Was Garak an evil character, or a shade of grey?

[PKTrekGirl]

PA--I was not TRYING to answer your question. I just thought it was not in context with the thread.

Well, it really is, though, actually. As soon as you guys expanded the scope to other characters besides Garak proper (and you were one of the main people to do this), all of this became fair game. And I'm good with that, for the reasons I have discussed before, but will discuss again now, for any n00bs that may be around.

One of the reasons DS9 is such a great show (and one that has aged VERY well, compared to some other Trek shows) is because of it's relevance to 'real life' situations - particularly in the way it places our characters into moral dilemmas that have happened already (as in this case) or even turned out to happen after the show went off the air (there were lots of parallels to Homefront/Paradise Lost drawn in this forum during the events that transpired in American politics following 9/11, for example).

There have been TONS of parallels to the real world drawn in here over the years, and very enthusiastically discussed, I might add. Which is one of the reasons I have always been, like Jammer before me, less anal than some other mods in some other forums might have been about certain things. Niners have always known how to handle themselves in a CIVILIZED political discussion. And precisely because of DS9's relevance to many real-world historical moral dilemmas, these sorts of questions have ALWAYS been welcome here. At least during the 8 years *I* have been mod of this forum. And the only other mod this forum has ever had was Jammer, and he was even MORE laissez-faire than I am!

But then, I HAVE told you all of this before.

Now, if you can't see the relevance of PA's question to the events of DS9...then my personal feeling is that you missed a VERY important aspect of the show. Because it was NEVER meant to be some happy-shiny scifi show set in a vacuum. They were ALWAYS trying to say something - to explore some of the MANY shades of gray present in human motive and behavior. Again and again, DS9 spoke very strongly to the idea that not every moral dilemma can be expressed in black & white, right & wrong terms. The universe is FULL of gray - and that gray is the most interesting place to go exploring! In many ways, in fact, the 'strange new world' DS9 set out to explore was the world of the human psyche! Which was pretty much completely passed over by TNG in favor of 80's PC propaganda and moralistic speech-making.

PA is simply pointing out that this situation with the near genocide of the Founders is yet ANOTHER example of something, that if examined fully and honestly, is not as black and white as it might seem, or we might prefer. We PREFER to think of ourselves as the most morally upright nation on earth. But especially when looked at from the perspectives of history...and from 'the other guys' shoes', we find ourselves to be a LOT less the hero than most of us are comfortable with.

That is one of the reasons DS9 is so valuable. Because, if viewed honestly and with an eye toward our own history, it forces us to confront ourselves...and HOPEFULLY learn some valuable lessons.

I have BEEN to Hiroshima (including the museum) and have read some very intense books about the experiences of some of the survivors in the days following the bomb drop - one book, entitled simply "Hiroshima" was particularly intense. Additionally, I have read and studied the rationale used to justify the dropping of that bomb and the one on Nagasaki, from our perspective, and with a particular eye toward the perceived mentality of the Japanese Emperor and his people's allegiance to him.

Believe me - this parallel is quite relevant to this discussion. If we are honest with ourselves about our own history, that is.

Cheers, everyone! Play nice!

 

[ProtoAvatar]

PA--I was not TRYING to answer your question. I just thought it was not in context with the thread.

Since then, you did find out it is 'in context'.

And, to quote myself 'I notice you still haven't answered my question in the least.'

This is what happenes when you are pushed out of your confort zone - answers become hard to come by, no longer so platonically simplistic.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

^ I'll be interested to see if anyone (especially any of my fellow Americans) takes on that question. In my view, there is no easy answer - which I'm sure is exactly what you were going for.

But I will make a few comments, just for grins:

"In the real world, USA bombed 2 cities out of existence - killing ~350000 civilians, who had no say in the war - in a situation that wasn't desperate at all.
Do you endorse this action or not?"

I have just a couple of quibbles, but they are really more semantic than anything else.

