Tags for this video have been changed from 'WWII, war, atomic, bomb, japan' to 'WWII, war, atomic, bomb, japan, history channel' - edited by calvados

Question - is the suggest videos setting broken or off?
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/calvados/kitties-and-nukes

(Checks own lists)... oh nuts, that feature appears to be off/broken.

Anyway, have you added this one yet? http://www.videosift.com/video/massive-attack-1946-atomic-bomb-test-at-bikini-atoll

Tags for this video have been changed from 'nuke, cannon, bomb, a bomb' to 'nuke, cannon, bomb, atomic bomb, weapon' - edited by calvados

WOW! Right before I came across this post, I was thinking to myself, "you know what I've NEVER seen before? Someone taking footage of atomic explosions and then putting MUSIC to it... I bet that would be a wicked awesome idea!" and then here it was. The most unique and revolutionary concept EVER. Congrats to you for coming up with it!

http://www.videosift.com/video/Atomic-Bomb
http://www.videosift.com/video/massive-attack-1946-atomic-bomb-test-at-bikini-atoll
http://www.videosift.com/video/Nuclear-Power
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sad-Storm-A-Nuclear-History
http://www.videosift.com/video/GYBE-Rockets-Fall-on-Rocket-Falls
http://www.videosift.com/video/nuclear-explosion-compilation
http://www.videosift.com/video/Underground-Nuclear-Bomb-Testing-INTENSE-Music
http://www.videosift.com/video/Orchestral-string-music-and-nuclear-explosions-haunting

and my favorite:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Big-Boom--2

If you go to Japan TODAY you will find in their museums a whitewash of the atrocities they committed in China and Korea. It really is kind of striking hwo they don't deal with their own issues in the war. At least in America the issue of the atomic bomb and it's use have been debated ad infinitum.

The music from this clip and http://www.videosift.com/video/massive-attack-1946-atomic-bomb-test-at-bikini-atoll mix really well together.

Tags changed from "nuclear bomb" to "nuclear, atom, bomb, nukes, weapons" by gold star member calvados.

Tags changed from "atomic bomb, duck and cover" to "atomic bomb, duck and cover , 50's" by gold star member swampgirl.

For analysis of the US/UK-dominated sanctions regime I strongly recommend a thorough look at Joy Gordon's "Cool War": http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384

from Cool War, Harper's Issue Nov. 2002: "In searching for evidence of the potential danger posed by Iraq, the Bush Administration need have looked no further than the well-kept record of U.S. manipulation of the sanctions program since 1991. If any international act in the last decade is sure to generate enduring bitterness toward the United States, it is the epidemic suffering needlessly visited on Iraqis via U.S. fiat inside the United Nations Security Council. Within that body, the United States has consistently thwarted Iraq from satisfying its most basic humanitarian needs, using sanctions as nothing less than a deadly weapon, and, despite recent reforms, continuing to do so. Invoking security concerns—including those not corroborated by U.N. weapons inspectors—U.S. policymakers have effectively turned a program of international governance into a legitimized act of mass slaughter.

Since the U.N. adopted economic sanctions in 1945, in its charter, as a means of maintaining global order, it has used them fourteen times (twelve times since 1990). But only those sanctions imposed on Iraq have been comprehensive, meaning that virtually every aspect of the country's imports and exports is controlled, which is particularly damaging to a country recovering from war. Since the program began, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions—almost three times as many as the number of Japanese killed during the U.S. atomic bomb attacks.

News of such Iraqi fatalities has been well documented (by the United Nations, among others), though underreported by the media. What has remained invisible, however, is any documentation of how and by whom such a death toll has been justified for so long. How was the danger of goods entering Iraq assessed, and how was it weighed, if at all, against the mounting collateral damage? As an academic who studies the ethics of international relations, I was curious."

