How Do You Solve A Problem Like McCrystal?

[K-9]

You think it was morally defensible to starve ten times as many people with a blockade, or kill forty times as many with an invasion? Is that what you mean by "we're better than that?" Was the Thirty Years' War somehow morally more defensible than World War II because central Europe was only depopulated by famine, not gunfire?

 

 

And the idea that we could stage a demonstration that would somehow bring the Japanese to their senses without actual use is laughable. It's revisionist history that completely ignores major issues of Japanese society, culture, and politics, and attempts to project onto the contemporary decisions a set of moral values that didn't even exist at the time. It's completely ridiculous. That was the point I brought up w/r/t Groves' mentions of military and "combat" usage.

 

And your lack of outrage against Hamburg or Dresden or Tokyo or Manila is duly noted.

 

Absolutely. I forget who the historian was that said it (and I paraphrase) but he said you can't judge history through the prism of modern day culture and values. One simply can't impose modern day sensibilities on the events of the past. It tends to distort. And anything that distorts tends to make it inaccurate at best, dishonest at worst.

[Dan]

So only 3 were produced in 1945?

 

 

 

So the idea of dropping atomic weapons one after another on defenseless people serves what purpose? The fact you bring it up supports my side of the argument. I am saying that one demonstration would have at the very least given us moral ground to stand on. Instead, we nuked Hiroshima off the bat. We should have been better than that.

 

Remote location, ask Russia and Japan to observe, drop the bomb. Worst case scenario, it takes another two months or so to conquer Japan as your production catches up and you start dropping nukes. No more US causalities, (at least not in significant numbers) and we hold at least a bit of the moral high ground. Do you genuinely believe Japan was a threat at this point?

It's exactly this type of mentality that prevents us from winning any sort of victory today in Afghanistan or Iraq. The locals just lay back and wait. We'll eventually move out and they'll move back in. They shoot at our soldiers, then drop their guns; our soldiers can't shoot back. Because we're better than that. They shoot at our soldiers; then run into a mosque or village. Our soldiers can't shoot back, because we're better than that. Meanwhile, 9 years later we're still pissin around while they think no one can beat them.

 

My question is when did we become so pussified? War is hell. People die. That's why you do everything you can to not go to war. But, when you do... you do everything and anything in your power to win it and win it fast. And yes, lots of people will die, many of them may be innocent civilians. But, that's just the way it is. If you don't want people to die; get rid of the military and never send troops into battle.

 

Back to Japan, so you're suggesting we wait it out a few more months to try and convince them. Does it matter that Japan was diligently working on a nuclear weapon of their own. Who's to say that in a few months times they wouldn't have had something they could have dropped on us? Would the decision to wait still have been worth it? I ask, because we're pretty much playing the same game today.

[Booster4324]

You think it was morally defensible to starve ten times as many people with a blockade, or kill forty times as many with an invasion? Is that what you mean by "we're better than that?" Was the Thirty Years' War somehow morally more defensible than World War II because central Europe was only depopulated by famine, not gunfire?

 

 

And the idea that we could stage a demonstration that would somehow bring the Japanese to their senses without actual use is laughable. It's revisionist history that completely ignores major issues of Japanese society, culture, and politics, and attempts to project onto the contemporary decisions a set of moral values that didn't even exist at the time. It's completely ridiculous. That was the point I brought up w/r/t Groves' mentions of military and "combat" usage.

 

And your lack of outrage against Hamburg or Dresden or Tokyo or Manila is duly noted.

 

Your math is a bit off for a two month blockade tops. I said drop one, not a dozen, in a remote location as a demonstration. At no point have I advocated an invasion. I said we should be better than that, not that we were.

 

Make no mistake, I understand the fact of how you kill them is largely irrelevant. We will leave aside the ramifications of the radiation from an atomic bomb for the purposes of this point, or you can simply fold them into casualties, whichever.

 

The point I am making is how it was perceived. This perception of outrage over a new technological terror is nothing new. I can point back to at least the crossbow. So tell me, since this has been going on for hundreds of years at least, why didn't we realize how this would be perceived? Bit more dangerous than a crossbow. If we come up with an uber weapon that can destroy anything within a thousand mile radius and selectively, would we be technological cave men and not understand how the use of the weapon would be perceived?

 

As to whether it would have worked? Maybe not, but again, we would have tried. Hirohito was already indecisive at best about the war by this point. He was hoping for something to use at the negotiation tables. Since the idea of a demonstration pushes back everything a couple of months (being generous with that figure since you said my source was incorrect) the Russians would have already attacked in all likelihood. This sustained attack would have brought even more pressure for an unconditional surrender. Which is all we should have accepted btw.

 

As to the firebombings, when the war was going full force and we hadn't won all but completely, I can understand it. I do think intentionally targeting civilian populations is wrong, but war is war.

[Nanker]

Your math is a bit off for a two month blockade tops. I said drop one, not a dozen, in a remote location as a demonstration. At no point have I advocated an invasion. I said we should be better than that, not that we were.