1. I wouldn't say that we 'bombed them out of existence'. We certainly 'bombed out of existence' anything within several miles of ground zero...and did a LOT of damage to the rest of both cities, but at least in Hiroshima's case (which is the main city I know about as I spent a lot of time there in the exhibits and read some historical narratives from survivors POV) part of the city did survive, albeit damaged...and in any case unlivable since the associated municipal infrastructure was pretty much gone. Semantics, as I said...but I do want to be precise.

2. There is some debate about whether the situation was 'desperate' or not. I think in the end it depends upon your definition of 'desperate'. It is true that the mainland of the US was not in eminent danger...and it is true that we were not in danger, at that point, of losing the war outright. However, a case can be made for 'desperate' in the sense that it was well known that Hirohito had no intention of giving up, and was ready to have Japan fight to the last man, if necessary. Winning the war, then, would have required an amphibious (ground) invasion of Japan - ships and planes alone were not going to do it. Since a ground invasion of Japan would have been an EXTREMELY bloody affair with massive casualties on both sides (some have argued that as many Japanese civilians might have died over the course of such an extended war effort, in addition to many thousands on the Allied side), the U.S. felt like we had no choice but to show the Japanese population (particularly the civilian population), in no uncertain terms, that we COULD...and that we WOULD win that war. Because Hirohito certainly wasn't telling them that.

So I don't know....as I said, it depends upon your definition of 'desperate'.

I'm certainly not necessarily justifying our actions....but on the other hand, we will never know what we might have had to do later...and how many (on both sides) would have had to die, to get the job done and wrap up the war.

It is interesting, by the way, that even in the museum in Hiroshima, the dilemma is presented this way. I have also been to the museums in Vietnam that are dedicated to what they refer to as "The American War"...and the Vietnamese (at least the official government party line - the citizens, much better) are a LOT less generous with their assessment than are the Japanese, with regard to our military actions in their country.

Personally, I find that interesting.

Of course, if you REALLY want to see a brutally honest museum, visit Warsaw, Poland and check the exhibits about what the Nazis did to that city. 85% of Warsaw was completely leveled...and the Nazis didn't use an atomic weapon to do it, either.

Or in the alternative, you could do the same in St. Petersburg, Russia...the Nazis had that city surrounded and were starving out the civilian population over the course of several months...a fact which the Russians are understandably still pretty pissed off about.

In case you haven't noticed - I have done a lot of traveling and have been to a TON of museums.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

PA--I was not TRYING to answer your question. I just thought it was not in context with the thread.

Since then, you did find out it is 'in context'.

And, to quote myself 'I notice you still haven't answered my question in the least.'

This is what happenes when you are pushed out of your confort zone - answers become hard to come by, no longer so platonically simplistic.

You're very quick to make assumptions about what's going on in other people's heads without evidence--which is, frankly, a large part of the reason why I see no need to try to engage in substantive conversation with you. I see nothing gained from that and I am quite content to kick back and watch from the audience.

 

[Supernuke]

If I was Truman I would have made the same call. It would have been hard, but the potential was that the war could have dragged out for another few years and that could have been devastating. Pretty much every young male American was over there fighting. That being said, killing civilians is not something to be taken lightly, obviously. This whole situation reminds me of "Statistical Probabilities". Do you listen to what your statisticians are telling you? Can they know through calculus and predictions what will really happen? Probably not. So I would have made the same call, but the real cost of those extra war years will never be known. It might have decimated that generation even further and as President of a country, you can't let an entire generation be wiped out. Those are my two cents and I expect to be lambasted for them thoroughly. We can all sit up on our high horses and say "genocide is wrong". But when push comes to shove; if it came down to you or your country being wiped out vs someone else you are not going to sit there and wait for the bombs to come. I know Japan didn't have the capability to wipe us out at the time, but over the course of an extended conflict they could have. It's another "what if", I know, but the potential was too great.

