Is Einstein in hell for Hiroshima?

[PruePhillip]

From where I sit I see a lot of community building going on all over the world where people from all walks of life, all races, nations, religions and glasses are coming together. So I see the exact opposite happening.

There are two processes as far as I can gather underway at the moment, the processes of disintegration and integration. One tears down old belief systems, ideas, and traditions which are of no further use and the other introduces concepts like the oneness and equality of humanity, that we are all one family and also things like universal human rights.

The struggle going on is between those who want to cling to the past and those who want to move on to a new, brighter future. So in other words it’s like the American Civil war but playing out on a world scale. This is why it involves all of us because our voice strengthens either the oppressive old or the free new.

Doing nothing allows the shadows to grow darker. You know the saying that for the triumph of evil all that is required is for good men to do nothing?

There's nothing 'old fashion' about our nature. Every child is born with it.
If we think war is the 'past' instead of our 'present' human nature then we
are destined to repeat war BECAUSE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WERE
IT COMES FROM. US.
I take an interest in the Pacific War with Japan. Today's China feels and
sounds just like Japan 1941 - Phillipine Sea, Solomon Islands, Guam,
Papua New Guinea etc.. It's in our Australian papers all the time - we are
seeing a new Japan in China. This isn't any 'oppressive old' is a brand
spanking new 'oppressive new.'
Yes, we can do things - the West and Asia can stand up to China, keep
international waters open, seek fair trade, support oppressed minorities
in China etc.. Same with Russia. Promote trade, free expression, don't
turn a blind eye etc..

 

[loverofhumanity]

There's nothing 'old fashion' about our nature. Every child is born with it.
If we think war is the 'past' instead of our 'present' human nature then we
are destined to repeat war BECAUSE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WERE
IT COMES FROM. US.
I take an interest in the Pacific War with Japan. Today's China feels and
sounds just like Japan 1941 - Phillipine Sea, Solomon Islands, Guam,
Papua New Guinea etc.. It's in our Australian papers all the time - we are
seeing a new Japan in China. This isn't any 'oppressive old' is a brand
spanking new 'oppressive new.'
Yes, we can do things - the West and Asia can stand up to China, keep
international waters open, seek fair trade, support oppressed minorities
in China etc.. Same with Russia. Promote trade, free expression, don't
turn a blind eye etc..

What about working together? It’s always ‘us and them’ isn’t it? It makes no sense that we create invisible division where there is really none.

The reality is there is only one human race. We have been manipulated into ‘us and them’ camps by manipulative forces for their own selfish interests, but facts are we are all human beings. Race, religion and nationality are not realities but imagined.

Chinese, Russians are fellow human beings as are all people. I agree we must have justice for all but the only way to do that is to have a system which can hold governments accountable for many have committed genocide and atrocities and continue to do so under the current system.

In my view only a global order agreed to by the people’s of the world, can neutralise forces destabilising the world. With such a system, governments are no longer free to oppress minorities or abuse the rights of their own citizens.

 

[Audie]

My post was solely about the disarmament of nuclear weapons with regards to Hiroshima.

Sure. And I said what I said.

 

[PruePhillip]

What about working together? It’s always ‘us and them’ isn’t it? It makes no sense that we create invisible division where there is really none.

The reality is there is only one human race. We have been manipulated into ‘us and them’ camps by manipulative forces for their own selfish interests, but facts are we are all human beings. Race, religion and nationality are not realities but imagined.

Chinese, Russians are fellow human beings as are all people. I agree we must have justice for all but the only way to do that is to have a system which can hold governments accountable for many have committed genocide and atrocities and continue to do so under the current system.

In my view only a global order agreed to by the people’s of the world, can neutralise forces destabilising the world. With such a system, governments are no longer free to oppress minorities or abuse the rights of their own citizens.

Okay, we want to work with China, but China games the rules of international trade, finance
and respect for borders.
So what do you do? Be like Obama and just ignore China?
And ignore Iran too?

I am fine with treaties, friendship and the like. But what do you do when someone games the
system? There's an answer - walk softly and carry a big stick.

 

[Stevicus]

Building a new world civilisation. That’s what I’m doing. Otherwise we are just hanging around allowing the world to disintegrate further. Nothing will change unless we change it.

To Serve Humanity: Building a New Civilization

Politicians promise change all the time, and people vote for them because they also want change. Yet, nothing ever really changes. Sometimes, people become impatient, and they might reject conventional, systemic means of change, opting for a more direct approach. This can sometimes lead to the wars which you say are the collective responsibility of all humans.

Many people are afraid of change, and there's no telling how far they'll go to prevent change.

