Switch Theme:

In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Was it a good idea?
Yes, it was a reasonable conclusion
No, it was a bad idea
Ambivalent.
We dropped bombs on japan?

View results
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Oberleutnant





Ketara wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat. Long term or short term, that is why the allies had to take some form of action against Japan. Because it was a THREAT.


Your logic is perverse. Just because something may pose a threat you in the future does not mean it poses a threat now. The definition of 'threat' is not so elastic as that. Otherwise every baby I pass on the street I must consider to be a threat, because it may one day grow up, and mug me in the future. The car parked outside my driveway must be a threat to me now, because it may run me over ten years down the line.

And before you deny, that is your logic here, correct? That in two/ten/however many years after the war, Japan may pose a threat to the USA? Therefore they are a threat now that must be crushed? Because future (or 'long term') threats are the same as current (or 'short term') threats?

Jeez, I'd better start punching babies and smashing cars.......


Not MY logic. The logic that the allies (or more specifically the USA) used in order to justify unconditional surrender on both fronts. The complete and total capitulation of the enemy to end the current threat and prevent any future threat. If Japan posed no threat in the immediate term (not strictly speaking accurate) and no threat in the future (post Versailles Germany gives the lie to that,) then there is no sensible reason to be engaged in warfare with Japan. If they DO pose a threat, now or in the future, then some course of action must be taken.

Also, your examples are absurd. Punching babies just because they might attack you would be perverse.There is a difference between a passing baby or a random car, and a nation that preemptively attacked another nation and subsequently engaged in several years of belligerence. Now if your "baby" had shown a tendency to drop from the ceiling on to your back with knives, or the car parked outside was drven regularly by someone who had already tried to run you over several times..then they would fit a little better.

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought






Ketara wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat. Long term or short term, that is why the allies had to take some form of action against Japan. Because it was a THREAT.


Your logic is perverse. Just because something may pose a threat you in the future does not mean it poses a threat now. The definition of 'threat' is not so elastic as that. Otherwise every baby I pass on the street I must consider to be a threat, because it may one day grow up, and mug me in the future. The car parked outside my driveway must be a threat to me now, because it may run me over ten years down the line.

And before you deny, that is your logic here, correct? That in two/ten/however many years after the war, Japan may pose a threat to the USA? Therefore they are a threat now that must be crushed? Because future (or 'long term') threats are the same as current (or 'short term') threats?

Jeez, I'd better start punching babies and smashing cars.......


Germany was a threat after WWI. The treaty of Versailles was intended to make them less of a threat, but the actual result was it turned them into more of a threat. Ending WWII with Japan surrendering to the treaty of Versailles 2.0 would have the same disastrous result as the original. You can't end a war with another nation angry and maimed expecting that nation not to eventually seek revenge. Complete and total surrender was required to ensure the post war plans that resulted in over 65 years of peace between Japan, Germany, and the western nations that formed the allies during WW2.

Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.


 
   
Made in us
Crazy Marauder Horseman




Tx

I cannot fathom the justification in peoples minds for the horror this caused to innocent people...women and children for generations. In the spirit of forum respect, i'll stop here before I get on a very judgemental soapbox for the people who would support this.



 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

schadenfreude wrote:Germany was a threat after WWI.


No they weren't.

The treaty of Versailles was intended to make them less of a threat,


EDIT: Nevermind. This is what happens when you start work at 6AM.

but the actual result was it turned them into more of a threat.


Indeed it did.

Ending WWII with Japan surrendering to the treaty of Versailles 2.0 would have the same disastrous result as the original. You can't end a war with another nation angry and maimed expecting that nation not to eventually seek revenge. Complete and total surrender was required to ensure the post war plans that resulted in over 65 years of peace between Japan, Germany, and the western nations that formed the allies during WW2.


The Cold War played as much a role in that peace as the unconditional surrender, if not more. West Germany and Japan were scared of Soviet invasion and so were many of the Allies. That, and the governments of WWII Germany and Japan were so insane that it's hard for the populations of either country to justify revenge.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/17 22:15:45


   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought






Unless we allowed the insane governments of WW2 Germany or Japan to remain in power after the war.

Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.


 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

schadenfreude wrote:Unless we allowed the insane governments of WW2 Germany or Japan to remain in power after the war.


Except that (we are assuming Versaille 2.0 went through) they may be more considered with the Soviets than the other Allies like the Allies were. Surprising how you can be friends with horrible people when someone else scares you more (this proposed scenario is reversed in WWII as Britain and the US allied with Russia who was no angel). Of course, WWII played a huge role in bringing the fears of Soviet power to the forefront.

Maybe I'm just tripping a bit. Like I said. This is what happens when you get up at 6AM and start posting after a day of working in the rain @.@

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/17 22:39:41


   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






I don't like the idea of only thinking of those governments as insane. It lets them off the hook for a lot really bad stuff and ignores that fact that they weren't actually insane. It is like saying terrorists are insane instead of recognizing what there actual goals and motivations are. Pretending someone is crazy is a sure way to underestimate someone and tends to lead to problems.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

I can freely say I'm using insane as hyperbole.

   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought






LordofHats wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:Unless we allowed the insane governments of WW2 Germany or Japan to remain in power after the war.


Except that (we are assuming Versaille 2.0 went through) they may be more considered with the Soviets than the other Allies like the Allies were. Surprising how you can be friends with horrible people when someone else scares you more (this proposed scenario is reversed in WWII as Britain and the US allied with Russia who was no angel). Of course, WWII played a huge role in bringing the fears of Soviet power to the forefront.

Maybe I'm just tripping a bit. Like I said. This is what happens when you get up at 6AM and start posting after a day of working in the rain @.@


Would the cold war been better off with a nuclear armed us, ussr, china, imperial japanese airforce, and nazi germany all pointing nukes at each other and ready to launch? MAD becomes a lot more complicated if it turns into a 5 way mexican standoff where anybody might fire at anybody.

Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





ArbeitsSchu wrote:Ah, so nobody in the US military cares about German technology in 1944. Its not a threat, which is why they just let the Russians have it, and made no attempt at all to snatch it out from under the nose of the Soviets. Likewise, nobody cares about the threat posed by chemical weapons either. K. Gotcha.


The existance of advanced technology does not make a nation a military rival, when their combat forces have been utterly devestated.

You can have a very advanced jet engines, and still lack the fuel supplies and conventional military to actually put that to good effect. Which is why the allies were able to advance on Germany on all fronts. Sneaking those jet engines to Tokyo wouldn't suddenly change the reality that Japan was also incapable of matching the US military.

What is it you can't grasp here? Strikes have been made against the US by forces lacking a conventional military.


And, as I've explained several times now, those strikes were not on a scale that can threaten the continued existance of a state, particularly not the US. AQ are evil bastards and they've caused considerable suffering, but they are incapable of actually destroying the US as a nation.

Which is, again, a very simple and straight forward point, and one that you need to accept and move on from.

Japan (as we have already covered several times) DID strike against the continental USA. The weapon used was ineffective but IT STILL HAPPENED. The nature of that strike, or the weapons used is neither here nor there.


Actually, you didn't cover it. You just mentioned it in an effort to imply it was far greater than it was, I then went into detail explaining how pointless and ineffective the attempt was.

And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat.


No, that's absurd. Nobody goes around thinking a potential future threat is exactly the same thing as a present threat, which is why we deal with each in very different ways.

Accepting the plain and obvious reality that Japan in 1945 was not a threat, and no magic super tech snuck over from Germany was going to change that, then we consider how to deal with Japan as a possible future threat. The list of responses to that is considerably different than it would be if Japan represented a clear, present threat.

Funny thing is, the bomb is still justifiable even with Japan simply considered as only a possible future threat (to remove that future threat you still need to force unconditional surrender and it is fair to say that the best way to achieve this was with the bomb), which just goes to show how silly your argument that Japan could potentially have had Nazi super tech and used that against the allies really was. So please just accept that your effort here wasn't very well thought out, stop repeating the same arguments that I've already disproven, and move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:The Cold War played as much a role in that peace as the unconditional surrender, if not more. West Germany and Japan were scared of Soviet invasion and so were many of the Allies. That, and the governments of WWII Germany and Japan were so insane that it's hard for the populations of either country to justify revenge.


More to the point, the Marshall Plan fueled economic recovery, and tied the economies of both countries to the US. Turns out the best way to stop someone going to war with you is help them be rich, and make them a close trading partner.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/18 01:56:56


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in gb
Oberleutnant





sebster wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Ah, so nobody in the US military cares about German technology in 1944. Its not a threat, which is why they just let the Russians have it, and made no attempt at all to snatch it out from under the nose of the Soviets. Likewise, nobody cares about the threat posed by chemical weapons either. K. Gotcha.


The existance of advanced technology does not make a nation a military rival, when their combat forces have been utterly devestated.

You can have a very advanced jet engines, and still lack the fuel supplies and conventional military to actually put that to good effect. Which is why the allies were able to advance on Germany on all fronts. Sneaking those jet engines to Tokyo wouldn't suddenly change the reality that Japan was also incapable of matching the US military.

What is it you can't grasp here? Strikes have been made against the US by forces lacking a conventional military.


And, as I've explained several times now, those strikes were not on a scale that can threaten the continued existance of a state, particularly not the US. AQ are evil bastards and they've caused considerable suffering, but they are incapable of actually destroying the US as a nation.

Which is, again, a very simple and straight forward point, and one that you need to accept and move on from.

Japan (as we have already covered several times) DID strike against the continental USA. The weapon used was ineffective but IT STILL HAPPENED. The nature of that strike, or the weapons used is neither here nor there.


Actually, you didn't cover it. You just mentioned it in an effort to imply it was far greater than it was, I then went into detail explaining how pointless and ineffective the attempt was.

And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat.


No, that's absurd. Nobody goes around thinking a potential future threat is exactly the same thing as a present threat, which is why we deal with each in very different ways.

Accepting the plain and obvious reality that Japan in 1945 was not a threat, and no magic super tech snuck over from Germany was going to change that, then we consider how to deal with Japan as a possible future threat. The list of responses to that is considerably different than it would be if Japan represented a clear, present threat.

Funny thing is, the bomb is still justifiable even with Japan simply considered as only a possible future threat (to remove that future threat you still need to force unconditional surrender and it is fair to say that the best way to achieve this was with the bomb), which just goes to show how silly your argument that Japan could potentially have had Nazi super tech and used that against the allies really was. So please just accept that your effort here wasn't very well thought out, stop repeating the same arguments that I've already disproven, and move on


You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact. Japan did in fact manage to reach the continental USA and attack it. Fact. Germany and Japan shared advanced military technology. Also fact. Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.

That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant. I never argued that they WERE effective, nor even reliant on "magic super tech". (Balloons? Magic? Are you a toddler? If so then yes, they are "magic".) The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.

Oh, and you're not strictly correct about the use of German advanced tech being scuppered by fuel losses or lacking a "conventional military". For a start huge numbers of troops were still present in various European states, unmolested by Russia or the Allies, and one of the main flaws in the use of advanced technology was misuse. A single order shifts the targets of the V1/2 from London to Normandy, and you're dealing with a whole new ball-game.

This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now. Events that we know DID happen were only possibilities back then. The balance of the situation throughout the war changed because of individual situations, chance, mischance, or missed opportunities.








"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio 
   
Made in au
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter






Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)

LordofHats wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:Germany was a threat after WWI.


No they weren't.

The treaty of Versailles was intended to make them less of a threat,


EDIT: Nevermind. This is what happens when you start work at 6AM.

but the actual result was it turned them into more of a threat.


