Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

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.

I agree with you - I was never even talking WMDs (conventional warfare only) - I was just stressing that there are circumstances where I would accept civilian (enemy) casualties.

[el cid again]

Do I look back at Dresden '45 with horror and revulsion? Of course. But when I take into consideration the circumstances and conventional wisdom of the time, I do not judge those harshly who were trying to end the most destructive war in history as quickly as they could in the only way they felt at the time they could.

Dresden was slightly an accident. It was criminal negligence - but not deliberate creation of a firestorm. HAMBURG - and TOKYO are different - we were TRYING to cause firestorms. Knowing nothing can cope with them at all - and that no one in the path of the core can survive. However, in all cases, including Dresden, the targets were not legitimate. At a minimum, IF we believed that was acceptable, we should NOT have charged German airmen for bombing Rotterdam.

[el cid again]

I'll agree with that irrelevant. I just feel the Democrats are not as candlestine as some might think.

World War I

World War II

Korean War

Viet Nam

Yeah - I think you have a case.

FDR made the decision to go to war with Japan some weeks before it began - see The Cruise of the Lanokai. He got war sooner than he planned, and with fighting in Hawaii he didn't anticipate, but the decision to commission three naval vessels to seek a confrontation in the South China Sea means, morally, and probably legally, the decision for war (vice some other policy) is one he cannot shirk - no matter what the enemy did on Dec 8 (Tokyo time).

[el cid again]

The reason the Marines took Iwo Jima was because the Military needed an emergency landing strip and Fighter base. The number of damaged aircraft that safely landed on Iwo Jima was far greater than the cost of taking the Island.
Stopping these "raids" on B-29 bases was not the reason for assaulting Iwo Jima, though it may have been a nice little side affect.

It was a cover story. They needed a plausable one. The effect of the raids was a deep secret. We were very worried about what it implied - was there an American spy like the RAF officer who had betrayed the British in Malaya? This is not something which was known in time to make the official histories - or for decades. So it is not surprising you don't know - I only learned in 2005.

There is another story you never heard - but which is now published. It is the story of the makeshift airforce at Rabaul. Japan withdrew ALL aircraft - yet the forces left behind MADE a long range striking force - and used it successfully - twice I think. If WE did that, there would be a movie about it!

[el cid again]

Rather than nuking Tikrit or Buttholistanabad or whatever though I'd just prefer the US withdraw

While I don't want to nuke anything, or wipe out cities, if you think withdrawal is a polically wise move, God help us. The reasoning for going to Iraq was sounder than I originally believed, and it has had very decisive effects in the Islamic world. The first of these was something I never expected to see: Lybia disarmed and said "come see it all." We even got atom bomb plans - in Chinese - originally sent to Pakistan! We did not start WOT - but taking the initiative in changing the politics of the mideast is the only way to end it - EVER.

[el cid again]

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

Understandable. But do not allow emotions to cause you to tolerate, advocate, much less actually commit, a holocaust. The last commander of SAC, Gen Eugene Butler I think, said:

There are no enemy civilians. Just civilians in an enemy country.

To the extent enemy countries are not democratic, their people are victims already. Don't punish the victims. You want to take down the leadership - and the armed forces - of our enemy (which, by the way, I think is China - I read and listen to what their officials say about us)?
I am your man. Just don't nuke Shanghai to do it. The top guys ALL meet in one building! Yep. The party, the government, and the military have ONE staff at the top! We can take it out any time we want.

[el cid again]

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?

Yep. Me.

There was only one formal, shooting war between major powers on your list in the nuclear age: in 1969 there was a war (about which we know very little because, as McGeorge Bundy wrote in Danger and Survival "both sides played closed hands.") But we DO know they didn't do this sort of thing. There was fighting on two fronts - Amur and Sinjiang. It involved the issue of nuclear mines to the PLA - the only known case ANY branch of PLA EVER got nuclear weapons. [China, like Russia, keeps nuclear weapons out of the custody of the military most of the time. The weapons arrive with the orders to use them. In China, not even an SSBN EVER has had nuclear weapons. NOT ONCE has it ever conducted a deterrant patrol. Apparently there are not even warheads for the missiles! These were taken from inventory for use on the expanding ICBM force some years ago. But whatever weapon is intended, in China the nuclear force - the Second Artillery - does not get the weapons UNLESS action is contemplated.] So we know that China was prepared to use nukes if Soviet armies moved too far into the country, but it wasn't going to bomb Soviet cities.

[el cid again]

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.

This is perfectly backwards. Nuclear warfare is like that: almost everything is upside down and unreasonable! IF you REALLY want to talk about national survival, you must talk about NOT shooting at cities. If it somehow comes to that, you need to figure out how to stop it - or there is NO CHANCE of national survival.

