Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes...I suppose I am naive to think the American ruling class should not resort to total war and the unjust mass murder of innocents, in war.Yeah, this is done. You are extremely naive. You are not aware of the reality of the situation.Is your first sentence some kind of ignorant justification for mass murder of innocents?All war is inhuman and all wars have collateral damage.Don't be silly.That was really not the question.I do not dispute that Dirty Harry killed 200k innocent Japanese to impress Uncle Joe. That in no way can be considered anything but a war crime.
The question was if you would have chosen a war with the USSR.
You are avoiding the subject by your tongue and cheek comment about Truman wanting to "impress Uncle Joe."
No, it was a lot more than that. You seem to ignore the reality of the cold war and you are refusing to see that the USSR was looking to take over the region.
Look at how communism did spread over the next decades following WWII. You cannot and will not see the reality.
Instead it is all about flaming America. Your zeal is blinding you to the actual reality of the situation Truman was in.
If you think Truman's criminal act was appropriate because it somehow contained the USSR, you are not only wrong but inhuman.
I asked a simple question and I am sure that it is causing cognitive dissonance. So much so that you are simply not answering it.
The USSR (stalin) was pushing his ideology. Remember also that the USSR had real problems financially after the war. Stalin was encroaching into the far east. This is actually documented. Not sure why anyone is denying this.
Stalin was pushing his weight around and as I said the cold war began BEFORE WWII was over. After the Yalta Conference, the soviets were no longer ALLIES with the US.
Stalin knew that he would be able to push his weight around based on the fact that the American people would not stand for another long drawn out war that would leave hundreds of thousands of Americans killed.
Patton, from a tactical position was right. All of war is about logistics. Those who have logistical advantages and those who don't. That is all the professionals study. Logistics. When any general senses logistical advantages they act accordingly.
However, politically it would not be possible. That is NOT what generals are and history is filled with generals or colonels arguing with politicians.
Again, those bombs were dropped to stop an impending bloody war with the soviets. Remember a few things. One, Soviets did not have the bomb. Two, time was of the essence. The soviets were encroaching rapidly. Three, there were no satellites so there was no precision bombing.
The story that the US sold to the world and American people was true to some extent. If they did not drop the bombs, that would have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives lost on all sides. However, what they did not tell was the fact that it was the Soviets that we would have been at war with.
The American public was not aware at the time of the cold war that was going on. Remember, they had spent the previous 4 or 5 years understanding the soviets were allies.
You won't answer the question and I am guessing this paradigm shift is causing problems for you. You deal with it by denying there was a real problem with the soviets. You refuse to believe that a war with the soviets was imminent. Of course immediately following WWII, the cold war was a well documented conflict that lasted 40 years.
Thanks to the left wing commie sympathizers and traitors Stalin got the secrets to the bomb. Shortly after the rosenbergs, the nuclear arms race began.
You are simply naive.
Please stop with your silliness.
It is clear to anyone willing to think, that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary and a war crime.
You would have chosen war with the USSR.
Good for you.
Your long posts are tedious, stupid, and off point.There is no way the soviets could control the region. They had no navy and nearly no air forces. The USA had an enormous military presence surrounding Japan.If they had surrendered to stalin, then stalin would have controlled the region.The US military had complete control of the air and sea around Japan. It would not have mattered if they surrendered to the USSR, the US controlled the region.Ok, you won't answer the question. It's cool.
Oh and on a side note, if Japan planned on surrendering to the USSR, what do you do?
For the record, they were not surrendering.
You realize they did not surrender until USSR backed off and after the second bomb, right?
Just wasn't sure if you knew that.
Understand that the cold war had begun.
Understand that the bombs were to prevent a war with the USSR.
You don't buy that. I get it.
The question is, if dropping the bombs prevented a war with the USSR, was it worth it?
You don't have to believe it to answer. Remember, August 8th 1945, the USSR declared war on Japan. August 9th, fat boy was dropped. Is that a bizarre coincidence? Russia was clearly trying to take over the whole region. Stalin knew the American people would not be behind another long war. If anything, the USSR spies certainly had the pulse of the American people. That only emboldened the encroachment.
Patton knew all too well what was happening and he wanted a war with them.
The bombs were dropped in order to save us from a long drawn out war with Russia.
Period. Still not quite sure what your choice would be if what I am saying is true.
I have to ask. Did you study World War II on anything but the History Channel? Because your knowledge of the subject is sorely lacking.
Soviet Air Forces - Wikipedia
Soviets produced some 140,000 planes during the war. Oh, and they had the highest scoring ace of any Allied power.
What hampered the Soviets in the early part of the war was less about the quality of the planes, but the lack of experienced pilots, and ground crews. Also the speed of advance of the German Army. This was a problem that was solved when the pilots lived long enough to learn. Stalin had a theory, a soldier learned everything they needed to know in five minutes of combat. If they lived, there wasn't much about war you could teach them.
The Soviets pretty much denied the Luftwaffe the skies over the Battle of Kursk. That means they fought the most experienced Air Force in the world to a standstill.
The Soviets performed the first trans polar flight. Best of all their planes worked in the winter, which the German Planes generally speaking, didn't.
Soviet Snipers racked up hundreds of kills. Soviet women were on the front lines killing Fascists. One woman came to the United States and was introduced to the American Press. She had been invalided from the front lines after her third wound. That was after she had killed 309 Germans.
The Soviets adapted a modern battle rifle after World War II, this was the AK-47. The Americans used the M-1 Garand, and then the M-14, the M-16, M-16A1, M-16A2, M-4, and other specialized variants of the same bloody rifle. The Russians still use the AK-47. It is cheap, reliable, rugged as hell, and is not affected by elements like the AR platform is. In fact, the "modern" AR's use the same Gas Operating Rod system that the AK has. The one we used to use on the M-1 and M-14's.
It's fun to pretend that everything awesome in the world is American, but that fantasy is dangerous. Because it means you underestimate your opponent.
One last thing. There was a joke in the Army during the 1980's that was still around when I showed up at Fort Bragg. Two Soviet Generals are having coffee in Paris, one turns to the second and asks. "So who won the air war?"
It will probably take you a minute to get it.
The Soviets managed to shoot down a U-2 spy plane. The Soviets managed a lot of things.
One example. NASA realized the Astronauts would need to take notes in space. But a ball point pen would not work. Gravity pulls the ink to the ball allowing it to be spread on the paper by the rolling of the ball. NASA literally spent a million dollars developing a pen that worked in space. These pens are sold in most office supply stores now as "space pens". They write upside down, under water. They're awesome.