Indeed it did.


To blame WWII entirely on the Treaty of Versailles is oversimplifying things a bit. The German government was actually doing quite well, even while paying massive reparations, until the Depression hit. In the aftermath of such critical circumstances the Nazi's became more than a fringe group.

Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.

"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






So should we start a different poll each week where we pick a different battle or incident from the past and lambaste them as insane, genocidal, and/or racist? Maybe use this as a starting point and go back 50 to 100 years each time? That way we can judge all our ancestors (genetic or not) by modern standards and spend time condemning them rather than understanding the forces at work that lead to the situation. Judging after all feels better than understanding, right EF?

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

I vote for Thermopylae next week.


Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest





thedude wrote:I cannot fathom the justification in peoples minds for the horror this caused to innocent people...women and children for generations. In the spirit of forum respect, i'll stop here before I get on a very judgemental soapbox for the people who would support this.

It affected the people who were present at the time, and some who were present shortly thereafter, and some of their children. In terms of immediate effects it was a great deal less horrific than dropping thousands of tons of thermite and napalm (the standard for bombing cities at the time), and in terms of long-term effects it was no worse than the sort of toxic waste contamination that's commonplace in some third-world countries, and occasionally found in first world countries as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat. Long term or short term, that is why the allies had to take some form of action against Japan. Because it was a THREAT.


Your logic is perverse. Just because something may pose a threat you in the future does not mean it poses a threat now. The definition of 'threat' is not so elastic as that. Otherwise every baby I pass on the street I must consider to be a threat, because it may one day grow up, and mug me in the future. The car parked outside my driveway must be a threat to me now, because it may run me over ten years down the line.

And before you deny, that is your logic here, correct? That in two/ten/however many years after the war, Japan may pose a threat to the USA? Therefore they are a threat now that must be crushed? Because future (or 'long term') threats are the same as current (or 'short term') threats?

Jeez, I'd better start punching babies and smashing cars.......

It's more considering something that has been a threat, and continues to have an intent to be a threat, to potentially be a threat again in the future, if it's not crushed utterly and left in no position to recover its previous strength or attitude.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/18 17:32:55


 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

Monster Rain wrote:I vote for Thermopylae next week.



Too far back. Lets start with the Auspicious Incident!

   
Made in us
Crazy Marauder Horseman




Tx

It affected the people who were present at the time, and some who were present shortly thereafter, and some of their children. In terms of immediate effects it was a great deal less horrific than dropping thousands of tons of thermite and napalm (the standard for bombing cities at the time), and in terms of long-term effects it was no worse than the sort of toxic waste contamination that's commonplace in some third-world countries, and occasionally found in first world countries as well.


I'm not sure what your point here is but at best it is a subjective argument:

"Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki,[1] with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness"

The fact is regardless of the method, whether the attack was necessary to win the war or not or whether the massacre occured under the banner and in the name of if imperilaism or freedom, a state attack on civilians is murder. By and large, the human condition strives for peace and happieness. The people on the streets in Hiroshima that day were mothers, daughters, sons and fathers. The suffering of civilians, children for feths sake with no cause for war had no say in what was wrought on them.
My mind is at a loss to try and comprehend how anyone who loves someone more than themselves (and as such are the only ones who can understand true loss) can condone actions such as this on their fellow man. This is the ultimate antithesis of freedom. Are we as a whole, so far removed from suffering through luxeries of our generation that we cannot relate to our fellow human beings?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/18 21:38:06




 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest





thedude wrote:
It affected the people who were present at the time, and some who were present shortly thereafter, and some of their children. In terms of immediate effects it was a great deal less horrific than dropping thousands of tons of thermite and napalm (the standard for bombing cities at the time), and in terms of long-term effects it was no worse than the sort of toxic waste contamination that's commonplace in some third-world countries, and occasionally found in first world countries as well.


I'm not sure what your point here is but at best it is a subjective argument:

"Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki,[1] with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness"

My point is that it was kinder than the most common weapons used against cities at the time in the short term, and that the long term effects were no worse than any other mass hazardous-material exposure, and so it's wrong to hold it on a pedestal as some sort of particularly transgressive act. It was nothing more than a powerful bomb made of hazardous materials, only remarkable in that it was a single, fairly small device, instead of many thousands of tons of separate devices.

The fact is regardless of the method, whether the attack was necessary to win the war or not or whether the massacre occured under the banner and in the name of if imperilaism or freedom, a state attack on civilians is murder. By and large, the human condition strives for peace and happieness.

That is the new opinion of a small minority of humanity. For the entirety of our history, violence and raw brutality have been acceptable means of resolving dispute, and almost all of our progress has come from such pursuits, either with a goal of ending or of perpetrating them, or otherwise being made possible by them.

The people on the streets in Hiroshima that day were mothers, daughters, sons and fathers. The suffering of civilians, children for feths sake with no cause for war had no say in what was wrought on them.
My mind is at a loss to try and comprehend how anyone who loves someone more than themselves (and as such are the only ones who can understand true loss) can condone actions such as this on their fellow man. This is the ultimate antithesis of freedom. Are we as a whole, so far removed from suffering through luxeries of our generation that we cannot relate to our fellow human beings?

The world is not a fair place. The very concept of fairness is an unnatural one. People suffer through no fault of their own, and are sacrificed, one way or another, by those who see gain in it and have the power to see it through. That's how it's always been, and how it always will be, with the only altering factors being how much gain there is in the sacrifice of others compared to the risk or cost thereof, whether the balance is in finance or emotion.

