User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:03:10 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Name one. Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war. World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up. We did deliberately target civilians in both Germany and Japan. Read about the Dresden firebombing and the B-29 firebombings of Japan. It wasn't a case of, "Opps, we can't hit just the factory, sorry the bombs landed on your house." We were practicing techniques to kill as many people as possible in cities through firestorms, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:06:20 AM EDT
[#2]
If the U.S. fought just wars, you'd never have to ask that question.
If a country goes to war, it should be the VERY last resort... to go into political wars, like we have, they are political by nature.... don't bomb this way across the bridge but, you can bomb that way. WWII was our last real war... it was a war for survival. Going into 3rd world countries and killing people isn't a war.... it's designed to achieve a political outcome and nothing more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:07:20 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the U.S. fought just wars, you'd never have to ask that question. If a country goes to war, it should be the VERY last resort... to go into political wars, like we have, they are political by nature.... don't bomb this way across the bridge but, you can bomb that way. WWII was our last real war... it was a war for survival. Going into 3rd world countries and killing people isn't a war.... it's designed to achieve a political outcome and nothing more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:08:56 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What part of the US was in danger in WW2? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the U.S. fought just wars, you'd never have to ask that question. If a country goes to war, it should be the VERY last resort... to go into political wars, like we have, they are political by nature.... don't bomb this way across the bridge but, you can bomb that way. WWII was our last real war... it was a war for survival. Going into 3rd world countries and killing people isn't a war.... it's designed to achieve a political outcome and nothing more. IMHO, all of it was in danger. If the Germans had gotten the bomb first, you can be all of the U.S. was in danger. If you'd have lived during that time, I bet you'd have believed that the U.S. was in danger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:09:29 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The concept of civilians is antiquated and overly simplistic. Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity. Total war requires the destruction of every asset available to an enemy to mimnimize thier ability to operate gainst you, this includes civilians. Wars of the future between peers will be won by the side with least concern for civilian casualties in the course of effective military operations. This is correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:10:24 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We did deliberately target civilians in both Germany and Japan. Read about the Dresden firebombing and the B-29 firebombings of Japan. It wasn't a case of, "Opps, we can't hit just the factory, sorry the bombs landed on your house." We were practicing techniques to kill as many people as possible in cities through firestorms, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Name one. Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war. World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up. We did deliberately target civilians in both Germany and Japan. Read about the Dresden firebombing and the B-29 firebombings of Japan. It wasn't a case of, "Opps, we can't hit just the factory, sorry the bombs landed on your house." We were practicing techniques to kill as many people as possible in cities through firestorms, etc. Dresden has been addressed already. If we wanted to cause mass civilian causalities, we could have hit the suburbs instead. Far more deaths that way. Japanese manufacturing was spread out amongst the population in order to prevent allied bombing from being able to hit it. Firebombing was pretty much the only way to hit it. That's the fault of the Japanese, not us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:10:28 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Many, but not even by half. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:11:41 AM EDT
[#8]
I've never been in the military myself, but I can imagine that after seeing your friends, fellow soldiers, enemies, collateral damage, etc. dead, blown to pieces, screaming in agony, etc. you become desensitized to it all and the value of human life (or maybe just some lives, like those of the enemy and his compatriots) ceases to be important to you. As such, killing a non-combatant civilian would be no different to you than squishing a spider in your house. In the civilian world we tend to call those people sociopaths.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:12:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many, but not even by half. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Many, but not even by half. I'm sure that many wars have been won through the methods being advocated here. The claim that has been made, however, is that total war is the ONLY successful method. This is patently false. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:14:32 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IMHO, all of it was in danger. If the Germans had gotten the bomb first, you can be all of the U.S. was in danger. If you'd have lived during that time, I bet you'd have believed that the U.S. was in danger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the U.S. fought just wars, you'd never have to ask that question. If a country goes to war, it should be the VERY last resort... to go into political wars, like we have, they are political by nature.... don't bomb this way across the bridge but, you can bomb that way. WWII was our last real war... it was a war for survival. Going into 3rd world countries and killing people isn't a war.... it's designed to achieve a political outcome and nothing more. IMHO, all of it was in danger. If the Germans had gotten the bomb first, you can be all of the U.S. was in danger. If you'd have lived during that time, I bet you'd have believed that the U.S. was in danger. Even if Germany had a atomic bomb before the United States, by that period of the war they would have lacked the resources to get it to the U.S. mainland. We had achieved air superiority over Europe by then. They probably wouldn't have even been able to nuke England, let alone the continental U.S. by that point in the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:14:34 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Destruction of war infrastructure. Not deliberate slaughter of civilians. Thank you for proving my point. Civilians are War infrastructure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:17:15 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Civilians are War infrastructure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Destruction of war infrastructure. Not deliberate slaughter of civilians. Thank you for proving my point. Civilians are War infrastructure. Disagree. Most of America disagrees as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:20:23 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if Germany had a atomic bomb before the United States, by that period of the war they would have lacked the resources to get it to the U.S. mainland. We had achieved air superiority over Europe by then. They probably wouldn't have even been able to nuke England, let alone the continental U.S. by that point in the war. That's fair. But, also by that time, we were drafting 40yr old men to fight in the war. Every able bodied man available and every natural resource we had were being thrown into that war. We wanted it done and it wasn't going to be done until they stopped fighting. Times were very different back then. My father fought in that war and went back to Korea. If he were here today, he'd tell you how different that time was and how different the word, "war" was used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:24:24 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Civilians are War infrastructure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Destruction of war infrastructure. Not deliberate slaughter of civilians. Thank you for proving my point. Civilians are War infrastructure. Rosie the riveter; give her a name in ANY language. Any plumber or bicycle repairman becomes a machine gun manufacturer. The ratio of non-combatants to guys on the front line could be 100 to 1? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:25:25 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up. Japanese and Germans civilians were the target of bombing raids. We firebombed the Japanese population; the Brits did the same to the Germans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:31:54 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Japanese and Germans civilians were the target of bombing raids. We firebombed the Japanese population; the Brits did the same to the Germans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up. Japanese and Germans civilians were the target of bombing raids. We firebombed the Japanese population; the Brits did the same to the Germans. . Yeah, in WWII total ware WAS employed.... We firebombed Tokyo and killed almost 100,000 with low level raids with incendiaries... those wood structures created their own weather system while the place burned..... those raides killed as many as either of the two atom bombs we dropped. Calling a "war" on terrorism sort of seems silly when you think that war, true war, is a no holes barred situation where the ones left alive are the winners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:35:35 AM EDT
[#17]
It's all a matter of perspective. If they are enemy civilians, they are not innocent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:40:19 AM EDT
[#18]
If we would have had two nuclear bombs before we entered WW2 and we dropped them on Germany and Japan in the beginning would the war have been shorter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:44:03 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If we would have had two nuclear bombs before we entered WW2 and we dropped them on Germany and Japan in the beginning would the war have been shorter? Yup.... and a lot less people would have died. IMO |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:52:10 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Calling a "war" on terrorism sort of seems silly when you think that war, true war, is a no holes barred situation where the ones left alive are the winners. You cannot have a "war" against an idea or belief (in the literal sense, not figurative sense). How do you achieve victory in a war on terrorism? Terrorism is not the enemy, it is simply a tool used by the enemy. So, who is the enemy then? The terrorists? Who are the terrorists then? Muslim extremists? So, how do we win a war against Muslim Extremists? Kill all the Muslim Extremists? How do you identify Muslim Extremists so you can kill them? They usually don't walk around with shirts that say "I'm a Muslim Extremist." A war on terrorism is nothing but a perpetual gorilla war were the terrorists are the guerrillas and we the ones always chasing them. We can no more use our military to achieve victory in a