Zetterlund Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 35 minutes ago, orfc said: So you're saying all soldiers/sailors/airmen of the rank major or above I'll get downvoted again by the everyone's a Tory mob but if you want to know what unrestrained aerial bombing against a compact city of nearly 2 million looks like, read Operation Gomorrah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II 37,000 dead, and nearly a million homeless in a week, with 80 year old technology. In some cases, the numbers of people who had perished in cellars converted into "air protection rooms" could only be estimated from the quantity of ash left on the floor. And we did it. My comments were about war generally and I wasn't trying to suggest any side is worse or better than the other. Our military adventures in Iraq & Libya are what converted me from complete political indifference into a seething antiwar mess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 My point about Dresden wasn’t to compare it to the current situation. I’m just saying that there’s a situation where people might be inclined to agree that carpet bombing a civilian populace can sometimes be justified. Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is it not widely acknowledged that beating Japan conventionally would have taken 1-2 years and cost the Americans tens of thousands of soldiers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClydeTon Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 39 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: We're probably currently in the most peaceful, technologically progressive, period of human history. The speed at which technology is progressing is unreal, while a handful of wars at the same time is nothing. Wars may be rarer and smaller, but - particularly when European powes or America get involved - it's almost insanely more destructive. The main redeeming factor is that there hasn't been a major global/continental conflict in 80 years, which is probably the longest period in history without one, since global/continental wars became a thing. The rapid advancement of technology is something to truly behold, though, I do agree there. If only we'd use it to sort this climate mess out... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 17 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Hamas doesn't have an airforce or air defence system, or tanks or artillery for that matter. Gaza is not a major transport hub for sending munitions and soldiers to another battlefront. Comparing Dresden to Gaza doesn't make any sense. They are also duplicitous b*****ds that hide amongst the civilian population. Like any terrorist organisation, they don't make themselves easy to find or wear uniforms. Which makes the task of neutralising them all the harder. Especially without turning them into martyrs which is what they crave. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClydeTon Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, Donathan said: Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is it not widely acknowledged that beating Japan conventionally would have taken 1-2 years and cost the Americans tens of thousands of soldiers? The Yanks would have just bombed the life out of Japan - in much the same way they tried in Germany with Hamburg, Dresden, etc. They'd have achieved the effect the A-Bombs had, just using a barrage of conventional bombs, and/or a (greater) firebombing campaign. It's widely belived that Truman dropped the bomb to stick the fear into both Japan and the Soviets, and to show America's newly discovered power. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 7 minutes ago, Donathan said: My point about Dresden wasn’t to compare it to the current situation. I’m just saying that there’s a situation where people might be inclined to agree that carpet bombing a civilian populace can sometimes be justified. Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is it not widely acknowledged that beating Japan conventionally would have taken 1-2 years and cost the Americans tens of thousands of soldiers? Tens of thousands of soldiers compared to 300,000 to 400,000 mostly civilians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, welshbairn said: The continuing bombardment of Gaza and the West Bank will almost certainly put an end to any rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Morocco, some Gulf countries and possibly Turkey, which was probably the primary intention of Hamas. Publicly maybe but privately the Saudis and Israelis will still be talking. Both view Iran as an existential threat, for different reasons. The maxim, the enemy of my enemy is my friend is very much at play. Edited October 22, 2023 by Trogdor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Tens of thousands of soldiers compared to 300,000 to 400,000 mostly civilians. Right, but worth remembering this was during the days of conscription. The soldiers were just men that had been drafted into the army rather than the current situation where anyone in the army has actively chosen to be there. Besides, you’re talking about enemy civilians versus your own soldiers. This source actually suggests that the American soldier death toll would have gone into seven figures (and also that a ground invasion would have killed many times more Japanese people than the nuclear bombs did) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, Donathan said: Right, but worth remembering this was during the days of conscription. The soldiers were just men that had been drafted into the army rather than the current situation where anyone in the army has actively chosen to be there. Besides, you’re talking about enemy civilians versus your own soldiers. This source actually suggests that the American soldier death toll would have gone into seven figures (and also that a ground invasion would have killed many times more Japanese people than the nuclear bombs did) What source? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 8 minutes ago, Donathan said: Right, but worth remembering this was during the days of conscription. The soldiers were just men that had been drafted into the army rather than the current situation where anyone in the army has actively chosen to be there. Besides, you’re talking about enemy civilians versus your own soldiers. This source actually suggests that the American soldier death toll would have gone into seven figures (and also that a ground invasion would have killed many times more Japanese people than the nuclear bombs did) Not sure every person currently serving in the US military has ‘actively chosen’ that life. Many will see it as the only way out of poverty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazzyStar Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Not sure every person currently serving in the US military has ‘actively chosen’ that life. Many will see it as the only way out of poverty. Doesn’t make being a willing participant in the US empire any less problematic. Edited October 22, 2023 by MazzyStar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 The Soviet entry into the theatre alongside an effective naval blockade and conventional bombing would have seen Japan's eventual surrender imo. It just would have taken a bit longer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 Hiroshima might be explainable as a way to quickly end the war, but Nagasaki was an experiment to see how uranium compared to plutonium imo. It's not like they'd easily get another chance any time soon with real people and buildings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 On an optimistic note, who would have thought that 78 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with numerous states now capable of launching nuclear weapons, nobody has done so. Small crumbles of hope for humanity when morality seems to have come to whether it's better to kill children from 30,000 feet or face to face with a gun or knife. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClydeTon Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 10 minutes ago, ForzaViola said: Getting a touch off-topic here but I'm fairly sure the experiences of the yank military in taking Iwo Jima and Okinawa at very high casualty rate and the inhabitants willingness to die taking as many soldiers with them as possible probably made Truman's decision to use the A-bombs pretty easy. I'm not sure conventional bombing would have done the trick - the USAAF firebombed several major cities in 1944/45, killing tens of thousands of people and destroying hundreds of square miles of housing. Even after the A-bombs it took the apparent intervention of Hirohito to finally surrender. [...] Anyway back to the topic. If this operation is about eradicating Hamas in Gaza and Hamas are largely irrelevant in the West Bank, why is the IDF launching air strikes in the West Bank? Well, the IDF's policy seems to be "If the terrorists hide among civilians, then the civilians are the terrorists". They never said there were any regional limits to that. As for the Hirohito point - he shat it after Nagasaki because he (correctly) guessed that Tokyo was next, or, if not, getting hit soon. He had already offered a conditional surrender to America before and after Hiroshima, but it was Nagasaki that really forced him to surrender unconditionally. Not for poor Nagasaki's sake. Just for him and Tokyo's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClydeTon Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, welshbairn said: On an optimistic note, who would have thought that 78 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with numerous states now capable of launching nuclear weapons, nobody has done so. Small crumbles of hope for humanity when morality seems to have come to whether it's better to kill children from 30,000 feet or face to face with a gun or knife. It's quite ironic but also incredibly human that the most destructive weapons ever created is also what has prevented any major global conflict - and thus millions upon millions of deaths - for almost 80 years. Humans - a funny ol' species. Edited October 22, 2023 by ClydeTon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 10 minutes ago, ClydeTon said: Humans - a funny ol' species. Really? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Farter Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 2 hours ago, Donathan said: Purely out of interest, what were the general public attitudes in the UK towards the carpet bombing of Dresden and other German cities? You've picked up this talking point from the Israeli spokesmen whose TV interviews you've listened to. It was probably Naftali Bennett you watched/heard as he's yelled about Dresden in multiple interviews now. It's a completely shit point and literal war propaganda. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Farter Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 Here's an example: His special military operation to denazify Gaza. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 The Israeli government has confirmed to Al-Jazeera that Hamas offered to release two of the hostages without demands for a prisoner exchange in return, and they said no because they didn't want to give Hamas a propaganda victory in being able to claim they were behaving in a humanitarian fashion. Deeply reassuring to those hostages and their families I'm sure. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.