Hiroshima

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by micky1up

you havent a clue what your saying with the kamakazi mentality that every veteran will tell you about an invasion would have cost millions thats a fact every island taken cost thousands and where defended fanatically the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few

When brought into perspective....

Battle of Iwo Jima
KIA
Navy 934
Marine 4907
--------------------------------------------

Iraq current deaths as of 2003 - Dec 26th 2007 = 3900 killed 28,661 wounded...Civillians and contractors X 10 at least this amount....DOD stats.

A single battles losses on Iwo Jima is almost inconcievable to me as a person living today...I thank God for the decision made to end that war as soon as possible.War sucks period.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Iceman

A single battles losses on Iwo Jima is almost inconcievable to me as a person living today...I thank God for the decision made to end that war as soon as possible.War sucks period.

If it's war you don't like, then the fastest way to end a war is to lose it.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Letum

If it's war you don't like, then the fastest way to end a war is to lose it.

...O...K.:hmm:

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Iceman

...O...K.:hmm:

He took it from a famous quote....I don't know who said it first though....

[Tchocky]

It was Orwell to begin with

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It was Orwell to begin with

You sure?
Doesn't sound like him.
I thaught it was Oscar Wilde....*goes to check*

*Edit* Neither, it was Mark Twain.
*Edit2* Perhaps it was Orwell, I'm finding it hard to track down. Conflicting sources.
*Edit3* Looks like Orwell did make such a quote, but I find it hard to belive that the quote started with him.

[Skybird]

I always considered it to be mad and illusive to try judging acts, decisons and events of war with moral standards from peace time. war and peace are not just two different conditions. They are two totally different things. Using standards of the one to judge the other does not make any sense. Habits and standards of peace may influence the decsion to end this state and eventually go to war. but once war is there, all universe collapses, and all world turns upside down.

The question "how many nukes would have been acceptable" therefore makes not the smallest sense. the only logical question is "what to do to end the war as soon and as cheap for our side as possible"? And considering that this was not a minor engagement born of isunderstanding, but a war on a global scale, between two kinds of ideologies that claim power ovr all world, this question needs to be asked even sharper, sicne just ending the war in a draw was not acceptable anymnore in this context: "How to win the war as fast and as cheap as possible?"

the answer is the same like in every war: "By inflicting as much destruction, death, suffering on the enemy as is needed to make him giving up or to turn him impotent to continue the war."

Don't judge war by standards of peace, and do not judge peace by standards of war - both are two totally different worlds, literally. the only link between them is the chance that one could learn lessons and prevent mistakes that had been done once to be done again - regarding both peace and war. But history teaches me that this learning process often does not take place, or leads to hysteric avoidance of reality.

If you are not willing to fight, then don't start to fight, personally, or a war, it does not matter. If you start to fight, be prepared to stop at nothing needed to win - even if it means your own destruction. - I am aware that if you are in a bad mood, you will feel invited to misunderstand me. But it is good advise. It teaches you the value of peace - and why not accepting to easily trigger a war - or accept the threat of war by an opponent intimidating you.

[joegrundman]

Do you not think what you are saying, skybird, fails to take into account the long western tradition of Just War? That tradition includes jus in bello as well as jus ad bellum, which is to say that the Just in the means of fighting war are also to be taken into account as well as the Just in the reasons for going to war.

It is not the case, in our history nor at present, that anything goes once the shooting starts.

However, in the second world war, the willingness of all combatant nations to direct their killing at non-combatants was something moreorless unique to that conflict. Certainly in terms of western war, i think only the 30 years war featured anything like it.

[Skybird]

There is no thing like "just war". Justice is a concept for peace. As I said, I do not see reason in mixing standards of peace with standards of war, and vice versa.

Look at the face of a soldier lying dead on the ground with his face blown away from a bullet, and then try to argue concerning "justice". It does not matter what uniform he wears.

justice only plays a role in reasoning over the question wether one wishes to go to war, or not. Once the decision for war has been installed, justive stops to exist. There even is no injustice. There simply is war. War means the gates to hell have opened. So be careful wether or not you wish to vote for war - you've been warned.

Think of it as entering a differerent world, another planet, with a foreign race of aliens, whose language, culture and thinking you do not understand, and whose acts appear to you to be insane.

I frankly believe that there are only wars of choice and wars of need. WWII was a war of need. Iraq was a war of choice. What a "just" war should be I even cannot imagine. To me, "jujst wars" is just an eyxcuse to nice-talk war in general and make it easier to be accepted by the crowds, and make it easier for soldiers to do the killing.

[Letum]

Morality is universal and unchanging.
What is moral one day, does not become immoral the next.
A politician can not change what it right and wrong by declaring war.