This is a vital topic. We are LIKELY to lose a city or two soon. Because we refuse to take nuclear proliferation seriously, it is LIKELY these weapons will end up in Al Qaida hands, or equal = we know they want them and even bought some non-working Soviets ADMs. But just because we lose NYC and DC in a single 911 style attack, we cannot go starting nuclear wars with countries that didn't attack us - just because we are upset. And if we DO start such a war, we really will get wiped out. It would be better to be serious about controlling these things - but that means invading North Korea - and not treating Pakistan like an ally - and lots of other difficult subjects.

[el cid again]

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

I must confess I never believed in MAD. Two economists, Organsky and Kugler, did an analysis which seems to show neither did the USA or USSR, or any other country, in the Cold War either: the economic measures do not show what theory predicts should be the investments if the threat was credible. But my problem is less technical: I admit that ANY capability - if known - has SOME deterrent effect. What I deny is the PERFECT TOTAL deterrence required of MAD. Do this for long enough, adding more and more nuclear powers, sooner or later you are going to get a nuclear war. Sooner I think. Most librarians think we can expect one, for example, but "people prefer not to think about it."

In spite of this, you are right: not shooting at cities is going to be very popular in a crisis if the enemy has the ability to shoot at ours. I lost an argument in 2005 because China is believed to have the ability CERTAINLY to take out "at least two cities" - even if we preempt. So we won't consider ANY attack on China that might provoke that. I am not happy about it - but that was the formal evaluation - and it may be correct. China has a strange system, in which each "firing unit" has several rounds, and is hardened, and can fire from several ports - or even move and fire from a different place altogether. We don't think we know all the exit ports, so we cannot target them all. Maybe

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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.

This is perfectly backwards. Nuclear warfare is like that: almost everything is upside down and unreasonable! IF you REALLY want to talk about national survival, you must talk about NOT shooting at cities. If it somehow comes to that, you need to figure out how to stop it - or there is NO CHANCE of national survival.

This is a vital topic. We are LIKELY to lose a city or two soon. Because we refuse to take nuclear proliferation seriously, it is LIKELY these weapons will end up in Al Qaida hands, or equal = we know they want them and even bought some non-working Soviets ADMs. But just because we lose NYC and DC in a single 911 style attack, we cannot go starting nuclear wars with countries that didn't attack us - just because we are upset. And if we DO start such a war, we really will get wiped out. It would be better to be serious about controlling these things - but that means invading North Korea - and not treating Pakistan like an ally - and lots of other difficult subjects.

I think you are taking my words out of context Cid - I made a point to say I was NEVER referring to WMD.

Regardless, history is on my side here. When wars of national survival have occured (meaning the TWO WORLD WARS) - total war on the civilian population has followed - be it through blockade and starvation, or direct bombardment.
That has been the reality, and should that awful event ever occur in the future - it most assuredly will become reality again.

Now maybe I have it all backwards in your mind - but the historical precedent would disagree with your conclusion.

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Do I look back at Dresden '45 with horror and revulsion? Of course. But when I take into consideration the circumstances and conventional wisdom of the time, I do not judge those harshly who were trying to end the most destructive war in history as quickly as they could in the only way they felt at the time they could.

Dresden was slightly an accident. It was criminal negligence - but not deliberate creation of a firestorm. HAMBURG - and TOKYO are different - we were TRYING to cause firestorms. Knowing nothing can cope with them at all - and that no one in the path of the core can survive. However, in all cases, including Dresden, the targets were not legitimate. At a minimum, IF we believed that was acceptable, we should NOT have charged German airmen for bombing Rotterdam.

I don't think that at the time of the Hamburg raids people even had knowledge of firestorm phenomena.

They certainly did afterwards though.[:(]

[BossGnome]

well, when you compare today with WW1 and WW2, you must also take into account the amazing jump in education that has happened with the "civilian" populations you're talking about. Hell, significant anti-war protesting is very recent? Why? Because of increasing media coverage. Back in WW2 the allies showed propaganda to their troops almost as much as the germans did! Of course this makes a population want to go to war.

