Hizboll'ah Billboard in Windsor

[M.Dancer]

Then how do you explain Truman's decision to kill - with full intent - hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

TRhe two targets were valid in militry terms , (Hiroshima, a military depot, industrial city NO POW CAMPS--Nagasaki, Sea Port, weapons manufacture) and the reasons they were chosen were sound.

1) The blast effect on the city was to demonstrate the power of the new weapon. A solely military target might backfire (ie miss) They didn't have a stock pile of bombs to waste.

2) Japan's cities became fair target after Japan's attacks on civilian poulations of China, Phillipines, Singapore etc etc

3) The civilian loss of life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less than previous attacks by conventional weapons on other large Japanese cities

4) It worked. Japan Surrendered. The planned invasion of Japan which would have resulted in the deaths of 10 times as many japanese civilians was canceled.

[Black Dog]

White Doors:

Please explain

Gladly. Part of Israel's bombing campaign was intentionally aimed at civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, with the objective of coercing the Lebanese government and the civilian population to turn against Hizbullah. This strategy was confirmed by public statements of by Israeli officials (and was applauded by a numbe rof posters on this board). This strategy was not tied to lawful military objectives and can be considered a form of collective punishment and thus contrary to the rules of warfare. So, what I'm saying is, it's odd that you'd stand up for rules that govern the civilized conduct of war (an admirable stance, don't get me wrong) yet not see that ignoring the rules is often a two-way street.

August1991:

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the US came to a point referred to as "peaceful coexistence". It wasn't always peaceful but at least it had the merit of respecting the status quo. Hizballah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda do not respect the status quo.

I think it's a bit silly to lump those groups in together. Hamas and Hizbullah are regionally focussed: they couldn't care less about things outside their backyard. Al Qaeda is a different beast altogether, but it's also a minority group even among the minority of radical Islamists. Of course, nowadays the term "Al Qaeda" is pretty meaningless, having become a brand name and catch-all term for radical Islamic groups, ragrdless of whether or not they share any of AQ's original goals.

[M.Dancer]

White Doors:

Gladly. Part of Israel's bombing campaign was intentionally aimed at civilian infrastructure in Lebanon,

False.

Infrastructure is not inherintly civilian or military. It just is. A bridge used by plumbers doesn't suddenly become a military bridge just because it is used by trucks transporting military supplies and vice versa, excpet being a terrorist party within a nation they don't have any brodges of theior own.....In any case, in any war, disrupting the enemies lines of communications is always a high priority target. Here the objective is to prevent the terrorists from moving supplies and men to the front. If the civilians turn on the terrorists that is just a happy collateral benefit.

Edited August 16, 2007 by M.Dancer

[marcinmoka]

TRhe two targets were valid in militry terms , (Hiroshima, a military depot, industrial city NO POW CAMPS--Nagasaki, Sea Port, weapons manufacture) and the reasons they were chosen were sound.

Not quite : when engaged in such an intense war, ALL large centers contribute to the war effort in some way, shape or form. While these two targets were "valid", they were far from essential.

Japan's cities became fair target after Japan's attacks on civilian poulations of China, Phillipines, Singapore etc etc

False: I've never heard American military doctrine state that one should stoop down to the level of their enemies. Despite the strategic goal of Truman's decision, the Americans still prided themselves (and often rightly so) in having the moral upper hand.

The civilian loss of life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less than previous attacks by conventional weapons on other large Japanese cities

Not applicable: Those previous attacks took place when their defensive capabilities were far, far higher than at the time of the bomb dropping(s). A grossly weakened Japan no longer posed a threat, considering the Americans stregnth coupled with the fact that the Soviet Union launched an offensive the day before.

It worked. Japan Surrendered. The planned invasion of Japan which would have resulted in the deaths of 10 times as many japanese civilians was canceled.

False: It would of worked anyways. Keeping Japan however, is a different question..

* THUS *

Had it not been dropped, Stalin and/or the Chinese would of been more keen to expand his "sphere of influence" in the area.

In the end, we cannot accurately predict what could of happened. Despite the tragedy of innocent civilian deaths, Japan was able to "save face" in the longer run, and if Communist regimes were any indication, prevented even more tragedies from taking place.