 

[Thestral]

Until one is willing to throw at Truman&co, for the atomic bombings, the same epithets one throws at Sisko&co for the attempted founder genocide, one should refrain from criticising Sisko&co's actions too much, constantly displaying a huge double standard.
"If your house is made of glass, don't throw stones."

Point of order: Truman and co. weren't attempting genocide and nobody has ever suggested as such. Elements of the Federation were trying to wipe out an entire species. So while worth comparing, the two situations aren't actually the same. That said...

And I couldn't help but notice - you also did not answer my question:
"In the real world, USA bombed 2 cities out of existence - killing ~350000 civilians, who had no say in the war - in a situation that wasn't desperate at all.
Do you endorse this action or not?"

No, I don't endorse this action (nor the firebombings of Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, etc.) at all. Then again, I'm at least nominally a pacifist in the real world so that might not count for much. But even from a just-war position, I don't see the wiping out of cities as acceptable.

Regarding the need for the Bomb, I recall (though would have to go back and research) reading something about the possibility that in the days before Hiroshima the Emperor may have been willing to accept conditional surrender but a faction within the Army was threatening a coup if he did?

Since then, you did find out it is 'in context'.

And, to quote myself 'I notice you still haven't answered my question in the least.'

This is what happenes when you are pushed out of your confort zone - answers become hard to come by, no longer so platonically simplistic.

You're very quick to make assumptions about what's going on in other people's heads without evidence--which is, frankly, a large part of the reason why I see no need to try to engage in substantive conversation with you. I see nothing gained from that and I am quite content to kick back and watch from the audience.

Come now, you could play along.



Oh, and on-topic: delicious shade of grey.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

PKTrekGirl, Supernuke, Kestrel

About the WW2 atom bombings, you mentioned some quibbles that, in PKTrekGirl's words, 'are really more semantic than anything else'.

However, these quibbles are also highly debatable and very...delicate.


Let's see:

1. I wouldn't say that we 'bombed them out of existence'.

Perhaps not, but the cities to be bombed were chosen specifically because the geography of the area was such that the blast will be contained into the city, ensuring the highest possible number of casualties. That's just...cold blooded.
So, it can be said that the american planners did everything they could to 'bomb out of existence' the cities, by using an atom bomb.

2. There is some debate about whether the situation was 'desperate' or not. I think in the end it depends upon your definition of 'desperate'. It is true that the mainland of the US was not in eminent danger...and it is true that we were not in danger, at that point, of losing the war outright. However, a case can be made for 'desperate' in the sense that it was well known that Hirohito had no intention of giving up, and was ready to have Japan fight to the last man, if necessary. Winning the war, then, would have required an amphibious (ground) invasion of Japan - ships and planes alone were not going to do it. Since a ground invasion of Japan would have been an EXTREMELY bloody affair with massive casualties on both sides (some have argued that as many Japanese civilians might have died over the course of such an extended war effort, in addition to many thousands on the Allied side), the U.S. felt like we had no choice but to show the Japanese population (particularly the civilian population), in no uncertain terms, that we COULD...and that we WOULD win that war. Because Hirohito certainly wasn't telling them that.

By 1945, Japan was a spent power, with the army in ruins, the economy bankrupt. Let's say it was left alone (AKA not conquered) - maybe with economic sanctions imposed. Japan would have been in no position/shape to threaten someone else - then and (if we assume the american help that followed after Japan's conquest didn't exist), for a long time to come.

But, of course, it would have still been there. And one could say that in ~50 years of so, there was a chance of it regaining its economic/military proeminence, while retaining its aggressive mindset (of course, such long term predictions are inherently unreliable).