The Soviets had the same need, to take notes in space. The soviets used a pencil. The Russian Cosmonauts today, still use a pencil.
The Soviets developed the first of the Reactive Armor systems. These were explosives that were placed around the vehicle and when an enemy warhead struck the armor, the explosive blew out stopping the warhead from penetrating. We smart Americans laughed our asses off. Then we saw it actually worked. Now, our most advanced defense industries are developing radar and laser activated interceptor systems for enemy warheads that are basically ten times as expensive and don't work any better than the systems the Soviets came up with in the 1970's.
If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid. Murphy's laws of Combat.
You won't find Ralph Raico's opinion of Truman and the A-bombings on the history channel. You will find your view widely promoted on the History Channel.
Clearly ...you are statist dupe.
Yes...I suppose I am naive to think the American ruling class should not resort to total war and the unjust mass murder of innocents, in war.Yeah, this is done. You are extremely naive. You are not aware of the reality of the situation.Is your first sentence some kind of ignorant justification for mass murder of innocents?All war is inhuman and all wars have collateral damage.Don't be silly.That was really not the question.
The question was if you would have chosen a war with the USSR.
You are avoiding the subject by your tongue and cheek comment about Truman wanting to "impress Uncle Joe."
No, it was a lot more than that. You seem to ignore the reality of the cold war and you are refusing to see that the USSR was looking to take over the region.
Look at how communism did spread over the next decades following WWII. You cannot and will not see the reality.
Instead it is all about flaming America. Your zeal is blinding you to the actual reality of the situation Truman was in.
If you think Truman's criminal act was appropriate because it somehow contained the USSR, you are not only wrong but inhuman.
I asked a simple question and I am sure that it is causing cognitive dissonance. So much so that you are simply not answering it.
The USSR (stalin) was pushing his ideology. Remember also that the USSR had real problems financially after the war. Stalin was encroaching into the far east. This is actually documented. Not sure why anyone is denying this.
Stalin was pushing his weight around and as I said the cold war began BEFORE WWII was over. After the Yalta Conference, the soviets were no longer ALLIES with the US.
Stalin knew that he would be able to push his weight around based on the fact that the American people would not stand for another long drawn out war that would leave hundreds of thousands of Americans killed.
Patton, from a tactical position was right. All of war is about logistics. Those who have logistical advantages and those who don't. That is all the professionals study. Logistics. When any general senses logistical advantages they act accordingly.
However, politically it would not be possible. That is NOT what generals are and history is filled with generals or colonels arguing with politicians.
Again, those bombs were dropped to stop an impending bloody war with the soviets. Remember a few things. One, Soviets did not have the bomb. Two, time was of the essence. The soviets were encroaching rapidly. Three, there were no satellites so there was no precision bombing.
The story that the US sold to the world and American people was true to some extent. If they did not drop the bombs, that would have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives lost on all sides. However, what they did not tell was the fact that it was the Soviets that we would have been at war with.
The American public was not aware at the time of the cold war that was going on. Remember, they had spent the previous 4 or 5 years understanding the soviets were allies.
You won't answer the question and I am guessing this paradigm shift is causing problems for you. You deal with it by denying there was a real problem with the soviets. You refuse to believe that a war with the soviets was imminent. Of course immediately following WWII, the cold war was a well documented conflict that lasted 40 years.
Thanks to the left wing commie sympathizers and traitors Stalin got the secrets to the bomb. Shortly after the rosenbergs, the nuclear arms race began.
You are simply naive.
Please stop with your silliness.
It is clear to anyone willing to think, that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary and a war crime.
You would have chosen war with the USSR.
Good for you.
War is Hell...so mass murder of innocents is acceptable, but only if done by American forces. If done by Germans, Japanese, or any other nation...well that is a FUCKING WAR CRIME.
CAN'T FIX STUPID.
You accused me of getting my opinion from the History Channel, yet you must know that channel would never condemn Truman's actions, but does gladly commend his actions.Your long posts are tedious, stupid, and off point.There is no way the soviets could control the region. They had no navy and nearly no air forces. The USA had an enormous military presence surrounding Japan.If they had surrendered to stalin, then stalin would have controlled the region.The US military had complete control of the air and sea around Japan. It would not have mattered if they surrendered to the USSR, the US controlled the region.
Understand that the cold war had begun.
Understand that the bombs were to prevent a war with the USSR.
You don't buy that. I get it.
The question is, if dropping the bombs prevented a war with the USSR, was it worth it?
You don't have to believe it to answer. Remember, August 8th 1945, the USSR declared war on Japan. August 9th, fat boy was dropped. Is that a bizarre coincidence? Russia was clearly trying to take over the whole region. Stalin knew the American people would not be behind another long war. If anything, the USSR spies certainly had the pulse of the American people. That only emboldened the encroachment.
Patton knew all too well what was happening and he wanted a war with them.
The bombs were dropped in order to save us from a long drawn out war with Russia.
Period. Still not quite sure what your choice would be if what I am saying is true.
I have to ask. Did you study World War II on anything but the History Channel? Because your knowledge of the subject is sorely lacking.
Soviet Air Forces - Wikipedia
Soviets produced some 140,000 planes during the war. Oh, and they had the highest scoring ace of any Allied power.
What hampered the Soviets in the early part of the war was less about the quality of the planes, but the lack of experienced pilots, and ground crews. Also the speed of advance of the German Army. This was a problem that was solved when the pilots lived long enough to learn. Stalin had a theory, a soldier learned everything they needed to know in five minutes of combat. If they lived, there wasn't much about war you could teach them.
The Soviets pretty much denied the Luftwaffe the skies over the Battle of Kursk. That means they fought the most experienced Air Force in the world to a standstill.
The Soviets performed the first trans polar flight. Best of all their planes worked in the winter, which the German Planes generally speaking, didn't.
Soviet Snipers racked up hundreds of kills. Soviet women were on the front lines killing Fascists. One woman came to the United States and was introduced to the American Press. She had been invalided from the front lines after her third wound. That was after she had killed 309 Germans.
The Soviets adapted a modern battle rifle after World War II, this was the AK-47. The Americans used the M-1 Garand, and then the M-14, the M-16, M-16A1, M-16A2, M-4, and other specialized variants of the same bloody rifle. The Russians still use the AK-47. It is cheap, reliable, rugged as hell, and is not affected by elements like the AR platform is. In fact, the "modern" AR's use the same Gas Operating Rod system that the AK has. The one we used to use on the M-1 and M-14's.
