Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

First off as to the bombings, I feel that there had to be an alternate way to overcome the Japanese and bring peace, for peat’s-sake it’s an island, blockade it. Not the best idea but you get the point right? As to the comments about revisionist history, I have seen a plethora of alternate ideas and explanations. Many of which appeared well thought out and valid, to me at least.

The big point I see in this thread is that hindsight is not truly 20/20. By this I mean to say that today we can only speculate as to the emotions that played a part in the making of the [two] decisions to drop. It would be nice to have an accurate record since, as we all know this is sometimes the biggest factor in any decision. Cool heads don’t always prevail. To this I can at least concur whole-heartedly.

The other item I would like to touch on is that here in America the Revolutionary War is discussed in some High School classrooms in more depth than WW2 is. Why is that? Are the leaders of this nations school system (yes it is my nation also) afraid to admit that we committed what can be easily argued as one of the most horrid acts of humanity. It is done and in the past. I think it should be taught in every school around the world in the hopes that facing similar circumstances those teens, now turned adults will not make the same mistake. Isn’t that why we teach our children, so that they will be better than us?

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Hat, your saying that the US has the right to act as brutal or more brutal than there opponents and that afterword they'll be better off having been defeated by the US. there might be a few things wrong with this viewpoint.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

My main point is that the decision was made with the proper historical context: Japanese war of aggression against the west, no surrender, no mercy. We responded in kind assuming they would not surrender to McArthur without having devastation wrought upon them. That is what happened.

As for the revenge factor, I just wanted to make it clear the Japanese got what they deserved.

The U.S. was NOT as brutal as the Japanese or the Germans (Nanking, Bataan, Malmedy, Auschwitz and lots more). The rebuilt Japanese and German societies are more wealthy and free than the majority of countries today, and they are two of our staunch allies. So what was wrong with that viewpoint?

[ December 13, 2003, 23:02: Message edited by: AssHat ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

indeed? including two-month old children?

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Please. That's lame.

At least any two-month old children killed by U.S. action were collateral damage, and not killed at the tip of laughing soldiers' bayonets (Nanking) or cruelly separated from their family and gassed (Auschwitz). From now on you need to provide specifics, not platitudes.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Japan wasn't limited to the japanese islands back then; Korea was Japanese territory in that era; giving the Japanese a foothold in Asia.

Therefore, A blockade would've only delayed the inevitable.

Edit: And manchuria. Forgot Manchukuo.

[ December 13, 2003, 23:10: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

AssHat,
Reffering to "Thats Lame".
Everyone one here has their own style. There is no need to denigrade a persons contribution. One could say that my refusal to take a stand is cowardice. It would be a waste of time but they could say it.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

other peoples brutality's do not excuse retalitory brutalities. and more reason is needed out of you than simply dissmissing apposing points.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Gryphin -

npcB was just yankin' my chain with the baby thing. And it is a lame comeback.

I was not attacking npcB.

Edit: I am not dismissing viewpoints, I am making specific points about why those viewpoints are lacking factual evidence.

[ December 13, 2003, 23:48: Message edited by: AssHat ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

i wasn't yanking your chain, i was seeking clarification. your statements have sounded incredibly bloodthirsty.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Hey you're the one with the vampire sig http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really, and who are these people? From what I read, most of the people here say that war was war, and they make no excuses for what the US did given the fact that in that day and age, the ends did justify the means. Fire bombing civilian targets, why the hell not, if they could have done it to use, they would have. But as history would have it, we were the ones to pull it off. Was that the right thing to do by today’s standards, sure, why not, by the standards of then, oh hell yes. People die in war Rex, that is the horror of it. It is a crying shame, but again, it was war and even now when we look back on our history through the optics of revisionism, it was still war and no one can deny that. I lost family in that war as did a great many people, and we all know how horrible war can be. But to look back on it now and say that it was done out of hatred alone is utterly wrong.