We can see certain such sacrifices as transgressions within our society, and so act to reduce the potential gain, generally through increasing the risk and cost, but it's unethical to extend the same details to acts of the state against another, unless one rejects the idea of the state altogether. In this case, sacrificing the residents of those cities saved at least as many of the people the leadership had a responsibility to protect, and a great deal more other residents of Japan who would otherwise have found their deaths in combat or at their own hands, so the most that can be said of it is that it was a hard decision wherein the good was much greater than the bad, whether one can see the stain of the bad as thus washed away or not.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/18 22:42:42


 
   
Made in au
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter






Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)

Ahtman wrote:So should we start a different poll each week where we pick a different battle or incident from the past and lambaste them as insane, genocidal, and/or racist? Maybe use this as a starting point and go back 50 to 100 years each time? That way we can judge all our ancestors (genetic or not) by modern standards and spend time condemning them rather than understanding the forces at work that lead to the situation. Judging after all feels better than understanding, right EF?


What does this have to do with my post? All I said was that to blame the rise of Nazi Germany on the Treaty of Versailles is oversimplifying things a bit.

Monster Rain wrote:I vote for Thermopylae next week.



The Racist anti-Persian Immigration laws of Greece at the time were an abomination!

Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.

"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





ArbeitsSchu wrote:You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact.


Yes, and I explained to you that the impact of such terror attacks, while horrible in human life, does not deliver a material, strategic impact to a nation in terms of war. To which all you've managed to do is repeat, again and again, your original claim. To move past being a parrot and into being a person capable of a conversation, you need to challenge my point that terror strikes are not relevant to a nation's capability to make war, or you need to accept that and make a different argument.

Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.


As I have already explained, the tech available to Germany at the end of the war was not so advanced that it represented any game changer in the war. Given the overwhelming differences in troop numbers and manpower available at the end of the war, any tech capable of making a difference would have to have been near magical.

That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant.


When talking about the threat Japan represented by the end of the war, the effectiveness of the attacks they had made to date most certainly are. Think about your argument for just one second, please.

I never argued that they WERE effective, nor even reliant on "magic super tech". (Balloons? Magic? Are you a toddler? If so then yes, they are "magic".) The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.


To carry a controlled payload of any strategic relevance to the US they would have to be magic. Given the Japanese did not have access to balloons of such magical qualities, it becomes clear to everyone that your point is stupid. Accept this. Move on.

Oh, and you're not strictly correct about the use of German advanced tech being scuppered by fuel losses or lacking a "conventional military". For a start huge numbers of troops were still present in various European states, unmolested by Russia or the Allies, and one of the main flaws in the use of advanced technology was misuse. A single order shifts the targets of the V1/2 from London to Normandy, and you're dealing with a whole new ball-game.


First up, what might have been useful in 1944 is not relevant in 1945. Second up, the V-2 rockets were not particularly accurate, and while ones landing where they were supposed to often killed 50 or 60 people, the average casualties per missile launched was about 2, because most of the missiles plain old missed London entirely. Rockets that aren't accurate enough to hit London are going to be of marginal use when launched against a military force.

The V-2s got more people killed in their manufacture than from landing on London, for God's sake.

If the blueprints (never mind the technological capacity and resources needed...) for the V-2 had been passed on the Japanese it would have made exactly zero impact to the war.

This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now.


You clearly have no understanding of what was known by the allies. Many things were assured, as the allies had extensive infiltration of German activities. The end of the war wasn't defined by a mad rush to defeat the Germans and Japanese before they unleashed some potential superweapon, it was defined by deliberate, measured operations. The US and UK agreed to hold their advance on Berlin, to give the final occupation to the Soviets. The Soviets reached the outskirts of Berlin, then sat there and waited for two months, forming an immense army, capable of advancing on the city from all directions to crush it utterly.

These are not the actions of governments who believe at any second the enemy could unleash some new game changing weapon, so they had to finish the war as quickly as possible. Your interpretation of events is one that has no relation to how the allies conducted the war. This is a significant problem with your theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
thedude wrote:The fact is regardless of the method, whether the attack was necessary to win the war or not or whether the massacre occured under the banner and in the name of if imperilaism or freedom, a state attack on civilians is murder. By and large, the human condition strives for peace and happieness. The people on the streets in Hiroshima that day were mothers, daughters, sons and fathers. The suffering of civilians, children for feths sake with no cause for war had no say in what was wrought on them.
My mind is at a loss to try and comprehend how anyone who loves someone more than themselves (and as such are the only ones who can understand true loss) can condone actions such as this on their fellow man. This is the ultimate antithesis of freedom. Are we as a whole, so far removed from suffering through luxeries of our generation that we cannot relate to our fellow human beings?


I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/19 06:15:22


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Must...resist...responding....

Nope, not gonna happen, thanks again Captain.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact. Japan did in fact manage to reach the continental USA and attack it. Fact. Germany and Japan shared advanced military technology. Also fact.


Therefore Canada is a massive threat to US security.

What you're advocating here is a theory called offensive realism. It is a theory which was debunked almost as soon as it was put to publication, and it is nonsense promulgated by people who lack any sort of rational perspective.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.


What technology? Balloons? What balloon was able to lift, let alone carry across the Pacific, a weapon of mass destruction?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant.


Yes, it is. In fact its central to the matter. If it were not, every single person who committed murder in the US would be a threat to the nation-state; which is an absolutely preposterous claim.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.


That's also nonsense. No one sensible actually thought the Japanese balloon bombs were going to crush the American Western seaboard. For someone so keen on thinking in terms available to past commanders, you are awfully keen to pass judgment from your little swivel chair.

Moreover, if potential is all that matters, then we should execute everyone not born holding an American flag while their mother take the Pledge. After all, they have the potential to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York, New York.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now. Events that we know DID happen were only possibilities back then. The balance of the situation throughout the war changed because of individual situations, chance, mischance, or missed opportunities.


Evidently nothing was assured save for the threat posed by Japan.

Please try to avoid contradictions.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






dogma wrote:Please try to avoid contradictions.


But I like saying things like "can't", "won't", and "didn't".

