PDA

View Full Version : Sword vs. M-1



Dojorat
21st January 2001, 15:19
Greetins,

This is meant to be catalogued as anecdotal history of defense against sword in modern times. I met a gentleman yesterday at a local gun show. He had a katana and was asking some questions of one of the exhibitors. I asked him the history of the sword and he told me he had shot the last owner. He was with the US Army on Leyte and said he shot the Japanese soldier at about 350 yds. In further conversation, he also mentioned he was scheduled to be in reserve for the planned invasion of Kyushu. He, along with my father, father in law and 1000's of other veterans stand behind the use of the A-bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I defer to their opinionn as they would've likely paid dearly for any other outcome.

Just an interesting insight into the history of armed conflict and the rapid advance of technology, a swordsman killed by a rifleman who in turn was quite possibly saved by the ultimate destructive force in the universe, all in the span of months.

Cheers,

Joseph Svinth
22nd January 2001, 08:54
I have a clipping from a JA newspaper (off the top of my head, 1949) in which a Nisei who got a DSC in Burma was quoted as saying that a Tommy gun and a belly full of beans beat a sword and bushido. Vietnam suggests that this is not always the case, but the casualty ratio definitely favors the side with semi-automatic and automatic weapons, and the logistical base to support them.

Rhomyn Escalante
22nd January 2001, 13:43
Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
Vietnam suggests that this is not always the case,
base

How so?

Joseph Svinth
22nd January 2001, 15:29
Between 1948 and 1972, France, the USA, and their allies killed a lot of Vietnamese. Millions, in fact. Nevertheless both France and the USA grew tired of the killing first. So, while superior firepower is a significant part of the equation, it is not the only factor to consider.

glad2bhere
23rd January 2001, 14:27
Dear Joe et al:

On the wall in my office is a Japanese unit flag which I purchased at a gun show and had mounted and framed. IT is damaged and I often wonder at the rust-collored stains on it. In like manner I also wonder at the hundred or so signatures and comments that are scrawled across it. Over the flag is a a Gunto sword, and there is another piece I have mounted on the opposite wall and it is not unusual to for me to stop in the middle of some project and reflect back on who the gentlemen might have been that carried these swords, or this flag.

Here in the US we brandish our swords and cut mats and pontificate regarding a warriors' code and their obligations to Honor, Respect, Duty and Country. But I wonder how much appreciation we have for people who actually live the values that they espouse.

I think where this is coming from is the comment someone made about our conflict in Vietnam and the allusion I heard was to the tenacity of the Vietnamese people. Despite the efforts of "the best and the brightest" in Washington to rescue the Vietnamese from themselves and keep the world free for democracy are technology was blunted on an enemy who wouldn't quit. I don't think this was a result of not knowing the position of the enemy nor his philosophy. I think a western nation failed to appreciate the power of a concept such as commitment as it is actualized rather than as an abstract discussed over cocktails.

Sometimes when I am feeling smug or self-satisfied at how familiar I am with oriental culture, I take some time to examine the flag on my wall and swords hanging nearby and consider how they came to be there.

Best Wishes,

Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Rhomyn Escalante
23rd January 2001, 14:59
Originally posted by glad2bhere

Despite the efforts of "the best and the brightest" in Washington to rescue the Vietnamese from themselves and keep the world free for democracy our technology was blunted on an enemy who wouldn't quit.

First: The above sentence should start "inspite of..." also the description of Bob McNamara and his Automotive Industry approach to war as...'the best and the brightest...' was and is a joke.

Next: The concept of Washington rescuing the Vietnamese from themselves sounds like Wellington describing a day in the colonies.

And Last: "our technology was blunted"? Blunted????

Oh Yeah, I forgot. "An enemy who wouldn't quit". Hmmm. You can't quit when you ain't got no choice!

glad2bhere
23rd January 2001, 16:50
Dear R:

“…First: The above sentence should start "inspite of..." also the description of Bob McNamara and his Automotive Industry approach to war as...'the best and the brightest...' was and is a joke.