The truth is those cities were fire bombed mainly because they were made out of wood and paper and were industrial centers. They did not deliberately target civilians although they knew that the fires would spread. To the military leaders of that time, it was the best tactical way to subdue and demoralize the population of Japan. Break their will to fight and soften them up for an invasion.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Or as you point out, it was just pay back for the war right? They dropped those bombs because they wanted revenge. The sad truth is simply that in war miscommunications between enemies is a common place occurrence. The Japanese culture was different from that of our own and that too played a part in what happened. Simply we did not know, or did not understand that they were considering surrender.

The horror of war can not be ignored, nor can it be excused even after 50 years. Horrible things happen in war Rex, things that should be considered war crimes that are not, and things that should never have happened did happen. Its in the past now, and all we can do is live with the guilt of what happened.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have to disagree with this assessment of your assumption on what people think. No where in any of the threads of this topic have I read where any one becomes uncomfortable with your comments about history. You have your view, and they have theirs. The only one I have seen get upset about any thing has been you Rex. In fact, I think, and forgive me for not being politically correct here, that you enjoy the argument and are not willing to be humble and professional enough to conduct yourself with the professionalism that is this board.

Frankly rex, I think much of what you have said is spot on, but your delivery of it has been deliberately hostile with the intent to provoke animosity

[ December 14, 2003, 00:33: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Hmmm . . . since I wasn't alive and to my knowledge none of my relatives died because of it . . . I guess I don't feel as strongly as some people seem to about that war.

Still, I know what I have read, and it enlightening that there is still so much vitriol towards the Japanese and so much self-righteousness about A-bombing a civilian target even after 50 years. And I guess that's what's upsetting.

Anyway, if we had lost the war fire bombing and A-bombing cities probably would have been a war crime. Sure sometimes a country has to commit an evil act for self-preservation but it doesn't make it a good act; it's still an evil act. In my opinion fire bombing or A-bombing a city with civilians is an evil act even if it was against the JAPS.

I think President Truman captures how many felt about "the beasts" as he says -

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...mall/mb13a.htm

Sure he is disturbed BUT they deserved it.

[ December 14, 2003, 01:18: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

I agree with you Rex, I wish they could have found another way than to have dropped those bombs, I really do.

The motivations back then were skewed by the war, and in war we spend a lot of time making our enemies evil. It is easier to kill a thing, than it is a man. This kind of thing dates back to the dawn of time, and I feel it will go on long after we are gone.

I often wonder how we would all respond to a world war situation if one occured now. If say China bombed Seattle or New York, how we would view them? Or how they would view us when we retalated.

I am a believe that a third world war will come, a war not over politics, but a war over resources. It will be a bloody and unholy war unlike any war we have ever seen before. Billions will die, and in the end, those who survive it will have nothing left to fight with say sticks and stones.

You put 5 people on an island with enough food to Last 50 days. It won't take long for on or two of them to figure out that if s/he bumps off the others, that 50 days of food will Last 250.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And if (note the if, as I believe we are still discussing this) the bombing was done for no other purpose than revenge, is there really a difference ?

While there are several good arguments for dropping the first bomb, can anybody come up with one single decent argument for the second.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, because the Japanese government clearly, directly, and confidently told the American government that it was a fluke, would not work again, and that they would not surrender. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wouldn't lean to heavily on that magnanimity, because it really only happened once. The Union crushed the South, abused it and pushed it down. They did this so that the South would not be able to rebel again. The South was still broken fifty years later, and the scars remain today in poverty and racial hatred.

The only time we have rebuilt our conquered enemies was the end of World War Two. That is the only time in history that something like that has happened, but it did not happen for magnanimous reasons, it happened because the American leadership saw another war coming and needed to be ready. And the Third World War did come, we call it the Cold War and we did need those allies we built up. Without them we would not have been able to face the Soviet threat.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is only one argument that needs to be given for the second bombing. The war was not over. Japan had not surendered, even after the first bombing. All of the theories, opinions, and estimates about what the Japanese were planning to do or might do are just that, theories, opinions and estimates. The only thing that we knew for sure, and the only thing we know now for sure is that as of the time of the bombing of Nagasaki, they had not surendered.