war on terrorism as we could use our military to achieve a war on gays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 10:54:46 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You cannot have a "war" against an idea or belief (in the literal sense, not figurative sense). How do you achieve victory in a war on terrorism? Terrorism is not the enemy, it is simply a tool used by the enemy. So, who is the enemy then? The terrorists? Who are the terrorists then? Muslim extremists? So, how do we win a war against Muslim Extremists? Kill all the Muslim Extremists? How do you identify Muslim Extremists so you can kill them? They usually don't walk around with shirts that say "I'm a Muslim Extremist." A war on terrorism is nothing but a perpetual gorilla war were the terrorists are the guerrillas and we the ones always chasing them. We can no more use our military to achieve victory in a war on terrorism as we could use our military to achieve a war on gays. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Calling a "war" on terrorism sort of seems silly when you think that war, true war, is a no holes barred situation where the ones left alive are the winners. You cannot have a "war" against an idea or belief (in the literal sense, not figurative sense). How do you achieve victory in a war on terrorism? Terrorism is not the enemy, it is simply a tool used by the enemy. So, who is the enemy then? The terrorists? Who are the terrorists then? Muslim extremists? So, how do we win a war against Muslim Extremists? Kill all the Muslim Extremists? How do you identify Muslim Extremists so you can kill them? They usually don't walk around with shirts that say "I'm a Muslim Extremist." A war on terrorism is nothing but a perpetual gorilla war were the terrorists are the guerrillas and we the ones always chasing them. We can no more use our military to achieve victory in a war on terrorism as we could use our military to achieve a war on gays. Bingo!!!! ETA: Also, wars by proxy aren't worth a shit either. Vietnam, Korea, ( maybe Syria soon ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:00:30 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Japanese and Germans civilians were the target of bombing raids. We firebombed the Japanese population; the Brits did the same to the Germans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up. Japanese and Germans civilians were the target of bombing raids. We firebombed the Japanese population; the Brits did the same to the Germans. Any areas the Japanese took control over got the worst treatment you can imagine. Nanking wasn't just the only place they were burying people alive and gang raping toddlers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:04:53 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any areas the Japanese took control over got the worst treatment you can imagine. Nanking wasn't just the only place they were burying people alive and gang raping toddlers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up. Japanese and Germans civilians were the target of bombing raids. We firebombed the Japanese population; the Brits did the same to the Germans. Any areas the Japanese took control over got the worst treatment you can imagine. Nanking wasn't just the only place they were burying people alive and gang raping toddlers. Yep, had to have "comfort women" for the troops, you know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:07:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But we targeted the means of production, not the civilians. We didn't start bombing all the residential neighborhoods with the explicit purpose of killing the civilians. If they didn't show up for work at the factory, we bombed the factory anyway. We didn't then go seeking out the people who avoided death. Edit: Civilians were killed because technology at the time did not allow for precise destruction of specific buildings. Had that technology existed, far fewer civilians would have been killed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity. Yep. Taking out the ball bearing factories in Germany was absolutely warranted. The civilians that worked there were as culpable as the soldiers in the field. But we targeted the means of production, not the civilians. We didn't start bombing all the residential neighborhoods with the explicit purpose of killing the civilians. If they didn't show up for work at the factory, we bombed the factory anyway. We didn't then go seeking out the people who avoided death. Edit: Civilians were killed because technology at the time did not allow for precise destruction of specific buildings. Had that technology existed, far fewer civilians would have been killed. Hiroshima? Nagasaki? And right now we are using sanctions against both North Korea and Iran. Punishing the poor by denying them food and starving them to try to get the elites to negotiate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:09:07 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hiroshima? Nagasaki? And right now we are using sanctions against both North Korea and Iran. Punishing the poor by denying them food and starving them to try to get the elites to negotiate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity. Yep. Taking out the ball bearing factories in Germany was absolutely warranted. The civilians that worked there were as culpable as the soldiers in the field. But we targeted the means of production, not the civilians. We didn't start bombing all the residential neighborhoods with the explicit purpose of killing the civilians. If they didn't show up for work at the factory, we bombed the factory anyway. We didn't then go seeking out the people who avoided death. Edit: Civilians were killed because technology at the time did not allow for precise destruction of specific buildings. Had that technology existed, far fewer civilians would have been killed. Hiroshima? Nagasaki? And right now we are using sanctions against both North Korea and Iran. Punishing the poor by denying them food and starving them to try to get the elites to negotiate. That's correct.... and to add to that Osama used to gripe a lot about the 4 million babies in Iraq that died because of sanctions against them too.... and all the while, we say, "our war isn't with the people of Iraq" and to "please overthrow him now". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:10:00 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
