Another Thought Unclear?

[WKLJAZZ at aol.com]

Well. I guess I'm pretty mystified by Bonnie's reaction to my post "Another
Thought on the Bomb."  The question that had been presented on the list, as
Susasn noted, was what made the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs ultimately
"worse" than other, more traditional, acts of war (such as the fire bombings
of Tokyo and Dresden).

My reply -- and, sure, it's just me talkin' in a measily fifteen minute
e-mail post and not a genius holding forth in a 700 page novel that took a
decade to write -- was that the Bomb was more horrible and relatively unique
because it was a PERVERSION of humanity's creative urge, an example of all
our best and most advanced minds working toward something that is nothing but
apocalyptically destructive.  That people are fascinated by and drawn to this
awesome -- BUT HORRIBLE -- thing is precisely what makes it so unsettling.

I didn't mean to say that mass destruction is sexy, per se.  (I certainly
didn't pretend to know what Bonnie or anyone else things is pleasing or
attractive.)  I meant to put forth the idea -- reductive and derivative of
ideas stated with greater complexity and creativity in GR, fer shure -- that
the awesome destructiveness of the Bomb and the Rocket derive from human
creativity (CREEPY) and, in their form but not their effect, are hypnotizing
and alluring EVEN WHILE THEY ARE TOTALLY HORRIBLE.  Perhaps it is some kind
of human sickness to find anything stimulating in violence (or, maybe it's
just a MALE sickness -- I dunno), but the popular culture of America
certainly suggests that this connection exists.  I lament the connection, but
I think it's kinda undeniable, and the Bomb is its most emphatic embodiment.
 That makes the Bomb qualitatively different (AND MORE HORRIBLE, OK?) than
some regular ol' firebombing, and that was the point of my post.

No hard feelings, OK?

-- Will L.