It's fun to pretend that everything awesome in the world is American, but that fantasy is dangerous. Because it means you underestimate your opponent.
One last thing. There was a joke in the Army during the 1980's that was still around when I showed up at Fort Bragg. Two Soviet Generals are having coffee in Paris, one turns to the second and asks. "So who won the air war?"
It will probably take you a minute to get it.
The Soviets managed to shoot down a U-2 spy plane. The Soviets managed a lot of things.
One example. NASA realized the Astronauts would need to take notes in space. But a ball point pen would not work. Gravity pulls the ink to the ball allowing it to be spread on the paper by the rolling of the ball. NASA literally spent a million dollars developing a pen that worked in space. These pens are sold in most office supply stores now as "space pens". They write upside down, under water. They're awesome.
The Soviets had the same need, to take notes in space. The soviets used a pencil. The Russian Cosmonauts today, still use a pencil.
The Soviets developed the first of the Reactive Armor systems. These were explosives that were placed around the vehicle and when an enemy warhead struck the armor, the explosive blew out stopping the warhead from penetrating. We smart Americans laughed our asses off. Then we saw it actually worked. Now, our most advanced defense industries are developing radar and laser activated interceptor systems for enemy warheads that are basically ten times as expensive and don't work any better than the systems the Soviets came up with in the 1970's.
If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid. Murphy's laws of Combat.
You won't find Ralph Raico's opinion of Truman and the A-bombings on the history channel. You will find your view widely promoted on the History Channel.
Clearly ...you are statist dupe.
Well, let's see. I got the Stalin quote on training a soldier from Churchil's books on the Second World War. A rather lengthy series of four books. I'd suggest that you try reading it. Not really something you'll see on the History Channel. I mean, how do you pare down four long books to a single hour long special?
After you read that, let me know, and I'll give you some other books to read.
Yes...I suppose I am naive to think the American ruling class should not resort to total war and the unjust mass murder of innocents, in war.Yeah, this is done. You are extremely naive. You are not aware of the reality of the situation.Is your first sentence some kind of ignorant justification for mass murder of innocents?All war is inhuman and all wars have collateral damage.Don't be silly.
If you think Truman's criminal act was appropriate because it somehow contained the USSR, you are not only wrong but inhuman.
I asked a simple question and I am sure that it is causing cognitive dissonance. So much so that you are simply not answering it.
The USSR (stalin) was pushing his ideology. Remember also that the USSR had real problems financially after the war. Stalin was encroaching into the far east. This is actually documented. Not sure why anyone is denying this.
Stalin was pushing his weight around and as I said the cold war began BEFORE WWII was over. After the Yalta Conference, the soviets were no longer ALLIES with the US.
Stalin knew that he would be able to push his weight around based on the fact that the American people would not stand for another long drawn out war that would leave hundreds of thousands of Americans killed.
Patton, from a tactical position was right. All of war is about logistics. Those who have logistical advantages and those who don't. That is all the professionals study. Logistics. When any general senses logistical advantages they act accordingly.
However, politically it would not be possible. That is NOT what generals are and history is filled with generals or colonels arguing with politicians.
Again, those bombs were dropped to stop an impending bloody war with the soviets. Remember a few things. One, Soviets did not have the bomb. Two, time was of the essence. The soviets were encroaching rapidly. Three, there were no satellites so there was no precision bombing.
The story that the US sold to the world and American people was true to some extent. If they did not drop the bombs, that would have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives lost on all sides. However, what they did not tell was the fact that it was the Soviets that we would have been at war with.
The American public was not aware at the time of the cold war that was going on. Remember, they had spent the previous 4 or 5 years understanding the soviets were allies.
You won't answer the question and I am guessing this paradigm shift is causing problems for you. You deal with it by denying there was a real problem with the soviets. You refuse to believe that a war with the soviets was imminent. Of course immediately following WWII, the cold war was a well documented conflict that lasted 40 years.
Thanks to the left wing commie sympathizers and traitors Stalin got the secrets to the bomb. Shortly after the rosenbergs, the nuclear arms race began.
You are simply naive.
Please stop with your silliness.
It is clear to anyone willing to think, that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary and a war crime.
You would have chosen war with the USSR.
Good for you.
War is Hell...so mass murder of innocents is acceptable, but only if done by American forces. If done by Germans, Japanese, or any other nation...well that is a FUCKING WAR CRIME.
CAN'T FIX STUPID.
Ok, name a Japanese, Italian, or German Officer or politician who was prosecuted for a war crime over bombing. No one was prosecuted, and no one was convicted. So apparently even the fire bombing of London was not a war crime. But I'm sure Ralph and you have a long list of people prosecuted for it. I'll just hold my breath over here and wait.
Destroying Japan's production capacity and cutting off its supplies of food, etc., ended the war. The bombs were just the unnecessary punctuation points. It would not have been less humane to have bombed Moscow with Stalin and his hierarchy all there, if, indeed, the weapon had to be used.It ended the war
The US did not have HUNDREDS of these bombs. So, that option would not have been an option. The Soviets had a very capable air defense. They certainly still had hundreds if not thousands of planes.Destroying Japan's production capacity and cutting off its supplies of food, etc., ended the war. The bombs were just the unnecessary punctuation points. It would not have been less humane to have bombed Moscow with Stalin and his hierarchy all there, if, indeed, the weapon had to be used.It ended the war
Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII
Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.
Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.
That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.
There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)
Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?
Because the State says so...right?
End a war with a barbaric nation, by being barbaric.Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII
Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.
Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.
That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.
There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)
Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?
Because the State says so...right?
Consider the following happening today:
- SS Tjisalak massacre perpetrated by Japanese submarine I-8
- Manila massacre (concurrent with the Battle of Manila
R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, estimates that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3 to over 10 million people, most likely 6 million Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. According to Rummel, "This democide [i.e., death by government] was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."[2] According to Rummel, in China alone, during 1937–45, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the Japanese operations and a total of 10.2 million Chinese were killed in the course of the war.
- Pearl Harbor
Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia
the Atom bomb was just another weapon. It is unfair to second guess the last generation for ended a war with a barbaric nation.
Yes...I suppose I am naive to think the American ruling class should not resort to total war and the unjust mass murder of innocents, in war.Yeah, this is done. You are extremely naive. You are not aware of the reality of the situation.Is your first sentence some kind of ignorant justification for mass murder of innocents?All war is inhuman and all wars have collateral damage.
