Just a Random Fly By

James M Schroeder wrote: Ken, I'm trying to keep this civil, but wtf? How can I cite historical data for attacks that never happened because they were deterred? I'm not looking for contradictions in your argument, I'm telling you that you're totally and completely missing the point. These aircraft prevent more engagements than they actually engage in end of story. You can see the "citation" here since it's so important to you to have "evidence" linked to. Cheers, James

Then keep it civil. First of all, that post was directed at Shawn's comment about some sort of contradictory concession on my part. Some of it was tongue and cheek, but I maintain that you haven't proven your argument. You continually tell me that I am missing the point, which is silly. I have told you several times that I get your point, but that it is not relevant to the "specific" question of what the intended purpose for the creation of fighter planes was. I am the only one who has stayed focused on that specific argument. You, on the other hand, have branched off onto a philosophical quest for the meaning of life.

I still enjoy debating with you, nonetheless. Don't get too riled up. It's just a friendly debate. We are not changing the course of military strategy with this conversation.

Good to see you back in the fray, Beagle!

Shawn Mitchell wrote:It's just very difficult to hold a straight face while Ben Stiller talks weaponry :)

HaHa the Visine® dude

I learned about weaponry from Katinka, while preparing for Mugatu's Derelicte campaign...remember, I was trained to kill the Dude from Micronesia!

Shawn Mitchell wrote:Actually, NSFOD, you make a lot of great points...and I'm not going to let you get away with putting all those arguments in my mouth. I agree with your criticisms. To say that facts and context matter is not to say the US is right in every instance. I just believe we were right to use the bomb against an aggressor in absolute war, and we're right now to be very resistant to Iran's acquisition of the bomb. Slavery, Indian genocide, Japanese internment...give me a break. Debating whether "X" is a national sin is not aided by listing other national sins.

Oh, I totally used your response as a jumping off point for some pontification.

Ah, I don't want to debate this anyway, Shawn, at least not on this forum. It's a much too complicated issue. Maybe we'll discuss it over a beer one day after climbing.

Cheers!

Jared Workman wrote: Were the conventional bombings in Japan by B-29s OK? ~125K dead from those. If they weren't what should the rules of war be? We're at odds now because we are the aggressor with our own self interest in mind and have pretty much been that way since the 50s. You lose all moral authority to use the force necessary to win a war when you start it. What we are doing in Iraq is certainly not a 'War'.

Yes, the conventional bombings were fine (in terms of the rules of war) because they were a reasonably refined mission with industrial targets. Civilian deaths were collateral damage, which is considered "acceptable." The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were not directed toward a military or industrial target. By today's standards (and I believe even the standards of the day), that would be considered a war crime. The wanton slaughter of civilians to frighten an enemy into submission. I can't believe that wouldn't be considered a war crime by the US if another country had done it. If Hitler had done it to London. Really? Would it have been an acceptable, respected act of war?

Shawn,

What are you going to do when the GA goes back into session? You'll have Mountain Project withdrawal. lol

Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: Yes, the conventional bombings were fine (in terms of the rules of war) because they were a reasonably refined mission with industrial targets. Civilian deaths were collateral damage, which is considered "acceptable." The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were not directed toward a military or industrial target. By today's standards (and I believe even the standards of the day), that would be considered a war crime. The wanton slaughter of civilians to frighten an enemy into submission. I can't believe that wouldn't be considered a war crime by the US if another country had done it. If Hitler had done it to London. Really? Would it have been an acceptable, respected act of war?

I agree with you in that Hiro and Nagi should have been viewed as war crimes of the highest magnitude, although they also represent the real source of deterrence in this country - not only that we possess the bomb, but that we can and will use it if pushed too far.

Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: Yes, the conventional bombings were fine (in terms of the rules of war) because they were a reasonably refined mission with industrial targets. Civilian deaths were collateral damage, which is considered "acceptable." The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were not directed toward a military or industrial target. By today's standards (and I believe even the standards of the day), that would be considered a war crime. The wanton slaughter of civilians to frighten an enemy into submission. I can't believe that wouldn't be considered a war crime by the US if another country had done it. If Hitler had done it to London. Really? Would it have been an acceptable, respected act of war?

