Military Buffs I need your help.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
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.

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.

[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.