Well, what were the options to conquer Japan in 1945?
A land invasion with massive casualties would be one of them - and not a very inspired one.
The atom bomb gave the Allies...options.
Foe example - the Allies could have first atom bombed mount Fuji or a military base, "to show the Japanese population (particularly the civilian population), in no uncertain terms, that we COULD".
USA was able to build an atom bomb every 3 months in 1945 - there were enough of them for the Aliies to afford such a warning.
As for "and that we WOULD to win that war" - if need be, that could come later, after the japanese were given a chance to surrender.
The Allies could even have used atom bombs of smaller destructive strenght to destroy anything that resembled military bases in Japan, effectively destroying any meaningful japanese resistance to an eventual invasion (gangs made out of civilians with small weapons not counting as meaningful resistance).

Point of order: Truman and co. weren't attempting genocide and nobody has ever suggested as such.

Truman&co atempted nothing, true.
They killed ~350000 civilians (no attempt here).

Does this constitute genocide?
As per the usual definition of the word 'genocide', yes.
Of course, you may come with alternative definitions of 'genocide', with sematic hair-splitting, etc - but in the end, these are meaningless. The fact remains ~350000 people wee killed - and this is a VERY LARGE number of deaths (a significant fraction of a population of any number).


As you see, highly debatable and 'delicate' semantics.

It is interesting, by the way, that even in the museum in Hiroshima, the dilemma is presented this way. I have also been to the museums in Vietnam that are dedicated to what they refer to as "The American War"...and the Vietnamese (at least the official government party line - the citizens, much better) are a LOT less generous with their assessment than are the Japanese, with regard to our military actions in their country.

I suspect this has a LOT to do with the american behaviour towards Japan after the country was conquered.

^ I'll be interested to see if anyone (especially any of my fellow Americans) takes on that question. In my view, there is no easy answer - which I'm sure is exactly what you were going for.

This was what I was trying to show, indeed.


About the DS9 attempted founder genocide.
The situation in which the Federation found itself was far more desperate than the WW2 situation the Allies were in:
The japanese threat by 1945 was a joke by comparison to the Dominion - the Dominion more than held its own against the Federation, indeed, it had a very good chance of winning the war and conquering the Federation.

You're very quick to make assumptions about what's going on in other people's heads without evidence--which is, frankly, a large part of the reason why I see no need to try to engage in substantive conversation with you. I see nothing gained from that and I am quite content to kick back and watch from the audience.

You recourse to evasion and vaguely condescending statements when you're pushed out of your confort zone and you actually say my words here don't have value?

Nerys Ghemor, as long as you're only willing to engage in fantasy scenarios moralising, eschewing any connection to the real world, it's your posts that are little more than useless intellectual masturbation.

 

[DonIago]

But at least we're not drifting into the realm of personal attacks...

 

[Eleanor_zhDarjel]

^...just thinking the same thing.

*sigh*

 

[Thestral]

Truman&co atempted nothing, true.
They killed ~350000 civilians (no attempt here).

Does this constitute genocide?
As per the usual definition of the word 'genocide', yes.
Of course, you may come with alternative definitions of 'genocide', with sematic hair-splitting, etc - but in the end, these are meaningless. The fact remains ~350000 people wee killed - and this is a VERY LARGE number of deaths (a significant fraction of a population of any number).

Do you also consider the bombings of Tokyo genocide? Roughly 100,000 people "officially" died in that, though the number may be higher.

How about the firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg, which combined killed about 75,000 people?

None of the "usual definitions" of genocide that I could find seem to apply here. Imperial Japan had a population of 73 million in 1940, which means the loss of 350,000 people is... 0.48%. Sorry, but by simple cold numbers, that's not a significant fraction.

But at least we're not drifting into the realm of personal attacks...

Yeah...

 

[PKTrekGirl]

You're very quick to make assumptions about what's going on in other people's heads without evidence--which is, frankly, a large part of the reason why I see no need to try to engage in substantive conversation with you. I see nothing gained from that and I am quite content to kick back and watch from the audience.

You recourse to evasion and vaguely condescending statements when you're pushed out of your confort zone and you actually say my words here don't have value?

Nerys Ghemor, as long as you're only willing to engage in fantasy scenarios moralising, eschewing any connection to the real world, it's your posts that are little more than useless intellectual masturbation.

