Makh wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:If the war had been started with Nixon's philosophy of "bomb the hell out of 'em until they give up" (you know, actually fight a war), as opposed to LBJ's philosophy of "bomb them a little bit, and then let them rebuild and regroup, rinse and repeat", we might have fared a whole lot better.

Ah yes the old American war theory of "body count". It never worked friend.

1) It works fairly well in conventional war. WWII, for example.

2) That is exactly what was wrong. Objectives were not picked effectively by the military leadership - leadership that knew what to look for and go after. Instead, they were chosen by LBJ and his staff. That doesn't work, because the civilian leaders have no strategic training. The same issue is going on now with Obama. He won't let the military plan the war in Afghanistan. Instead, he dithers around claiming we need new strategies. Instead of going with the new strategy laid out by his commanders, he questions them. This is not going to end well if he doesn't led the people with military training handle military planning.

And why are you paraphrasing "bomb them a little bit"? USAF droped more bomb during Vietnam than WWII.

Vietnam was also more than twice as long. The bombing was restricted to very few targets by the civilian leadership. That limitation prevented the military from actually fighting a war effectively. Thus, they dropped less bombs than could have been dropped - prolonging the war and eventually losing it.

Mav wrote:

Makh wrote:Ah yes the old American war theory of "body count". It never worked friend. A war is more effective when you target military objectives, not civilian. And why are you paraphrasing "bomb them a little bit"? USAF droped more bomb during Vietnam than WWII.

It's not an American theory, I assure you. Please don't associate me with them. I would, quite honestly, be deeply offended.

Mav, it hasn't been a useful theory since Vietnam. Hell, it didn't work then, and it isn't even taught now. It only works in a conventional theory of war where you can tell how many soldiers the enemy has. And even then it is dubious. Besides, that wasn't the theory I was propounding. I was claiming that military leaders running a war is far more effective than some guy elected to office who knows the law running it. Decide to go to war and let the military leaders handle it. If they screw up and start losing, fire them and get new ones - like Lincoln did in the Civil War. Don't make the decisions yourself if you have no military training. You are almost guaranteed to mess them up then.

Deacon wrote:That's not a very effective argument. That's like saying they used more jets in Vietnam than in WWII. America didn't even get involved in WWII until, what, 1942? Vietnam was a lot longer and with a lot more planes and with a lot more bombs and pretty much everything else.

Tons of bomb dropped by USAF in Vietnam, between 7 and 7.5 tons. Bombs dropped by allied forces during WWII is 2,5 tons. Germany was a pile of rock and debris at the end of the war. Who care how many planes USAF used, they still had the effect of 7 tons of bomb on their land, killing a number x of citizen everytime.

Mav wrote:It's not an American theory, I assure you. Please don't associate me with them. I would, quite honestly, be deeply offended.

"Doctrine" would have been an more accurate word. Widely used and accepted as method of war by American military command from WWII to Vietnam war. Some of them were on the borders of war crime, I could name a few during Korean war, or even the bombing of Dresden in WWII.

collegestudent22 wrote:1) It works fairly well in conventional war. WWII, for example.

The doctrine of body count says that the loss of civilian you kill by any means reduce the pool of potential qualified workers, potential enlistable men, and to a lesser extent, any people who can contribute to war effort. Did it worked? It is really hard to say because Russian soldiers knock knocked at Hitler's bunker door. They lost the war because of the incredibly high loss of soldiers they could not replace AND because the allied airforces managed to destroy most of the heavy industries and war factories, which was much more effective. It did not work in Vietnam neither and that war last much longer, even if, I think, 3 out of 4 Viet who died were civilians.

collegestudent22 wrote:2) That is exactly what was wrong. Objectives were not picked effectively by the military leadership - leadership that knew what to look for and go after. Instead, they were chosen by LBJ and his staff. That doesn't work, because the civilian leaders have no strategic training. The same issue is going on now with Obama. He won't let the military plan the war in Afghanistan. Instead, he dithers around claiming we need new strategies. Instead of going with the new strategy laid out by his commanders, he questions them. This is not going to end well if he doesn't led the people with military training handle military planning.