After watching Rare Historical Photos #3 on Liveleaks, my question is this, what makes soldiers want to punish and kill innocent civilians? I understand the civilians may be helping the soldiers, insurgency, or whatever you wish to call the natives. Can you blame them. It could happen here and many of you or your neighbors would be these people. I have always held The United States of America to a higher standard than the rest of the nations of the world. Go to Japan now and look at the way being polite has fostered a society of people who go out of their way to be helpful. The Japanese were brutal fighters in the war, showing no mercy to surrendering opponents. Look at what they have evolved into as a collective. Not bad, just more reserved. The Slavic and African peoples have become very adjusted to many of the horrors that the world can put upon a people. As a result they have become very insensitive, much like the Chinese. It seems as though there should be a balance. Parts of the world have it and others do not. I'm no expert on war retaliation, and am left wondering if we all become bad whilst dealing with great tragedy and suffering. I would hope to rise above it to find meaning and right. Where are we headed and what will we become. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:19:04 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hiroshima? Nagasaki? And right now we are using sanctions against both North Korea and Iran. Punishing the poor by denying them food and starving them to try to get the elites to negotiate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity. Yep. Taking out the ball bearing factories in Germany was absolutely warranted. The civilians that worked there were as culpable as the soldiers in the field. But we targeted the means of production, not the civilians. We didn't start bombing all the residential neighborhoods with the explicit purpose of killing the civilians. If they didn't show up for work at the factory, we bombed the factory anyway. We didn't then go seeking out the people who avoided death. Edit: Civilians were killed because technology at the time did not allow for precise destruction of specific buildings. Had that technology existed, far fewer civilians would have been killed. Hiroshima? Nagasaki? And right now we are using sanctions against both North Korea and Iran. Punishing the poor by denying them food and starving them to try to get the elites to negotiate. The Japanese sucker punched our Pacific fleet on a certain Sunday morning. Don't awake a sleeping giant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:31:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Disagree. Most of America disagrees as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Destruction of war infrastructure. Not deliberate slaughter of civilians. Thank you for proving my point. Civilians are War infrastructure. Disagree. Most of America disagrees as well. A military relies on its civilian work force to manufacture and produce its guns, bullets, rations, and fuel. A military cannot function without a civilian population providing for it. You could argue whether those civilians do so of their own free will or not. But that is somewhat of a moot point. If you want to cripple a military (as we did to Germany in WWII) you destroy its arms and supply manufacturing capability. That might mean destroying its means of production (factories, transportation capabilities, etc.) or decimating the civilian population that works in the factories producing the arms and supplies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:34:19 AM EDT
[#29]
To get a good zero
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:34:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A military relies on its civilian work force to manufacture and produce its guns, bullets, rations, and fuel. A military cannot function without a civilian population providing for it. You could argue whether those civilians do so of their own free will or not. But that is somewhat of a moot point. If you want to cripple a military (as we did to Germany in WWII) you destroy its arms and supply manufacturing capability. That might mean destroying its means of production (factories, transportation capabilities, etc.) or decimating the civilian population that works in the factories producing the arms and supplies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Destruction of war infrastructure. Not deliberate slaughter of civilians. Thank you for proving my point. Civilians are War infrastructure. Disagree. Most of America disagrees as well. A military relies on its civilian work force to manufacture and produce its guns, bullets, rations, and fuel. A military cannot function without a civilian population providing for it. You could argue whether those civilians do so of their own free will or not. But that is somewhat of a moot point. If you want to cripple a military (as we did to Germany in WWII) you destroy its arms and supply manufacturing capability. That might mean destroying its means of production (factories, transportation capabilities, etc.) or decimating the civilian population that works in the factories producing the arms and supplies. Decimation would be insufficient. 
