Nuklear bomb

[Splitter]

Greece: I had no idea so much European "fall out" was effecting them. It make sense, Greece has always been in a strategically significant position. Greece was just the first to fall, others are teetering and may follow shortly. As "larger" nations fall, baling them out is going to become more and more difficult and possibly lead to still larger nations falling.

Preemptive wars: Interesting take, Friendly. What you write is true until there is a "direct threat" to one's nation. What people will argue over is when a threat becomes a direct threat.

US foreign policy changed in the early 21st century. We no longer took an approach of "measured response" to attacks. In the 90's, under Clinton, if you blew up one of our ships, we might take out one of your training camps and call it even. That sort of policy emboldened adversaries and led to more attacks.

After 9/11, we decided that anyone who supported terrorism was a direct threat. People point to the absence of WMD's in Iraq as evidence that the war was not justified. While it is true that most intelligence sources agreed (foreign and domestic) that Iraq had WMD's, they were not the only only reason we went to get Saddam.

Saddam was thumbing his nose at UN inspectors, financially supporting terrorist organizations, and preaching for the destruction of the West. Did he have WMD's? The answer appears to be no, but he had used them in the past (and nothing says that he had them and shipped them elsewhere prior to the invasion). For those reasons, he was deemed to be a direct threat.

Do preemptive strikes work? People want to say "no", but if you will remember, Khadafi was a supporter of terrorism at one time. A series of strikes that almost got him, and killed some of his family, led him to get out of the terrorism business. His decision stopped any further action against him. So, yes, they can work.

The attacks against Libya were VERY controversial at the time on the foreign front. France would not even let our bombers fly over their territory (from England) on the way.

Convoluted American Politics.: Liberals (Democrats) in the US did not want to go to war in Iraq. They wanted to go to war in Afghanistan where the Taliban was supporting Al-Qaeda who had brought down the world trade center. They didn't see a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks.

Conservatives (Republicans) wanted to go to Iraq and Bush was a Republican. So we went to Iraq first and took out that threat.

Now the Democrats are making the mistake of reversing themselves in Afghanistan and wanting to withdraw our troops. Even when commanders on the ground said they needed "X" number of troops, the present President would only send a portion of the troops requested (same as Vietnam). Now, all that our opponents need to do is wait until we pull our troops out of Afghanistan and they can come in and take over. We certainly won't be "winning" that war in the time frame allotted, with the present rules of engagement, and with the resources that are there.

It appears that Iraq will be much more stable as we draw down troops levels, but that could (and probably will) change. Many of us think we were unwise to stay there and that we should have left and let the different factions battle it out among themselves. They hate each other almost as much as the US lol. And if they are fighting each other, they won't be exporting their war.

People bash me for seeing world politics in a "pessimistic" light. That some nation's leaders are "evil" and that there are powerful people in the world who want to destroy anyone who doesn't believe their way. Obviously, I say that such a view is only "realistic" given world history and WWII is a great example of that.

Put simply, if other nations will not respect yours, you better hope they have enough fear of your nation to make them leave you alone. If they lack either a basic respect or fear of retaliation, your nation will be attacked in some way. This plays out over and over again on the world stage.

So the answer, Friendly, to the question of how you prevent the "radicalization" of a country is to make the rewards for rejecting the radical beliefs too great to ignore. And, of course, the consequences for accepting the radical believes too severe. You want them to either respect you enough to reject those beliefs or fear you enough to reject those beliefs. If you fail on both counts, the radicals take over and come after you.

Example: Did Hitler fear France? Did he respect France's sovereignty? Answers are no and no. Hitler takes France.

Example: Did Japan fear the US? Did Japan respect US sovereignty enough to prevent them from attacking US territories? The answers are more vague. No they did not respect US sovereignty within their sphere of influence, but they did fear US might.....just not enough.

Example: Did Hitler fear Britain? Did he respect their sovereignty? While he did not respect their sovereignty, he did fear them enough (after being shown) to not throw his troops away on an invasion.

Lesson: As long as there are bad people in the world, stay strong. Bad people won't respect you but they may fear you enough to leave you alone.

Splitter

[winny]

Originally Posted by Splitter

After 9/11, we decided that anyone who supported terrorism was a direct threat. People point to the absence of WMD's in Iraq as evidence that the war was not justified. While it is true that most intelligence sources agreed (foreign and domestic) that Iraq had WMD's, they were not the only only reason we went to get Saddam.

