[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42583428]This is new warfare for you. Since WW2 proper warfare has almost become a fallacy, now it's all about killing the civilians and annihilating morale.[/QUOTE]
[citation needed]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42580486][img]http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Syria-437833-300x177.jpg[/img]
No words...[/QUOTE]
That's one hell of a shot
[QUOTE=Riutet;42583458][citation needed][/QUOTE]
Or you could look at every single war that's happened since WW2 and notice the immense number of civilian casualties compared to, say, WW1.
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;42581038][b]WHY !!!!!!! [/b][/QUOTE]
Because the phrase "war is hell" is not an exaggeration, it's an understatement
[QUOTE=Riutet;42583458][citation needed][/QUOTE]
World War 1 Civilian casualty estimate:
[B]948,248[/B]
Military casualties for the same conflict:
[B]9,722,620[/B]
Which puts civilian casualties at 9.75% of military casualties.
Now let's look at the Korean war:
Civilian casualties:
[B]2,500,000[/B] (estimate)
Military casualties:
[B]1,355,000[/B]
Puts the civilian casualties at 184%.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42583537]Or you could look at every single war that's happened since WW2 and notice the immense number of civilian casualties compared to, say, WW1.[/QUOTE]
You know I've lived a long time right?
I used to roll with a pretty cool cat who I affectionately called Khan.
Nicest guy you'd ever meet I'll tell you now. Peacefully conquered numerous places and then after conquering, ordered his men to give everyone backrubs and a warm meal. Everyone was happy despite being conquered and no one group of people was ever systematically killed or anything nasty like that.
I am surprised he didn't go down in history as a Saint but he will always have a place in my heart.
[editline]20th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cabbage;42583639]World War 1 Civilian casualty estimate:
[B]948,248[/B]
Military casualties for the same conflict:
[B]9,722,620[/B]
Which puts civilian casualties at 9.75% of military casualties.
Now let's look at the Korean war:
Civilian casualties:
[B]2,500,000[/B] (estimate)
Military casualties:
[B]1,355,000[/B]
Puts the civilian casualties at 184%.[/QUOTE]
I may be wrong here, but the sheer capability of a particular side to cause massive damage to huge areas kind of significantly changed from WW1 to WW2 and onwards. An average payload for bombers during WW1 was about 10kg, varying from around that number. Move forward to WW2 and you're looking at numbers ranging from 450kg on top of nuclear weaponry.
The potential to cause massive collateral damage has increased significantly, this is true, I do not deny that. But I don't think warfare suddenly became about defeating the other side by crushing their morale through killing their civilians any more so than in the past. Just that it became much easier to do with greater armaments, either intentionally or unintentionally. In the past if you wanted to take what the other group had, you had to go through the people willing to defend what they had to get to the people behind them, and when you managed that it's not as if civilians were just off limits, they weren't.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;42583639]World War 1 Civilian casualty estimate:
[B]948,248[/B]
Military casualties for the same conflict:
[B]9,722,620[/B]
Which puts civilian casualties at 9.75% of military casualties.
Now let's look at the Korean war:
Civilian casualties:
[B]2,500,000[/B] (estimate)
Military casualties:
[B]1,355,000[/B]
Puts the civilian casualties at 184%.[/QUOTE]
Now do WWII
[QUOTE=theVendetta;42583697]Now do WWII[/QUOTE]
Civilian ~ 49,000,000
Military ~ 24,000,000
204.16%
[QUOTE=Riutet;42583650]bullshit about medieval times being harsh too and collateral damage[/QUOTE]
Okay so here's the thing. First of, medieval times were a long fucking time ago. Warfare changed a whole lot during these days and there has been a noticeable bracket in time where wars happened between soldiers, in remote places far away from the civilians. Arabs were known to have a very strict code of honor that prohibited them, even back to the Middle Ages, from attack civilians at any moment. Between the barbarism of the dark ages and the late 19th century there's been a lot of evolution. Of course civilian casualties were never non-existent but for a long time warfare was literally just two armies standing one in front of another, loading muskets and shooting each other until both rows are dead and two more rows would advance.