I asked a simple question and I am sure that it is causing cognitive dissonance. So much so that you are simply not answering it.
The USSR (stalin) was pushing his ideology. Remember also that the USSR had real problems financially after the war. Stalin was encroaching into the far east. This is actually documented. Not sure why anyone is denying this.
Stalin was pushing his weight around and as I said the cold war began BEFORE WWII was over. After the Yalta Conference, the soviets were no longer ALLIES with the US.
Stalin knew that he would be able to push his weight around based on the fact that the American people would not stand for another long drawn out war that would leave hundreds of thousands of Americans killed.
Patton, from a tactical position was right. All of war is about logistics. Those who have logistical advantages and those who don't. That is all the professionals study. Logistics. When any general senses logistical advantages they act accordingly.
However, politically it would not be possible. That is NOT what generals are and history is filled with generals or colonels arguing with politicians.
Again, those bombs were dropped to stop an impending bloody war with the soviets. Remember a few things. One, Soviets did not have the bomb. Two, time was of the essence. The soviets were encroaching rapidly. Three, there were no satellites so there was no precision bombing.
The story that the US sold to the world and American people was true to some extent. If they did not drop the bombs, that would have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives lost on all sides. However, what they did not tell was the fact that it was the Soviets that we would have been at war with.
The American public was not aware at the time of the cold war that was going on. Remember, they had spent the previous 4 or 5 years understanding the soviets were allies.
You won't answer the question and I am guessing this paradigm shift is causing problems for you. You deal with it by denying there was a real problem with the soviets. You refuse to believe that a war with the soviets was imminent. Of course immediately following WWII, the cold war was a well documented conflict that lasted 40 years.
Thanks to the left wing commie sympathizers and traitors Stalin got the secrets to the bomb. Shortly after the rosenbergs, the nuclear arms race began.
You are simply naive.
Please stop with your silliness.
It is clear to anyone willing to think, that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary and a war crime.
You would have chosen war with the USSR.
Good for you.
War is Hell...so mass murder of innocents is acceptable, but only if done by American forces. If done by Germans, Japanese, or any other nation...well that is a FUCKING WAR CRIME.
CAN'T FIX STUPID.
Ok, name a Japanese, Italian, or German Officer or politician who was prosecuted for a war crime over bombing. No one was prosecuted, and no one was convicted. So apparently even the fire bombing of London was not a war crime. But I'm sure Ralph and you have a long list of people prosecuted for it. I'll just hold my breath over here and wait.
Can you explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?
So true, yet millions of Americans believe this tripe and anyone who questions this belief, is a fucking dumb ass traitor.Believing the bomb had to be used, that invasion was otherwise necessary, that there were no alternatives is total belief in propaganda.
Logic trumps long windiness. That is a truism you need to take to heart.Yes...I suppose I am naive to think the American ruling class should not resort to total war and the unjust mass murder of innocents, in war.Yeah, this is done. You are extremely naive. You are not aware of the reality of the situation.Is your first sentence some kind of ignorant justification for mass murder of innocents?
Please stop with your silliness.
It is clear to anyone willing to think, that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary and a war crime.
You would have chosen war with the USSR.
Good for you.
War is Hell...so mass murder of innocents is acceptable, but only if done by American forces. If done by Germans, Japanese, or any other nation...well that is a FUCKING WAR CRIME.
CAN'T FIX STUPID.
Ok, name a Japanese, Italian, or German Officer or politician who was prosecuted for a war crime over bombing. No one was prosecuted, and no one was convicted. So apparently even the fire bombing of London was not a war crime. But I'm sure Ralph and you have a long list of people prosecuted for it. I'll just hold my breath over here and wait.
Can you explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?
Well, I covered that to some extent on page five of this thread.
Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?
Either you missed it, or you just skipped it, or you forgot.
The problem with your I even mentioned how in another response, you have to go about changing an understanding of history. You can't just cherry pick the quotes, you have to account for all the information. Ralph doesn't do that. He doesn't address the lack of prosecutions at the various war crimes trials for bombing. London was firebombed. But no one was prosecuted for it. Coventry was destroyed. No prosecutions. Churches, hospitals, and other targets you were supposed to avoid were hit.
Ralph does not address the wide availability of information and evidence. He cherry picks the quote and stops. He does not put the quotes into context of the era, and he does not address the lack of prohibitions in any policy manual or war plans.
Everyone wanted to precision bomb. They couldn't do it. The technology just did not exist. It didn't exist twenty years later during Vietnam. So the best we could do was drop some bombs at the target, and as long as we were aiming for the target, we would be covered.
Let's take it back a step. Lose the mass murder hang up for a minute. Let's say someone is shooting at you. You are armed, and returning fire. You are shooting at the guy who is shooting at you. It is obviously self defense. One of your bullets misses the guy and travels down the road striking a child who is in her front yard playing on a tricycle. It kills her. Have you murdered her? Have you committed manslaughter.
Our laws say no. Your intent was to hit the baddie who was trying to kill you. If he had not tried to kill you, you would not have fired your weapon. Your action was a result of his action. His instigation of the incident is what led to the death of that little girl.
This is why police snipers are not charged when they shoot the hostage. This is why cops are not prosecuted when they shoot the hostage. The law says that any deaths are the responsibility of the baddie who started it. If a hostage dies, even if it's at the hands of the police, it's the fault of the baddie. So long as you can say you were shooting at the baddie you're covered.
The example that was given to me as a child was let's say you are cleaning out a stable. Some kid throws a lit firecracker into the stable. You see this firecracker come in the window, and you grab it and turn and throw it out another window. It strikes another person and detonates and injures that person. You are not responsible for that harm, because you were acting to prevent the firework for startling the animals, and potentially harming one of them, or starting a fire. You would not have thrown the firecracker out the window if someone else had not thrown it in. Your reaction was intended to save, not harm.
The same is true of bombing. The intent was to harm the enemy ability to conduct war. Road junctions were valid military targets for every military. Those road junctions were in the middle of cities. So you have to bomb the cities to try and slow or stop the flow of war materials to the enemy. Railroads were similarly targeted.