Perhaps a case can be made that neither bombing was acceptable, that both were inhumane. That's an argument I won't attempt to make on either side because I have not truly decided for myself. But if you accept the first bombing, as you seem to do from your statement, then you must accept the second bombing as well. As we would have to accept every subsequent bombing after the first two if they had not surendered when they did.

Geoschmo

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Some of you people should really step back and listen to what you are saying. War is not a polite little game played between gentlemen. It is economic competition at its worst. And the idea that civilians should be immune is just pure stupidity. Anyone that contributes to the economic well being of the enemy is a viable target. In all out war, the idea is to kill them and theirs, before they kill you and yours. To say that the atomic bombs were any worse that the mass bombing of Tokyo or Dresden or Hamburg is pure nonsense. They biggest difference was a merely economics. It would have been cheaper and more efficient to use fission bombs than it was to use HE and incendiaries.

Often we hear that the next war will be fought over resources. Well if you bothered to study WWII, you would already know that it too was fought over resources. The Japanese went to war to secure the resources that their economy needed. Resources that the US had taken great lengths to deny to them. Resources that they had invaded China to secure. Germany went to war so that they could sustain an economic model that was only sustainable by war. And England, well once they allowed the Germans the time to face them; it was a war of economic survival. A point that is often lost in the texts of the war is what the major resource of the western Pacific is. In the late 1930’s it was rubber and oil. The rubber is not much of a resource these days, but there are still several billion barrels of oil under the South China Sea. Anyone ever notice what effect North Slope oil had on American foreign policy? Oil and Iron were the two most fought over resources in WWII. So if WWIII is fought over resources, we will just be repeating history once again.


Now about those civilians. In a war, there are no civilians. Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target. Every farm that produces food is a target. Every worker in a factory is a target. Every home that shelters a worker is a target. Every medical facility that contributes to the well being of these workers is a target. Every school that educates the next generation of workers will become a target if the war is allowed to continue long enough. To say that only combatants should be targeted is short sighted and naive. It should be noted that the four greatest slayers of civilians were Mao, Stalin, Polpot (sp) and Hitler in the order listed. It should also be noted that Japan lost less people in WWII than did China. What is a human life worth? There is no easy answer to that; it depends on the point of ones perspective. But to say that the taking of life with a fission devise is worse that the taking of lives with napalm is not supportable by reasonable logic. The same holds true for all forms of death that war provides. Starvation surly has to be several time more horrible. I would dare say that the soldiers that gave their lives at Stalingrad would have died kinder deaths had they been nuked. And what about Berlin, how many people died there? More than a million? Well, no one knows for sure, but Soviet casualties were in excess of that number after they crossed into Germany. And what of an invasion of Japan? Estimates ran from 400,000 to 800,000 Americans with 1/3 of these being fatalities. After the war this was revised to over a million based on the results of Sipan, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. From that just do the math. Use the numbers form the previous three battles, and use the low end American number. That gives you 4.5 million dead Japanese. Add in another half million for continuing the strategic bombardment for a year and at least another million who would have died from starvation and disease. Real quick it would appear that the bomb saved both American and Japanese lives. Sure, Japan might have surrendered based on the fact that the war was already lost, but that would have taken a reversal of the culture. And time was not a luxury that the allies had to waste. America has elections every two years, and England was in very bad shape. To have paused and then accepted less than total victory would have been political suicide on both sides of the Atlantic.


I for one have no pity for Japan. Japan could have avoided the war by removing its troops from China. But they chose to attack America, France, England, and the Dutch instead. They justified it based on the genetic purity and superiority of the Japanese race. And in the end they bit off more than they could chew. They started the war, and as a result, they became the target of the might of America. The two cities that were attacked had been forfeited long before the bombs fell. That fact that they both died as a result of single bombs is of little consequence. Dead from one bomb or dead from the bombs of a thousand B29s is no different. To die from radiation burns is little different than dieing from phosphorous burns. And when taken as a whole, I would think that the people of Dresden suffered a worse death, their torment Lasted a full night and much of the next day.