Civilians are not considered war infrastructure. If you destroy the physical means of production, the factories, etc, then civilians can not produce the goods needed to wage war. You might as well consider the Sun to be war infrastructure, since without it plants don't grow, with no plants there are no people, with no people there are no factories, etc. Or, you can stop your definition at the point of the actual infrastructure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:40:30 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. 1) They cannot win. 2) If they lose, the world ends as they know it. If you do these things, you win. You can force a conditional surrender. If, such as Japan in WWII, they refuse to accept point 1, then you continue the total war until you prove to them otherwise. In that example we started nuking their cities, hoping that they would believe that we had a whole stockpile of bombs. It worked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:42:50 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You win a war by convincing the ENTIRE POPULATION of two facts. 1) They cannot win. 2) If they lose, the world ends as they know it. If you do these things, you win. You can force a conditional surrender. If, such as Japan in WWII, they refuse to accept point 1, then you continue the total war until you prove to them otherwise. In that example we started nuking their cities, hoping that they would believe that we had a whole stockpile of bombs. It worked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. 1) They cannot win. 2) If they lose, the world ends as they know it. If you do these things, you win. You can force a conditional surrender. If, such as Japan in WWII, they refuse to accept point 1, then you continue the total war until you prove to them otherwise. In that example we started nuking their cities, hoping that they would believe that we had a whole stockpile of bombs. It worked. And? Yes, you've made a case that total war can be used to win a war. You have not successfully made a case that it is required to win one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:46:54 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Civilians are not considered war infrastructure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Civilians are not considered war infrastructure. By our current definition perhaps, because we as a people (Americans) are soft and squeamish when it comes to killing the civilian population of our enemy. Me, I would consider them part of the war infrastructure (if only for definitional purposes) because they are one part of a two part equation. The workers cannot produce arms and supplies without the factories, and the factories are simply useless buildings without the workers. So disrupt either input and you break the equation. Now, I will grant you this, destroying the manufacturing capacity is easier because buildings have this tendency to be large and stationary, and once destroyed cannot be paraded around on national TV in the arms of a crying parent in an attempt to sway national opinion and garner sentiment for the enemy. Quoted:You might as well consider the Sun to be war infrastructure, since without it plants don't grow, with no plants there are no people, with no people there are no factories, etc.. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:51:32 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And? Yes, you've made a case that total war can be used to win a war. You have not successfully made a case that it is required to win one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. 1) They cannot win. 2) If they lose, the world ends as they know it. If you do these things, you win. You can force a conditional surrender. If, such as Japan in WWII, they refuse to accept point 1, then you continue the total war until you prove to them otherwise. In that example we started nuking their cities, hoping that they would believe that we had a whole stockpile of bombs. It worked. And? Yes, you've made a case that total war can be used to win a war. You have not successfully made a case that it is required to win one. "Required to win one"? When was there a time when one side didn't move the goal posts? Technology ALWAYS trumps some sort of Swiss conventions! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:53:33 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Which ones were those? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:54:16 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Decimation would be insufficient. Civilians are not considered war infrastructure. If you destroy the physical means of production, the factories, etc, then civilians can not produce the goods needed to wage war. You might as well consider the Sun to be war infrastructure, since without it plants don't grow, with no plants there are no people, with no people there are no factories, etc. Or, you can stop your definition at the point of the actual infrastructure. Quote HistoryQuoted: SNIP Decimation would be insufficient. Civilians are not considered war infrastructure. If you destroy the physical means of production, the factories, etc, then civilians can not produce the goods needed to wage war. You might as well consider the Sun to be war infrastructure, since without it plants don't grow, with no plants there are no people, with no people there are no factories, etc. Or, you can stop your definition at the point of the actual infrastructure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:55:42 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Required to win one"? When was there a time when one side didn't move the goal posts? Technology ALWAYS trumps some sort of Swiss conventions! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. 