Edited August 16, 2007 by marcinmoka

[M.Dancer]

August1991:

I think it's a bit silly to lump those groups in together. Hamas and Hizbullah are regionally focussed: they couldn't care less about things outside their backyard.

Which must explain why Hezbollah is implicated in terrorist attacks in South America and implicated in foiled attacks as far away as Singapore.....

Edited August 16, 2007 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

I've never heard American military doctrine state that one should stoop down to the level of their enemies. Despite the strategic goal of Truman's decision, the Americans still prided themselves (and often rightly so) in having the moral upper hand.

It isn't a military doctrine, but a political one. Thus when Germany bombed civilians in GB, Churchil ordered retailiatory attacks on Germany. Had Hitler ordered the use of Gas on Russia (as was feared) Churchill vowed that they would use gas on Germany.

[M.Dancer]

Not applicable: Those previous attacks took place when their defensive capabilities were far, far higher than at the time of the bomb dropping(s). A grossly weakened Japan no longer posed a threat, considering the Americans stregnth coupled with the fact that the Soviet Union launched an offensive the day before.

A the time of the surrender Japan still had a formidable army both in China and in Japan. What americans feared was a repeat of Okinawa. There was little hope that an uncontested invasion of Japan was in the cards, and so, millions of japanese lives as well as Ameican British and Canadians lives were spared.

[White Doors]

Then how do you explain Truman's decision to kill - with full intent - hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Very easily. He wanted to bring the war to a speedy conclusion. Despite the pretty cloud we still see in pictures, that decision, while an awful one to make, saved millions of lives.

[White Doors]

*The sounds of silence*

But I'll try : A more Machiavellian approach meant to intimidate the Soviets, via brute force. Lord knows it did next to nothing from a tactical point of view. Japan was by and large defeated.

Clearly you have not studied the second world war.

tactical point of view? Lasy I heard nuclear bombs were referred to as 'strategic nuclear missles' and that is exactly what the weapon is. It is 'tactically' useless.

Sorry, what was your point again?

[M.Dancer]

tactical point of view? Lasy I heard nuclear bombs were referred to as 'strategic nuclear missles' and that is exactly what the weapon is. It is 'tactically' useless.

Sorry, what was your point again?

No so. Tactical weapons are small and were stockpiled by NATO to counter a Soviet Amoured attack. Canada trained in the use of those weapons which could be used in convention howitzers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

But as as far as Marcinmoka statement goes, these were indeed strategic weapons, they had the grand strategic result. They won the wr.

[White Doors]

True, there are tactical one's. But if the tactical one's were to be used to counter an armoured attack from the Soviets in Europe during the cold war, then strategic one's would have been used next. Which in turn, rendered their tactical use, useless. They were designed to be tactical in use, but being nuclear weapons, they were indeed only of a strategic value.

ie: It countered the Soviets early Armoured advantage.

Edited August 16, 2007 by White Doors

[Bonam]

Then how do you explain Truman's decision to kill - with full intent - hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Any realistic analysis of the casualties that would have resulted from a conventional invasion of Japan was far greater than the number of dead in those two nuclear attacks. Also, at the time, the long term effects of nuclear weapons were not fully known. I'm sure that at the time it was a fairly obvious choice to make. America had spent the whole war developing and researching those weapons as quickly as possible. Concepts like strategic deterrent, mutually assured destruction, etc, weren't around yet. The Americans made the weapons so that they could use them, and end the war as quickly as possible with as few American casualties as possible, and that's precisely what they did.

[marcinmoka]

Clearly you have not studied the second world war

Say what? Seriously, think before you type.

Lasy I heard nuclear bombs were referred to as 'strategic nuclear missles' and that is exactly what the weapon is.

Really. "Lasy" I heard, bombs are not the same thing as missiles. Granted, I won't obsess over a genuine type-o. What I will come down on is supidity in dealing with more important matters;

- gaining dominance in a part of the world, or winning a war are deemed "strategies". They pertain to the "bigger picture" or the "long term"

- the individual act of destroying one or two cities, for a larger purpose such as defeating a hostile empire is called a tactic. This is a component of strategy.

