quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: Which would you order? The deaths of 200,000 enemies or 3/4 of a million of your own men?
Well, that's not the real choice.
The best wartime estimate for the number of casualties for the entire campaign to end the war (including invasions of both Kyushu in fall 1945 and Honshu in early 1946 and the capture of Tokyo) was 370,000, including 290,000 wounded and 80,000 dead (These figures are from Dunnigans and Nofi's book "Victory at Sea"). The oft-quoted figure of "1 million dead" is a pure myth that started appearing after the war, mostly in an attempt to justify the atomic bombings. Japanese casualties, both civilian and military, would probably have been several times higher than US casualties (and certainly much higher than the actual casualties in the two atomic bombings), if the Japanese had resisted the invasion until the end. I don't intend to argue for or against any war-ending strategy; I just don't want to see inaccurate numbers thrown about.
I thought that was a total number of dead, the 1,000,000, which you numbers back up. After the war they made it 1,000,000 dead US troops, to justify the bombs.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Leaving Hiroshima and Nagasaki aside and returning to the original topic:
I just find it odd, that two of the prime warmongers of our time should be nominated for any Peace Prize. If the Nobel committee were an American institution, ok, then I could understand their reasoning as being patriotic, but that's not the case. So again, WTF? I just hope this news article turns out to be hoax after all. Just think of the consequences! If the world is shown the example "Look, these two militaristic leaders who start wars without justified cause get the Nobel prize for Peace!", what would you think the reaction will be in many countries - especially in the Muslim world?
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: Peace is one of the five prize areas mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will. The will was, however, partly incomplete. Nobel simply stated that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that one part be given to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Hmmm... not entirely convinced that Bush and Blair's actions fall under those catagories. I suppose the 'benefit to mankind' part is possible but Bush has certainly screwed his chances on the second bit. Although the way Blair is treating our Forces at the moment he probably would qualify.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Regardless of your opinions on whether the war was justified, can you really argue that the world is not a better place overall without Sadaam Hussein in power?"
Ask again in ten years.
"Which would you order? The deaths of 200,000 enemies or 3/4 of a million of your own men?"
Well, hypothetically, if half of those 200,000 enemies were women and children, I'd order the latter (that, incidentally, is why I'm not a three-star general). Indiscriminate killing is ALWAYS wrong.
"...Bush has certainly screwed his chances on the second bit."
And on the third and fourth.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
"Which would you order? The deaths of 200,000 enemies or 3/4 of a million of your own men?"
Well, hypothetically, if half of those 200,000 enemies were women and children, I'd order the latter (that, incidentally, is why I'm not a three-star general). Indiscriminate killing is ALWAYS wrong.
Well, if you were the commander of those 3/4 million men, you'd have a greater responsibility to their survival than any citizens of an enemy nation.
It's probably one of history's toughest decisions.
Incidentally, I doubt anyone of the Nobel committe of the 1940's would consider FDR, Churchill ar any other leader in wartime a candidate for the Peace Prize. Standards sure are going out the window....
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
You're right, I would have that responsibility, but I still could not in good 21st century conscience order The Bomb to be dropped on a largely civilian population even it WOULD ensure the survival of my troops and end the war outright, and I refuse to let WizArtistic arithmetic decide questions like this.
Anyway, we've been over this before, so it's probably a good idea to drag this thing back on track while we still can.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
This whole conversation reminds me of a fiction work wherein Germany wins WWI and good ol' Shicklegruber doesn't get all angst driven and become "Der Fuhrer". Instead it is the Frenchies that get trod on until an angst driven DeGaulle comes to power and starts "cleansing" the purity of the Norman race.
If it had not been the U.S. it would have been Russia, or Britain or China or now India or Pakistan. Who knows, perhaps in a few years it would be Luxemborg or the Vatican. The point is, that the US is being villified for being the first. I PRAY that we are also the LAST and ONLY to have ever done so. IF that happens, then perhaps far far more than a million lives will have been saved.
I believe Einstein said that he didn't know what weapons WW3 would be fought with but WW4 would be fought with sticks and stones.
-------------------- I am the Anti-Abaddon. I build models at a scale of 2500/1
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Why not? The pope already has irrational, fanatical zealots in every country....
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
ROME--The Vatican announced today it has secretly developed a nuclear bomb, to be used as deterrent against Western "imperialist agressors." The Pope told the 800 residents of the Holy See to be prepared for a US attack. The United States has declared Vatican City a member of the European axis of evil, along with Andorra, Luxemborg, Liechtenstein, and San Marino.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
I have never, EVER said that the Japanese did NOT also carry out indescribable atrocities. Do not even SUGGEST it.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Apparently, Japan is considering building an atomic bomb as a deterrent against North Korea. Or so says the BBC, at least.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Doesn't that go against several long standing treaties, errr, surrender agreements, that limit the size and capabilities of their armed forces????
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