And as a Last point, I would offer this. Where does it say that a nation can not use a weapon of mass destruction in a declared war? Especially when the war was forced upon said nation by an aggressor? It must be remembered that the allies had been killing people on this scale for more than a year when the fission bombs were dropped. The morality of the times found little fault with it.

[ December 14, 2003, 03:36: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't get what you're trying to say here thermo; are you saying that any and every body who just happens to be a fellow citizen of the enemy nation should be wiped out?

[ December 14, 2003, 03:55: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Thermo' arguments are valid in the situation when the outcome of the war has not been decided yet. That was most certainly not true in the case of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Please read my older Posts with quotes of people intimately involved in the desision. I regard their opinions much higher than canonised official US history books.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't get what you're trying to say here thermo; are you saying that any and every body who just happens to be a fellow citizen of the enemy nation should be wiped out? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If I were forced to say it bluntly in one sentence, then yes. I would prefer to say that any and all aspects of a nation’s economy are subject to attack when at war. And this includes the people that give comfort and support to said economy. As a point of clarification, we are speaking of total war, the likes of WWI and WWII. These actions would not apply in the cases of police actions and interventions.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Well the Germans used that same exact argument as they were rolling across the Soviet Union. The only difference was that instead of firebombing people (the firebombing was a terror weapon btw) they rounded them up and shot them. I don't think you believe this. So how is it OK in one instance and not the other?

[ December 14, 2003, 04:23: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is too simplistic a point of view. To say that the war was won at that point is easy to say now. But at that time, Japan still had several million men fighting in the field. And based on the losses in the previous battles, the prospects of invading Japan were costly at best. Had we paused, there is little evidence that Japan would have surrendered and allowed an occupation. Had we continued to bomb and relied on a blockade, then how many would have died in the next six months? And with the way politics functioned in Japan, it could easily have taken six months to replace the military majority of Japans government. It should be remembered that the emperors hold on the nation was not so strong that he could defy the wishes of the majority of the military. A final point that is seldom mentioned is the need to limit the Soviet advances into the area. While the alliance was still in place at the time, Soviet intentions were known for what they were. And there was a recognized need to contain their expansion into the Pacific basin. Several of the gamed results showed the Americans holding only the southern Island at wars end, the rest having fallen to the Soviets. I think we can all agree that American occupation was a kinder result than Soviet occupation would have been.

[ December 14, 2003, 04:26: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which argument are you speaking of?

And I doubt you know much of what I do or don’t believe. I know that the Germans killed many civilians by mass execution. I also know that the resistance was a big problem for the Germans. They in turn relied on terror as a means of countering this activity. I also know that in many areas of the western Soviet Union, the Germans were initially seen as liberators. I guess it was the lesser of two evils logic at work there. But I also have no love for the Russia of Stalin. It must have been very distasteful to have to sit down with them as allies.

Don’t misunderstand me here; I am not a supporter of the German involvement in the war. I do have a certain amount of respect for the skill with which the military practiced the art of war. But I do not support the reasons for it or the actions of the government and it special organizations. And I also have nothing but contempt for the existing command structures that existed in the allied camps at the start of the war. England was poorly led at the start and the inaction of the government after declaring the war was borderline stupidity. And they continued to be poorly lead all through the war. This was offset by exceptional political leadership in large part. And as for the French actions, well let’s just not go there. There is nothing good that can be said of it. As for America, we were not much better off. We were reliant on out of date ideas and technology, and totally unprepared. The fact that we were able to reverse this in less than two years is a tribute to the abilities of the American people of the times.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Well your right I don't know what you believe. All I can glean about what you believe is based on what you write in this forum.

I won't repeat your whole argument back to you but you did eloquently state that "Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target." etc. etc. It's written just below.

Those were some of the same arguments the Nazis used when they rounded up whole villages and shot them.

And the point I was trying to make is that it's a slippery slope when you make arguments like these. Where do you draw the line?

