I should honestly say before all that i made a really insensitive comment about war and the role of intelligence towards survival. this is not entirely true, as i have spent some more time thinking about it. the Japanese people of hiroshima were not given an air raid siren warning when the first atom bomb was ever deployed.

If i were in Hiroshima, and I was a Japanese native, who perhaps was aware of the situation (that there were warnings being addressed by the US about a potential land invasion), there is a chance that I would have been alerted by the first plane that morning. They thought it was a weather plane, but a few of the people knew that it was not a Japanese plane, because at the time Japanese planes were not able to fly that low. This would have been a good indication to leave town, if not for the pressing danger of a US invasion (awareness of this would depend on the freedom of the japanese press). I wonder what makes me think about this stuff sometimes?

This does also go back to my first point about civilization and war. The warfare of feudal societies, at least portrayed by movies like Braveheart, indicate that the battles were fought in an isolated field. If this is accurate, it might be thought that warfare, as ironic as this sounds, may have become less civilized.

Even if the occasional city got "sacked," one could argue that wars are no longer delegated to occur in a place where there are civilians and infrastructure.

I guess I'm still trying to weave my way around deciding if that point is valid, eh? Sounds like it belongs in a box labeled "hypothesis" rather than "statement." Because as a statement is sounds callous, yet as a hypothesis it demands attention, doesn't it?

Related Topics
----- ------ ----------- ------ ----------- ------ ----------- ------ ----------- ------ ------

1 future of the moon

2 democracy