We agree on the fact that most of the time, to not say always, politicians do not listen enough to their military commanders. Iraq is, to my opinion, the very illustration of that evidence. It was true for the Soviets too. However I disagree on the fact that military skills of president are that important. Their decisions represent a more geopolitical side. For example, during korean war, after the retreat of the Yalu river, MacArthur wanted to nuke the north eastern part of China, which was a insane move, a crime I agree, but, strategically speaking one viable solution. Truman took the decision to not do this because nuking north of China would imply a lot of direct and indirect international consequences on the geopolitical plan. Politicians must be able to foresee what is beyond pure military tactics. And you should be glad that your military is under civil power and that they have the last word.

Vietnam was also more than twice as long. The bombing was restricted to very few targets by the civilian leadership. That limitation prevented the military from actually fighting a war effectively. Thus, they dropped less bombs than could have been dropped - prolonging the war and eventually losing it.

They dropped 3 times the amount. 7.5 vs 2.5 for WWII. Most of it on the northern half of the country. A pretty ratio for a small area like that, even on a 12-13 years interval of time.

Makh wrote:Who care how many planes USAF used, they still had the effect of 7 tons of bomb on their land, killing a number x of citizen everytime.

The bombing was limited to strategic targets. And wasn't even on all of those - mostly bridges and travel routes - not killing citizens but attempting to prevent travel. Problem is, they would bomb the bridges, etc. once and wait for it to be rebuilt and bomb it again...... rinse and repeat.

Some of them were on the borders of war crime, I could name a few during Korean war, or even the bombing of Dresden in WWII.

Well, according to the USAF, the bombing of Dresden was done to take out train stations and other military and industrial targets. Frankly, I trust them just a bit more than your Russian sources of propaganda "information". Besides, why wouldn't they own up to a few conventional bombs thrown at civilians after NUKING JAPAN.

Although the bombing of North Korean cities was a little over the top, as it were.

They dropped 3 times the amount. 7.5 vs 2.5 for WWII. Most of it on the northern half of the country. A pretty ratio for a small area like that, even on a 12-13 years interval of time.

When you are losing, you tend to attack more often. And since much territory was gained, lost, regained, lost again, etc. there will be multiple battles in the same area. As I said, the bombing was limited to industrial and military targets and was often used on targets that had been rebuilt after the FIRST round of bombing.

The doctrine of body count says that the loss of civilian you kill by any means reduce the pool of potential qualified workers, potential enlistable men, and to a lesser extent, any people who can contribute to war effort.

That is not the doctrine. The doctrine was the number of SOLDIERS killed reduced the army that the enemy could bring to bear. Reduce it enough and the enemy was forced to surrender. The US has never gone after civilians intentionally besides the nuclear attacks on Japan.

Did it worked? It is really hard to say because Russian soldiers knock knocked at Hitler's bunker door.

Japan.

It did not work in Vietnam neither and that war last much longer, even if, I think, 3 out of 4 Viet who died were civilians.

It didn't work in Vietnam because you could not tell how many "soldiers" you were fighting. Thus, you could not determine how much of the enemy force you took out. Again, the doctrine has nothing to do with killing civilians. And furthermore, your numbers are off. According to the Vietnamese government, it was 2 out of 3 - and I really don't believe those numbers haven't been inflated severely.

However I disagree on the fact that military skills of president are that important. Their decisions represent a more geopolitical side.

Yeah, but if they ask for a new strategy and I give them a reasonable one, why would it take months to reach a decision on it? They have no knowledge that could help them come up with alternatives, so they should just choose an option from their military leaders. ESPECIALLY after they appointed that leader SPECIFICALLY for that job.

For example, during korean war, after the retreat of the Yalu river, MacArthur wanted to nuke the north eastern part of China, which was a insane move, a crime I agree, but, strategically speaking one viable solution.

Hell no, that wasn't viable. China was barely participating in the war. Nuking them would just get them even more pissed off. MacArthur had gone crazy at that point.

Politicians must be able to foresee what is beyond pure military tactics.

The question of a new strategy in Afghanistan is pure military tactics. Obama took the decision upon himself and won't make it. That's both poor leadership AND bad politics.

And you should be glad that your military is under civil power and that they have the last word.

And I am - provided the civilian leadership isn't a bunch of morons when it comes to war. It was under LBJ and it appears to be under Obama.

So far as I know of the motivations behind dropping atomic bombs on Japan, the options facing the U.S. decision makers at the time were:
1) Grind the Japanese until are no more Japanese people, because it was feared that most everybody would actually fight to the death
2) Shock and awe by use of the atomic bombs, to psychologically defeat the leadership
3) Some sort of half and half win, getting some sort of conditional surrender or settlement ( can't think of the right word)

So U.S. leaders took a gamble that paid off.

I heard a description of Vietnam once that boiled down the doctrine to "neither that of the take ground and hold it strategy of earlier wars nor that of strategic destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war of later wars. Instead it was some incomplete mix of the two and therefor inferior to both" Don't know who said it though was one of those documentaries.

To CS22: I totally agree with you about listening to the experts you already have chosen to be the person you turn to in those situations. If you hire/promote/designate somebody specifically to be the person that can get the job done let them do it. For instance why does everybody ask Obama, sometimes with very specific items, about things like Iraq or currency troubles? Sure He's basically required to know the general data and plan but why can't the experts (military leaders, cabinet, special appointees) answer them "for him". They obviously know more right? Thats their job to know as much as possible.

To Deacon:
hey Grammar (damn i actually tried to spell that wrong too) Policeman what do you find to be wrong with this sentence?

I do not take kindly to you attempting to censor me over this matter.

To Ender:
About the "civilized war" thing I remember finding it to be an oxymoron the first time I came across it, but I think the first time I saw that i was meant as insult. I agree that it sounds idiotic and I should have put it in quotation marks.

I'm not censoring you at all, and the usage of "over this matter" is just completely wrong. Over what matter? There's no matter over which someone is censoring you. There is only the prohibition of the word "narrative".

Deacon wrote:I'm not censoring you at all ...There's no matter over which someone is censoring you. There is only the prohibition of the word "narrative".

So prohibition of the use of a word does not constitute an act of censorship?

Not necessarily. Assuming there are similar words or word combinations available, you can always use those to express the same meaning. Censorship regularly connotes prohibition due to what may be considered morally, socially, or politically repugnant. In this instance, Deacon's just being an ass. He does a damn fine job of it, though. I grinned way too much reading your prohibition of use as dictated by Deacon.

Ender, I believe you're arguing more as to what is militarily superior rather than what is more likely to result in a better social situation for the US as a whole. A nation is an economic and political entity, often much more so than it is a military entity. The US maintains its position primarily through its economic relations and its strong political ties. Kill these off, and the powerful US military would fall to its knees through lack of funding and loss of global political support. Likewise, it shouldn't be forgotten that the US military does help safeguard US interests in the political arena, but I hold that its powerful economy is a much greater force, and any threat to that should be considered carefully.

By failing to stand up to the common standard for nations worldwide in their interactions with each other and with other social or political entities, we risk causing harm to our economic and political ties. While we may be able to kill off every single terrorist we find (or just the leaders, if you wish) on the spot and yell about it, as I already pointed out, this may hurt the US as a whole in its social and economic centers. Nations will be less willing to conduct business with a nation which disregards the sovereignty of other nations and which disregards internationally accepted policies for actions taken during war. The war itself would more likely succeed, but national circumstances would likely falter.

Arc Orion wrote:I hold that its powerful economy is a much greater force, and any threat to that should be considered carefully.

Tell that to North Korea. The economy is useful to maintain alliances with friendly nations. It does not help whatsoever against nations like NK, Cuba, or any other country we have put "sanctions" on in the last few decades.......

So would you rather have better relations with Germany, Russia, and China, or with North Korea and Cuba?

Not my point. My point is that the usefulness of the economy as a force for a nation's will ends right about where the usefulness of the military picks up. The military is really only useful for getting your "enemy" to do what you want them to, and the economic forces are really only useful on your "allies" - someone that regularly gets your goods and services and wants to keep getting them. Now I realize that's a generalization - as "ally" and "enemy" are not black and white - but the main point still holds. The military and economic forces have two different and almost opposing uses. (I say almost, because war makes no sense if you still sell things to the enemy.)

collegestudent22 wrote:Well, according to the USAF, the bombing of Dresden was done to take out train stations and other military and industrial targets. Frankly, I trust them just a bit more than your Russian sources of propaganda "information".

Your lack of questionning is not a great sign of credibility. Here my government-run state source. You should learn to do some research by yourself, to not take everything for granted, especially in something disputable like historical events and politics.

When you are losing, you tend to attack more often. And since much territory was gained, lost, regained, lost again, etc. there will be multiple battles in the same area. As I said, the bombing was limited to industrial and military targets and was often used on targets that had been rebuilt after the FIRST round of bombing.

I do not need justification as I know most of it. It has been discussed on this very forum many times. Vietnam is not an obscure and forgotten historical event. The point I was making has nothing to do with the reasons of the bombing, how the bombs fell on the ground, wind direction. I want to you to realize that when you say stupid things like "bomb them a little bit" you need to be aware of your words. LBJ's philosophy was not to "bomb them a little bit". Anyone who read a bit about the subject knows this friend. LBJ military skills should not even be taken into account to explain the defeat. Fighting a communist insurrection supported by 2 big communist powers on a landscape fit for guerrilla warfare tell us more about the reasons of defeat than LBJ skills.

Did it worked? It is really hard to say because Russian soldiers knock knocked at Hitler's bunker door.

Japan.

You think they surrendered only because of that? The Emperor wanted to surrender several weeks before the launch of the atomic bomb. Their surrender coincided with the fact that Stalin was about to land Soviet army on Hokkaido island and they prefered to surrender to American to avoid the same fate as Germany. A wise decision if you ask me.

For example, during korean war, after the retreat of the Yalu river, MacArthur wanted to nuke the north eastern part of China, which was a insane move, a crime I agree, but, strategically speaking one viable solution.

Hell no, that wasn't viable. China was barely participating in the war. Nuking them would just get them even more pissed off. MacArthur had gone crazy at that point.

Are you doing this on purpose? This is exactly what I said. It was used as an example to prove my point. I said "strategically speaking". Nuking the north eastern part of China would have cut the logistic line of the Chinese army, destroying most of the infrastructure needed to successfuly reinforce an army in Korea, so a viable "military" solution, but a poor political one. I really have to tell everything.

China was barely participating in the war.

This friend, shows that you have no idea of what are you talking about and that I am losing my time again.

cs22, you ignored the three nations I mentioned. While Germany was defeated in WWII, it was political and economic support afterwards that made it a viable world market again, thus cementing bonds with the western powers following the reunification. The USSR split due primarily to political and economic problems, those in part created by an attempt to buildup a military might to compete with the US when the infrastructure for such an endeavor simply wasn't capable of it in the long term. We now have better relations with many of the nations comprising the USSR, due widely to economic and political ties created following the Cold War. Following the death of Mao Zedong, those in power were finally able to establish an economic plan that would allow China to establish a strong level of foreign trade, opening up connections with the US and helping to establish a formal relationship with us. One might claim that China is still an enemy nation, but we have peaceful relations formed through economic ties.

When a power exists which can have a major effect on our well being, it stands to reason that such a power got there because it had reached a certain level of global cooperation. As such, it means that we are more likely to be able to deal with it economically, and more to the point of my prior post, we should follow internationally accepted rules when interacting with any group. A rogue power with few or no allies poses no real threat to us militarily and it would be suicide for such a nation to assault the US. It places us in a bit of a pickle in that we'd have to wait for them to assault us first, but it means that when we strike back, we have the support of the majority of the global community in doing so.

Rave: Guest science editors with a love for double entendre.

Rave: Australia's First Legally Married Gay Couple!

Baby steps (its only in the ACT), and of course there is opposition, however I was happy to read

Any legal ceremonies that take place will still stand regardless of the final outcome.

I love where they choose to get married:

Warren McGaw and Chris Rumble - who have been together for nearly 20 years - celebrated their civil partnership at the Old Parliament House rose gardens this afternoon.

I'm posting this for sheer WTFedness.

Conspiracy theorists of the world, UNITE! Or...break apart.