Tell you what, let's fast forward to today. The M-16 replaced the M-14 rifle. The .30 caliber bullet was a killing round. It was intended to kill the enemy with a single shot. The round that replaced it was the .223 caliber, or 5.56 MM. This was intended to wound the enemy. The round created what is called a Militarily Significant Wound. That means that the guy who gets shot, is now hurt, and screaming, and needs medical attention. Do you think that was done because we are humane and don't want to kill the enemy?
It was done because of the cold calculation that one wounded takes at least three, probably four enemy out of the battle. A screaming comrade that is in agony is horrible for morale. You have to get him out of there. That means two people to put him on a stretcher and carry him to the medics. Well there is the medic who goes along and possibly someone to carry the weapons and equipment of the guys carrying the stretcher. So one wounded soldier takes more off the battlefield than a dead soldier. The dead guy doesn't scream in pain, but the wounded guy does.
We use the smaller cartridge not because we are merciful, but because we are cruel. We know that untreated that wound will become infected, and then the enemy gets to watch their friend die slowly with the stench of gangrene filling the air. The smell of death. The stench of rotting flesh. If the enemy does not have access to adequate medical facilities, then their wounded friend will probably die from the wound, slowly, agonizingly.
This is the 21st Century, a hundred years after the First World War, and we still do things like that, and not only is it perfectly legal under the laws of war, it's encouraged. We are supposed to use metal jacketed bullets to make it easier for doctors to heal the wounded. What it means is that without hollowpoint or expanding or exploding bullets that the enemies moral is affected as the guy screams in agony calling for his mother desperate for a little succor.
Answer me this question. How is the Atomic Bomb significantly worse than the firebombing of the cites which both sides did many times. At what point do you reach the maximum amount of suffering? At what point does the needle get pegged? Is it the Soviets in Leningrad who turned to cannibalism to survive? Is it the little German girl who asks her mother "are we getting dead now" as the bombs and fires raged closer to the shelter? Is it the wife who buried the buttock of her husband, identifiable as his because of his watch that was melted to the skin?
How much suffering is the limit? What is worse? Running out of the shelter because the air is being sucked out and finding yourself stuck to the streets that have been liquified by the heat and screaming as you are burned to death? Is it the concussion that destroyed your lungs and allow you to slowly choke to death as you drown on dry land? Is it the heat and blast of an atomic bomb? Of people throwing themselves into a river desperate for some relief from the agony?
That's the problem with Ralph's ideals. It utterly ignores the entire war, and the horrors that were experienced by so many. A German Soldier on the eastern front wrote "Pain is universal" as he came to understand exactly what was happening. He saw the enemy suffering, and he saw himself, and his friends suffering.
At some point, the suffering is maxed out. There just isn't any way to suffer any more. One of the Generals who was quoted after the war said that the best thing about the Atomic Bomb was it stopped the firebombing. For him, that was the worse. He has a point. The bombers would come back and the skins of the bombers would be stinking like the roasted flesh of people. You could smell the death according to reports.
Show me the policy that prohibited bombing of the cities. Show me the convention agreement that prohibited it. Show me something other than a handful of asinine quotes taken out of context. Show me how it fits into the larger picture. Show me how we have been viewing the incident wrong. You can't just ignore everything else. You have to address it. You have to show where the information was incorrect, or just not considered correctly.
This is where Ralph drops the ball. He ignores the tons of evidence, and the sheer incredible volume of information.
Yes...I suppose I am naive to think the American ruling class should not resort to total war and the unjust mass murder of innocents, in war.Yeah, this is done. You are extremely naive. You are not aware of the reality of the situation.Is your first sentence some kind of ignorant justification for mass murder of innocents?
Please stop with your silliness.
It is clear to anyone willing to think, that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary and a war crime.
You would have chosen war with the USSR.
Good for you.
War is Hell...so mass murder of innocents is acceptable, but only if done by American forces. If done by Germans, Japanese, or any other nation...well that is a FUCKING WAR CRIME.
CAN'T FIX STUPID.
Ok, name a Japanese, Italian, or German Officer or politician who was prosecuted for a war crime over bombing. No one was prosecuted, and no one was convicted. So apparently even the fire bombing of London was not a war crime. But I'm sure Ralph and you have a long list of people prosecuted for it. I'll just hold my breath over here and wait.
Can you explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?
Well, I covered that to some extent on page five of this thread.
Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?
Either you missed it, or you just skipped it, or you forgot.
The problem with your I even mentioned how in another response, you have to go about changing an understanding of history. You can't just cherry pick the quotes, you have to account for all the information. Ralph doesn't do that. He doesn't address the lack of prosecutions at the various war crimes trials for bombing. London was firebombed. But no one was prosecuted for it. Coventry was destroyed. No prosecutions. Churches, hospitals, and other targets you were supposed to avoid were hit.
Ralph does not address the wide availability of information and evidence. He cherry picks the quote and stops. He does not put the quotes into context of the era, and he does not address the lack of prohibitions in any policy manual or war plans.
Everyone wanted to precision bomb. They couldn't do it. The technology just did not exist. It didn't exist twenty years later during Vietnam. So the best we could do was drop some bombs at the target, and as long as we were aiming for the target, we would be covered.
Let's take it back a step. Lose the mass murder hang up for a minute. Let's say someone is shooting at you. You are armed, and returning fire. You are shooting at the guy who is shooting at you. It is obviously self defense. One of your bullets misses the guy and travels down the road striking a child who is in her front yard playing on a tricycle. It kills her. Have you murdered her? Have you committed manslaughter.
Our laws say no. Your intent was to hit the baddie who was trying to kill you. If he had not tried to kill you, you would not have fired your weapon. Your action was a result of his action. His instigation of the incident is what led to the death of that little girl.
This is why police snipers are not charged when they shoot the hostage. This is why cops are not prosecuted when they shoot the hostage. The law says that any deaths are the responsibility of the baddie who started it. If a hostage dies, even if it's at the hands of the police, it's the fault of the baddie. So long as you can say you were shooting at the baddie you're covered.
The example that was given to me as a child was let's say you are cleaning out a stable. Some kid throws a lit firecracker into the stable. You see this firecracker come in the window, and you grab it and turn and throw it out another window. It strikes another person and detonates and injures that person. You are not responsible for that harm, because you were acting to prevent the firework for startling the animals, and potentially harming one of them, or starting a fire. You would not have thrown the firecracker out the window if someone else had not thrown it in. Your reaction was intended to save, not harm.
The same is true of bombing. The intent was to harm the enemy ability to conduct war. Road junctions were valid military targets for every military. Those road junctions were in the middle of cities. So you have to bomb the cities to try and slow or stop the flow of war materials to the enemy. Railroads were similarly targeted.