Okay, PA, that last bit was over the line. While political discussion IS allowed in here, this is not TNZ. So we don't need that kind of personal commentary. It is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

My suggestion: knock it off immediately or risk a warning for trolling.

Play nice in here. And if you can't do that, don't play at all.



Now. That said, Nerys Ghemor - my suggestion to you is that in future, you do not participate in glib moral commentary that you are not prepared to defend, if challenged. You don't need to carry on a protracted conversation, but you do need to be prepared to do more than refuse to answer. It's really not fair to start something you are unprepared to finish - or at least fully explain. Because as things stand now, we don't know if you can support your statements or not. So we are of course inclined to believe 'not'.

It's poor form on a discussion board to make statements you are not prepared to defend, regardless of who challenges you. NONE of us has control over who challenges us in an environment like this - but that is the NATURE of a discussion board, and you really have to expect it.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Maybe this will help, or hurt, the conversation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)

I think Garak was probably a Neutral.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Let's see:

1. I wouldn't say that we 'bombed them out of existence'.

Perhaps not, but the cities to be bombed were chosen specifically because the geography of the area was such that the blast will be contained into the city, ensuring the highest possible number of casualties. That's just...cold blooded.
So, it can be said that the american planners did everything they could to 'bomb out of existence' the cities, by using an atom bomb.

Actually, I do not agree that their objective was to bomb either city out of existence.

Their objective was to make such a massive impression on the civilian population of Japan that they would turn against the Emperor, if necessary, in order to stop the war.

The Emperor of Japan - at least at that time, was regarded as a near-deity, and the population conditioned to regard his word a divinely inspired 'law'. Bombing things like military bases was to be expected, and could even be explained or hidden from the population, to a certain extent. And further, what would it accomplish? It was WAR. Soldiers die. 'Soldiers dying' was not something that would put terror into the hearts of the citizens of Japan to the degree required to turn them against a leader whom they regarded as divinely installed, and stage an uprising, if necessary, in order to force their own government to surrender.

2. There is some debate about whether the situation was 'desperate' or not. I think in the end it depends upon your definition of 'desperate'. It is true that the mainland of the US was not in eminent danger...and it is true that we were not in danger, at that point, of losing the war outright. However, a case can be made for 'desperate' in the sense that it was well known that Hirohito had no intention of giving up, and was ready to have Japan fight to the last man, if necessary. Winning the war, then, would have required an amphibious (ground) invasion of Japan - ships and planes alone were not going to do it. Since a ground invasion of Japan would have been an EXTREMELY bloody affair with massive casualties on both sides (some have argued that as many Japanese civilians might have died over the course of such an extended war effort, in addition to many thousands on the Allied side), the U.S. felt like we had no choice but to show the Japanese population (particularly the civilian population), in no uncertain terms, that we COULD...and that we WOULD win that war. Because Hirohito certainly wasn't telling them that.

By 1945, Japan was a spent power, with the army in ruins, the economy bankrupt. Let's say it was left alone (AKA not conquered) - maybe with economic sanctions imposed. Japan would have been in no position/shape to threaten someone else - then and (if we assume the american help that followed after Japan's conquest didn't exist), for a long time to come.

But, of course, it would have still been there. And one could say that in ~50 years of so, there was a chance of it regaining its economic/military proeminence, while retaining its aggressive mindset (of course, such long term predictions are inherently unreliable).

Okay. First of all, in a war of this magnitude, involving this many battles fought all over the Pacific.... against THIS enemy, there was NO WAY Truman could have simply 'walked away'. Do you SERIOUSLY think the US population would have accepted anything LESS than unconditional surrender from the only country who has ever attacked us on our own soil? And at that, in such a stunning display as Pearl Harbor was...with such a huge body count? Shoot...even 60+ years later, the photos of the carnage that took place at Pearl Harbor shock the SHIT out of ME - a person who was not even alive at the time, and lost no husband, brother, father, cousin, or neighbor. "Walking away" without a surrender would have been political suicide for Truman. That's pretty much a no-brainer, to the point I'm actually surprised you even suggested it. The US population would have NEVER accepted "Well, those wacky Japanese won't surrender...but we got 'em pretty bad, so we'll just walk away and call it good." NO WAY that would have 'flown'. No way.