[White Doors]

Any realistic analysis of the casualties that would have resulted from a conventional invasion of Japan was far greater than the number of dead in those two nuclear attacks. Also, at the time, the long term effects of nuclear weapons were not fully known. I'm sure that at the time it was a fairly obvious choice to make. America had spent the whole war developing and researching those weapons as quickly as possible. Concepts like strategic deterrent, mutually assured destruction, etc, weren't around yet. The Americans made the weapons so that they could use them, and end the war as quickly as possible with as few American casualties as possible, and that's precisely what they did.

Correct - except they were actually atomic weapons, not nuclear.

[Bonam]

Correct - except they were actually atomic weapons, not nuclear.

The two terms refer to the same thing ;p

[White Doors]

Say what? Seriously, think before you type.

Really. "Lasy" I heard, bombs are not the same thing as missiles. Granted, I won't obsess over a genuine type-o. What I will come down on is supidity in dealing with more important matters;

- gaining dominance in a part of the world, or winning a war are deemed "strategies". They pertain to the "bigger picture" or the "long term"

- the individual act of destroying one or two cities, for a larger purpose such as defeating a hostile empire is called a tactic. This is a component of strategy.

Look, your fascination of typo's aside, the decision to use a new, powerful weapon (atomic bombs - how they are delivered is not relevant to our discussion) as opposed to invading the Japanese homeland in a conventional manner was a strategic decision.

A decision which, even in hindsight, was a good one.

[White Doors]

The two terms refer to the same thing ;p

Ok.. I guess I was being a little too picky there.

[marcinmoka]

On to people who did not just seemingly learn "everything there is to know about WW2" from a documentary on the history channel. No offense, but, your false nitpicking at terms kinda discredited you. I'll give you a second chance, WD.

But as as far as Marcinmoka statement goes, these were indeed strategic weapons, they had the grand strategic result. They won the wr.

The war would of been won anyways, and according to most military accounts, not at a substantially higher cost, as the Japanese were already trying to surrender via diplomatic channels. They knew they could not compete with the dual assault of the Americans, now aided by the Russians.

The strategic result was not "winning" the war, but securing "Japan" from the evils of Stalinist Communism, and in a grander strategic scale, having an ally in that corner of the world did wonders on the bigger scale.

We agree on the score, just not on the gameplay.

Edited August 16, 2007 by marcinmoka

[White Doors]

No offense, but, your false nitpicking at terms kinda discredited you. I'll give you a second chance, WD.

It was nitpicking, but not false. Early atomic weapons were fission based. later hydrogen or thermonuclear bombs were fusion based and much more powerful and had much more nuclear fallout. A common way to distinguish them was to call the earlier weapons 'atomic' and the latter one's 'nuclear'.

The war would of been won anyways

Who, exactly, is arguing with you on this point?

Surely you agree that the use of the bomb ended the war earlier?

the Japanese were already trying to surrender via diplomatic channels. They knew they could not compete with the dual assault of the Americans, now aided by the Russians.

Sure, and some Japanese never wanted to attak the US in the first place. Point?

They needed to convince the emporer and the emporer needed to save face to the people. Veru difficult to do.

The use of these weapons made that possible.

I do not doubt that Truman had the Soviets in mind as well when he decided to use them, but that does not make the use of them any less moral or correct.

[M.Dancer]

The war would of been won anyways, and according to most military accounts, not at a substantially higher cost, as the Japanese were already trying to surrender via diplomatic channels.

I disagree with the Anyways...adn most

Anyways.....yes we would have had victory, but would it have been a pyrchic victory?....and I don't beleive for a moment that most military analyis done either at the time or in hind sight puts the cost of victory as being low.

[marcinmoka]

It was nitpicking, but not false. Early atomic weapons were fission based. later hydrogen or thermonuclear bombs were fusion based and much more powerful and had much more nuclear fallout. A common way to distinguish them was to call the earlier weapons 'atomic' and the latter one's 'nuclear'.

Yes it was. This is just backpedaling. Hydrogen or Thermonuclear are one type of weapon, whereas plain "nuclear" or "atomic" are interchangeable and always have been. It is like saying that the fist motor vehicles were "autocars" and modern ones are "automobiles". And it definitely is nothing to get your panties in a whirl. But than again, for someone incapable of distinguishing between tactical and strategic, and who claims tactical nukes never existed, it is worthless to continue arguing with.