Both cities were considered industrial targets by our military at the time. See my comment made by LeMay. Actually many more civilians were killed in the conventional fire bombings of Tokyo, etc than in either nuke attack. I personally feel that the nukes saved my father's life as he was sitting on a troop ship waiting for the invasion. He said everyone on board was resigned to dying if they had to invade, and he'd been in navy prior to Pearl Harbor. By that time Americans were tired of the war and wanted it over quickly. You can't blame them for having those feelings. NSFOD, things do have historical context which is easy to dismiss decades later. There is plenty of grey and not so much black and white on that particular issue. After all, the Japanese were prepared to mobilize every civilian to fight, and probably would have lost a few million in the upcoming, but never to be invasion. To me this issue is very grey in character. I understand where you are coming from, and am only offering a different perspective. I'm not going to debate the use of nukes in WW II at this time.

Ken Cangi wrote:Shawn, What are you going to do when the GA goes back into session? You'll have Mountain Project withdrawal. lol

I'm not hooked, man. *cough* *shake* I can quit any time I want to. *shake* *sniff*

Shawn Mitchell wrote: I'm not hooked, man. *cough* *shake* I can quit any time I want to. *shake* *sniff*

There's no cure.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: I'm not hooked, man. *cough* *shake* I can quit any time I want to. *shake* *sniff*

Ken Cangi wrote: There's no cure.

your both screwed...

William Dacier wrote: Both cities were considered industrial targets by our military at the time. See my comment made by LeMay. Actually many more civilians were killed in the conventional fire bombings of Tokyo, etc than in either nuke attack. I personally feel that the nukes saved my father's life as he was sitting on a troop ship waiting for the invasion. He said everyone on board was resigned to dying if they had to invade, and he'd been in navy prior to Pearl Harbor. By that time Americans were tired of the war and wanted it over quickly. You can't blame them for having those feelings. NSFOD, things do have historical context which is easy to dismiss decades later. There is plenty of grey and not so much black and white on that particular issue. After all, the Japanese were prepared to mobilize every civilian to fight, and probably would have lost a few million in the upcoming, but never to be invasion. To me this issue is very grey in character. I understand where you are coming from, and am only offering a different perspective. I'm not going to debate the use of nukes in WW II at this time.

How many senior citizens and children do you think they planned on mobilizing to fight? I'm glad that your Dad made it out. I truly am, but how many innocent children and elderly people fried in order for that to happen?

By this logic, why don't we just nuke the Middle East to rid the world of its terrorist threat?

kirra wrote: your both screwed...

Look who's talking. Shut up honey and pass the mouse. :)

Ken Cangi wrote: How many senior citizens and children do you think they planned on mobilizing to fight? I'm glad that your Dad made it out. I truly am, but how many innocent children and elderly people fried in order for that to happen? By this logic, why don't we just nuke the Middle East to rid the world of its terrorist threat?

From the books I have read, they were going to mobilize everyone, old, young, it didn't matter. This comes from various Japanese sources, also. Adolph did the same thing in Germany, too. There was a difference, one was total war, today that's not the case. To me it is a grey area still ,but I see the other side quite well.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: Look who's talking. Shut up honey and pass the mouse. :)

I'm way past the mouse. I'm firewired right into the cpu. Mainlining is the only way to go. Plug and play, baby.

William Dacier wrote: From the books I have read, they were going to mobilize everyone, old, young, it didn't matter. This comes from various Japanese sources, also. Adolph did the same thing in Germany, too. There was a difference, one was total war, today that's not the case. To me it is a grey area still ,but I see the other side quite well.

My historical recollection is that Truman issued an ultimatum to surrender or be annihilated. The Japanese rejected Potsdam, and Truman decided to drop the nuke and cause a level of destruction that would insure Japan's surrender. It worked, at least for awhile, although I think Japan got its revenge by eventually killing us in the consumer goods market.

Ken Cangi wrote: although I think Japan got its revenge by eventually killing us in the consumer goods market.

That brings some levity to this thread. I'm sure disagree to some extent here, Ken, but the dialogue is entertaining. thanks.

William Dacier wrote: That brings some levity to this thread. I'm sure disagree to some extent here, Ken, but the dialogue is entertaining. thanks.

Always a pleasure, Bill.