I read your piece. Doesn’t seem to get at the root.

Apparently Bin Laden will yack on for 40 minutes on his videos, but you’re lucky to find one minute’s worth of translation. Primary sources, you know? It would be nice to see the substance engaged by more Americans.

The other side of the coin is the broader arab dialogue. This is the best synopsis I’ve found:

The Arab Discourse and the International Role

It’s an MIT lecture. Check out the speaker’s credentials.

I’m actually trying to wean myself off American politics. It was a two-hour-a-day habit for almost two years. I’m not American and the whole thing was making me miserable and angry. I just came back to this place, where the former left hang out with ear collectors, to post about Hiroshima. And now I’m gone again.

Peace.

Thank you for coming back to the conversation. I am curious to know what you mean by “food for thought.” Have you changed or re-thought your position?

As for your question about the Islamists, I have posted at length here.

I look forward to continuing a dialogue with you — Please pick a screen name of some sort to make the conversation easier.

Cheers,

Neuro-con

But a poster such as “anonymous” is not a troll. I’m not sure what his/her motivation is in posting (or even if it’s always the same person, since he/she is anonymous).

Sorry for not replying earlier, I was dog-sitting all day without Internet access.

I posed the question because I didn’t know the answer. Thanks for highlighting it, the discussion provided food for thought.

I noted that one common defense of the use of the bomb is an informed appraisal of the enemy’s point of view (motivation, values, culture, factions, etc.).

Can the strategists on this board claim to be as empathetic with the islamists, or, for that matter, the broader arab discourse?

Your comments are really funny and clever here, but don’t you think an atomic bomb is just a little different than all those other weapons? I’ve always heard that they decided against the demonstration dropping because they only had two bombs at the time and could not risk wasting one on just a demonstration.

As a former anonymous I can say there a number of reason’s why I chose to post as anonymous. One big reason is that if I was bullied and dismissed by others in the comment section during one strand, I could always return when the topic had changed and be listened to. It enabled me to say what I really thought and not stick with one orthodox view on either the left or right. I could express a left leaning attitude on one topic, moderate the next, etc.

At any rate…

I look on dropping an A-bomb on a deserted island as something akin to shooting a pistol in the air when threatened. Both will fail to dissuade opponents truly dedicated to defeating you, and both not only waste valuable time in responding to the opponent, they also show weakness in that you’re not willing to take the necessary steps to defend yourself, but rather are satisfied with symbolic actions that pretend strength instead of actually demonstrating real strength.

I fear that too many are enamored with the concept of symbology in place of action. Symbolic actions, demonstrations, bluffs, whatever you choose to call it, can only have power if the opponent has the mindset that you’re willing to carry out the threat. I’m not certain that a mere demonstration would’ve contributed to that mindset. As I stated in a previous post, to me an A-bomb demonstration carries the opposite message: “Look, we’re not willing to go all the way against you”. I mean, we would have wasted a powerful, obviously hard to manufacture (I say obviously in the face of the failures of other nations in developing an A-bomb) weapon in vaporizing a hunk of rock and sand when it could be put to use vaporizing assets necessary to Japan’s prosecution of the war. Are we certain that the Japanese command would’ve been impressed by this?