Even WW1 with its trench warfare was like that. People get stuck in remote locations (the somme was a random remote hill in the middle of nowhere, very much like every other war field at the time) and just shoot at each other until one of the two camps has survived.
Then came WW2 and war changed a whole lot. You can't say civilian casualties were caused by "collateral damage" because they were directly aimed at by the constant bombing. There hasn't been a single ground battle in the UK during the entirety of the WW2, yet they suffered constant civilian casualties. Why ? Because the Germans just threw bombs at London, right in the middle of the residential districts where people lived. There weren't soldiers there.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't military strategic targets, either. They were towns crammed with civilians and the US bombed them with nuclear force to make a point, and it worked.
Not to mention the countless times Nazis have entered French villages at random and killed everyone. There were no military people in these villages, all the men were gone to war, there were only children, women and old people. In one of the villages, they just crammed everyone in a church and burned it down, then they shot the few men still left in a barn. That sort of stuff isn't collateral damage, it's deliberate.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42583905]Okay so here's the thing. First of, medieval times were a long fucking time ago. Warfare changed a whole lot during these days and there has been a noticeable bracket in time where wars happened between soldiers, in remote places far away from the civilians. Arabs were known to have a very strict code of honor that prohibited them, even back to the Middle Ages, from attack civilians at any moment. Between the barbarism of the dark ages and the late 19th century there's been a lot of evolution. Of course civilian casualties were never non-existent but for a long time warfare was literally just two armies standing one in front of another, loading muskets and shooting each other until both rows are dead and two more rows would advance.
Even WW1 with its trench warfare was like that. People get stuck in remote locations (the somme was a random remote hill in the middle of nowhere, very much like every other war field at the time) and just shoot at each other until one of the two camps has survived.
Then came WW2 and war changed a whole lot. You can't say civilian casualties were caused by "collateral damage" because they were directly aimed at by the constant bombing. There hasn't been a single ground battle in the UK during the entirety of the WW2, yet they suffered constant civilian casualties. Why ? Because the Germans just threw bombs at London, right in the middle of the residential districts where people lived. There weren't soldiers there.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't military strategic targets, either. They were towns crammed with civilians and the US bombed them with nuclear force to make a point, and it worked.
Not to mention the countless times Nazis have entered French villages at random and killed everyone. There were no military people in these villages, all the men were gone to war, there were only children, women and old people. In one of the villages, they just crammed everyone in a church and burned it down, then they shot the few men still left in a barn. That sort of stuff isn't collateral damage, it's deliberate.[/QUOTE]
Hiroshima was chosen as a target out of a lot of different candidates because the industry there was turning out ships and weapons for the Japanese war effort IIRC, and they thought there weren't any American POW camps (Apparently the Americans got that wrong.) So it wasn't exactly a strictly military target, but it wasn't chosen just to kill thousands of innocent men, women and children.
Not trying to argue with you or justify atomic bombing, just trying to spew out information I learned when I visited Hiroshima.
My point is, they blew up an entire town with a nuclear bomb because it was impressive and frightening, not because it was an absolute necessary military strategic action.
[QUOTE=SexualShark;42580560]A woman pregnant with triplets was walking down the street when a masked robber ran out of a bank and shot her three times in the stomach. Luckily the babies were OK.
The surgeon decided to leave the bullets in because it was too risky to operate. She gave birth to two healthy daughters and a healthy son.
All was fine for 16 years, and then one daughter walked into the room in tears. "What's wrong?" asked the mother.
"I was taking a tinkle and this bullet came out" replied the daughter. The mother told her it was okay and explained what happened 16 years ago.
About a week later the second daughter walked into the room in tears. "Mom, I was taking a tinkle and this bullet came out." Again the mother told her not to worry and explained what happened 16 years ago.
A week later her son walked into the room in tears. "It's okay" said the Mom, "I know what happened, you were taking a tinkle and a bullet came out."