Where do you live, by the way? Because even 60+ years later, the emotion surrounding Pearl Harbor is still VERY high, for Americans. The fact that you would attempt a case for 'walking away', makes me think you might not be an American. And If you are, you are CERTAINLY the first American I have ever met to suggest such action.

Well, what were the options to conquer Japan in 1945?
A land invasion with massive casualties would be one of them - and not a very inspired one.
The atom bomb gave the Allies...options.
Foe example - the Allies could have first atom bombed mount Fuji or a military base, "to show the Japanese population (particularly the civilian population), in no uncertain terms, that we COULD".

The military base 'option' I addressed earlier, so I won't circle back on that. As for Mt Fuji....do you realize the place that mountain holds in the spiritual values of the Japanese? I'm guessing not...because if you knew and understood very much about Japanese culture, you would know that that would likely have been a bigger affront to the Japanese than anything else. It wouldn't have terrorized them with fear - it would have filled them with unimaginable and unquenchable rage. Mt Fuji is kind of considered to be sort of an abode of the gods or whatever...CERTAINLY regarded as outside the realm of mere 'human' conflict. Talk about GENOCIDE! Blowing up Mt Fuji, even if not a single human soul died, would have been considered to be MUCH more an act of genocide than would have been bombing Hiroshima. In fact, I would argue that it would have been the single largest act of CULTURAL genocide we could have inflicted on that country. And what are a people without their culture? Without a distinct culture, I'm not even sure there can BE true genocide, in a way. Skin color, after all, is hardly the only indicator of a unique race.

Most countries understand this sentiment. It's why, in the European Theater, certain cities, historic sites, and religious landmarks where considered 'off limits'. In Japan, the city of Kyoto (in case you are unaware, a city filled with Buddhist and Shinto Temples and Shrines) was considered 'off limits'...but whether it was on any 'list' or not, Mt. Fuji would have fallen into that category too. Going after such targets is the equivalent of committing cultural genocide. And in my mind, knowing what I know about the Japanese, is utterly unthinkable.

USA was able to build an atom bomb every 3 months in 1945 - there were enough of them for the Aliies to afford such a warning.
As for "and that we WOULD to win that war" - if need be, that could come later, after the japanese were given a chance to surrender.

But they HAD been given a chance to surrender. You said it yourself - they were practically on their knees. And still unwilling to surrender. Instead of surrender, we were getting Kamikaze pilots running planes into ships and such - at that time, an act that was completely incomprehensible to the us. And REMAINED incomprehensible to us for a very long time - at least until about 8:45:59 am on the morning of September 11, 2001.

You REALLY do not understand much about Japanese culture, do you? Throughout your arguments, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that their values are the same as ours, that their communal way of thinking (and in Japan, there IS a communal way of thinking - it is NOT the most individualistic country on earth) would net the same conclusion and following action plan as our, more individualistic, way of thinking.

But trust me - blowing up Mt Fuji? Not the best of plans, if the objective was to facilitate surrender.

You think Americans are the big guns, when it comes to holding our own culture in the highest regard and defending it at all costs? Oh my...we are the bush leagues, compared to the Japanese - who have a very proud culture that is thousands of years old and that is much more holistic than ours is - involving WAY more than the right to shoot for a big bank account so that we can build monuments to ourselves. Our 'culture', in fact, is defined by our complete LACK of homogeneous culture, and is characterized by a minimal regard for the well-being of 'the group' as opposed to the individual. In Japan, it's the exact opposite - it's all ABOUT being homogeneous...and it's all about the group. And 'the group' includes every Japanese person who ever lived. *We* can barely resist dishonoring OURSELVES, most of the time, it seems. In Japan, they worry about dishonoring ancestors who are long dead. With such massive differences at the foundation level, we cannot assume that the value they place on culture, as opposed to individual human life, is remotely the same as ours.