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in gb
Oberleutnant





sebster wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact.


Yes, and I explained to you that the impact of such terror attacks, while horrible in human life, does not deliver a material, strategic impact to a nation in terms of war. To which all you've managed to do is repeat, again and again, your original claim. To move past being a parrot and into being a person capable of a conversation, you need to challenge my point that terror strikes are not relevant to a nation's capability to make war, or you need to accept that and make a different argument.

Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.


As I have already explained, the tech available to Germany at the end of the war was not so advanced that it represented any game changer in the war. Given the overwhelming differences in troop numbers and manpower available at the end of the war, any tech capable of making a difference would have to have been near magical.

That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant.


When talking about the threat Japan represented by the end of the war, the effectiveness of the attacks they had made to date most certainly are. Think about your argument for just one second, please.

I never argued that they WERE effective, nor even reliant on "magic super tech". (Balloons? Magic? Are you a toddler? If so then yes, they are "magic".) The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.


To carry a controlled payload of any strategic relevance to the US they would have to be magic. Given the Japanese did not have access to balloons of such magical qualities, it becomes clear to everyone that your point is stupid. Accept this. Move on.

Oh, and you're not strictly correct about the use of German advanced tech being scuppered by fuel losses or lacking a "conventional military". For a start huge numbers of troops were still present in various European states, unmolested by Russia or the Allies, and one of the main flaws in the use of advanced technology was misuse. A single order shifts the targets of the V1/2 from London to Normandy, and you're dealing with a whole new ball-game.


First up, what might have been useful in 1944 is not relevant in 1945. Second up, the V-2 rockets were not particularly accurate, and while ones landing where they were supposed to often killed 50 or 60 people, the average casualties per missile launched was about 2, because most of the missiles plain old missed London entirely. Rockets that aren't accurate enough to hit London are going to be of marginal use when launched against a military force.

The V-2s got more people killed in their manufacture than from landing on London, for God's sake.

If the blueprints (never mind the technological capacity and resources needed...) for the V-2 had been passed on the Japanese it would have made exactly zero impact to the war.

This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now.


You clearly have no understanding of what was known by the allies. Many things were assured, as the allies had extensive infiltration of German activities. The end of the war wasn't defined by a mad rush to defeat the Germans and Japanese before they unleashed some potential superweapon, it was defined by deliberate, measured operations. The US and UK agreed to hold their advance on Berlin, to give the final occupation to the Soviets. The Soviets reached the outskirts of Berlin, then sat there and waited for two months, forming an immense army, capable of advancing on the city from all directions to crush it utterly.

These are not the actions of governments who believe at any second the enemy could unleash some new game changing weapon, so they had to finish the war as quickly as possible. Your interpretation of events is one that has no relation to how the allies conducted the war. This is a significant problem with your theory.


Difference between a "terror" attack and any other form of attack is? The nature of the target perhaps? I'm pretty sure that many days ago, I pointed out that an attack against the continental USA by Japan would have had different targets than the more recent "terror" attacks. Not to say that they wouldn't engage in "terror" attacks, because they certainly would. The point remains the same: that it is possible to strike against the continental USA without using a conventional navy or airforce. This is irrefutable fact, because it has happened. Its not a "claim" or an "opinion". Its just the case. So the most recent attack was a financial centre? Irrelevant. It could have been a military or political target. (In fact I seem to recall such an attempt was actually made on the same day.) An undefeated Japan would have continued to search for a means to strike against the US. Hence one of the requirements to defeat them. Because they continued to be a threat.

Again (and again) and again, we know NOW that the technology available to Germany in the 40s was not singularly war-winning. But as I said way back ages ago, the FACT is that units of 30AU, T-Force and their American counterparts were discovering materials and research that the allies DID NOT KNOW the Germans were even researching.. and that was WITH the work done at Bletchley Park in smashing Enigma. So, to simplify it for you, because you clearly aren't getting it...At the time, Allied Intelligence about what was going on was a "best guess." It was not 100% surety, it was not "Oh we definitely know everything about what they can do." There was no definite 100 knowledge about what the Axis had or had not done. If there were, then NOTHING that was found would have come as a surprise. "Extensive Infiltration" was not "Complete Knowledge." This still applies even today. Only an idiot would claim that they know for sure that the enemy isn't capable of X. Y or Z.

Don't recall this ever being a discussion about what the Soviets thought they were doing about things. I also don't recall suggesting that it should have been or was a "mad rush" to defeat the enemy. Only "rush" I mentioned was the rush to capture Kiel before the Soviets got to it, in order to prevent the Russians from claiming any materials, spoils or technology from that port. You remember that? The technology that is so un-threatening we just let the Soviets take it, and didn't risk starting a third world war crossing agreed demarcation lines to capture Kiel.. oh.. wait.... anyway... "Mad rush" is your idea. All I have been saying from day one is that Japan was a threat, and as such required dealing with. The option chosen happens to have been the atom bomb.

And it might have been an American plan to sit and let the Russians take Berlin, but its also a fact that the British not only desired to take Berlin, but were in a supreme position to do so. Bit like the rest of the "Slow broad front that gets more people killed for less gain" American strategy. But facts and you appear to be strange bedfellows, so there probably isn't much point in mentioning that.

More people were killed by manufacturing V2s than shooting them because the Germans insisted on using slave labour in quite a non-Health and Safety-compliant manufacturing process. The two "casualty" figures are hardly comparable. Ridiculous. Oh, and the Normandy Beach heads and surrounding area are a wee bit bigger than London, old boy.

Finally, because it seems to need explaining: You do know that it is possible to choose a single example from a variety of possible examples, without it being "the only thing they could do" don't you? A Japanese balloon with an incendiary device isn't as effective as one delivering canisters of say..Sarin. (Cue the inevitable tirade about how Sarin isn't dangerous blah blah tell it to the Kurds. Or maybe "but Japan didn't have it blah blah but Germany did, and they did share notes on things, fact.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Must...resist...responding....