Thanks for taking to respond. I suppose you are right, and an argument could be made for “In spite” over “Despite”. I used “Despite” with its suggestion of malice only because the Vietnam War remains the only one on our books for which no clear precipitating event exists and which was concluded in a manner screened from the US citizenry. Trust me, after MacNamaras’ comments of a few years back, I used 'the best and the brightest...” only for its historical context! The average American seems to be aware only that Communism was involved and that we were attempting to protect the capitalistic or free enterprise system in a land which had yet to be established as such. I cannot speak for what went on at up levels in the boardrooms of Paris and Washington, DC. Perhaps representatives of Shell Oil, Dow Chemical and US Steel could provide greater insight here. Unfortunately, they, like the Congressmen who acted for them have little to say regarding their responsibilities in this matter. I am painfully familiar with the average Vietnamese citizen who was not part of the defense department contracts of the war and continues to attempt to eke sustenance from a land blighted by chemicals, unexploded ordinance, venereal disease, citizens who express all manner of physical and emotional damage and children of American servicemen un-recognized by either culture.

I was also thinking that perhaps you might be right about your comment concerning Wellington. Colonialism is often invoked in such matters and its character, like both dust and beauty is often in the eye of the beholder. Absent tri-corner hats and muskets I personally see very little difference between an English Crown imposing on American Colonies and an American system imposing on a Vietnamese colony. As is much the case in the MA with all its talk of GM and SGM, it has less to do with quality of life for the citizenry than with who gets to count the till at the end of the day.

“…And Last: "our technology was blunted"? Blunted???? …” I thought to use the word broken but the technology works very well. However, I furrow my brow when one expends the equivalent of millions of tons of ordinance, thousands of human lives and billions of dollars over a 12-year period. People have been second-guessing this war for as long as it went on and well after. However, the bottom line is that following our efforts and expenditures the country is in the hands of the other side. Sounds like a loss to me. As a result we are now negotiating for the same marketing, manufacturing and exploration licenses which we attempted to finagle through a regime of our choosing 30 years earlier.

“….Oh Yeah, I forgot. "An enemy who wouldn't quit". Hmmm. You can't quit when you ain't got no choice!…”

Probably this is the only comment you made with which I took exception. Most probably that is because this is the heart of my original comment. The fact is, the Vietnamese people as any people DO have choices--- all kinds of choices. One choice was to invest themselves in one system or another. Another choice was to remain passive and accepting. Another choice was to become actively opposed to or in favor of one system or the other. Whatever the limited middle class and wealthy upper class of So Vietnam might have dreamed for their country, the other half of the country above the DMZ and the rural populace wanted otherwise. I think it was very hard for we American GI-s to imagine a people who wouldn’t be willing to give up their lives for Black Label beer, a stereo in a wall-locker, a Honda motor scooter and the reduction of a working life to a bundle of pay-slips. From where we western MA sit here with our flush toilets and Starbucks coffee do you actually suppose we appreciate the tenacity of a people who would “rather have their own bad government than the good government of a foreign government “(with apologies the M Gandhi).

Best Wishes,

Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Rhomyn Escalante
23rd January 2001, 17:41
Originally posted by glad2bhere
it has less to do with quality of life for the citizenry than with who gets to count the till at the end of the day.

Yes. Exactly.


the bottom line is that following our efforts and expenditures the country is in the hands of the other side. Sounds like a loss to me. As a result we are now negotiating for the same marketing, manufacturing and exploration licenses which we attempted to finagle through a regime of our choosing 30 years earlier.

Sounds like we are getting closer to what we wanted, just took more time. Sounds like a win to me.


Probably this is the only comment you made with which I took exception.

Don't. Didn't mean anything by it.


Most probably that is because this is the heart of my original comment. The fact is, the Vietnamese people as any people DO have choices--- all kinds of choices.

No. This is where we disagree. The people had no choice. Most people(s) have no choice(s).



...people who would “rather have their own bad government than the good government of a foreign government “(with apologies the M Gandhi)..