The Allies could even have used atom bombs of smaller destructive strenght to destroy anything that resembled military bases in Japan, effectively destroying any meaningful japanese resistance to an eventual invasion (gangs made out of civilians with small weapons not counting as meaningful resistance).

Once again...hitting military targets was not working...and was not GOING to work. Such actions are expected in war time...and it would have taken a lot more than hitting a bunch of military targets to accomplish the unthinkable and successfully turn the Japanese people against their own emperor.

To get them to do what for them, was an unspeakable act, we had to commit an unspeakable act.

I don't think that anyone is saying that dropping two atomic bombs was a wonderful plan that we should all be comfortable with. Because we SHOULDN'T be comfortable with it.

But what I think we CAN be comfortable with is idea that Truman & Co. honestly believed it was the best choice they had among an array of really BAD options. Most estimates I have seen place dropping those bombs in a place of LESS overall loss of life (including Japanese civilian life) than if we had allowed the war to drag on and on via opting for any of the REALISTIC alternatives (the chief one being a ground assault on mainland Japan).

Sometimes, there are no good options - only varying degrees of 'horrendous' options. And I think we can be comfortable that this was one of those times.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

PKTrekGirl

"But what I think we CAN be comfortable with is idea that Truman & Co. honestly believed it was the best choice they had among an array of really BAD options."

Truman&co believed it was the best option, I agree.


What I tried to emphasize in my posts is that it is FAR from certain that it actually WAS the best option. A VERY GOOD CASE can be made that, in fact, it was not the 'best' option:

The japanese had no idea the americans had atomic bombs when they were unwilling to surrender - up to the latter half of 1945 (and they were not attacked by the russians, etc).

After the bombings they surrendered immediately - different culture and all. This tells one much about them; for one thing, that the view they'll all gladly commit suicide before surrendering is NOT correct - if this view was correct, they would NOT have surrendered regardless of the circumstances.
About exactly how "unspeakable" surrender was to the japanese:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
Apparently, the japanese were ready to surrender - conditionally - even BEFORE the atomic bombs were dropped.

They could have wery well surrendered - unconditionally - had they seen the american nuclear capabilities (on top of the russian attacks) WITHOUT 2 cities being atom bombed.
Indeed, many historians argue that, even without the atomic bombs, the japanese would have surrendered by the end of 1945.
Many WW2 military commanders - MacArthur, Eisenhower, Nimitz - disagreed with the necessity for the atom bombings.

The decision to surrender was made by the japanese rulling class - and the emperor - who would have been well informed of any events (including atomic bombing of military targets).
As usual, the population - more or less terrified (largely depending on what distance it was from the bombed cities and how well informed it was) - had little say. Indeed, between Hiroshima - 6 august - and unconditional surrender - 15 august - the japanese people didn't even have the time to recover from shock, let alone demand surrender or anything else from their emperor.

About Mount Fuji - the target can be changed to a military one/whatever, as long as the power of the atom bomb is demonstrated.


Also - Truman went ahead because not employing the atom bomb/conquering Japan would be political suicide or because the USA population wanted revenge/blood?
I find these reasons horrifyingly petty - unsettling, considering what they were used to motivate. They don't morally justify the atomic bombings in the least - indeed, they make the killing of ~350000 people look even more monstruous.

As to the USA population wanting revenge as a motive for killing ~350000 people - that should be OFFENSIVE to the american people:
Was there ever a vote to find out whether
a.to atomic bomb 2 japanese cities immediately or
b.to first arrange a demonstration of this new weapon, and only if this didn't work start killing civilians by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (this remaining eminently feasible at any time)
c.etc?