[Skybird]

Letum,


in times of peace it is considered murderl to shoot at somebody else you have never seen before.

In times of war you get a medal for it, and the crowd at home applauds your courage.

Peace means order. war means chaos. Peace is a chance to foster the best in man. War brings out the worst in man. Peace knows laws, and rules. War knows the needs for survival. the logic of poeace (ideally) is reason. The logic of war is "kill or get killed".

I see where you come from, Leturm, but you deceive yourself. Ironically, by ninsisting to fight war in a humane way, you acheive exactly what you want to prevent: you helpt to make war more liekly, by sweet-talking about it, and telling fairy tales about it.

You may refuse to use a sword. Okay. but you still can get killed by a sword.

Moral is if both participants in dispute do not start a war, and do not put the other so much under pressure that he cannot evade to go to war, else he breaks down. That is nice and well - as long as their is peace. OPnce war has broken out, all that becomes terms of a different world and age. Moral? If you see an enemy soldier aiming at your buddy standing tne meters away, do you shoot at the enemy and kill him? you killed, then, according to you that is immoral. If you do not shoot, you have not killed. And your buddy gets killed. Is that moral?

The right decision is to shoot at the enemy soldier. It is neither moral nor immoral. It is the logic of war which has replaced moral. Logic of war led to trying to break public minds by aerial bombardment of cities. Some said it became immoral when it became clear that this did not work. but nevrtheless id destroyed factpories, infrastructure, commlinks. I would have ordered it from the first to the last day on that conflict WWII. the civilians on the ground would not have been my intended target. They just would have happened to stand in my way. and if they would have pointed weapons at me or would have become a significant source of support for the enemy army, I would have targetted them as well. Moral? Immoral? Neither the one, nor the other: but the logic of war.

Just meaning it well is not good enough, Letum. If you want peace and civilisation, you need more. just demanding that war should be waged "civilised", will see you ending up with more well-meant wars than you intended to see, and with weak forces of your own, half-hearted efforts, and ultimate failure. Leave morals to moralists (they are already evil enough), and leave war to warriors.

[Letum]

No, It is not murder to shoot a enemy soildger in war time, but this is not because
there has been a change in morality.

To claim that morality does not apply to war is....well, immoral.

Would you have those guilty of war crimes go free because they acted under your "logic of war" ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

To claim that morality does not apply to war is....well, immoral.

War is immoral - by peacetime standards. In war times, it just is - war.

War crimes are considered acts of military questionable value. Mai Lai was bad. but the fires in Hamburg and Dresden were even worse, considering the ammount of suffering and the sheer numbers of people getting killed. Nevertheless we consider the worse thing to be an act of twar, and the rape and killing in Mai Lai a crime. To me that makes as much sense as the declaration of no-go zones in orthern vietnam, that helped the vietcong to safely stockpile their supplies, instead of shattering the whole compound. That may habe brought up the Chinese, or not - but that should have been considered BEFORE going to war.

When you go to war, war crimes and Mai Lais happen. they will happen, every time, every war. It happened in Iraq, in Afghanistan. when you weage ar, expect war crimes happening. maybe you want to re-consider wether or not to wage war.

Again, what you say, Letum, is all right and just and has it'S place - BEFORE war is declared. When war is there, it is a complete set of rules, on the operational basis as well as on the individual basis. I would say as little cruelty as can be afforded, but as muc cruelty to make sure the enemy gets destroyed and the war gets won, no matter how, no matter the costs. The only question needing to be asked is wether or not a given act of cruelty is contributing to these goals, or not. Mai Lai did not. Hiroshima did. Tjhat'S why I do not defend Mai Lai, but defend the use of nukes against Japan. If they would not have capitulated and there would have been enough bombs, I would have plastered it with nukes until all four islands sink into the ocean, and even if it would have killed myself. According morals questions regarding my own survival, or how far I would be willing to go in nwar, I mst decide and answer BEFORe I vote for war, not when having started it and find myself in flowing of events.

the same works backwards as well: once you have won and control the situation, you usually gradually switch back to peacetime vlues and laws and codes and standards. Martial law ends. Killing becomes murder again. The killing in war nevertheless is no special rule in your code of morals - it is the complete absence of your moral code. Where you stick to war rules in times of peace, you become in illegal occupant, or a tyrant. Where you stick to rules of peace in scenes of war, you become prey, looser, dead. Note that many UN missions are run with attempts to show humane considerations. Most of them fail miserably, becasue they have no tools available to deal with brute force they are confronted with, and are hindered by well-meaning idiotism. Like the Dutch in Screbrenica, for example, or the whole Balkan mission that does not solve anything, only hides the pressure in the kettle by putting it under the bed. Or it leads to arrogance and assumptions that those in whose lands one is fighting, will love you nevertheless, so that you mujst not secure the ground you won in combat.: exmaples are Iraq, Afghanistan.