Nope, not gonna happen, thanks again Captain.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact. Japan did in fact manage to reach the continental USA and attack it. Fact. Germany and Japan shared advanced military technology. Also fact.


Therefore Canada is a massive threat to US security.

What you're advocating here is a theory called offensive realism. It is a theory which was debunked almost as soon as it was put to publication, and it is nonsense promulgated by people who lack any sort of rational perspective.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.


What technology? Balloons? What balloon was able to lift, let alone carry across the Pacific, a weapon of mass destruction?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant.


Yes, it is. In fact its central to the matter. If it were not, every single person who committed murder in the US would be a threat to the nation-state; which is an absolutely preposterous claim.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.


That's also nonsense. No one sensible actually thought the Japanese balloon bombs were going to crush the American Western seaboard. For someone so keen on thinking in terms available to past commanders, you are awfully keen to pass judgment from your little swivel chair.

Moreover, if potential is all that matters, then we should execute everyone not born holding an American flag while their mother take the Pledge. After all, they have the potential to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York, New York.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now. Events that we know DID happen were only possibilities back then. The balance of the situation throughout the war changed because of individual situations, chance, mischance, or missed opportunities.


Evidently nothing was assured save for the threat posed by Japan.

Please try to avoid contradictions.


Ah yes, the towering absurdium of Canada (or "anyone else") being such an epic threat to the USA. And if Canada had been engaged in total war with the USA in the 40s then you would have a point. But you don't, because it wasn't. We are CLEARLY discussing the threat potential of an aggressor nation AT WAR with the USA. Couple of extra points on that though: You would be a fool to think that the USA hasn't considered the threat potential of an aggressive Canada, or Mexico, or wherever in the world, even if only on a theoretical level and I seem to recall a White House becoming a charred black house last time Canada was a threat to the US.

There is a damn sight more reality in what comes from my fictional "swivel chair" (or antique leather arm-chair in my study, for added realism) than your absurd ideas about trying to create a parallel between the average murderer and a nation-state engaged in total war. As absurd as suggesting the threat posed by a war-fighting enemy nation and an ALLY are comparable, and as truly ignorant as suggesting that that is what I am trying to say. Really not much purpose in attempting to carry on this discussion if its just going to be filled with ridiculous nonsense like that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/19 20:56:19


"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Ah yes, the towering absurdium of Canada (or "anyone else") being such an epic threat to the USA.


Absurdum. As in reductio ad absurdum. Great argumentative technique, as it naturally makes the target look foolish.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
And if Canada had been engaged in total war with the USA in the 40s then you would have a point. But you don't, because it wasn't. We are CLEARLY discussing the threat potential of an aggressor nation AT WAR with the USA.


I already explained why that distinction is not relevant. I won't do it again. Just go back a few pages an read my prior argument.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Couple of extra points on that though: You would be a fool to think that the USA hasn't considered the threat potential of an aggressive Canada, or Mexico, or wherever in the world, even if only on a theoretical level and I seem to recall a White House becoming a charred black house last time Canada was a threat to the US.


Right, as I already said, there is a difference between a categorical threat, which is made manifest by the existence of a thing, and a significant threat, which is made manifest by a particular ability to do thing X where X is bad.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
There is a damn sight more reality in what comes from my fictional "swivel chair" (or antique leather arm-chair in my study, for added realism) than your absurd ideas about trying to create a parallel between the average murderer and a nation-state engaged in total war.


You're moving the goal posts. You said Japan was a threat, and then argued that they were a threat because they had the capacity to attack the US. Murderers also have the capacity to attack the US, as do all people, relative threat is only part of the dispute in the sense which I introduced; eg. a state is a threat in the sense that they are more than merely existential, which does not apply to Japan.

Try again, son.

Also, stop using caps, it makes you sound like a child.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
As absurd as suggesting the threat posed by a war-fighting enemy nation and an ALLY are comparable, and as truly ignorant as suggesting that that is what I am trying to say. Really not much purpose in attempting to carry on this discussion if its just going to be filled with ridiculous nonsense like that.


Right, so shall we now suggest that the threat of Soviet incursion in 1960 is equivalent to the threat of North Korean incursion today?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/19 22:57:05


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in gb
Oberleutnant





dogma wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Ah yes, the towering absurdium of Canada (or "anyone else") being such an epic threat to the USA.


Absurdum. As in reductio ad absurdum. Great argumentative technique, as it naturally makes the target look foolish.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
And if Canada had been engaged in total war with the USA in the 40s then you would have a point. But you don't, because it wasn't. We are CLEARLY discussing the threat potential of an aggressor nation AT WAR with the USA.


I already explained why that distinction is not relevant. I won't do it again. Just go back a few pages an read my prior argument.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Couple of extra points on that though: You would be a fool to think that the USA hasn't considered the threat potential of an aggressive Canada, or Mexico, or wherever in the world, even if only on a theoretical level and I seem to recall a White House becoming a charred black house last time Canada was a threat to the US.


Right, as I already said, there is a difference between a categorical threat, which is made manifest by the existence of a thing, and a significant threat, which is made manifest by a particular ability to do thing X where X is bad.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
There is a damn sight more reality in what comes from my fictional "swivel chair" (or antique leather arm-chair in my study, for added realism) than your absurd ideas about trying to create a parallel between the average murderer and a nation-state engaged in total war.


You're moving the goal posts. You said Japan was a threat, and then argued that they were a threat because they had the capacity to attack the US. Murderers also have the capacity to attack the US, as do all people, relative threat is only part of the dispute in the sense which I introduced; eg. a state is a threat in the sense that they are more than merely existential, which does not apply to Japan.

Try again, son.