North and South Vietnams governments were so screwed up that the majority of the population could of done with out one. Of the two governments one was a corrupt communist one, the other was a corrupt dictatorship. The people for the most part 'worked the system'. Their government(s) was not a issue. Their politics were.

glad2bhere
23rd January 2001, 18:25
Dear R:

"...Sounds like we are getting closer to what we wanted, just took more time. Sounds like a win to me...."

I understand this position well and within the context of sheer martial force and market dynamics perhaps you are right. I have often heard people rationalize an action with Machiavelli or Clauzwitz. However, what I consider one of the greatest international victories of the 20th century was the Marshall Plan in Europe. Its not all just a matter of getting what we want that constitutes winning. HOW it is done has much to do with it as well.

I also understand the comment about choices ("...The people had no choice. Most people(s) have no choice(s)...") When I am working with a client, a lot of times, much of the beginning work is just getting them to see how they can go about making things happen. Its never easy for an individual. Imagine how much harder for an entire people. I don't think the Vietnamese were driven by some surge to something they wanted as much as by a collective understanding of what they had had enough of.

Which, I think, brings me around to my original thought. That thought was that I was wondering how much we western MA can actually hope to appreciate the philisophical underpinnings of MA from around the world. I once heard it said that the average human being on this planet is a illiterate 20-something rice farmer. I wonder how well we people of the US from our vantage in front of a computer or TV, using half the energy resources of a planet and spending more on clothes and cosmetics than the gross capital income of some nations, can identify with the heart of codes and standards organized generations ago and half a world away. At the risk of over-simplification, and speaking metphorically I can share that I killed a fly the other day and thought nothing of it--- perhaps because I have never had to eat animal feces to survive. Just a thought.

It is comfortable to sit here in my clean clothes and full stomach and to imagine kinship with warriors of old. But apart from the best intentions on my part, how much do we actually share across time and place?

I like your posts. Thanks.

Best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Rhomyn Escalante
23rd January 2001, 18:44
Originally posted by glad2bhere

I have often heard people rationalize an action with Machiavelli or Clauzwitz. However, what I consider one of the greatest international victories of the 20th century was the Marshall Plan in Europe. Its not all just a matter of getting what we want that constitutes winning. HOW it is done has much to do with it as well.

Yes. And Demming going to Japan in '52.




That's the sucess of planning, not the plan itself, but 'understanding' that you can make things happen by action.

[Quote]...my original thought. That thought was that I was wondering how much we western MA can actually hope to appreciate the philisophical underpinnings of MA from around the world.

To a certain level that appreciation is important. But western MA's are non-traditional. So after a western MA crosses over, the dynamics of 'philisophical underpinnings' aren't as important. The conflict: western MA vs eastern MA; is from that crossover.


how much do we actually share across time and place?

We share everything. If genetic memory wasn't enough, common cause would suffice. We are no different than our past. No Samurai would be concerned with attempting to land on an asteroid. It is imperative that we do, and do so soon. BioWarfare wasn't the main topic of the day in fuedal Japan, but it is today. They had their boogiemen, we have ours.


I like your posts. Thanks.

Ditto.



[Edited by Rhomyn Escalante on 01-23-2001 at 12:47 PM]

Dojorat
24th January 2001, 02:33
Greetins,

Perhaps we stray from the topic of sword arts... however, I leave that to the moderator.

If my history serves, we had a choice. In the late '40's Ho Chi Minh came to the US Gov't seeking support in his Vietnamese nationalization efforts to avoid going back under French colonial rule. Our gov't, afraid of alienating our large West European ally France and possibly losing her to the communist factions who gained a foothold in the French gov't during WWII, chose to side with France against Ho. So, Ho turned north to Uncle Joe.

So, I guess we had a choice.

I've been to Vietnam. They supposedly beat us in armed conflict (for whatever reason). I've been to West Germany and Japan. They didn't beat us (for several very good reasons, most of which weren't applied in VN). Based on the simple state of current economies and infrastructure...

IT DON'T PAY TO BEAT US!!!

Ever see the Seller's flick "The Mouse that Roared"

Cheers,

Joseph Svinth
24th January 2001, 11:09
Joe --

There is some sad, ironic truth in your words: think Cuba. Think Bay of Pigs. Think poverty for the next forty years.