[ December 14, 2003, 05:09: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Here is that comparison to Nazis again. This has come up in another thread. Does anyone here think that comparing acts of genocide can really be equated to what has happened in WW2? I don’t think so; yes America did a terrible thing, however, for what ever reason [surrender of Japan, etc] the fact is it did stop and no one had the intentions of genocide. There are many other closer approximations that can be made when looking into a historical context for comparisons.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Pulling out the "Nazi card" may have been hyperbolic, but Thermodyne's logic is exactly the same logic the German's were using as they were rounding up Russian civilians and shooting them. You can dismiss me for merely pointing this out or point out to Thermodyne where his logic could lead.

[ December 14, 2003, 05:57: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">and the US civil war! man, Sherman sure knew how to do it! those Americans really showed those darn Americans who was boss! And dont forget our colonial efforts. Take out all those women and children with smallpox infected blankets, before they breed another generation of redskins.

And lets not leave out Korea. Better nuke those cities and the staging grounds in China before more forces can be mustered. leveling a city not only hits their economy and industrial complex, but puts a quick end to alot of potential soldiers before they even get started.

Oh, wait. we didnt get to nuke Korea and China. I wonder how the world would be now, if we had applied the 'war is hell' doctrine then? Now im not going to tell you that war should be a gentlemans game, and everyone can be expected to play nice - but you have to concede that there are some very good cases for excercising moderation.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Korea wasn't a war it was a police action by the UN, the Last "War" the US engaged in was WW2. I believe that exception was already made for those. Of course now someone will come up and ask what the difference is since you are just as dead in one as the other. Well according to US and international laws there are actually quite a few differences. I won't go into those now just stating they exist.

As for thermo's arguments being the same reason that Germany executed whole villages. WRONG!

The Germans didn't kill them because they were potential warriors. The Germans killed them because they were lower than human. They weren't of the superior race and so should be exterminated before they contaminated the superior race.

The Germans were engaged in an act of Genocide that would have continued after the War was over if they had won until there were none of the inferior people left anywhere in the world.

The other argument only applies to such targets during time of actual conflict. They are valid targets to harm the enemy but not for the purpose of total annihilation of the entirety of the people. It is not an act of Genocide but of Total War.

Germany: Kill everything until it is dead forever.

Total War: Kill everything until it surrenders.

I would argue there is a vast morale difference between the two.

Germany killed those people even if they were citizens of Germany. The US might deport or lock away in detention camps (I won't call them concentration camps because they weren't. There is a vast difference between the Nazi concentration camps and the Japanese detention camps in the US. The camps in the US were awfull but not on the German scale.) but it didn't exterminate its own people when it went to war against nations of origin for those people.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The bombing of civilian populations in the enemy’s homeland is not genocide. It is not a kind thing to do, but it is not genocide. When a country goes to war, its people go with it. And to support 1 fighting man in the field, about six or seven non-fighting soldiers are needed. Each of these is supported by 7 to 22 civilians. And often, it is these civilians that are found to be the least defended targets. Strategic bombing was tested in Spain. It came of age in WWII. In the late 50’s and early 60’s, the weapon of choice became the rocket. To wage an all out war today would doom all of your major population centers to death in a few hours. I think that this is the only reason that there has not been a third world war. No one is willing to pay the price. When the cost was spread out over a series of years, and the killing of cities took thousands of aircraft, the risks were acceptable. Today they are not. And atomic weapons are the reason this stalemate occurred.

But none of the terrors of a strategic war can be compared to the actions of the Nazis. And the treatment of POW’s by the Japanese is almost as bad. The actions of the allies and the use of atomic weapons are part of war. The government has an overwhelming obligation to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible with as little loss of life by its citizens as can be achieved. The two fission devises dropped on Japan were in keeping with this mandate.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">and the US civil war! man, Sherman sure knew how to do it! those Americans really showed those darn Americans who was boss! And dont forget our colonial efforts. Take out all those women and children with smallpox infected blankets, before they breed another generation of redskins.

And lets not leave out Korea. Better nuke those cities and the staging grounds in China before more forces can be mustered. leveling a city not only hits their economy and industrial complex, but puts a quick end to alot of potential soldiers before they even get started.