"No," said the boy, "I was playing with myself and I shot the dog..."[/QUOTE]
Why was he fapping and aiming it at the dog?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42585089]Why was he fapping and aiming it at the dog?[/QUOTE]
dog fuckers
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42584161]My point is, they blew up an entire town with a nuclear bomb because it was impressive and frightening, not because it was an absolute necessary military strategic action.[/QUOTE]
Excess numbers of civilian casualties has pretty much always been a constant. Look at the ottoman control of greece, or how whole cities could be razed back in the middle ages.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;42583639]World War 1 Civilian casualty estimate:
[B]948,248[/B]
Military casualties for the same conflict:
[B]9,722,620[/B]
Which puts civilian casualties at 9.75% of military casualties.
Now let's look at the Korean war:
Civilian casualties:
[B]2,500,000[/B] (estimate)
Military casualties:
[B]1,355,000[/B]
Puts the civilian casualties at 184%.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I think that's mostly to do with just how much more mobile ww2 was compared to ww1. It would be good to break the first by regions. I'd wager there were very little on the relatively static, trench filled western front, but a lot more on the more mobile eastern.
Another thing to remember - the ability in ww2 to hit the enemies economy was much greater than in ww1 as such killing production in a protracted engadgement is very important.
The situation in Syria is completely different as it's a civil war, where economy isn't the point terribly much anymore. Take a look at the war in Iraq for instance, where civilians were not targeted, or the war in Kuwait.
i am a horrible person.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42584161]My point is, they blew up an entire town with a nuclear bomb because it was impressive and frightening, not because it was an absolute necessary military strategic action.[/QUOTE]
The alternative was a conventional invasion resulting in massive casualties, plus all of our captured personnel getting executed by their captors.
Ehh the wording of this article and the content seems a little fishy, smells of propaganda.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42584161]My point is, they blew up an entire town with a nuclear bomb because it was impressive and frightening, not because it was an absolute necessary military strategic action.[/QUOTE]
First of all, it wasn't because of that.
Its was a completely strategic move, pearl harbor was a huge fucking hit to the US military and its capabilities. The A-Bomb was pretty much a deal breaker that would end the war for the US. They did it to weaken and cripple japan and also create a huge deterrent. On top of that America could not invade japan even if they wanted too, it would lead to a horrific amount of losses on the american side. So the A-bomb was used to prevent a land invasion and thus saving many American lives.
[QUOTE=Brandy92;42583904]Civilian ~ 49,000,000
Military ~ 24,000,000
204.16%[/QUOTE]
A question - do resistance and rebel forces get counted as civilian (because they are essentially armed civilian militias) or as military because they are technically, fighters?
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;42586958]The alternative was a conventional invasion resulting in massive casualties, plus all of our captured personnel getting executed by their captors.[/QUOTE]
I doubt this.
The Soviets had already invaded Manchuria, plus the Japanese navy and air forces had been crippled. A massive blockade was being imposed on the country, and half of the government was trying to sue for peace.
This is the result of dehumanizing your enemies.
[QUOTE=MR-X;42591193]First of all, it wasn't because of that.
Its was a completely strategic move, pearl harbor was a huge fucking hit to the US military and its capabilities. The A-Bomb was pretty much a deal breaker that would end the war for the US. They did it to weaken and cripple japan and also create a huge deterrent. On top of that America could not invade japan even if they wanted too, it would lead to a horrific amount of losses on the american side. So the A-bomb was used to prevent a land invasion and thus saving many American lives.[/QUOTE]
Do you really believe that it would take an atom bomb to destroy an industrial complex rather than use regular bombing and avoid hundred of thousands of collateral casualties? Don't be naive. The atom bomb was a giant "Don't fuck with us" message for Japan.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42593142]I doubt this.
The Soviets had already invaded Manchuria, plus the Japanese navy and air forces had been crippled. A massive blockade was being imposed on the country, and half of the government was trying to sue for peace.[/QUOTE]
The other half was as fanatical as ever, and still had guns.
As to the surrender thing, how were we supposed to know?
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;42594742]The other half was as fanatical as ever, and still had guns.
As to the surrender thing, how were we supposed to know?[/QUOTE]
Because they were actively talking to the Russians about surrendering. You can go read all the diplomatic cables online.
All Japan wanted was a conditional surrender for honors sake. But the Allies had no interest in shortening the war that way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