Atomic bombs! BOOHOO FOR YOU!

slint, I think that's a gross oversimplification and perpetuating a pretty silly stereotype. A lot of very brilliant people helped develop the atomic bomb, all from different backgrounds and probably all with different reasons. I suspect they devoted a great deal of time thinking about what they were doing and wrestling with tough ethical problems. No doubt many of them thought it would be used as a deterrent, others thought it would save lives that would otherwise be lost in a long drawn-out war, and likely none of them could have predicted that even while toasting their own victory they'd be marching down the road towards 40+ years of political and psychological warfare with the very nations who stood with them as allies. The whole Pandora stereotype makes for great movie fodder but I don't think reality is quite so simple.

Yes I agree that rationality should be based within the realms of morals and so on.

However my statement is simply reflective of the world we live in, while it would be nice if we were all rational agents with morales it is no so. While we can clinically analyze certain things and work out the pros and cons of certain step over others it is too often that our morality gives away in face of fear or other emotional responses. Some that go far deeper then any rationality or morality can control.

Observe the war drums post 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. Most of what happened during that time was rationality gone in face of mass hysteria and fear over a terrorist attack. Rationality would imply that while the attack was devastating it was not the world changing event as pro-war advocates make it seem. That Iraq is not a threat, I mean the most powerful country in the world coming down to presenting a case for war based on fuzzy sat images and power point presentations.

Take this for example, the US supports Israel with arms and international backing in the UN where it struck down more then 60 resolutions aimed at ending the perpetual conflict that exists there. The conditions are nearing apartheid, the Arab people see this as backing of imperialism of Jewish people over the Palestinian and Arab in the Western bank and Golan heights. So anti-American fervor develops. Creating the large destabilization we now see in Iraq and so on. Is American support of Israel rational then? http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

At the same time rational thinking can be a problem as much as a solution. Look at Vietnam. Rationally the domino theory makes sense, while it gives no account to historical background. Thus flawed.

My overall point being that while we as the new generation might include a certain humanity in our thinking, this is not what happens in the highest level of goverment. But it's not all lost, hopefully with emerging communities like VS and Moveon.org and others young people can be educated and have a profound influence on our world in the future.

In reply to your comment:
““No that was rational thinking"

I think you and I have different definitions of the word "rational"

For me, my morals play a huge role in rational thinking, rational thinking does not equal cynical calculation. If someone approached me on the street and offered me a million for killing someone, I wouldnt do it, and I'd say thats typical rational decision , to put selfish greed for money over the value of human life is not just morally appalling, it is also insane and therefore also irrational among any human being who isnt a cynical, selfish psychopath.

Dropping the atomic bombs was probably rationalized, but not necessarily "rational" as such. the rationalization was probably a mixture of a lot of things, politics, tactics,war etc. but if you define the act as "rational" I guess that means you either thought it was the only sane thing to do, or that you prefer to be inherently irrational..


In reply to your comment:
“No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.””

“No that was rational thinking"

I think you and I have different definitions of the word "rational"

For me, my morals play a huge role in rational thinking, rational thinking does not equal cynical calculation. If someone approached me on the street and offered me a million for killing someone, I wouldnt do it, and I'd say thats typical rational decision , to put selfish greed for money over the value of human life is not just morally appalling, it is also insane and therefore also irrational among any human being who isnt a cynical, selfish psychopath.

Dropping the atomic bombs was probably rationalized, but not necessarily "rational" as such. the rationalization was probably a mixture of a lot of things, politics, tactics,war etc. but if you define the act as "rational" I guess that means you either thought it was the only sane thing to do, or that you prefer to be inherently irrational..


In reply to your comment:
“No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.”

Farhad:

Well, again, it was strategy, politics, but yes, they did probably all try to be as rational as they could under the circumstances.. But what would be the alternative? TRYING to be irrational? If the outcomes had been different in these examples, and they had intervened in Rwanda, and not dropped atomic bombs in Japan, wouldnt you then have to call both actions/non-actions rational?

Can you even imagine a single situation, real or not, where it would be the best thing to just go "Screw this, I'm spinning the bottle!" in favor of actually thinking about it rationally..? Rational doesnt equal selfish interests or "I just want more money and power for me!" Rational is what we, as human beings, think is the best solution to the problem at hand.. It is what we, with our brains, believe to be the best idea we have.

No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.