talk/call-in shows about Bush and Gorby signing a deal that NATO would not expand to Russia's borders. I do not recall such an agreement ever being signed. What little I have found in books I have from the time deals with fear of a unified Germany. No deal signed but they signalled to keep the current NATO Warsaw Pact structures as is, for the time being.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Maybe that had something to do with this:

Ukraine crisis: Russia vows no invasion

I bet you'll take Uncle Vlad's word for it any day wouldn't you Parrothead?

And this:

Putin Calls Obama to Discuss Ukraine, White House Says

Is Pooty feeling the heat or simply pretending he is?