And for the record, no nuclear weapons are "fusion" based. Thermo-nukes have a "fusion" component, but that is only as a result of the energy provided by initial "fission" portion.

Bye. Hopefully we will meet in more favorable circumstances in other topics.

------------

Anyways.....yes we would have had victory, but would it have been a pyrchic victory?

Eisenhower and many military brass said no. Let us not forget this was a decision undertaken by the political crowd, not the military crowd. And while it was still pre-Gouzenko, many Americans (and their occasional Nazi helpers) already had a strong distrust for Uncle Joe.

Edited August 16, 2007 by marcinmoka

[White Doors]

Bye. Hopefully we will meet in more favorable circumstances in other topics.

Agreed, hopefully you will have something more relevant to add in other topics.

Strategy:

the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy

Tactical:

of or relating to tactics : as (1) : of or relating to small-scale actions serving a larger purpose (2) : made or carried out with only a limited or immediate end in view b : adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose

Source Merriam Webster.

Edited August 16, 2007 by White Doors

[Black Dog]

False.

Infrastructure is not inherintly civilian or military. It just is. A bridge used by plumbers doesn't suddenly become a military bridge just because it is used by trucks transporting military supplies and vice versa, excpet being a terrorist party within a nation they don't have any brodges of theior own.....In any case, in any war, disrupting the enemies lines of communications is always a high priority target. Here the objective is to prevent the terrorists from moving supplies and men to the front. If the civilians turn on the terrorists that is just a happy collateral benefit.

But getting the Lebanese government and population to turn against Hizbullah was an explicit objective of the bombing campaign, not a "happy collateral benefit".

The Israeli chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, said the airstrikes would continue until the Israeli soldiers were returned and the Lebanese government took responsibility for Hezbollah’s actions. Israel, he said, also wanted to deliver “a clear message to both greater Beirut and Lebanon that they’ve swallowed a cancer and have to vomit it up, because if they don’t their country will pay a very high price.”

link

Which must explain why Hezbollah is implicated in terrorist attacks in South America and implicated in foiled attacks as far away as Singapore.....

Proof?

Edited August 16, 2007 by Black Dog

[M.Dancer]

The Israeli chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, said the airstrikes would continue until the Israeli soldiers were returned and the Lebanese government took responsibility for Hezbollah’s actions. Israel, he said, also wanted to deliver “a clear message to both greater Beirut and Lebanon that they’ve swallowed a cancer and have to vomit it up, because if they don’t their country will pay a very high price.”

That's all very fine an dandy but no where in that does it say there main target is either infrastructure or that opinion of the lebanese people. The General could and probably did mean the strikes would continue until Israel no longer needed to unhold lebanese sovereignty and lebanon would do it herself. Of course Israel would continue to strike at hezbollah targets which include what ever assets Hezbollah uses.

Hezbollah has also carried out attacks outside the Middle East. In his September 20, 2001, speech to Congress, President Bush pledged that the U.S.-led war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Hezbollah’s cells outside the Middle East, its reported involvement in the January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the Palestinian Authority, and its role in a pair of attacks in Argentina in the early 1990s, imply that it might meet the president’s definition, terrorism experts say. In June 2002, Singapore accused Hezbollah of recruiting Singaporeans in a failed 1990s plot to attack U.S. and Israeli ships in the Singapore Straits. Hezbollah was also among the few terrorist groups that President Bush mentioned by name in his January 2002 State of the Union address.

What major attacks is Hezbollah responsible for?

Hezbollah and its affiliates have planned or been linked to a lengthy series of terrorist attacks against the United States, Israel, and other Western targets. These attacks include:

*a series of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon, including several Americans, in the 1980s;

the suicide truck bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983;

the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane’s pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head;

two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing twenty-nine) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing ninety-five).

a July 2006 raid on a border post in northern Israel in which two Israeli soldiers were taken captive. The abductions sparked an Israeli military campaign against Lebanon to which Hezbollah responded by firing rockets across the Lebanese border into Israel.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/#6

[M.Dancer]

...and amazingly between then and this summer the Lebanese Government grew a pair....one day they hope they will drop and all of lebanon will be under Government authority.