Oh, wait. we didnt get to nuke Korea and China. I wonder how the world would be now, if we had applied the 'war is hell' doctrine then? Now im not going to tell you that war should be a gentlemans game, and everyone can be expected to play nice - but you have to concede that there are some very good cases for excercising moderation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Korea was not an all out war. And as such does not belong in this discussion. Korea was a display of national will as much as it was a war. It was the first application of measured response. Had it been fought as a total war, the outcome would have been different. The communist government of China would not have survived and most of Chinas major cities would have been bombed to dust. America would have been forced to draw down the troops we were defending Europe with. And the Soviets would have used the war as an excuse to expand to the west. With America out of the picture, all of Germany would have come under the soviet boot. Would England risk the soviet bomb to save Germany? And France, what of them? A quick look at to politics of the time would indicate that the socialist and communists would have easily gained power in France. Italy and Greece would have also fallen into line. So yes, the world would have been very different.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

True "Total War" is no longer practiced by large nations, the fission bombs ended it.

A quick difference between Total War and Genocide- a nation at "Total War" stops killing civilians in captured areas.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

You can think what you want but carpet bombing and A-bombs droped on civilian targets that had no military or economical value, like Hirochima, are act of genocide IMnHO.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

Ok Thermordyne, I think we both just said the same thing maybe? I am not really sure as to why you took the time to explain all of that when it had nothing (that I can see) to do with my only point. However it is good that you did explain it all as some or many may not have of understood, the soldier support system in WW2 was not just so, still close enough for gold I think.

My Point:
Comparing genocide of Jews to the two atom bombs [Japanese] is not a good comparison, let’s find another.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

True Oleg (edited in: By true I mean the definition you quote for genocide), but Thermodyne did not say ‘the bombing and subsequent capture and eradication of an enemy’s population’ or anything even close to that. He said “The bombing of civilian populations in the enemy’s homeland is not genocide. It is not a kind thing to do, but it is not genocide”. That tells me at least that he is drawing a line between destroying infrastructure (killing non-combatants) and genocide and not crossing it.

[ December 14, 2003, 16:04: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are wrong when you say that Hiroshima and Nakisaki had "no military or economic value". Therefore according to your logic the bombing was NOT genocide.

In your opinion they may not have had sufficent value to warrant the destruction they received, but the fact is both cities had military faciliites of some kind or another, as all major cities pretty much do, and factories producing war materials.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

You can think what you want but carpet bombing and A-bombs droped on civilian targets that had no military or economical value, like Hirochima, are act of genocide IMnHO. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IIRC, we warned the populations of both cities to evacuate. The leaflets were dropped over several cities so as to not identify the exact target, but fair warning was given.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

War sucks, plain and simple. But if there is one thing I have learned in my life it is that “limited war” and “measured response” sucks far worse. When a country goes to war it should do so with all of the resources that can be gathered to the extent that they fit the need. Iraq 1 and 2 are prime examples. By fighting quick intensive campaigns, loss of life and human suffering are greatly reduced.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">supporting your arguement from the other side of the coin, we have Somolia and similar conflicts..

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How dare they be on our land before we ever knew it exsisted!

(This is one of those American historical facts that does make me ill to my core.)

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is total bull poop Rex. The Nazi’s committed acts of racial cleansing, and they handed out summery executions as a means of controlling indigent populations. They even did some strategic bombing of England. But as a whole, the killings of civilians were tactical and meant to achieve local control of small areas. The mass killings were genocide and had little to do with winning of wars. They were racial cleansing pure and simple. Other than trying to choke off the Atlantic supply lines, Germany never really made much of an effort at winning the economic war. This is laid at the feet of their air planers. They never planed for a long strategic air campaign, and concentrated on tactical air to an almost total extent. This was addressed later in the war when the German strategic rocket forces were brought down upon England.

Re: Military Buffs I need your help.
 

of course it was OUR land, they didnt believe in land ownership. Hawaii and Panama on the otherhand, those were definitly other peoples land that we just sort of took. California and Texas too, for that matter.

If history teaches us anything, its that might makes right. We need a warior culture akin to that of feudal Japan, but less isolationist. All this goodie-goodie stuff aint good for the empire.