Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

[anarchyintheuk]

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.

Maybe your thinking 100 B-29's rendered inoperable even after landing post mission (Not actual kills, operational losses so to speak).

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.

Sorry for the confusion my post caused anarchyintheuk.[8D]
I know you never claimed that the raids were devestaiting, someone else made that claim, and since you brought up the true nature of the results of the Japanese raids - I just posted that Iwo wasn't taken because of the raids on Bomber bases - like an earlier post claimed.[;)]

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.

Sorry for the confusion my post caused anarchyintheuk.[8D]
I know you never claimed that the raids were devestaiting, someone else made that claim, and since you brought up the true nature of the results of the Japanese raids - I just posted that Iwo wasn't taken because of the raids on Bomber bases - like an earlier post claimed.[;)]

Sorry, read it wrong. Watching ncaa, drinking beer with friends and forum trolling. Like the guy said in Dances w/ Samurai, "too many mind".

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Big B, never claimed that those raids were the reason for invading Iwo Jima. My only claim was to a faulty memory that exaggerated the results of the raid. For whatever reason (age, effects of alcohol, blunt force trauma . . .) I thought it was about 100 b-29s destroyed. If you believe the site, it was only 11 destroyed and 30 or so damaged.

Maybe your thinking 100 B-29's rendered inoperable even after landing post mission (Not actual kills, operational losses so to speak).

Sounds better than the reasons I came up with. [:)]

[Demosthenes]

Getting back to the topic of the moral crisis of bombing cities with inevitable civilian deaths...
Does anyone doubt for a minute that should war break out among the worlds major powers (say - USA, China, Russia...etc) that THAT sort of thing would start happening?

I read earlier here that International Law prohibits such a thing? I'm not so sure - but more to the point - who would enforce that against a major power anyway?

Common revulsion for civilian deaths is a nice healthy sign of decent neighbors, but to me - in WAR (as in a real war..where national survival is at stake) - I think that taboo would go out the window rather quickly.

War since the industrial age (and I mean 'war'..not police action, or intervention) has become a protracted "all out" struggle for survival until the state collapses. I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.

[mdiehl]

I think if you look at history, the decision to start a war has nearly always turned out to have been a poor one, regardless of whose decision it was.

Agreed. I also think that in most cases the pre-war analysis of the opfor is almost always "Just trust us, these guys will be a pushover." Aggressive admins almost always substitute "if we believe wholeheartedly in the ideology & indoc we will carry the day." Japan, Germany in WW2, US lately.

[mdiehl]

I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.

I can. If you're talking about a real all up war between powers that can wage an all up war there is a very good reason not to bomb cities. Same one we had all throughout the cold war: MAD.

[tsimmonds]

I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.

How about if no one does it first?

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.

I can. If you're talking about a real all up war between powers that can wage an all up war there is a very good reason not to bomb cities. Same one we had all throughout the cold war: MAD.

I must disagree to an extent - not using nukes is one thing - mass use of cruise missles with conventional warheads is another matter.

Wars take on an inertia of their own...sooner or later someones going to clobber the kndergarten, Walmart, and the hospital...or worse MTV (for todays generation) from there on I think retaliation would only escalate (short of WMD that is)

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I can't see any honest circumstance, were another all out war to occur, where such niceties as 'The No Bombing The Cities Rule' would last very long.

How about if no one does it first?

Then you would not be in an All Out War

[Demosthenes]

Let me put it in another way, were a real war to happen again - a war where your childrens lives are at stake, what qualms would you have about killing enemy civilians if you thought that might shorten the war and save your kids lives?

[tsimmonds]

Then we must make certain that we are never the ones to start an All Out War.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Then we must make certain that we are never the ones to start an All Out War.

Totally agree,

But I want to add that I now have a son old enough to have to fight a war should one occur. I can assure you he means more to me than ALL the civilians in any potential enemy country.

I'm being honest, I would demand my Govt do everything at their disposal to end a war they took away my son for..get the picture?