There also many who welcome and actively want changes in the system, yet they're divided because they can't agree on which changes to make, so that's another impediment towards making any changes. People think independently, with their own opinions and ideas. We don't all think alike, and we often disagree with each other. That's where it gets rather dicey.

 

[metis]

However it seems to me the saying "two wrongs don't make a right" is not in fact applicable to this instance.

Why not?

Einstein apologized for contributing to the nuclear killing of innocent people, thus I can fully understand his concern that he betrayed his own beliefs on this. Thus, just because another power was trying to develop a nuclear bomb doesn't warrant caving on one's own moral beliefs.

 

[exchemist]

Why not?

Einstein apologized for contributing to the nuclear killing of innocent people, thus I can fully understand his concern that he betrayed his own beliefs on this. Thus, just because another power was trying to develop a nuclear bomb doesn't warrant caving on one's own moral beliefs.

Because there was nothing wrong in warning the US government that Nazi Germany might be able to make an A bomb and that therefore the US should try to get one first. So there are not "two wrongs", it seems to me.

 

[metis]

Because there was nothing wrong in warning the US government that Nazi Germany might be able to make an A bomb and that therefore the US should try to get one first. So there are not "two wrongs", it seems to me.

But since he helped in contributing to those bombs that were dropped, thus killing thousands of people the most of whom we have to realize were innocent, can't you understand why he believed he compromised his conscience? Can't you see why he believed he made a terrible decision?

 

[exchemist]

But since he helped in contributing to those bombs that were dropped, thus killing thousands of people the most of whom we have to realize were innocent, can't you understand why he believed he compromised his conscience? Can't you see why he believed he made a terrible decision?

How did he help? Einstein never worked on the Manhattan project, so far as I am aware.

I really cannot see his decision to sign the letter was anything other than the only responsible course of action. If Hitler had got the bomb first, there can be no doubt he would have been happy to use it all across the globe, and we might even today be living in a Nazi totalitarian empire. As it happens the work went slowly and Germany never got there, thank God. But he could not have known that at the time.

 

[metis]

How did he help? Einstein never worked on the Manhattan project, so far as I am aware.

Not only because his mathematical formulations were the ultimate base for the development of nuclear reactions, but also that he pushed the President to work on getting it before the Germans did.

I really cannot see his decision to sign the letter was anything other than the only responsible course of action. If Hitler had got the bomb first, there can be no doubt he would have been happy to use it all across the globe, and we might even today be living in a Nazi totalitarian empire. As it happens the work went slowly and Germany never got there, thank God. But he could not have known that at the time.

A person of faith has no control over what someone else may decide, and Einstein knew that, thus "two wrongs don't make a right" from his perspective whether you or I agree with him or not.

BTW, for the record, I do agree with him.

 

[exchemist]

Not only because his mathematical formulations were the ultimate base for the development of nuclear reactions, but also that he pushed the President to work on getting it before the Germans did.

A person of faith has no control over what someone else may decide, and Einstein knew that, thus "two wrongs don't make a right" from his perspective whether you or I agree with him or not.

BTW, for the record, I do agree with him.

His mathematical formulations were not the basis for the development of the theory of nuclear fission. E=mc² tells you nothing about how to get a nuclear chain reaction going, let alone how to make a bomb.

It is you, not Einstein, that is asserting "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. OK, I suppose I can imagine why he might have had feelings of guilt once the bomb was dropped, since he had spurred the the USA on the path to developing it. But objectively, it seems to me he would have been negligent if, knowing what he knew from his European physics contacts, he had failed to warn the US of the danger.

 

[metis]

His mathematical formulations were not the basis for the development of the theory of nuclear fission. E=mc² tells you nothing about how to get a nuclear chain reaction going, let alone how to make a bomb.

Actually it does set the base for it, but obviously he was not working in the bomb nor any other nuclear project.

It is you, not Einstein, that is asserting "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here.

I put those words in his mouth but not the thought. You don't seem to understand that Einstein had a very strong conscience, which he felt he betrayed.

But objectively, it seems to me he would have been negligent if, knowing what he knew from his European physics contacts, he had failed to warn the US of the danger.

Our intelligence knew of this prior to Einstein chiming in: German nuclear weapons program - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Emigration"]

And of course he was concerned about what the NAZI's were up to and the damage that could be done, so that isn't the issue of why he was disappointed in himself with what he came to end up doing.

Seems to me that you are trying to blame him for apologizing on his being conscientious. Whether one believes he did the right thing or not is really another issue.

 

[Clara Tea]

Okay, we want to work with China, but China games the rules of international trade, finance
and respect for borders.
So what do you do? Be like Obama and just ignore China?
And ignore Iran too?