Tell you what, let's fast forward to today. The M-16 replaced the M-14 rifle. The .30 caliber bullet was a killing round. It was intended to kill the enemy with a single shot. The round that replaced it was the .223 caliber, or 5.56 MM. This was intended to wound the enemy. The round created what is called a Militarily Significant Wound. That means that the guy who gets shot, is now hurt, and screaming, and needs medical attention. Do you think that was done because we are humane and don't want to kill the enemy?
It was done because of the cold calculation that one wounded takes at least three, probably four enemy out of the battle. A screaming comrade that is in agony is horrible for morale. You have to get him out of there. That means two people to put him on a stretcher and carry him to the medics. Well there is the medic who goes along and possibly someone to carry the weapons and equipment of the guys carrying the stretcher. So one wounded soldier takes more off the battlefield than a dead soldier. The dead guy doesn't scream in pain, but the wounded guy does.
We use the smaller cartridge not because we are merciful, but because we are cruel. We know that untreated that wound will become infected, and then the enemy gets to watch their friend die slowly with the stench of gangrene filling the air. The smell of death. The stench of rotting flesh. If the enemy does not have access to adequate medical facilities, then their wounded friend will probably die from the wound, slowly, agonizingly.
This is the 21st Century, a hundred years after the First World War, and we still do things like that, and not only is it perfectly legal under the laws of war, it's encouraged. We are supposed to use metal jacketed bullets to make it easier for doctors to heal the wounded. What it means is that without hollowpoint or expanding or exploding bullets that the enemies moral is affected as the guy screams in agony calling for his mother desperate for a little succor.
Answer me this question. How is the Atomic Bomb significantly worse than the firebombing of the cites which both sides did many times. At what point do you reach the maximum amount of suffering? At what point does the needle get pegged? Is it the Soviets in Leningrad who turned to cannibalism to survive? Is it the little German girl who asks her mother "are we getting dead now" as the bombs and fires raged closer to the shelter? Is it the wife who buried the buttock of her husband, identifiable as his because of his watch that was melted to the skin?
How much suffering is the limit? What is worse? Running out of the shelter because the air is being sucked out and finding yourself stuck to the streets that have been liquified by the heat and screaming as you are burned to death? Is it the concussion that destroyed your lungs and allow you to slowly choke to death as you drown on dry land? Is it the heat and blast of an atomic bomb? Of people throwing themselves into a river desperate for some relief from the agony?
That's the problem with Ralph's ideals. It utterly ignores the entire war, and the horrors that were experienced by so many. A German Soldier on the eastern front wrote "Pain is universal" as he came to understand exactly what was happening. He saw the enemy suffering, and he saw himself, and his friends suffering.
At some point, the suffering is maxed out. There just isn't any way to suffer any more. One of the Generals who was quoted after the war said that the best thing about the Atomic Bomb was it stopped the firebombing. For him, that was the worse. He has a point. The bombers would come back and the skins of the bombers would be stinking like the roasted flesh of people. You could smell the death according to reports.
Show me the policy that prohibited bombing of the cities. Show me the convention agreement that prohibited it. Show me something other than a handful of asinine quotes taken out of context. Show me how it fits into the larger picture. Show me how we have been viewing the incident wrong. You can't just ignore everything else. You have to address it. You have to show where the information was incorrect, or just not considered correctly.
This is where Ralph drops the ball. He ignores the tons of evidence, and the sheer incredible volume of information.
They used propaganda. What I am saying is not what they sold.Believing the bomb had to be used, that invasion was otherwise necessary, that there were no alternatives is total belief in propaganda.
You are persistent with your ONLY TWO CHOICES thing...of incinerating innocent Japanese or go to war with USSR. Clearly...your two choices are nonsensical.They used propaganda. What I am saying is not what they sold.Believing the bomb had to be used, that invasion was otherwise necessary, that there were no alternatives is total belief in propaganda.
You would have chosen a war with the soviets.
Interesting
Gipper, you are truly simple minded here. You don't believe a war with the soviets was imminent and I do. I have shown you why with facts. From when the cold war began, to how they were encroaching into the area.You are persistent with your ONLY TWO CHOICES thing...of incinerating innocent Japanese or go to war with USSR. Clearly...your two choices are nonsensical.They used propaganda. What I am saying is not what they sold.Believing the bomb had to be used, that invasion was otherwise necessary, that there were no alternatives is total belief in propaganda.
You would have chosen a war with the soviets.
Interesting
Uncle Joe knew of the abomb well before Truman did, thanks to FDR's many Stalinist spies inhabiting his administration. Stalin also knew that his spies were actively working to steal the details of the abomb and in good time he would have it all...and he did in 1949.
Again your position has NOTHING to do with the heinous act committed by Truman. It does not in any way, justify Truman's criminal action.Gipper, you are truly simple minded here. You don't believe a war with the soviets was imminent and I do. I have shown you why with facts. From when the cold war began, to how they were encroaching into the area.You are persistent with your ONLY TWO CHOICES thing...of incinerating innocent Japanese or go to war with USSR. Clearly...your two choices are nonsensical.They used propaganda. What I am saying is not what they sold.Believing the bomb had to be used, that invasion was otherwise necessary, that there were no alternatives is total belief in propaganda.
You would have chosen a war with the soviets.
Interesting
Uncle Joe knew of the abomb well before Truman did, thanks to FDR's many Stalinist spies inhabiting his administration. Stalin also knew that his spies were actively working to steal the details of the abomb and in good time he would have it all...and he did in 1949.
You use terms like incineration of innocent people and act as though Truman just had the them dropped for the fun of it.
You simply don't don't buy the war with the soviets. You refuse to, cause that causes problems for you.
If what I am saying is true, you know I am right. You won't admit it. I get it.
Carry on.
Okay...since apparently you are unwilling to answer my question, I will endeavor to answer it for you.Yes...I suppose I am naive to think the American ruling class should not resort to total war and the unjust mass murder of innocents, in war.Yeah, this is done. You are extremely naive. You are not aware of the reality of the situation.
You would have chosen war with the USSR.
Good for you.
War is Hell...so mass murder of innocents is acceptable, but only if done by American forces. If done by Germans, Japanese, or any other nation...well that is a FUCKING WAR CRIME.
CAN'T FIX STUPID.
