Military Buffs I need your help.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Puke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
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.

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.

---

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.

[Nodachi]

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.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... 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...

"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.

[President_Elect_Shang]

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.

[President_Elect_Shang]

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 ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by oleg:
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.

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.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... 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...

"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.

---

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.

[Thermodyne]

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.

[Puke]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
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.

supporting your arguement from the other side of the coin, we have Somolia and similar conflicts..

[CNCRaymond]

Take out all those women and children with smallpox infected blankets, before they breed another generation of redskins.

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.)