I am fine with treaties, friendship and the like. But what do you do when someone games the
system? There's an answer - walk softly and carry a big stick.

China: Presidential Candidates' views

How America's relationship with China changed under Obama

Obama didn't ignore China. The link above shows the things that Obama did with regard to China.

 

[Clara Tea]

His mathematical formulations were not the basis for the development of the theory of nuclear fission. E=mc² tells you nothing about how to get a nuclear chain reaction going, let alone how to make a bomb.

It is you, not Einstein, that is asserting "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. OK, I suppose I can imagine why he might have had feelings of guilt once the bomb was dropped, since he had spurred the the USA on the path to developing it. But objectively, it seems to me he would have been negligent if, knowing what he knew from his European physics contacts, he had failed to warn the US of the danger.

E=mc^2 gives one an idea of the amount of energy released. That's handy to know if you might ignite the entire planet. But that was previously determined experimentally.

 

[Clara Tea]

Why not?

Einstein apologized for contributing to the nuclear killing of innocent people, thus I can fully understand his concern that he betrayed his own beliefs on this. Thus, just because another power was trying to develop a nuclear bomb doesn't warrant caving on one's own moral beliefs.

Innocent? They supported their government which was allied with Hitler (Nazis), and their country sneak attacked the US (Pearl Harbor). While many were civilians, and not involved in the military, they could have stood up to their country.

 

[Clara Tea]

My ex-mother-in-law (second wife) grew up in Japan during World War II and was old enough to been among the millions of school children who the Japanese began training towards the end to sacrifice their lives tying to successfully assault and ambush with bamboo spears American troops fighting to take the islands. If anything like that had actually played out, the death count of children alone could easily have numbered in the millions.

I'm not saying that means the bombs were necessary to bring about the timing of the surrender. I've never studied the details well enough to be confident I have a reasonable guess at that. I'm just saying that the stakes were much higher than anyone can mentally grasp.

Statistics are not children dying in agony, shock, and terror, but at most a cold summary of the fact of their deaths.

Japanese were seen as a different type of enemy (willing to die in suicide bombings). Also, the Baton Death March, and the many US soldiers who died in prison camps showed that the Japanese were cruel. Japan didn't abide by international treaties (e.g. limiting bore size to 5 inches, while the Yamamoto had 16 inch guns). So, Japanese-Americans (e. g. Manzanar concentration camp) were treated differently than German-Americans (e.g. 5 star general Ike Eisenhower, of German extraction, in charge of the Eastern Theater of Operations (ETO), including Germany).

I think that bigotry also played a role (Caucasians were in charge of the US at the time, and Asians didn't look like them, but Germans did).

Japanese Americans had been ordered to move away from the US coast or be transported to a concentration camp.

 

[Clara Tea]

I wonder though, what about the inventor of dynamite? A Mr Alfred Nobel. Although does the Nobel prize cancel that out?

"The moving finger writes, and, having writ, moves on, and all your piety nor wit can cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out of word of it." Fitzgerald's translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.

Christians believe in forgiveness if there is true atonement.

 

[SomeRandom]

"The moving finger writes, and, having writ, moves on, and all your piety nor wit can cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out of word of it." Fitzgerald's translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.

Christians believe in forgiveness if there is true atonement.

But what did Mr Nobel have to atone for? He made something that made mining easier. That people died as a result is not really on his shoulders, imo.

Nice quote by the way. I do like Fitzgerald’s translations. Though I’m only familiar with his Odyssey, Iliad and I think he also did the Aeneid.

 

[metis]

Innocent? They supported their government which was allied with Hitler (Nazis), and their country sneak attacked the US (Pearl Harbor). While many were civilians, and not involved in the military, they could have stood up to their country.

Most of the people killed in most wars are basically innocent if their leadership is authoritarian. In countries run by such leaders, such as Japan was, one doesn't have a say except to follow the rules or pay the price, which is usually imprisonment or death. And then there's the issue of children as well.

Einstein was like Gandhi on this, with Gandhi's rather famous line being: "There are many causes I am willing to die for but none I am prepared to kill for.".

 

[PruePhillip]

Most of the people killed in most wars are basically innocent if their leadership is authoritarian. In countries run by such leaders, such as Japan was, one doesn't have a say except to follow the rules or pay the price, which is usually imprisonment or death. And then there's the issue of children as well.

Einstein was like Gandhi on this, with Gandhi's rather famous line being: "There are many causes I am willing to die for but none I am prepared to kill for.".

Gandhi's followers did the killing for him, if I am correct.