However, losing to the USA is not always a good thing, especially domestically. Think Indian reservations and the Confederacy, and then think poverty for the next hundred years.

Mance Thompson
24th January 2001, 14:14
Reading the replies to this post, I was suprised that nobody took Joe's original statement as a bit offensive. Considering that e-budo is for the practicioners of Japanese martial arts, I would have expected to hear some unease with a comment ostensibly approving the use of the atomic bomb for its efficacy in saving American lives. Though this might not have been the intent of that statement, I am constantly amused at media and other references to the amount of 'American' lives lost in a plane crash, terrorist bombing, etc. Naturally, one would be concerned about their family members coming home from a war and getting to spend more time with them as opposed to reminiscing on how they died in the war. I know, my grandfather lost his leg in Italy but didn't die until two years ago. However, and this gets back to the point of the discussion of Vietnam, soldiers do have a choice(unless drafted), and consciously choose to give their life for political choices that they may or may not stand for. Soldiers paying dearly as the messengers of a nation's political agenda is vastly different from civilians paying dearly for being born at an unfortunate time in history. Having been to Hiroshima and witnessed the sheer absurdity of the massacre that took place and the resultant loss of countless innocent lives who had no choice in the matter, I think it behooves all of us to question the necessity of such an action. I have heard most of the arguments both for and against the use of atomic power, but consider how our opinions of the matter would be in retrospect had it been used on America. In addition to the loss of life, take into account the environmental and psychological affects that resulted. As we are all budoka, the concepts and responsibilities for violent deed are issues that we have to struggle with constantly. However, like the sword that gives life, we must temper our ability to potentially take life with a morality that supercedes political and other concerns.

Rhomyn Escalante
24th January 2001, 14:18
Originally posted by Dojorat
I've been to Vietnam. They supposedly beat us in armed conflict (for whatever reason).

They didn't, no one has, ever.



IT DON'T PAY TO BEAT US!!!
Ever see the Seller's flick "The Mouse that Roared"

Yes! What a great anology. It doesn't pay. Again as Bruce Sims said: "Clauzwitz or Machiavelli".

Rhomyn Escalante
24th January 2001, 14:23
Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
Joe --

There is some sad, ironic truth in your words: think Cuba. Think Bay of Pigs. Think poverty for the next forty years.

However, losing to the USA is not always a good thing, especially domestically. Think Indian reservations and the Confederacy, and then think poverty for the next hundred years.

Whoa Boy! The above posts were tounge in cheek, and bitter at that, being defeated is not funny to anyone. The American Indians were defeated and suffered the consquences, that is a lesson, a serious lesson, a deadly serious lesson. Same with the Confederacy. Lose and die.

Rhomyn Escalante
24th January 2001, 14:32
Originally posted by Mance Thompson
Having been to Hiroshima and witnessed the sheer absurdity of the massacre that took place and the resultant loss of countless innocent lives who had no choice in the matter, I think it behooves all of us to question the necessity of such an action.

There are no innocent lives in a declared world war. You don't think the Japanese (Budoka or not) didn't understand their own concepts of consequences? Of course they did. The lives lost were offered as payment for national needs. See your below:


As we are all budoka, the concepts and responsibilities for violent deed are issues that we have to struggle with constantly. However, like the sword that gives life, we must temper our ability to potentially take life with a morality that supercedes political and other concerns.

Now that's something the 1934 Japanese Political machine had no trouble understanding. So neither should anyone else.

glad2bhere
24th January 2001, 15:17
Dear R et al:

Unless I miss my guess I think Mance is a bit closer to where I was going originally.


"...soldiers do have a choice(unless drafted), and consciously choose to give their life for political choices (clip)... I think it behooves all of us to question the necessity of such an action...(clip)...As we are all budoka, the concepts and responsibilities for violent deed are issues that we have to struggle with constantly. However, like the sword that gives life, we must temper our ability to potentially take life with a morality that supercedes political and other concerns...."