Saddam was thumbing his nose at UN inspectors, financially supporting terrorist organizations, and preaching for the destruction of the West. Did he have WMD's? The answer appears to be no, but he had used them in the past (and nothing says that he had them and shipped them elsewhere prior to the invasion). For those reasons, he was deemed to be a direct threat.


Splitter

Most of the Islamic terrorism funding comes out of Dubai. Bin laden is a saudi, Iraq was simply finishing the job that daddy bush did in 1991. Sadam was a bad man but the whole WMD was a lie. They'd know if he had any because they'd have the invoices.

The Iraq war was big business.

If the west truely wanted to stop terrorism in the middle east they should probably stop selling them stuff. The west could ban all trade to these countries until they sort their internal problems out. But they won't because the US government among others, values money higher than human life, and because that also happens to be where all the oil is.

One point about similarities between the 1930's and now. There is a country currently that could be compared to Nazi germany in the late 30's. Massive armed forces, invading soveriegn states, taking away civil liberties in the name of patriotism, ignoring international consensus, right wing fundamentalism.. USA anyone? I'm not anti american by the way, my bookshelf is full of American writers, my CD collection is full of American artists and my movie collection too.. Since Bush went it's improved but 9/11 was the biggest oil family in the middle east vs one of the biggest oil families in the west convienientley wrapped up as Islam vs the world.

If these terrorist groups want us out of there then I say we go, and we cut all ties including financial. Leave them to it.

[AndyJWest]

Convoluted American Politics.: Liberals (Democrats) in the US did not want to go to war in Iraq. They wanted to go to war in Afghanistan where the Taliban was supporting Al-Qaeda who had brought down the world trade center. They didn't see a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks.

Conservatives (Republicans) wanted to go to Iraq and Bush was a Republican. So we went to Iraq first and took out that threat.

There was NO CONNECTION between Saddam and Al-Quada. And who exactly was Iraq threatening. The so called 'weapons of mass destruction' were LIES.

This isn't even 'newspeak'. It is utter garbage.

Lesson: As long as there are bad people in the world, stay strong. Bad people won't respect you but they may fear you enough to leave you alone.

Given the above, I'd say anyone who wasn't an abject supporter of US policies would rightly conclude that the US were the 'bad people' - and 'stay strong'.

Splitter, your arguments are not only wrong, they are dangerous.

Back to Japan and Nukes, can you imagine the carnage that would of been been inflicted on the Japanese nation and the Allied soldiers if an invaision of Japan was the only option, the losses to human life would of been catastrophic, It would of been okinawa on a much larger scale, The Japanese propergander machine had already groomed the population to fight to the bitter end using whatever means necessary.
Although tragic the nuclear bomb brought a swift end to the conflict and left the Japanese no option but to lay down their arms thus saving many thousands of lives on both sides.
Whether we should see it in a flight sim is another storey, but we crave realism and it did happen after all.

P.S a very good post from Blackdog, kind of sums up where Im at with world politics.

[AndyJWest]

Back to Japan and Nukes, can you imagine the carnage that would of been been inflicted on the Japanese nation and the Allied soldiers if an invasion of Japan was the only option...

Fair enough, Tree, but the point is there were already other alternatives, and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest the Japanese would have surrendered fairly soon, even without an invasion, and without the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Prior to the Soviet war declaration, the Japanese were trying to negotiate peace via them, on substantially the same terms that the Allies ultimately accepted (an 'unconditional' surrender, except that the Emperor would remain in position). With the Soviet entry into the war, an already dire situation was about to get much worse, as they were well aware. They were rapidly losing the logistical ability to fight anyway, largely as a result of the US submarine blockade. Given the willingness of most of the population to accept the surrender (half-baked military coup attempts notwithstanding), there seems little to suggest there was much will remaining to continue the fight.

[katdogfizzow]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

the point is there were already other alternatives, and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest the Japanese would have surrendered fairly soon, even without an invasion, and without the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Let me just sadly say, they voted not to surrender (1) after 90 percent of their cities were destroyed, (2) after the first bomb was dropped, (3) after the second bomb was dropped. Plus, they fought to every last soldier over and over again in many battles with an entire society based on a warrior code. So in my opinion, I do not look back and see them considering surrender "fairly soon" or any reasonable alternatives short of magically "de-brainwashing" the entire population.... makes one wonder how North Korea will end. Scary stuff repeated all over again.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by katdogfizzow

Let me just sadly say, they voted not to surrender (1) after 90 percent of their cities were destroyed, (2) after the first bomb was dropped, (3) after the second bomb was dropped. Plus, they fought to every last soldier over and over again in many battles with an entire society based on a warrior code. So in my opinion, I do not look back and see them considering surrender "fairly soon" or any reasonable alternatives short of magically "de-brainwashing" the entire population.... makes one wonder how North Korea will end. Scary stuff repeated all over again.