Ok, name a Japanese, Italian, or German Officer or politician who was prosecuted for a war crime over bombing. No one was prosecuted, and no one was convicted. So apparently even the fire bombing of London was not a war crime. But I'm sure Ralph and you have a long list of people prosecuted for it. I'll just hold my breath over here and wait.
Can you explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?
Well, I covered that to some extent on page five of this thread.
Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?
Either you missed it, or you just skipped it, or you forgot.
The problem with your I even mentioned how in another response, you have to go about changing an understanding of history. You can't just cherry pick the quotes, you have to account for all the information. Ralph doesn't do that. He doesn't address the lack of prosecutions at the various war crimes trials for bombing. London was firebombed. But no one was prosecuted for it. Coventry was destroyed. No prosecutions. Churches, hospitals, and other targets you were supposed to avoid were hit.
Ralph does not address the wide availability of information and evidence. He cherry picks the quote and stops. He does not put the quotes into context of the era, and he does not address the lack of prohibitions in any policy manual or war plans.
Everyone wanted to precision bomb. They couldn't do it. The technology just did not exist. It didn't exist twenty years later during Vietnam. So the best we could do was drop some bombs at the target, and as long as we were aiming for the target, we would be covered.
Let's take it back a step. Lose the mass murder hang up for a minute. Let's say someone is shooting at you. You are armed, and returning fire. You are shooting at the guy who is shooting at you. It is obviously self defense. One of your bullets misses the guy and travels down the road striking a child who is in her front yard playing on a tricycle. It kills her. Have you murdered her? Have you committed manslaughter.
Our laws say no. Your intent was to hit the baddie who was trying to kill you. If he had not tried to kill you, you would not have fired your weapon. Your action was a result of his action. His instigation of the incident is what led to the death of that little girl.
This is why police snipers are not charged when they shoot the hostage. This is why cops are not prosecuted when they shoot the hostage. The law says that any deaths are the responsibility of the baddie who started it. If a hostage dies, even if it's at the hands of the police, it's the fault of the baddie. So long as you can say you were shooting at the baddie you're covered.
The example that was given to me as a child was let's say you are cleaning out a stable. Some kid throws a lit firecracker into the stable. You see this firecracker come in the window, and you grab it and turn and throw it out another window. It strikes another person and detonates and injures that person. You are not responsible for that harm, because you were acting to prevent the firework for startling the animals, and potentially harming one of them, or starting a fire. You would not have thrown the firecracker out the window if someone else had not thrown it in. Your reaction was intended to save, not harm.
The same is true of bombing. The intent was to harm the enemy ability to conduct war. Road junctions were valid military targets for every military. Those road junctions were in the middle of cities. So you have to bomb the cities to try and slow or stop the flow of war materials to the enemy. Railroads were similarly targeted.
Tell you what, let's fast forward to today. The M-16 replaced the M-14 rifle. The .30 caliber bullet was a killing round. It was intended to kill the enemy with a single shot. The round that replaced it was the .223 caliber, or 5.56 MM. This was intended to wound the enemy. The round created what is called a Militarily Significant Wound. That means that the guy who gets shot, is now hurt, and screaming, and needs medical attention. Do you think that was done because we are humane and don't want to kill the enemy?
It was done because of the cold calculation that one wounded takes at least three, probably four enemy out of the battle. A screaming comrade that is in agony is horrible for morale. You have to get him out of there. That means two people to put him on a stretcher and carry him to the medics. Well there is the medic who goes along and possibly someone to carry the weapons and equipment of the guys carrying the stretcher. So one wounded soldier takes more off the battlefield than a dead soldier. The dead guy doesn't scream in pain, but the wounded guy does.
We use the smaller cartridge not because we are merciful, but because we are cruel. We know that untreated that wound will become infected, and then the enemy gets to watch their friend die slowly with the stench of gangrene filling the air. The smell of death. The stench of rotting flesh. If the enemy does not have access to adequate medical facilities, then their wounded friend will probably die from the wound, slowly, agonizingly.
This is the 21st Century, a hundred years after the First World War, and we still do things like that, and not only is it perfectly legal under the laws of war, it's encouraged. We are supposed to use metal jacketed bullets to make it easier for doctors to heal the wounded. What it means is that without hollowpoint or expanding or exploding bullets that the enemies moral is affected as the guy screams in agony calling for his mother desperate for a little succor.
Answer me this question. How is the Atomic Bomb significantly worse than the firebombing of the cites which both sides did many times. At what point do you reach the maximum amount of suffering? At what point does the needle get pegged? Is it the Soviets in Leningrad who turned to cannibalism to survive? Is it the little German girl who asks her mother "are we getting dead now" as the bombs and fires raged closer to the shelter? Is it the wife who buried the buttock of her husband, identifiable as his because of his watch that was melted to the skin?
How much suffering is the limit? What is worse? Running out of the shelter because the air is being sucked out and finding yourself stuck to the streets that have been liquified by the heat and screaming as you are burned to death? Is it the concussion that destroyed your lungs and allow you to slowly choke to death as you drown on dry land? Is it the heat and blast of an atomic bomb? Of people throwing themselves into a river desperate for some relief from the agony?
That's the problem with Ralph's ideals. It utterly ignores the entire war, and the horrors that were experienced by so many. A German Soldier on the eastern front wrote "Pain is universal" as he came to understand exactly what was happening. He saw the enemy suffering, and he saw himself, and his friends suffering.
At some point, the suffering is maxed out. There just isn't any way to suffer any more. One of the Generals who was quoted after the war said that the best thing about the Atomic Bomb was it stopped the firebombing. For him, that was the worse. He has a point. The bombers would come back and the skins of the bombers would be stinking like the roasted flesh of people. You could smell the death according to reports.
Show me the policy that prohibited bombing of the cities. Show me the convention agreement that prohibited it. Show me something other than a handful of asinine quotes taken out of context. Show me how it fits into the larger picture. Show me how we have been viewing the incident wrong. You can't just ignore everything else. You have to address it. You have to show where the information was incorrect, or just not considered correctly.
This is where Ralph drops the ball. He ignores the tons of evidence, and the sheer incredible volume of information.
WAITING>>>>
Can you PLEASE explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?
Okay...since apparently you are unwilling to answer my question, I will endeavor to answer it for you.Yes...I suppose I am naive to think the American ruling class should not resort to total war and the unjust mass murder of innocents, in war.
War is Hell...so mass murder of innocents is acceptable, but only if done by American forces. If done by Germans, Japanese, or any other nation...well that is a FUCKING WAR CRIME.