And - it's a fact that the american planners choose the cities to be bombed because these targets (due to their geography, population, etc) would ensure the largest possible number of civilian casualties - which IS COLD-BLOODED.


PS
About 'cultural genocide' - speaking for myself, as a member of a specific culture, I view it as a joke compared to true genocide.
In large part, because 'cultural genocide' does not really exist without true genocide:
A culture is primarily made of ideas, NOT of artifacts. As long as the people survive, their culture lives on (despite a few landmarks with sentimental value being lost to accident/destruction/etc). Did you know that in Japan, many historical monuments look so new because they were destroyed repeatedly and then rebuilt, the new construction having the same historical value as the old one?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Truman may have believed that he took the 'best' option in dealing with the japanese people.
But Truman's image of the japanese people had nothing in common with reality:

Here's what I found on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate...oshima_and_Nagasaki#Racism_and_dehumanization
'On the second day after the Nagasaki bomb, Truman stated: "The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true".'

BEASTS?
REALLY?

 

[Keith1701]

Garak was grey in every way possible.

But seriously...like many people, he may have done evil things, but he himself was not evil. (IMO)

I'm with you as well.

 

[Gary7]

He has committed acts that would be deemed evil, depending upon the context. The question is, was his motive in doing them evil? Hard to say. Outside of that, he has shown himself to have good values, although inconsistently followed. Definitely shades of gray. I'd like to think of him as having shifted more towards the good side in his later years, now that he is wiser.

Incidentally, which episodes would people say are the "best of Garak"?

 

[Gary7]

I'd neglected to read the last couple of pages... and I sure missed some meaty content. I hadn't realized the debate had shifted to that degree.

I wasn't a big DS9 fan for a very long time, because I didn't give the series much of a chance. It just wasn't bringing enough appeal to me in the first few seasons. However, the series did get much better. It weaned itself from the "soap opera" tendencies and dug deeply into real human issues, both conceptual for the future and actual for our times. It does take to task some very hard questions about good and evil. It sure makes some of our recent politicians look rather pedestrian. There is much to like about this series. I've already grown to appreciate much of it over TNG.

I am a US citizen and grew up believing my country had the world's best interests at heart. After all, look what we did for so many other countries in WWI and WWII and how much money we've donated to international concerns. But although we can boast an environment with the greatest possibilities for its citizens, it is also suffering from corruption. I came to learn this later. My first sense of this was Vietnam. We were fighting a conceptual enemy--communism. And as a consequence, so many innocent lives were lost. We would also interfere with other nations under the premise of delivering democracy, when in fact our interests were to control and/or exploit.

In the 1980's the US trained, educated, and supplied Afghani forces to rid themselves of the USSR. It took 9 long years, but the deed was eventually done by 1989. Our interest was to prevent the USSR from achieving a strategic advantage in the Middle East. Rather than staying on to help Afghanistan rebuild, we left once the goal was achieved. The country descended into chaos with the government completely collapsing by 1992. Anarchy reined for many years to follow until the Taliban took over. Several key members of that group took up the charge of hatred against the USA, founding al Qaeda and the seed bed for many hundred thousands of extremists. It was easy to hate us, as it was clear we manipulated events for our own agenda and continued to do so. Thus we paid the price. If we had invested 1/10th of all the capital that has been lost by 9/11 and the Iraq "war" to help rebuild Afghanistan starting in 1989, that nation would have become a stable sovereign nation in the Middle East within 3-5 years and the western world would be far safer.

There needs to be another turning point... shifting from the luxury saturated minds of the developed nations to one of generosity and concern for the general welfare of all citizen upon this Earth. If it does not happen, surely our fragile dependencies will become targets and our way of life will be changed for the worse. Humanity has already had several "dark ages"... we don't need another.

 

[George]

If Garak is evil, James Bond is evil too...

 

[Eleanor_zhDarjel]

^you are not a fan of the tldr-posts, are you?