Now, if what you are saying is "if china should ever nuke L.A., then the U.S. would be in uproar", yes i think you're right. Does this mean that the US should bomb cities like Peking or Shanghai? No! Because there are a LOT of chinese! It could end up being Iraq x 10000! I agree with El Cid in that bombing cities wrong, not only on a moral point, but by today's standards, on a STRATEGIC point as well! IF China used a nuke on the US, the US could not do the same to china, without loosing its "good guy" status, which would be extremely important, if they are ever to win over the chinese population, something which is CRUCIAL to defeat china.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

well, when you compare today with WW1 and WW2, you must also take into account the amazing jump in education that has happened with the "civilian" populations you're talking about. Hell, significant anti-war protesting is very recent? Why? Because of increasing media coverage. Back in WW2 the allies showed propaganda to their troops almost as much as the germans did! Of course this makes a population want to go to war.

Now, if what you are saying is "if china should ever nuke L.A., then the U.S. would be in uproar", yes i think you're right. Does this mean that the US should bomb cities like Peking or Shanghai? No! Because there are a LOT of chinese! It could end up being Iraq x 10000! I agree with El Cid in that bombing cities wrong, not only on a moral point, but by today's standards, on a STRATEGIC point as well! IF China used a nuke on the US, the US could not do the same to china, without loosing its "good guy" status, which would be extremely important, if they are ever to win over the chinese population, something which is CRUCIAL to defeat china.

I'm not advocating anything - I merely point out that the pattern of mankind's history warrants little optomism here.

I do think it's a false hope to think that should a major war ever occur again - we are somehow different in emotion and intellect than the last 300 or so generations...that somehow we different than the rest of mankind.

Lets hope we never find out.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Dresden was slightly an accident. It was criminal negligence - but not deliberate creation of a firestorm. HAMBURG - and TOKYO are different - we were TRYING to cause firestorms. Knowing nothing can cope with them at all - and that no one in the path of the core can survive. However, in all cases, including Dresden, the targets were not legitimate. At a minimum, IF we believed that was acceptable, we should NOT have charged German airmen for bombing Rotterdam.

Good point. This principle saved Doenitz (he was accused by using subs on "civilian" transports, but American witnesess saved him from being guilty in that point - they said that those targets were legitimate and american subs also attacked transports).

[ChezDaJez]

IF China used a nuke on the US, the US could not do the same to china, without loosing its "good guy" status, which would be extremely important, if they are ever to win over the chinese population, something which is CRUCIAL to defeat china.

I would have to respectfully disagree. If China or any other country ever used a nuke against this country, I would strongly advocate using nukes against his nuclear arsenal in the hopes of destroying or rendering it unusable. To simply respond with non-nuclear cruise missiles isn't going to do much harm to their ability to launch further nukes. I do not advocate nuking their cities but their nuclear aresenals would be fair game. Yes there would be civillian casualties, if not from the blast then from the radiation. As much as I would regret their suffering, THEIR country would have been the one to open the nuclear bag. Any nuke exploding over American territory would raise such a public clamor to respond in kind that no politician would be able to refrain from doing so. If you thought 9-11 brought the country together, think what a nuke would do.

I would just hope that we selected legitimate military targets and not civillian populations, regardless of where theirs impacted.

Chez

[Ron Saueracker]

IF China used a nuke on the US, the US could not do the same to china, without loosing its "good guy" status, which would be extremely important, if they are ever to win over the chinese population, something which is CRUCIAL to defeat china.

Good Guy status? Hmmmm...I must have been reading the wrong books and news papers.[:D] John Stewart made a crack the other day about Republicans using Star Wars analogies and how they saw themselves as the "rebels". He said rebels against what? Looks to me more like the "evil empire"![:D]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
NP, I remember reading about them a long time ago. For some reason I thought the raids had caused considerable damage. Insignificant would be more applicable.

I was under that same impression as well reading "el cid again" posts earlier...

"el cid again" - can you please elaborate on B-29 losses from japanese bombing?


Leo "Apollo11"

[treespider]

well, when you compare today with WW1 and WW2, you must also take into account the amazing jump in education that has happened with the "civilian" populations you're talking about. Hell, significant anti-war protesting is very recent? Why? Because of increasing media coverage. Back in WW2 the allies showed propaganda to their troops almost as much as the germans did! Of course this makes a population want to go to war.

I would say that until Dec. 7th, 1941 there was a vigorous anti-war movement within the United States. Funny how 'sneak' attacks tend to change a populations attitude towards war.

In today's situation in America....IMO most people are not anti-War on Terrorism/AQ...however they are anti-War in Iraq as the current administration has not drawn a clear-cut relationship between AQ and the Hussein Regime, had they done so IMO then we wouldn't necessarily see disapproval for the War in Iraq.


What was the original topic of this thread?

[tsimmonds]

the current administration has not drawn a clear-cut relationship between AQ and the Hussein Regime.

Not for any lack of effort on their part[8|]

[DuckofTindalos]

Okay, I see this thread has gone political... Quelle surprise...