Liberty Host Page » Blog Archives

Author Archives: Peter

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Uncategorized

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings

Published by:

732px-Nagasaki_temple_destroyed-350x196More Americans than ever are questioning the conventional history of the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that murdered 129,000-246,000 or more people, mostly children, women, and the elderly. A new poll shows 56 percent believe the attacks were justified, opposed to the 34 percent who say they were unjustified.

“Seven-in-ten Americans ages 65 and older say the use of atomic weapons was justified, but only 47% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree. There is a similar partisan divide: 74% of Republicans but only 52% of Democrats see the use of nuclear weapons at the end of World War II as warranted.”

Initially, 85 percent of Americans supported the massive attacks ordered by Democratic President Harry Truman. Now more might sympathize with Zora Neale Hurston’s characterization of Truman as the “butcher of Asia” thanks to the work of libertarian historians and writers such as Ralph Raico, Anthony Gregory, and David Henderson. Indeed, this article pulls together much of those three, but is nowhere near a sufficient summary so let the reader be advised to bookmark and read those pieces in their entirety for a more complete view.

Lies and suppression of inconvenient truths have long dominated the mainstream understanding of this 70 year old history. For starters, Truman lied to the American people via radio message just hours after the Nagasaki bombing and three days after Hiroshima. He said, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”

Hiroshima wasn’t a military base, so that couldn’t stick for long. More myths would have to be created. But maybe Truman didn’t know any better when he spoke to the American people? Like other guilty parties, Truman couldn’t keep his story straight. In a response to a clergyman’s criticism of the attack, Truman cited vengeance as a primary reason:

“Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. 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 as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true.”

And why did Truman call the Hiroshima bombing the “greatest thing in history” when breaking the news to his Secretary of State? When a newspaper accurately characterized his words as jubilation, Truman tried to say he was only jubilant about Russia’s entering the war against Japan. That explanation doesn’t fly, because the Russians actually hadn’t entered that theatre of the war until two days after  the Hiroshima bombing.

All of this squirming by Truman should’ve pre-empted the next lie, but it didn’t. The idea that the bombings saved more lives than they burned, mutilated, and obliterated. Virtually all American kids are inculcated with this rationalization, but once the non-cooperative history is dusted off, the idea that the atomic bombings were a noble rescue mission of millions of soldiers and civilians clearly becomes nothing but desperate propaganda.

But even top military brass opposed the bombings. General Dwight Eisenhower advised Truman not to use the weapons and in 1963 told Newsweek, “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” General Douglas MacArthur said the war could’ve ended weeks earlier without any atomic bombing if the US had just accepted a conditional Japanese surrender allowing the emperor to remain in power. The US refused to allow any conditions whatsoever, but ultimately the emperor remained even after the damned pointless bombs Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped.

There is a fear that if the use of atomic weapons is condemned, much of the rest of the war comes into question as well (the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo among other crimes), then before long the entire World War II is in question. And that is something the national religion can’t afford, because it runs on war, and today’s wars are always shrouded in the World War II myth-context.


Drones Uncategorized Weaponized Robots

Experts Warning Us Of Robots

Published by:

robotTesla’s Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, Google executive Demis Hassabis, and professor Stephen Hawking are among over 1,000 artificial intelligence experts who have recently signed an open letter warning the world about the dangers of weaponized robots and a “military artificial intelligence arms race” currently taking place between the world’s military powers.

According to the letter, “AI technology has reached a point where the deployment of [autonomous weapons] is – practically if not legally – feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.”

“The endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow. The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting,” the letter continues.

The current military technology available to the world’s governments is already a massive danger to the planet and everyone that lives here, and it is obvious, as the letter states, that the addition of artificial intelligence could make the global arms race significantly more threatening.

Many people have a hard time grasping how close this scenario is to becoming a reality, but the industry’s leading experts, who have a deep knowledge and understanding of the technology and how it is developing, can see the danger represented by military applications of artificial intelligence.

How this situation can actually be handled is extremely complicated because there is actually no ability for the general population of any country to ensure that their governments don’t develop military Robots.

According to the Guardian, Toby Walsh, professor of AI at the University of New South Wales, has suggested that the United Nations oversee a ban of these weapons, however a ban of this nature would only ensure that the countries in control of the UN and NATO would have exclusive access to weaponized AI. This is similar to the way the United Nations currently bans nuclear weapons while allowing larger NATO nations to continue developing them.

The solution to this problem will not be enacted by any of the governments or government-affiliated agencies that will benefit from the development of military AI, but a letter from over 1,000 of the industries leading experts is a start towards actually finding a real ground-up solution.

Current Events Iran Uncategorized

Hate the Iran Deal?

Published by:


Do you hate the Iran deal?

—The Iran deal—or accord, depending on your approach—may have a series of surprising consequences. But according to what former State Department official Suzanne Maloney has to say, a considerable drop in gas prices might be just what some needed to start celebrating.


“The Iranians are really hungry for Western investment and capital and technology,” says the  senior fellow in the Brookings Center for Middle East Policy. Because the country does not “have the same security challenges” seen in Iraq or Libya, this may be a welcoming change in tune. Once Iranian oil is pumped into the market and legitimate sales are reported across the globe, the over 20 to 40 million barrels of oil Iran has in store will increase the global supply, causing the price of crude oil to drop considerably.

But it doesn’t stop there. Experts believe the incentives will force Iran to improve its oil infrastructure quickly, consequently ramping up oil production and providing anything from 500,000 to 1 million additional barrels a day to regional customers in Europe and Asia.

Over time, the country may even pose a concern to Russia by supplying oil and gas to Eastern and Southern Europe.

According to IHS Energy’s vice president of energy, Jim Burkhard, the increased supply will have an important effect on U.S. gas prices. “[I]f international crude oil prices were to soften even more,” Burkhard says, “[U.S. customers] would see that reflected in pump prices.”

While the hawkish faction of both the Republican and the Democratic parties debate the sane and go on and on about how terrible President Barack Obama’s Iran deal is, some simply can’t wait to spend less to fill the tank.

Do you believe the Iran deal will be positive to the U.S. economy?

Or do you hate the Iran Deal?