Putting aside individual historical theatres such as WW II Europe and Vietnam and their unique moral questions, what I was extolling was a deeper need to match martial deportment with martial valor and a martial ethos. Now, of course experiences such as the Holocaust, Battaan and Hiroshima have all been rationalized at one time or another as "military expedients" but thats not the point I was trying to make. What I was working to make clear is that the warriors held as an ideal by modern MA practitioners (truthfully or not) are identified as having as much tough ethics and values as tough minds and bodies. We modern practitioners purport to emulate these historical individuals by reproducing their dress and behavior. But can we do anything more from our easy chairs than affect an aire of martial deportment? There are times when I blow-off sword class for no particular good reason. How do I represent myself as a warrior-in-training with such flimsy commitment? And should my values and ethics be truely tested (say an ethical delemma at work or school) what then? Horror stories continue to roll in about MA teachers who abuse their students, defraud their communities and violate trusts and confidences placed in them.

I know this strays to some extent from the original point of this thread but its not a topic that is addressed often and when it does come up conversation sorta dries up with a kind of "..well, thats just the way it is..." People don't seem to mind discussing the temper needed for the edge of a sword, but suddenly start looking at their watches when the conversation turns to the temper of ones' mind or heart. You can snug up your hakama as tight as you want and cut mats until your hands bleed but the true measure of a man is still "...what a person would do if they could do anything in the world they wanted and not get caught."(with apologies to A Lincoln.)

best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

ghp
25th January 2001, 06:12
Referencing Hiroshima ... why not also mention Dresden? Both hits were calculated attacks on non-military postions causing lots of suffering. These strikes hit the citizenry to further dampen the enemy's morale. Inhumane? Yes! Effective? YES! Oh, yea ... not to mention fougasse ("foo-gas") and napalm. War is hell; eh, Sherman?

My mother-in-law, a Japanese, gets sick of Japanese harping on the atomic bombing. She has a line that stops them dead in their tracks, "Well, then Japan should not have started the war!"

No kidding!

Regards,
Guy
(a non-apologist)

hyaku
25th January 2001, 09:17
At the end of WW2 my father was moved to the Andamans He was with nine others working for RAPWI under the command of General Paget, his job to repatriate allied forces. This included getting them out of the countries they were in and organizing transport ei.ships to hold thousands and get them back.

They experienced terrible hostilities in Viet-nam and could not get allies out. For this a Japanese Battalion was formed under British command. They went in and did an excellect job and successfully brought out many people, a lot of them losing their own lives in the process.

Perhaps a surprise for some Japanese families if they were aware of the fact that grandad died fighting for the allies.

Hyakutake Colin

http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/hibakusha/index.html

[Edited by hyaku on 01-25-2001 at 04:34 PM]

pgsmith
25th January 2001, 23:13
Hi Bruce,
Just had to comment on your last post. You said
I know this strays to some extent from the original point of this thread but its not a topic that is addressed often and when it does come up conversation sorta dries
up with a kind of "..well, thats just the way it is..." People don't seem to mind discussing the temper needed for the edge of a sword, but suddenly start looking at
their watches when the conversation turns to the temper of ones' mind or heart. You can snug up your hakama as tight as you want and cut mats until your hands
bleed but the true measure of a man is still "...what a person would do if they could do anything in the world they wanted and not get caught."(with apologies to A
Lincoln.)

I am generally one of those people that starts looking at my watch. It is not because I don't share your feelings, or believe in my own morality. It is rather the fact that my morality is my own. I have my own standards that I attempt to train to and live my life to. The thing is that they are MY standards. Based on how I feel that I should act. To some extent these standards are passed on to you by your sensei, however they are YOUR standards. You are not my Sensei nor anyone I really know. What your standards are does not really affect me, and what my standards are is really none of your business. I love that quote by the way, but you will notice that it doesn't mention anything about what you say you would do. Don't mean to sound harsh, but I felt that you were implying that people don't think about these things just because they do not wish to discuss them and that is wrong IMHO.