[mdiehl]

I must disagree to an extent - not using nukes is one thing - mass use of cruise missles with conventional warheads is another matter.

Cruise missiles are relatively precise instruments and quite expensive too in contrast to say a JDAM. So you're not doing anything like "strategic bombing" as it was done in WW2. Instead you're using a scalpel to excise the most critical elements of defense. Even the US B17 raids, relatively (compared to other forms of mid-high altitude level bombing) precise though they were at the time, have nothing on the accuracy of a cruise missile or a JDAM.

The only analog I can think of to, say, the firestorm raids on Dresden, Tokyo, and the other (whatever) 27 Japanese prefectures we bombed the snot out of would be modern nukes. These days you couldn't start a firestorm UNLESS you used a nuke.

Otherwise you wouldn't do anything like area bombing. It's costly to use cruise missiles in this way. It's wasteful because you really can (these days) hit exactly the critical industrial component that you want to hit (assuming it is at home when your missile hits).

You might try carpet bombing but I think that would be a bad idea morally (given that we now CAN be much more precise we OUGHT to attempt to do so). Anyhow modern SAMs now have pretty much got the strategic bomber beat. Sure there's B-2s but there's not many of them and radar absorbing paint and fancy avionics won't stop 30mm.

[tsimmonds]

get the picture?

I'm not sure....are you saying that it would make sense to attack enemy cities, knowing full well that they would then certainly attack ours in return?

[Demosthenes]

I'm saying that if my son is in the 160th Infantry, dug in outside San Somethingelsio, and going to have to assault that town and take the city...I say flatten it first...yep

Edit: My point is, no matter how you slice it, in war victory and bringing as many of your people home alive and safe comes before anything else. That is moral.

[mdiehl]

I think he's suggesting that in war the moral equation is to prefer the lives of any one friendly over an unlimited number of hostiles. I agree in principle but where the rubber hits the road is the fact that most major powers with "full up" warfare capacity have their own strategic deterrent.

Rather than nuking Tikrit or Buttholistanabad or whatever though I'd just prefer the US withdraw. Likewise I view all this concern over Iran with a very jaundiced eye. Sure they could develop nukes. Yes we'd know where they were made. So if they ever deployed one it would pretty much be the end of Iran as it has been known today or at any time since, oh, the Permian.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think he's suggesting that in war the moral equation is to prefer the lives of any one friendly over an unlimited number of hostiles. I agree in principle but where the rubber hits the road is the fact that most major powers with "full up" warfare capacity have their own strategic deterrent.

Rather than nuking Tikrit or Buttholistanabad or whatever though I'd just prefer the US withdraw. Likewise I view all this concern over Iran with a very jaundiced eye. Sure they could develop nukes. Yes we'd know where they were made. So if they ever deployed one it would pretty much be the end of Iran as it has been known today or at any time since, oh, the Permian.

Agree...with all of it.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think he's suggesting that in war the moral equation is to prefer the lives of any one friendly over an unlimited number of hostiles. I agree in principle but where the rubber hits the road is the fact that most major powers with "full up" warfare capacity have their own strategic deterrent.

Rather than nuking Tikrit or Buttholistanabad or whatever though I'd just prefer the US withdraw. Likewise I view all this concern over Iran with a very jaundiced eye. Sure they could develop nukes. Yes we'd know where they were made. So if they ever deployed one it would pretty much be the end of Iran as it has been known today or at any time since, oh, the Permian.

Agree...with all of it.

Me too, all of it.

I'm saying that if my son is in the 160th Infantry, dug in outside San Somethingelsio, and going to have to assault that town and take the city...I say flatten it first...yep

Edit: My point is, no matter how you slice it, in war victory and bringing as many of your people home alive and safe comes before anything else. That is moral.

With wise leadership such a situation as you describe should never be faced. Since wise leadership is not a given, all options must be considered. But we should never be the first to use WMD, whether our enemy has them or not.