1) They cannot win. 2) If they lose, the world ends as they know it. If you do these things, you win. You can force a conditional surrender. If, such as Japan in WWII, they refuse to accept point 1, then you continue the total war until you prove to them otherwise. In that example we started nuking their cities, hoping that they would believe that we had a whole stockpile of bombs. It worked. And? Yes, you've made a case that total war can be used to win a war. You have not successfully made a case that it is required to win one. "Required to win one"? When was there a time when one side didn't move the goal posts? Technology ALWAYS trumps some sort of Swiss conventions! I've highlighted the "required to win one" bit in the post I quoted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:55:48 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Disagree. Most of America disagrees as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Destruction of war infrastructure. Not deliberate slaughter of civilians. Thank you for proving my point. Civilians are War infrastructure. Disagree. Most of America disagrees as well. Value judgements have little place in war. It is inescapable that a war is sustained by a war effort which is the product of civilians as well as combatants. You can not cherry pick while crippling that war effort, you do so only to the advantage of the enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:57:06 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The concept of civilians is antiquated and overly simplistic. Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity. Total war requires the destruction of every assett available to an enemy to mimnimize thier ability to operate gainst you, this includes civilians. Wars of the future between peers will be won by the side with least concern for civilian casualties in the course of effective military operations. ......The pacification of New Jersey will be VERY messy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 11:58:55 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure how you made the leap into thinking Japanese culture somehow evolved politeness out of the horrors of WWII. Is that a published theory, if did you invent it? I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that most of Japan's politeness predates WWII by a few centuries. They evolved a brutal warlike military culture parallel to, and in spite of their Civilian culture. Same as Germany. And Britain. And US. Never underestimate the evil inherent in each of us. Banality of evil. Duality of Man. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
After watching Rare Historical Photos #3 on Liveleaks, my question is this, what makes soldiers want to punish and kill innocent civilians? I understand the civilians may be helping the soldiers, insurgency, or whatever you wish to call the natives. Can you blame them. It could happen here and many of you or your neighbors would be these people. I have always held The United States of America to a higher standard than the rest of the nations of the world. Go to Japan now and look at the way being polite has fostered a society of people who go out of their way to be helpful. The Japanese were brutal fighters in the war, showing no mercy to surrendering opponents. Look at what they have evolved into as a collective. Not bad, just more reserved. The Slavic and African peoples have become very adjusted to many of the horrors that the world can put upon a people. As a result they have become very insensitive, much like the Chinese. It seems as though there should be a balance. Parts of the world have it and others do not. I'm no expert on war retaliation, and am left wondering if we all become bad whilst dealing with great tragedy and suffering. I would hope to rise above it to find meaning and right. Where are we headed and what will we become. I'm not sure how you made the leap into thinking Japanese culture somehow evolved politeness out of the horrors of WWII. Is that a published theory, if did you invent it? I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that most of Japan's politeness predates WWII by a few centuries. They evolved a brutal warlike military culture parallel to, and in spite of their Civilian culture. Same as Germany. And Britain. And US. Never underestimate the evil inherent in each of us. Banality of evil. Duality of Man. Japanese politesse grew out of a culture in which the nobles and their retainers were allowed to kill rude peasants and duel to the death with rude noblemen and their retainers. An armed society is a polite society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:00:31 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thats the thing the leaders are always warned in advance these days via the president on the TV saying we are gonna bomb the shit out of you, go hide somewhere. Reagan Was the last potus who actually tried to take out a head of state at the drop of a hat. And it worked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't tolerate leaders that will get bombs dropped on you. It's pretty easy. If you someone that starts wars stay in power don't be surprised when you get a JDAM on your head. Thats the thing the leaders are always warned in advance these days via the president on the TV saying we are gonna bomb the shit out of you, go hide somewhere. Reagan Was the last potus who actually tried to take out a head of state at the drop of a hat. And it worked. Political leaders do not usually try to have political leaders assassinated or targeted. It's kind of a gentlemen's agreement that profits all the leaders around the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:00:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Japanese politesse grew out of a culture in which the nobles and their retainers were allowed to kill rude peasants and duel to the death with rude noblemen and their retainers. An armed society is a polite society. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After watching Rare Historical Photos #3 on Liveleaks, my question is this, what makes soldiers want to punish and kill innocent civilians? I understand the civilians may be helping the soldiers, insurgency, or whatever you wish to call the natives. Can you blame them. It could happen here and many of you or your neighbors would be these people. I have always held The United States of America to a higher standard than the rest of the nations of the world. Go to Japan now and look at the way being polite has fostered a society of people who go out of their way to be helpful. The Japanese were brutal fighters in the war, showing no mercy to surrendering opponents. Look at what they have evolved into as a collective. Not bad, just more reserved. The Slavic and African peoples have become very adjusted to many of the horrors that the world can put upon a people. As a result they have become very insensitive, much like the Chinese. It seems as though there should be a balance. Parts of the world have it and others do not. I'm no expert on war retaliation, and am left wondering if we all become bad whilst dealing with great tragedy and suffering. I would hope to rise above it to find meaning and right. Where are we headed and what will we become. I'm not sure how you made the leap into thinking Japanese culture somehow evolved politeness out of the horrors of WWII. Is that a published theory, if did you invent it? I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that most of Japan's politeness predates WWII by a few centuries. They evolved a brutal warlike military culture parallel to, and in spite of their Civilian culture. Same as Germany. And Britain. And US. Never underestimate the evil inherent in each of us. Banality of evil. Duality of Man. Japanese politesse grew out of a culture in which the nobles and their retainers were allowed to kill rude peasants and duel to the death with rude noblemen and their retainers. An armed society is a polite society. Even, apparently, when only the upper class is allowed to possess arms.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:02:55 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. And wasted lives and money. Sherman was correct. TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:04:22 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it. In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives. Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method. Name one. Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war. World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up. Firebomboming of Dresden and Tokyo might disprove your point. TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:05:18 PM EDT
[#45]
For fuck's sake. Can any of you people read the whole thread before talking about Dresden or Japan? You aren't a special snowflake. You aren't the first person in a 2 page thread to think about it. Just read the whole thread before replying.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:08:07 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even, apparently, when only the upper class is allowed to possess arms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Japanese politesse grew out of a culture in which the nobles and their retainers were allowed to kill rude peasants and duel to the death with rude noblemen and their retainers. An armed society is a polite society. Even, apparently, when only the upper class is allowed to possess arms. As long as they have the freedom to use them at will. I bet the peasants were nasty to one another, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:08:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as they have the freedom to use them at will. I bet the peasants were nasty to one another, though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Japanese politesse grew out of a culture in which the nobles and their retainers were allowed to kill rude peasants and duel to the death with rude noblemen and their retainers. An armed society is a polite society. Even, apparently, when only the upper class is allowed to possess arms. As long as they have the freedom to use them at will. I bet the peasants were nasty to one another, though. Probably, but they had to use household farming implements to do it. No actual weapons permitted for anyone but the ruling elite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:09:19 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For fuck's sake. Can any of you people read the whole thread before talking about Dresden or Japan? You aren't a special snowflake. You aren't the first person in a 2 page thread to think about it. Just read the whole thread before replying. Putting this at the end of the thread is useless. You need to make this a big edit to your first post to be effective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:11:07 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Putting this at the end of the thread is useless. You need to make this a big edit to your first post to be effective. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For fuck's sake. Can any of you people read the whole thread before talking about Dresden or Japan? You aren't a special snowflake. You aren't the first person in a 2 page thread to think about it. Just read the whole thread before replying. Putting this at the end of the thread is useless. You need to make this a big edit to your first post to be effective. I can't do anything about it in this thread. It's the culture of Arfcom, sadly. What I can do, hopefully, is shame those who do into behaving better in another thread. Not particularly hopeful about that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2013 12:27:23 PM EDT
[#50]
There are quite a few misbehavers around here.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