CAN'T FIX STUPID.
Ok, name a Japanese, Italian, or German Officer or politician who was prosecuted for a war crime over bombing. No one was prosecuted, and no one was convicted. So apparently even the fire bombing of London was not a war crime. But I'm sure Ralph and you have a long list of people prosecuted for it. I'll just hold my breath over here and wait.
Can you explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?
Well, I covered that to some extent on page five of this thread.
Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?
Either you missed it, or you just skipped it, or you forgot.
The problem with your I even mentioned how in another response, you have to go about changing an understanding of history. You can't just cherry pick the quotes, you have to account for all the information. Ralph doesn't do that. He doesn't address the lack of prosecutions at the various war crimes trials for bombing. London was firebombed. But no one was prosecuted for it. Coventry was destroyed. No prosecutions. Churches, hospitals, and other targets you were supposed to avoid were hit.
Ralph does not address the wide availability of information and evidence. He cherry picks the quote and stops. He does not put the quotes into context of the era, and he does not address the lack of prohibitions in any policy manual or war plans.
Everyone wanted to precision bomb. They couldn't do it. The technology just did not exist. It didn't exist twenty years later during Vietnam. So the best we could do was drop some bombs at the target, and as long as we were aiming for the target, we would be covered.
Let's take it back a step. Lose the mass murder hang up for a minute. Let's say someone is shooting at you. You are armed, and returning fire. You are shooting at the guy who is shooting at you. It is obviously self defense. One of your bullets misses the guy and travels down the road striking a child who is in her front yard playing on a tricycle. It kills her. Have you murdered her? Have you committed manslaughter.
Our laws say no. Your intent was to hit the baddie who was trying to kill you. If he had not tried to kill you, you would not have fired your weapon. Your action was a result of his action. His instigation of the incident is what led to the death of that little girl.
This is why police snipers are not charged when they shoot the hostage. This is why cops are not prosecuted when they shoot the hostage. The law says that any deaths are the responsibility of the baddie who started it. If a hostage dies, even if it's at the hands of the police, it's the fault of the baddie. So long as you can say you were shooting at the baddie you're covered.
The example that was given to me as a child was let's say you are cleaning out a stable. Some kid throws a lit firecracker into the stable. You see this firecracker come in the window, and you grab it and turn and throw it out another window. It strikes another person and detonates and injures that person. You are not responsible for that harm, because you were acting to prevent the firework for startling the animals, and potentially harming one of them, or starting a fire. You would not have thrown the firecracker out the window if someone else had not thrown it in. Your reaction was intended to save, not harm.
The same is true of bombing. The intent was to harm the enemy ability to conduct war. Road junctions were valid military targets for every military. Those road junctions were in the middle of cities. So you have to bomb the cities to try and slow or stop the flow of war materials to the enemy. Railroads were similarly targeted.
Tell you what, let's fast forward to today. The M-16 replaced the M-14 rifle. The .30 caliber bullet was a killing round. It was intended to kill the enemy with a single shot. The round that replaced it was the .223 caliber, or 5.56 MM. This was intended to wound the enemy. The round created what is called a Militarily Significant Wound. That means that the guy who gets shot, is now hurt, and screaming, and needs medical attention. Do you think that was done because we are humane and don't want to kill the enemy?
It was done because of the cold calculation that one wounded takes at least three, probably four enemy out of the battle. A screaming comrade that is in agony is horrible for morale. You have to get him out of there. That means two people to put him on a stretcher and carry him to the medics. Well there is the medic who goes along and possibly someone to carry the weapons and equipment of the guys carrying the stretcher. So one wounded soldier takes more off the battlefield than a dead soldier. The dead guy doesn't scream in pain, but the wounded guy does.
We use the smaller cartridge not because we are merciful, but because we are cruel. We know that untreated that wound will become infected, and then the enemy gets to watch their friend die slowly with the stench of gangrene filling the air. The smell of death. The stench of rotting flesh. If the enemy does not have access to adequate medical facilities, then their wounded friend will probably die from the wound, slowly, agonizingly.
This is the 21st Century, a hundred years after the First World War, and we still do things like that, and not only is it perfectly legal under the laws of war, it's encouraged. We are supposed to use metal jacketed bullets to make it easier for doctors to heal the wounded. What it means is that without hollowpoint or expanding or exploding bullets that the enemies moral is affected as the guy screams in agony calling for his mother desperate for a little succor.
Answer me this question. How is the Atomic Bomb significantly worse than the firebombing of the cites which both sides did many times. At what point do you reach the maximum amount of suffering? At what point does the needle get pegged? Is it the Soviets in Leningrad who turned to cannibalism to survive? Is it the little German girl who asks her mother "are we getting dead now" as the bombs and fires raged closer to the shelter? Is it the wife who buried the buttock of her husband, identifiable as his because of his watch that was melted to the skin?
How much suffering is the limit? What is worse? Running out of the shelter because the air is being sucked out and finding yourself stuck to the streets that have been liquified by the heat and screaming as you are burned to death? Is it the concussion that destroyed your lungs and allow you to slowly choke to death as you drown on dry land? Is it the heat and blast of an atomic bomb? Of people throwing themselves into a river desperate for some relief from the agony?
That's the problem with Ralph's ideals. It utterly ignores the entire war, and the horrors that were experienced by so many. A German Soldier on the eastern front wrote "Pain is universal" as he came to understand exactly what was happening. He saw the enemy suffering, and he saw himself, and his friends suffering.
At some point, the suffering is maxed out. There just isn't any way to suffer any more. One of the Generals who was quoted after the war said that the best thing about the Atomic Bomb was it stopped the firebombing. For him, that was the worse. He has a point. The bombers would come back and the skins of the bombers would be stinking like the roasted flesh of people. You could smell the death according to reports.
Show me the policy that prohibited bombing of the cities. Show me the convention agreement that prohibited it. Show me something other than a handful of asinine quotes taken out of context. Show me how it fits into the larger picture. Show me how we have been viewing the incident wrong. You can't just ignore everything else. You have to address it. You have to show where the information was incorrect, or just not considered correctly.
This is where Ralph drops the ball. He ignores the tons of evidence, and the sheer incredible volume of information.
WAITING>>>>
Can you PLEASE explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?
You believe the following as an answer to my question....it is okay for America to murder innocents to win a war, but it is not okay for any other nation to do the same.
Does that sound hypocritical to you?
