View Single Post
(#114 (permalink))
Old
Amnell's Avatar
Amnell (Offline)
W.o.W. I'm 66
 
Posts: 344
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hot Oven, USA
Send a message via AIM to Amnell Send a message via Skype™ to Amnell
03-22-2008, 04:06 AM

I think Tenchu underestimates our military a little out of a bias from being in a different country's military.... But w/e, that's not the point.

I see the flow of discussion has again moved to the nuking of Japan in 8/45.

Regardless of what Tenchu's strange sense of honour might make him say about America's "spirit" or whatever, the fact remains that dropping the two nukes was the most expedient and, indeed, least costly in terms of lives for both countries way to end that conflict. Had we used conventional weapons and tactics, as Tenchu has suggested... It would have taken millions of bombs to destroy what was left of the Japanese war machine, and probably with about the same amount of civilian casualties in the end--we didn't exactly have precision/guided bombs back then, so taking out a single factory involved about 1,000 bombs, 30 bombers, 70 escort fighters, the destruction of 200 homes, a school, two hospitals, roads, utility infrastructure and millions of dollars of damages. Why do you think London and various parts of Germany were in total shambles? CARPET BOMBING. Like smoking, it kills. That's what "Conventional" warfare entailed at that time. We would have done exactly the same thing, but instead of it taking a week, it would have taken another 6-12 months.

Then, after we bombed the shit out Japan, we would have gone to a ground fight. Well, guess what? The Japanese would have drafted every last citizen in the country to fight back the invaders. Not that they would have had to, since the Japanese are very proud and would have fought us without being told to. So, again, we see the "merciless slaughtering" of civilians by the ten-thousands, only by American rifles instead of American atomic bombs.

Take your pick: another year of bloody, attritious fighting or two weeks where two cities get leveled and the grand majority of those involved (soldiers, civilians in other cities, etc) walk away still breathing.

It's kinda like a cortizone injection: it hurts like a mother f**ker, but the end result is better for you.

I'm not saying that dropping nukes on Japan was a "good" thing to do or that it wasn't evil. I'm only saying that of the options present, it was the best, the lesser of evils.

In fact, I'd say that in every war we've fought in the last century, our leadership has always tried to pick the lesser of two evils. Obviously, you get the occassional grunts who felt like being dicks and ruining the image of all their buddies by stealing something or raping someone--that shit happens in every war by every side. On the grander scale, though, we always try to expedite things. This is also true for almost everyone out there.

Arguably, our current regime isn't quite so expeditious. Then again, that's just the nature of guerilla warfare.


"The trouble with trying to make something idiot proof is that idiots are so smart." ~A corollary to Murphy's Law

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you actually make them think, they'll hate you. ~Don Marquis

Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle
But, that's always f-ed up individuals that kill in secluded areas up high in the mountains. Thats neither the army nor the governments agenda! I hope those people rott in hell, but an army or government shouldn't be judged by psycho individuals.