Also, stop using caps, it makes you sound like a child.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
As absurd as suggesting the threat posed by a war-fighting enemy nation and an ALLY are comparable, and as truly ignorant as suggesting that that is what I am trying to say. Really not much purpose in attempting to carry on this discussion if its just going to be filled with ridiculous nonsense like that.


Cry some more, cry baby.


No, Canada and Japan are not comparable in the threat comparison game. Doesn't work. Nor are "murderers" and Japan. Know why? Because "murderers" aren't engaged in open war against the USA, and nor are the Canadians. In fact during the time period being discussed Canada is a US ally and thus even LESS of a threat than they are at any other time when they aren't engaged in a war with US. You know why its "absurdum"? Because the notion is ABSURD.

Might as well discuss how Japan in 1945 is similar to a fishcake. It bears about the same relevance. (Ooh it contains some fish product and thus... )

And just because its you: No. I said Japan was a threat and suggested ONE OF THE REASONS why it was a threat. The ability to attack the continental USA in 1945 is a part of a whole. But as has been proven time and again in this thread, people can clearly only address one thing at a time. Because there is one example, it must be the ONLY example.

Cry baby? Fine. So I should carry on arguing this business of creating interesting and utterly ridiculous comparisons in order to dispute facts? Japan is like a shoe because a shoe can be used to kick someone so its a threat. You want to waste time talking crap, be my guest. I bore of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit for clarity: Actually the caps thing is an emphasis technique left over from IRC, because its quicker and easier than bold or colours or whatever in that format. But if you want to pick holes in typography because you think it makes you look clever you just knock yourself out. Never mind what I might be trying to add emphasis to eh? Style before content eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and the Soviets and the North Koreans are a damn sight more similar in the threat comparison stakes than Canada and Japan circa 1945 are. Know why? Because they aren't allies of the US.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/05/19 23:16:46


"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio 
   
Made in us
Crazy Marauder Horseman




Tx

@ Sir Pseudonymous

No one implied life was fair or that war has not always been in our blood. You can accept our primal tendencies as justification for continued raw brutality and hell, while your at it, go ahead and sacrifice a few virgins, bath in goats blood and howl at the moon in hopes some god may ward off pestilence or you can choose to use the benefits of evolution which has provided unparalleled knowledge of the human condition and the natural world around us to accept the death of non combatants or as wrong.

Yes, i would agree that this is a new opinion of a small minority, I would simply add it is a by product of evolution and enlightenment of the human race if you will. That said, I believe in fighting for what you believe in and defending yourself. But that is a far cry from massacring a hundred thousand civilians.



 
   
Made in au
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter






Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)

dogma wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Ah yes, the towering absurdium of Canada (or "anyone else") being such an epic threat to the USA.


Absurdum. As in reductio ad absurdum. Great argumentative technique, as it naturally makes the target look foolish.


Heeey, we're studying this in Legal Foundations right now.

Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.

"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
No, Canada and Japan are not comparable in the threat comparison game.


Either they are because the possession of weapons which can strike targets in the US renders a nation, or actor, a threat to the US, or they aren't because the issue possesses more nuance than categorical arguments can capture. Either way you lose.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Know why? Because "murderers" aren't engaged in open war against the USA, and nor are the Canadians.


I already explained why the state of war is not relevant to this conversation, yet you persevere. Which is odd, really, considering that you have repeatedly cited nonstate actors as examples of asymmetric threats.

Anyway, to entertain you, why is open war an important distinction? Surely murderers have declared their intention to slay parts of the US by slaying US citizens, why is that not war?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
In fact during the time period being discussed Canada is a US ally and thus even LESS of a threat than they are at any other time when they aren't engaged in a war with US. You know why its "absurdum"? Because the notion is ABSURD.


Yes, that's the point sonny. Its called reductio ad absurdum because the argument made reduces the categorical claim of the opposition to the absurd. You made a claim which turn on categorical necessity, and I reduced it to absurdity in order to illustrate why your claim was wrong.

Anyway, I'm no longer drunk, so there is no reason for me to talk to you anymore. Nothing you have to say is sensible or worthwhile. Good luck in the future, kiddo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Edit for clarity: Actually the caps thing is an emphasis technique left over from IRC, because its quicker and easier than bold or colours or whatever in that format. But if you want to pick holes in typography because you think it makes you look clever you just knock yourself out. Never mind what I might be trying to add emphasis to eh? Style before content eh?


No, I like picking at typography because it makes you look foolish, not because it makes me look clever.

Nice try on the "style before content" bit though. Trouble is, if you were really interested in content, as opposed to style, you wouldn't add emphasis at all.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/20 01:51:52


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman





HA! I lived across an airfield that was bombed during the attack on pearl harbor. I've also visited the Arizona Memorial many times, and seeing Japanese people there that were laughing and carrying on with jokes and inappropriate behavior for a MEMORIAL. The bombs were a good idea, not only because they saved American lives, but also Japanese lives. We were prepared to carry out an invasion of the main land of Japan, Iwo Jima style, outnumbering them 4 to 1, with more than 60% casualty rates for US and virtually 100% for the Japanese defenders. The war would have lasted at least another decade, I mean come on, it took over 3 MONTHS to capture an Island less than 7 square miles. They wouldn't have given up otherwise without the Bombs- you see this in the fact that the last Japanese soldier gave up his post in the 70's, and only after they found his Commanding Officer and he had to convince him to stand down. Now just multiply that by the entire population due to propaganda.

-Only in death does duty end.
-One should not be honoured, for doing what is expected.
-When life gives you lemons, squeeze them in your enemies eyes to blind them.

Armies
- Blood Angels- 2,000 Pts
- Imperial- 2, 200 Pts Guard
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





ArbeitsSchu wrote:Difference between a "terror" attack and any other form of attack is? The nature of the target perhaps? I'm pretty sure that many days ago, I pointed out that an attack against the continental USA by Japan would have had different targets than the more recent "terror" attacks. Not to say that they wouldn't engage in "terror" attacks, because they certainly would. The point remains the same: that it is possible to strike against the continental USA without using a conventional navy or airforce. This is irrefutable fact, because it has happened.


