The only nonfiction that ever gave me bad dreams

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
We should have to do "some quick educational program" before we vote. Politicians are in office because we chose them, and we're dangerously uninformed as a whole. Just my rant about voter responsibility (or lack thereof).

Good book

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe both is in order. Maybe certain texts should be required reading in highschool/college in order to get a certain rating. I know they already have this, but I know a lot of people that made it through Yale and never even heard the about the book called "The Prince".

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
"1) The opposing nation is doomed anyway, but fails to accept it. (I am not aware of any attack on civilians that have turned the tide of war.) The tide of war must heavily favor the attacking nation."

If anything this suggests to me a situation where it is even less acceptable. Victory is inevitable whether you attack the civilians or not; attacking them seems to be purely gratuitous. (OK I accept this is incombination with the second reason).


[/ QUOTE ]

The bold sentence says it all. I'm glad you caught it.

[ QUOTE ]
"2) The estimated cost of life is much larger via conventional means then unconventional means."

This is a hard one to estimate with any sort of accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I talked to my dad about this. My grandfather was in WWII and he and everyone else at that time was very happy they did not have to invade Japan. The stories of Iwo Jima were simply too harsh to contemplate invading Japan at the time.
Japanese attrition defending this home ground fortress was close to 100%. The marines fought in WWII for 43 months. Yet in one month on Iwo Jima, 1/3 of their total deaths occured. Guadalcanal wasn't a pleasant run either. At the time it was obvious to most people that an invasion would be a very very bad thing. If you have proof of "experts" thinking otherwise feel free to post, but the numbers from these battles don't lie. The mood of the soldiers was that they were generally eager to get to Berlin, but almost fearfull of going to Japan.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, is this how it really worked out? The casualties of the bombings must have approached 1mn; would an invasion really have cost this many lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many American/Allied lives did it save? If the japanes lives lost was the same, then I think the massive number of Allied lives that were saved is more than enough reason to drop the bombs.

According to Wikipedia:
140,000 for Hiroshima, and 100,000 for Nagisaki. That is 240,000 for the nukes. If you include Tokyo, that is 340,000. Even with Tokyo, that is about 1/3 of the casualty rate described by Truman.

Then there is this, which I think is the deal sealer. Koki Hirota had met with the Russians and were planning on splitting up Asia and forming an alliance. That would of been a very bad thing. I would rather see Hitler in power then see that happen. (Sorry Gamblor) Hitler was a cuddly puppy compared to Shiro Ishii and Stalin. Because of the timeline of these events, I highly doubt this is what caused the bombs to be dropped. Rather, I think the bombs came just in time. Only Truman and his advisors really know, but I refuse to become a conspiracy theorist. Britain agreed to drop the bomb even before any deals were made between Japan and Russia anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
And I stand by my basic moral that you should not fight people who are not and cannot be fighting you (eg children) and have no means of defending themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ideology vs. Pragmatic It is a classic battle. When you are too pragmatic, you become ruthless and heartless. When you are way too far into your ideology, you can become blind to impending doom. I think ideology wins in the europe, but when it comes to Japan it is a different story. There are some things I think some people cannot understand without experience. One of these is the nature of war. The crazier and more ruthless the enemy, the crazier and more ruthless you have to become. Japan is no exception. As for the "experts" that think that Japan may of folded due to lack of supplies to mainland Japan, just look at the link of that guy that waited 29 years to surrender. He is not alone. Those people were nuts. Also, the deals with Russia show Japan was ready to go to even bigger extremes. I have a very difficult time believing we could of squashed Japan without becomming ruthless.

[ QUOTE ]
"3) The attacking nation has no intention of exploiting or persecuting the nation it is attacking."

I don;t really see the relevance of this. Clearly that is a sine qua non of just warfare regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be, but it isn't always. In order for a dominating army to successfully campaign against an enemy and minimize loss of life by attacking civilians, the civilians have to know that their religious rights, as well as civil rights will not be hindered. I think it is relevant when trying to alter the mood of the populace.

These are my rules, they will have flaws, but I think if you meet these rules then you can't complain. And I think America has met these rules. It's an inclusive vs. exclusive arguement that I am trying to avoid. I can't make the perfect rule set that covers all situations.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The USA was isolationist from the end of the first world war until Pearl Harbor.

[/ QUOTE ]
US Marines invaded and occupied Haiti in 1915 and the Dominican Republic in 1916, in order to establish pro-American regimes there, and stayed there for 19 years and 8 years respectively!

The period between the two world wars was a period of consolidation of American power in the world, the new found power after the country's victory in the Spanish-American War of 1897 and the participation in WWI. And there would have been more military adventurism abroad if it wasn't for the 1929 crisis -- which lasted practically until Pearl Harbour!

There was never any serious consideration of "isolationism" within the American political or military leadership at any time during that period! Quite the contrary in fact -- such as the belligerent talk about "America's natural markets" (i.e. East Asia), that led to antagonism from Japan.

But don't just take my word for it. Take the word of America's most decorated US Marine General, who wrote a booklet titled "War Is a Racket". Essential reading for Americans.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
There was never any serious consideration of "isolationism" within the American political or military leadership at any time during that period!

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true.

However, the populace had a strong isolationist stance and the political/military leaders were not able to ignore or reverse this until pearl harbor.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[In the period between the two world wars] the [American] populace had a strong isolationist stance and the political/military leaders were not able to ignore or reverse this until Pearl Harbor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, you are talking about the populace! And how it felt about war. I thought we were talking about American policy and how the leadership defined it.

Yes, of course, the majority of the public did not care about foreign military adventures much! Politicians called it "isolationism" while it was plain old common folk sense, opposing the hot air exhumed by politicians of both parties. (Howard Zinn's "People's History of The United States", among other books, is quite informative on the issue.)

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
(Howard Zinn's "People's History of The United States", among other books, is quite informative on the issue.)

[/ QUOTE ]
And remember, he is completely unbiased. ^^

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Howard Zinn's "People's History of The United States", among other books, is quite informative on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
And remember, he is completely unbiased

[/ QUOTE ]
No one is completely unbiased.

[zaxx19]

Most are less biased than Howard Zinn....even Zinn would probably acknowledge this. His book actually is pretty well researched but really isnt much of a historical text but more like a handbook for progressives looking to make small narrow points....his treatment of broad themes and ideas is really quite superficial and laughable.

[lastchance]

Zinn states somewhere in the People's History of the United States, I believe in the preface, that he is biased toward the disenfranchised, and this is ok because every other history book is biased the other way.

That's the joke when I say Zinn is completely unbiased.

Still, I think Zinn is an interesting read, from what little we had to read on him from school, and certainly interjects a very different view of American history.

Just saying you shouldn't take his text as gospel.

[zaxx19]

I have no problem with Zinn..he openly admits who he is as a thinker, and where his P.O.V. comes from. His book isnt really meant to be a primary text on U.S. history but rather an account of those he believes have been widely ignored in orthodox historiography.

What I DO have a problem wiuth is progressive journalists and authors who act like their perspective is gospel. College professors who tech liberal doctrince as fact are pretty annoying also.