 

Make no mistake, I understand the fact of how you kill them is largely irrelevant. We will leave aside the ramifications of the radiation from an atomic bomb for the purposes of this point, or you can simply fold them into casualties, whichever.

 

The point I am making is how it was perceived. This perception of outrage over a new technological terror is nothing new. I can point back to at least the crossbow. So tell me, since this has been going on for hundreds of years at least, why didn't we realize how this would be perceived? Bit more dangerous than a crossbow. If we come up with an uber weapon that can destroy anything within a thousand mile radius and selectively, would we be technological cave men and not understand how the use of the weapon would be perceived?

 

As to whether it would have worked? Maybe not, but again, we would have tried. Hirohito was already indecisive at best about the war by this point. He was hoping for something to use at the negotiation tables. Since the idea of a demonstration pushes back everything a couple of months (being generous with that figure since you said my source was incorrect) the Russians would have already attacked in all likelihood. This sustained attack would have brought even more pressure for an unconditional surrender. Which is all we should have accepted btw.

 

As to the firebombings, when the war was going full force and we hadn't won all but completely, I can understand it. I do think intentionally targeting civilian populations is wrong, but war is war.

 

Booster, you're in serious need of a history less or two.

Viewer discretion advised.

[Booster4324]

[/size][/font]

 

Booster, you're in serious need of a history less or two.

Viewer discretion advised.

 

Umm no. I never advocated an invasion. Way to miscast what I said.

 

*pats you on the head

[Nanker]

Umm no. I never advocated an invasion. Way to miscast what I said.

 

*pats you on the head

 

But you condoned the firebombings, which - in Tokyo alone killed more than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm

Don't think for a second that they would have surrendered without starving them, or invading them - absent nuking them.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

But you condoned the firebombings, which - in Tokyo alone killed more than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm

Don't think for a second that they would have surrendered without starving them, or invading them - absent nuking them.

They?

 

No, him. The emperor, IMO, is 100% fully responsible all the deaths. He was just trying to save his own skin. How in the world could he have not surrendered after the firebombing raid? I understand there were some attempts to talk about surrender as long as poor his majesty was not tried and convicted of war crimes. It's interesting to note that the preliminary war crimes trials had already been set in motion in May of 1945 for the Nazis. Did this affect the emperor's decision?

[Nanker]

They?

 

No, him. The emperor, IMO, is 100% fully responsible all the deaths. He was just trying to save his own skin. How in the world could he have not surrendered after the firebombing raid? I understand there were some attempts to talk about surrender as long as poor his majesty was not tried and convicted of war crimes. It's interesting to note that the preliminary war crimes trials had already been set in motion in May of 1945 for the Nazis. Did this affect the emperor's decision?

If we had announced we were going to try the Emperor for war crimes, we would have had to kill every living Japanese. End of story.

[DC Tom]

Your math is a bit off for a two month blockade tops.

 

No, it isn't. Japanese marchant shipping had been below subsistence level since mid-44. Japan was on the ragged edge of famine by July. A blockade into October would have easily killed 1-2 million citizens.

 

You might also want to explain how the blockade that hadn't worked for the past six months was supposed to magically work in the next two.

 

I said drop one, not a dozen, in a remote location as a demonstration. At no point have I advocated an invasion. I said we should be better than that, not that we were.

 

Make no mistake, I understand the fact of how you kill them is largely irrelevant. We will leave aside the ramifications of the radiation from an atomic bomb for the purposes of this point, or you can simply fold them into casualties, whichever.

 

The point I am making is how it was perceived. This perception of outrage over a new technological terror is nothing new.

 

You're not advocating much at all, besides "demonstrate a bomb, and hope a miracle occurs." And that advocacy is based on an idea of "how it was perceived" that is flat-out wrong: you're projecting your own modern outrage over a new weapon on decision-makers seventy years ago who had ALREADY seen and themselves done just as bad. Your awe at a nuclear weapon does not translate to any sort of Japanese awe in the face of a generation of nihilistic faux-Bushido philosophy that teaches unquestioning obedience to the Emperor and "duty is heavy, death is lighter than a feather".

 

 

As to whether it would have worked? Maybe not, but again, we would have tried. Hirohito was already indecisive at best about the war by this point. He was hoping for something to use at the negotiation tables. Since the idea of a demonstration pushes back everything a couple of months (being generous with that figure since you said my source was incorrect) the Russians would have already attacked in all likelihood. This sustained attack would have brought even more pressure for an unconditional surrender. Which is all we should have accepted btw.

 

There's about eight things wrong with the above that I can't even begin to explain (don't have time). For starters, look into how decisions were actually made within the Japanese government (hint: Hirohito wasn't involved. The God-Emperor was too divine to be involved in mortal issues. Read Hoyt or Wilmott, or even van der Vat, who's not quite as reliable but far more accessible.)