The point is that an unconventional attack, even one on the scale of 9/11, does not materially impact a nation's ability to go to war. This is clear and obvious point, and one you continue to ignore.

Why are you ignoring this point, why are you being so ridiculous?

Again (and again) and again, we know NOW that the technology available to Germany in the 40s was not singularly war-winning.


They knew there was no magic German scheme that could instantly win the war. I showed this when I explained that the Wetern Allies and the Soviets were happy to prolong the last stages of the war, so that the Soviet could inflict absolute destrution on Berlin.

This is something else you've ignored.

But as I said way back ages ago, the FACT is that units of 30AU, T-Force and their American counterparts were discovering materials and research that the allies DID NOT KNOW the Germans were even researching..


And as I explained earlier, the presence of long range bombers and similar madness doesn't mean there was potential for some incredible match winning weapon. In a war decided almost entirely by industrial capacity such a thing was not the consideration of the allies.

This is why the Western allies were happy to halt their advance, to allow the Soviets to take Berlin. This is why the Soviets were happy to delay their attack on Berlin until they had gathered sufficient force to attack from all sides.

Your argument that the allies feared the Germans deploying some superweapon in the dying stages of the war does not correspond with how the allies fought the war.

Don't recall this ever being a discussion about what the Soviets thought they were doing about things. I also don't recall suggesting that it should have been or was a "mad rush" to defeat the enemy.


It's a point that's clearly relevant when trying to establish if the allies were keen to finish the war before the Germans revealed some previously unknown supertech. Given they weren't, they clearly thought the likelihood of such a supertech was almost zero. This makes your argument that the allies were acting in an unknown environment and responding to potential threat clearly, obviously wrong.

Only "rush" I mentioned was the rush to capture Kiel before the Soviets got to it, in order to prevent the Russians from claiming any materials, spoils or technology from that port. You remember that? The technology that is so un-threatening we just let the Soviets take it, and didn't risk starting a third world war crossing agreed demarcation lines to capture Kiel..


As I've pointed out several times, desiring German technology proves that such technology is valuable for post-war research and new weapons tech. It does not establish that such technology was capable of turning the war.

oh.. wait.... anyway... "Mad rush" is your idea. All I have been saying from day one is that Japan was a threat, and as such required dealing with. The option chosen happens to have been the atom bomb.


No, 'mad rush' wasn't my idea. The absence of a mad rush is a point I made to demonstrate to you that the allies weren't acting to end the German threat as quickly as possible, beause, unlike in your argument, they didn't actually fear the sudden deployment of any supertech..

And it might have been an American plan to sit and let the Russians take Berlin, but its also a fact that the British not only desired to take Berlin, but were in a supreme position to do so. Bit like the rest of the "Slow broad front that gets more people killed for less gain" American strategy. But facts and you appear to be strange bedfellows, so there probably isn't much point in mentioning that.


The fact the British were in a position to take Berlin but followed the strategic plan not to advance is my point. Instead of advancing to end the war as quickly as possible, a logical action if there was any fear at all of the German's revealing a new superweapon that might put them back in the war, they accepted the political decision to allow the Soviets to take the city.

Your inability to follow that basic piece of logic is incredible, and I refuse to believe for one second that you are incapable of following it. Instead, I think you are most likely choosing not to understand it, in order to avoid having to admit you were wrong in your argument.

And that's just sad.

More people were killed by manufacturing V2s than shooting them because the Germans insisted on using slave labour in quite a non-Health and Safety-compliant manufacturing process. The two "casualty" figures are hardly comparable. Ridiculous.


Of course they're comparable, in that they measure the ineffectiveness of the V-2s in . Artillery shells were produced under slave labour, with little regard for health and safety, yet German artillery killed a lot more people in use than in manufacture. Because artillery was an effective weapon in the war. Whereas the V-2 rockets generally missed the city they were aimed at.

Oh, and the Normandy Beach heads and surrounding area are a wee bit bigger than London, old boy.


Are you claiming that the troop deployments onto Normandy represented a greater area of space than a city. That's just stupid. You know that's stupid.

To establish that it's stupid, the population of London during the war was about 4.5 million. The total number of troops used on D-day was about 350,000. You weren't just mistaken, you were off by a factor of more than 10.

So stop being stupid, stop believing ridiculous things in order to protect your ego from the thought you might have made an argument on the internet that was wrong.

Finally, because it seems to need explaining: You do know that it is possible to choose a single example from a variety of possible examples, without it being "the only thing they could do" don't you?


There's all sorts of things that someone could potentially do, if we choose to ignore everything we knew, and the allies at the time knew, about their actual capabilities.

You can sit there making up ideas about launching sarin gas in balloons and all kinds of other fantasy stories, but at the end of the day it's just you making stuff up.

By all means keep making stuff up, write it down, turn it into an alternate history story. I would probably read it, because it's very imaginative. But don't confuse your imagination with actual history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
thedude wrote:@ Sir Pseudonymous

No one implied life was fair or that war has not always been in our blood. You can accept our primal tendencies as justification for continued raw brutality and hell, while your at it, go ahead and sacrifice a few virgins, bath in goats blood and howl at the moon in hopes some god may ward off pestilence or you can choose to use the benefits of evolution which has provided unparalleled knowledge of the human condition and the natural world around us to accept the death of non combatants or as wrong.

Yes, i would agree that this is a new opinion of a small minority, I would simply add it is a by product of evolution and enlightenment of the human race if you will. That said, I believe in fighting for what you believe in and defending yourself. But that is a far cry from massacring a hundred thousand civilians.


You probably missed my response to you above;

"I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/20 03:34:40


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: