Can a good soldier be a good man? 69 replies

Please wait...

Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#41 12 years ago

The Clauswitzian trilogy of government, military, and civilian population is relatively new, and hardly universal. Historically, you attack unarmed enemies and their families whenever possible because they can't fight back and their deaths demoralize the enemy army. Don't have the stomach for it? Don't fight a war.

Young_Pioneer;3553322So would you have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasika or not? Were the pilots good or evil soldiers?

Yes, because they saved millions of American and Japanese lives in doing that. we lost thousands of men taking tiny islands with small garrisons (Think Iwo Jima). Imagine how costly a full-scale invasion of the main islands of Japan would have been. We could have just done a blockade. But then the military leadership of Japan would have simply fed the soldiers and let the people starve - so you still get millions of deaths. The nukings were the best way out. They shocked the emperor into realizing the hoplessness of the situation, causing him to surrender.




Young_Pioneer

Capitalize THIS!

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

547 Posts

0 Threads

#42 12 years ago

Machiavelli's Apprentice;3561484Historically, you attack unarmed enemies and their families whenever possible because they can't fight back and their deaths demoralize the enemy army. Don't have the stomach for it? Don't fight a war.[/quote] Do you think the leaders responsible for those massacres could have been decent Christians nevertheless?

[quote=Machiavelli's Apprentice;3561484]The nukings were the best way out. They shocked the emperor into realizing the hoplessness of the situation, causing him to surrender.

Nuking those cities was surely the best thing to do from a Machiavellian point of view.

On the other hand one could argue that Japan was already willing to capitulate and just trying to find an honorable diplomatic way to surrender. The nukes were just a demonstration of power for Stalin to show that the USA were willing and able to use them.

Of course, you won't agree with this historical depiction and I think we agree to disagree :).




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#43 12 years ago
Do you think the leaders responsible for those massacres could have been decent Christians nevertheless?

They could be members of any religion, including atheism. So he could be a crusader or a Socialist/Fascist leader, like Stalin and Hitler. (As seen in your link, Communism and Fascism disagree on how religion should be dealt with. Communists believe it should be eradicated. Fascists believe it should be manipulated. Though Hitler's beliefs are unclear, he saw no problem with making sermons to the little people. ;) ) Nuking those cities was surely the best thing to do from a Machiavellian point of view.

On the other hand one could argue that Japan was already willing to capitulate and just trying to find an honorable diplomatic way to surrender.

At this point the fight was completely and totally hopeless. All the carriers were gone, most of the planes were gone, the Yamato was gone. And most importantly - most of the pilots and technical experts were dead. So even if they did build planes and ships, they would have been crewless. If this wasn't a good point to surrender - what is?

The nukes were just a demonstration of power for Stalin to show that the USA were willing and able to use them.

FDR was a big fan of Communism and socialism in general. He wouldn't want to upset our "buddies" in the USSR. Though a few of the wiser heads in the military, like Patton, wanted to seize the initiative and defeat the Soviets as well, FDR would hear none of it. We could have easily wiped out Stalin and his spawn if we had the balls to do it. We had a battle tested army on the field, the war mobilization was in full swing. And best of all - we had a complete monopoly on nuclear weapons. We could have kept it for a while too, if the commie sympathizers in the usa hadn't given it away. :uhoh:

Of course, you won't agree with this historical depiction and I think we agree to disagree :).

True. This is a controversial matter, and is probably off topic. So that would be a wise idea. :)




Liquid fire

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

10th June 2006

0 Uploads

4,322 Posts

0 Threads

#44 12 years ago

People can be many things they can be bad, nuaghty, sexy drunk angry in the present momment and literalluy seconds later be the exact opposite. People can be many things in the past bad, naughy, sexy , drunk angry and literally a momment later into the present be the exact opposite....etc etc




Young_Pioneer

Capitalize THIS!

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

547 Posts

0 Threads

#45 12 years ago

Machiavelli's Apprentice;3563662They could be members of any religion, including atheism. So he could be a crusader or a Socialist/Fascist leader, like Stalin and Hitler.[/quote] The question was: "Do you think the leaders responsible for those massacres could have been decent Christians nevertheless?"

[quote=Machiavelli's Apprentice;3563662]FDR was a big fan of Communism and socialism in general. He wouldn't want to upset our "buddies" in the USSR. Though a few of the wiser heads in the military, like Patton, wanted to seize the initiative and defeat the Soviets as well, FDR would hear none of it.

Yes, and Truman finally dropped the bomb. FDR probably wouldn't have done it. So do you think the nukes were justified as a demonstration of strength against Stalin?




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#46 12 years ago

I consider that demonstration to Stalin more of a "bonus", personally.




Reno

The professional.

50 XP

22nd March 2006

0 Uploads

1,312 Posts

0 Threads

#47 12 years ago

A person is defined by what they do not by what they've done.

I could kill an innocent and live the rest of my life dwelling on what i can't change, or I can live my life helping people and trying to make a difference.




Hawkeye18z

livE raW doG

50 XP

6th August 2005

0 Uploads

1,134 Posts

0 Threads

#48 12 years ago

The atom bombs were dropped on Japan for 1 reason---Vengence for Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Phillipines, China, etc. The same thing happened when the Red Army hit Germany in WWII. Russia suffered more than any other nation in WWII & when they got their chance for payback, that's exactly what they did. If you serve ruthlessness to all you meet; expect ruthlessness to be served to you. Many good men fight in wars & they do things in that scenario that they would never do when there isn't a war.




Reno

The professional.

50 XP

22nd March 2006

0 Uploads

1,312 Posts

0 Threads

#49 12 years ago
Hawkeye18z;3564933The atom bombs were dropped on Japan for 1 reason---Vengence for Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Phillipines, China, etc.

Hmmm. I was always told while growing up that WWII could've lasted another 3 years by not using the nuke. The japanese people were told that the American soldiers would rape the women and murder everyone. The actual japanese army had fortified the entire island getting ready for the American invasion.

In 3 more years of war the number of people that died from the nuclear bombs would have been dwarfed by the number of casualties caused by trying to take the island. It was estimated that 1.4 to four million Allied casualties would result from an attempted invasion of the Japans. That's just the allied casualties. The number of Japaneses casualties would have been a great deal higher. This was the BIG warning the japanese got before the bomb was dropped. Warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#50 12 years ago

Undoubtedly the casualties would have been increadibly high if in invasion had been attempted. But nonetheless the manner in which the bombs were dropped was an immense atrocity and a prime example of state terrorism. The cities were selected not particularly for the amount of industry but for the topography maximizing the blast effect. The bombings were meant as attack on the japanese people, not the fighting forces. Innocent people died from horrible diseases for decades after. There is no way that would have been "the right thing" to do. They could have at least picked a military target.