Who 'voted not to surrender'?

It is entirely untrue that 'they fought to every last soldier over and over again' - In the Okinawa campaign, large numbers of Japanese troops surrendered for example.

I've seen no evidence the Japanese population was any more 'brainwashed' than say the Germans (or even, arguably, than Allied populations). The term amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists.

In any case, regardless of the will to fight on, the Japanese no longer had the means, at least on the Japanese mainland

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Who 'voted not to surrender'?

It is entirely untrue that 'they fought to every last soldier over and over again' - In the Okinawa campaign, large numbers of Japanese troops surrendered for example.

I've seen no evidence the Japanese population was any more 'brainwashed' than say the Germans (or even, arguably, than Allied populations). The term amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists.

In any case, regardless of the will to fight on, the Japanese no longer had the means, at least on the Japanese mainland

The Allies suffered about 50K casualties on Okinawa. Japanese soldiers 100K. Civilians 100K.

Now extrapolate that to an invasion of the mainland.

Japan didn't have the means to fight on Okinawa either, but they did, sometimes with sticks. Of course, in that number of civilian casualties is the large number of suicides.

The last A-bomb fell on the 9th, they surrendered on the 15th....but they were ready to surrender . The only thing that saved them was an Emperor who finally made a decision despite a cabinet that was still split after the second bomb.

Splitter

[katdogfizzow]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Who 'voted not to surrender'?

The war cabinet

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

It is entirely untrue that 'they fought to every last soldier over and over again'.

It IS entirely true whether you choose to believe it or not. See Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima. The Japanese fought to the last man in virtually every engagement, regardless of the odds, which was shocking and intimidating to the U.S. troops.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

In the Okinawa campaign, large numbers of Japanese troops surrendered for example.

It was the fierce defense of Okinawa that convinced army planners that an invasion would be too costly.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I've seen no evidence the Japanese population was any more 'brainwashed' than say the Germans (or even, arguably, than Allied populations).

There's no argument to be had.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

The term (brainwashed) amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists.

As a matter of fact it is "recognized". The DSM-IV-TR (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that is published by* the American Psychiatric Association and provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders) describes this dissociative disorder as "states of disassociation" that occur in individuals that have been subjected to periods of prolonged and intense coercive persuasion and occurs largely in the setting of political reform....)

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

In any case, regardless of the will to fight on, the Japanese no longer had the means, at least on the Japanese mainland

Iran attacked Iraqi machine gun nests armed with BOOKS in the Iran/Irag War. The will to fight on "means" everything. Brainwashed individuals/groups are the biggest threat to human society and must be stopped by any means necessary if they choose to advance.

For the record, I am of course against all nuclear war and do see your point. You're just not understanding history/facts/reality. I was bored and thought I'd help you.


Oh yeah, Im against the bomb in game too....

[Blackdog_kt]

I agree with a lot of stuff said by FriendlyFlyer. Also, the bottom line tends to be this little gem here:

Originally Posted by Splitter

What people will argue over is when a threat becomes a direct threat.

and it has a lot to do with how people have gotten used to living their lives and the sense of entitlement that goes with it, or in plain talk "what is considered normal to be available to me". Let's take a seemingly unrelated story, differences in car design between US, Europe and Japan.

If i'm used to driving cars with engines as huge as 6.0L instead of using 1.4L cars with a turbo engine for the same amount of horsepower, it's true that i'm going to be up in arms over lack of cheap gas. Simplified example, but it shows us how the forces of habit and social inertia affect more than what we see at first look.

In the above example, why didn't the US automotive industry move to smaller yet still efficient models? It's not only the economic cost of research and shifting lines of production to a new concept, or even making sure to build cars with high consumption so that the oil companies can turn a profit as well (in the sense of an "industrial complex cartel"), it's also things like a sense of tradition/pride in workmanship, character in the machine (eg, when flying German planes in IL2 i get the same feeling as when riding in a German made car, the ruggedness and sense of purpose, similar for aircraft and cars made by other nations, they tend to exhibit similar traits although they are different classes of machinery) and the nice sound your old Camaro makes when you touch the gas pedal.

It took a combination of the 1976 oil crisis and proven health issues concerning leaded fuels (without lead you can't have high compression engines due to the premature detonation effect, hence you have to move to smaller ones) to start designing and producing cars with smaller engines.

There's more to a lot of our lives than meets the eye and it all ties down under the concept that people fight mainly to preserve their way of life. What i usually object to is enforcing one's way of life upon others, or pursuing a lifestyle that is detrimental to more people that it is beneficial.

The million dollar question here is how much does the force of habit of the common man makes him co-responsible for his government's morally dubious pre-emptives against third parties.

For example, it's commonly argued in a simplistic manner that it's ok to disregard civilian casualties because "they support guy X who's our opponent anyway". This argument not only punishes beliefs and thoughts instead of actions, something dangerous enough in its own right, but it sets the stage for the dismantling of its own self. This happens simply because the argument's application to the one advocating it would be so detrimental, that the only way to make it a feasible one is to resort to double standards regarding it's application. Well, that is the tell-tale sign of a flawed argument.

For example, a guy trying to raise a family of 10 without access to basic amenities like water/electricity/health care in a situation like the Gaza blockade (just the most recent example, you could also put this hypothetical family man in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII just to be objective and not blame the Israelis all the time ) is considered co-responsible for the actions of militant groups, not because he actively supports their cause but because he takes a neutral stance towards it.

He doesn't want to get involved in active fighting since he's a family man, but he obviously won't take up arms against the only party fighting against the ones that deprive him of the aforementioned basic amenities. In the end this is used as a justification to make him a target, a form of "guilty until proven innocent" collective punishment, which is essentially what the fascist ideologies practiced during WWII with de facto dehumanizing based on racial background and mass reprisals against civilians following resistance operations. Simply put, it's like expecting him to take up arms on the side of what he considers a foreign occupation force. Well, it's obvious it won't happen easily, soon, or at all.

Contrasting this guy with someone more like us, how much of a responsibility do you think we bear in that guy's eyes for his misfortunes? We want to drive our cars no matter how small the distance to travel, so his counrty is invaded to secure our cheap oil. We want our cheap iPods, so workers in China have to work 12-18 hour shifts in electronics assembly plants where even exchaning a "good morning" with your colleague on the next bench in front of the conveyor belt is punishable by losing your job. It costs in productivity when workers talk among themselves, which will raise the price of iPod componets, the price of the iPod itself and then the manufacturers will turn to another component provider, hence no talking allowed (i'm not making this up btw). We are not directly responsible for the workers who jumped to their deaths in that factory plant a few months ago, but it's our force of habbit that creates the chain of events which set certain events in motion.

And while it is utopian to think that our realization of the fact alone will change it and maybe even useless to feel remorse about things outside under our direct control, it's not useless to exercise some critical thinking to expand our "horizons of empathy" outside our direct surroundings and act accordignly in a mitigating fashion. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to accuse a man as an accomplice just because he doesn't arrest the criminals himself while he has problems more immediate to his survival to contend with, like lack of access to running water, while at the same time i'm comfortably crusing around in my car and listening to my MP3s.
I'm not exactly starving to death or dying of thirst like, you know, he is, i'm just upset i'll have to walk an extra 10 miles this month and i'm going to run a shorter playlist on my MP3 player because the prices of SDRAM and gas have gone up and when i think of it, it makes me feel like a spoiled brat with an entitlement complex. Kind of puts the whole thing in perspective.

I took a brief look at the pdfs linked a few pages back about British COIN methods and there was a very important bit there, make the locals see and realize that you are operating within the law, not above it, if you want them to accept it as law.
That's why i'm all for maintaining a sense of morality in the current worldwide happenings and conflicts. If we advocate unconditional co-responsibility and collective punishment, we set ourselves up for receiving the same. The only thing that changes is the weapon delivery, but dead non-combatants of any national heritage and religion don't really care if they got hit by a suicide bomber in a cafe or a laser guided bomb dropped from 20000 feet, they would just prefer if it hadn't happened at all.

This is getting a bit too philosophical at this stage and it's also somewhat straining for me, as i'm typing much more than is needed to convey the point, just in order to make sure i don't leave any gray areas that could be misunderstood as bias towards either one.

I'll just say i enjoyed this good natured debate immensely and i'll rest my case while on a good note, before i accidentally slip up and get caught in a mud flinging contest, like so often happens to all of us when touchy subjects are discussed through the written medium alone. Cheers to everyone involved