Cheers,

glad2bhere
26th January 2001, 02:03
Dear Paul:

Rereading my prose I can see where some absolutism crept in there. You are right to suggest that I was painting with a pretty broad brush in that last post. I will be inordinately easy on myself and chalk it up to witnessing one too many passionate discussions about succession, authenticity, accuracy and authority in the arts. I should have qualified my position by indicating that the condition I was citing IS proportionate in the population. I suspect the people who most readily speak out do so in areas in which they feel most confident and that is only human. What I will return to, however, is not so much a matter of morality but its honest expression or execution in our behaviors. Certainly it may and can be a very personal thing. I am advocating that even given that very personal nature, that we give those values an honest run now and again as opposed to merely discussing them in the abstract or using them as intellectual accessories to MA fantasies.

Thanks for your response.

Bruce

Joseph Svinth
26th January 2001, 07:54
Despite the yin/yang symbol, our ethical choices are rarely black and white. Instead they represent a range of responses to stimuli received along the path each day. For a discussion of this, see Harold Schulweis’ "The Fear and Suspicion of Goodness," at http://www.holocaustcommission.org/educator_resources/fear.html .

glad2bhere
26th January 2001, 14:46
Dear Joe:

Thanks for the link. Unless I miss my guess this material is going in the direction I am examining. As a counselor and therapist I am familiar with the Milgram study following WW II. As you will remember the attitude of the world at the time was that perhaps there was something peculiar to the German people that they might commit atrocities of the magnitude of the Holocaust. Dr Milgram, in a study which strained the limits of sound ethics and scientific practice sought to challenge this concept. If I remember correctly only about 3 of a hundred participants chose to resist demands that they electrically shock the confederate on the other side of a partition. Everyone else went along albeit reluctantly. It does not matter that the confederate was not actually being shocked. For all intents and purposes the individual actually thought they were shocking another human being and went along with it, intimidated by their surroundings and the authority of Dr. Milgram.

I think my point is apparent. Each and every person I know who has heard of this study tells me that THEY would not have done the shocking. But where from do we draw the strength to perform such valiant acts of resistance? Some 97% of the participants in this experiment (people just like you and me) went along with it-- even against their better judgement. On this Net I hear people talking about codes of the warrior, Mudo, Budo, Bushido and all the other buzzwords of MA. I hear a lot of examination of swords, and lineage, and Bad Budo, etc. But if this range of arts that we practice is really about developing the warrior in each of us how come it is a subject (to use Pauls' words) "very private" such that it does not get the same ink as practicing lethal techniques with a sword or bare hands. Is not taking a life, or maining another human being even in the name of self-defense a very "private" experience? And if MA is as much about character development as physical skill (a position that gets regular play in these discussions), from where do the child molesters, frauds, charlatans, bullies and criminals in do-gi and dobok come from? Perhaps we would do well to repeat Milgrams' study with a population of MA to see if there is any difference in the response patterns, ne? I would hate to think that the overwhelming numbers of MA in our community today are kidding themselves. Can it be that the greater numbers of practitioners limit their development to the equivalent of MA theatre, replete with costume, props and someone elses' interpretation of how life is qualified? I would like to conclude that what we pursue is something more than merely an adult equivalent of the playground antics of grade school children with some extra un-supervised time on thier hands.

Thanks, Joe.

Bruce

Rhomyn Escalante
26th January 2001, 14:53
Great Post. Would like to take it up but I don't think it would survive on this forum, do you have another place?

glad2bhere
26th January 2001, 15:18
Dear R:

I think I know what you mean. I would like to see if this will continue or if it becomes apparent that the title "sword arts" alludes only to things we do with our bodies. My supposition has always been that, like a gun, one never draws a sword without the commitment to use it. I suggest that such a commitment takes a special sort of moral and psychological training which may or may not be occuring. At any rate, to answer your question we might shift to a philosophy section or take this off-line. I resist this as such is the usual fate of discussions of this kind, and seems to reinforce the idea that moral development, psychological growth and physical training are disparate. I would hope we could challenge this.

Best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Mance Thompson
26th January 2001, 15:36
With reference to Dresden, it would have been brought up sooner if the post was started about meeting a man who shot a German soldier wielding a sword. That bombing too was a moral outrage. You could argue that war is a moral outrage. Irrespective, the wanton killing of civilians is generally considered a taboo. It is inevitable that some will die in any conflict, but that is different from targetting them. Naturally, the value of life in wartime or other situations of survival is often discounted but I was referring to the oft expressed public perception that our life is worth more than that of the 'other.'

This article was interesting about a modern take on this issue: http://www.reason.com/sullum/041499.html

Not all Japanese revered the emperor and to assume that women and children understood and accepted the consequences of their governments actions is a stretch. Say we were at war with a country(that we started) was fought on our shores(yeah I know but just pretend okay), would you say that your family's lives and those of other civilians were forfiet as payment for the deeds of our government? I did not mean to imply that the Japanese government was innocent, but I was questioning the morality and sensitivity(coming from those that practice Japanese martial arts) of claiming that the destruction at Hiroshima was justified in defense of US soldiers lives.

The original argument of this post had to deal with how technology has advanced in relation to killing. However, the other argument that was missing was does might=right? I believe effectiveness does not equate with justifiability. Sure if you attack my armoured car with rocks and I douse you with a flamethrower, I was by far more effective but not necessarily justified.

As for being a non-apologist. If you've never done anything wrong or benefitted from the misdeeds of others, then you have nothing to apologize for. For the rest of us, whether we wish to verbalize it here or not, there is a moral factor that is important to consider. Being the country with the most resources and best technology, we haven't been put in the position of having to deal with a military loss often. Yet, the same colonialism we decry in others, we exhibit repeatedly. Were we to be invaded, defeated, and subjugated by a superior force than us, we would be outraged. However, this is what we did to the Native Americans(among others) and are still benefitting from that to this day. So if one chooses to be unapologetic, let's hope they aren't hypocritical when the shoe is on the other foot.

glad2bhere
26th January 2001, 20:42
Dear Mance:

I am not sure if your logic painted me into a corner or if this is something I have done to myself. With my comments above in mind I read the opening lines of your response regarding Dresden and tried to imagine someone identifying it for the travesty it was and standing their ground by refusing to fly such a mission. The pressure of that scene in my minds' eye boggles my imagination. Now, turning the coin over there is the horror sustained by the flyers who must have had to have rationalized like a m-f-er to make such action come out alright in their hearts. I don't think these were sadistic monsters. I imagine that many of them had families and children who lived in cities not unlike Dresden. So which would take more character? To stand on principle and refuse participation, or to stand on principle and do one's terrible duty. I seem to remember that the German government spent quite a bit on German guards at Concentration Camps to keep them laid and drunk so they would continue to do the extermination work. (Apparently the Eisenstatz Groupen formed from eastern European groups felt they were on a mission from God and had relatively fewer compuctions about killing Jews, gays, and other "travesties of nature".)

So now I am in a corner. Is the resolve I imbue myself with to resist evil the same as that which I use to commit a terrible good? If I draw a sword to protect a woman and child and strike down a foe, is the intent the same if simultaneously some portion of me recognizes my superior skill and takes pleasure in the easily executed and socially justified kill? Is cutting a target of the same moral value if rather than perfecting the angle of my strike I imagine the neck or arm of a person with each strike? In todays modern parlance, were a burglar to break into my house and trap himself exiting with his booty what part of me decides whether or not to call the police or to take what many might see as a justified kill?

It's Friday and snow has again come to Chicago.

best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Joseph Svinth
27th January 2001, 08:03
The moral code these men operated under was explained quite well by an Indian Army officer named Roly Grimshaw in 1913: "My religion is my duty, and vice versa, that is all." Thus the main regret of the man who drove Bock's Car to Nagasaki was that his bombadier was off target by several hundred yards, thus significantly reducing damage to the target. (And yes, he did know what bombs did to cities, and bullets to men -- he was a veteran of the European aerial campaigns that resulted in more US casualties than the US Marine Corps operations in the Pacific, and the future Adjutant General of Ohio.)