Wage war, or don'T. That simple it is. Be aware of what it means to wage war, and do not listen to soft-talking well-meaning bigots telling you how smooth and easy it will go, and how fast it will be over, and hopw just it all is. If you wage war, make sure you still can defend your opinion in favour of war afterwards. If you can'T, your reasons in advance were too weak, or completely wrong. But foul excuses nobody wants to hear.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

War crimes are considered acts of military questionable value.

No, they are acts of questionable moral value.

Ordering your army to wear party hats and throw turkeys at the enemy is a act of
questionable military value.

Not observing the wartime shipping code is a excelent millitary tactic, but it is also
a war crime.

[Skybird]

If Mai Lai would have turned into residents giving away precious military information that would have saved hundred's of GIs lives and dleivered the Vietcong a mssive defeat in the next major engagement, Mai Lai'S reputation of having been a warcrime would be "under review".

So what precious sense does your morals make here? None.

Throwing turkeys at an enemy, eh? I give your 9 of 10 points for that picture.

What is wartime shipping code? Probably i heared of it, but not under this English term. you mean transfers of good into an area where is fighting taking place?

Well, when Julius Ceasar besieged the last village of the Gauls, he built to rings of walls, defending to the outside, and besieging to the inside. When the Gauls ran out of food, they send their children and wifes outside their fortress, hoping the Romans would take them in captivity, and feed them. But Ceasars food stocks were limited, he did not accept to put the power of his army at risk, and he saw a chance for the gauls giving up when seing their families being turned away by the Romans, so of course he did not accept to let them in, and he had three good and solid reasons for it. they stayed in no man's land, suffering, starving. I would have decided the same. the Romans won. the Gauls were defeated, totally. end of story.

when King Richard "Lionheart" had taken Akkon in a rush, several hundred Muhammedan warriors fell into his hands. While he needed to move on, he had to decide what to do with them. Sahaladdin had not reacted to the offer of exchanging prisoners, for whatever reasons. Richard had to leave for another fight. If he left the prisoners behind, it would have meant to have a strong potential force in his rear if they would manage to overthrow the few guards he could afford to leave behind. Also, his supply lines were extremely stretched, and stocks were low. He made the only decision that made sense: he killed all prisoners.

Just years before, I forgot the exact details, a small crusader force was overwhelmed by Muhammedans much higher in the north. The army of the europeans consisted of kings, princes and noble men. The kingdom of the muhammedan army was nearby. they were numerically superior, and in very good supply. Nevertheless - they killed all their prisoners, wishing to send an intimidating message of fear to eurpeans saying "Look what we do with the best you can send! Want to carry on?".

Ignore the islam part here, compare both cases directly. As we know, there were more crusades coming, trying to free the former christian province, and inofficially for reasons of leaders trying to win wealth, influence and power. So the intended terror tactics of the Muhammedans did not work. Their act, according to you, was an act of war crime then, even back in those times when prisoners usually were exchanged for your own missed people, or for gold. Now imagine that europe would have been intimidated indeed, and would have stopped trying to free Jerusalem from the aggressors. then the terror tactic would have made sense, crusades would habe been called off, many battles would not have taken place, many cities not being destroyed and their population terrorised, many people would not have been killed, and for the time being, at least in that single one province there would have been a moment of short peace, ignoring the drive into Spain, France, Balkans etc.

Would it still have been a warcrime then, or would it have been a successful military tactic? :hm: Obviously the success would have justified the means, for it was war which would have been cut short and ended victorious from the Muslim's view. Like the A-bombs ended the war in the pacific.

What sense does it make,l what value lies in a code of morals, that is designed for peacetimes, in peacvetimes, and by peaceful minds, and necessarily in wartimes leads to such mad and contradictory assessements, depending on the outcome of the event that is to be judged? If the outcome is deciding wether or not something is immoral or not, what use is it to talk of basic moarls that rule both peace and war, and do not change in time and space?

And does it make the deed being done, the killing being committed, more just, or less just? Is there a 2just war" then, nevertheless?

It all is chasing phantoms only. When there is war, justice and morals are absent - else there would not be war. the one is the absence of the other.

So better make sure your reasons to go to war are valid, and solid. But when you go to war, don'T hesitate for a second to let all hell breaking loose if that is what is needed to secure victory, and defeat for the enemy.


You may think my thinking is grim. It is. Ironically you also may have noted over the years that I am far more hesitent to accept reasons for going to a war than some other people here who are very loose-tongued about it.