North Korea ready for War with South?

[Brendan M.]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/19/hillary-clinton-korea-war

North Korea said today that it was ready for war with the South, hours before Hillary Clinton's arrival in Seoul on the latest leg of her maiden tour as US secretary of state.

Pyongyang has ratcheted up its rhetoric in recent weeks and is thought to be preparing for a missile launch, in what many see as an attempt to grab the attention of the new US administration and put pressure on South Korea. It has hinted that it seeks a rapprochement with the US while repeatedly threatening its neighbour.

"[The South Korean president's] group of traitors should never forget that the [North] Korean People's Army is fully ready for an all-out confrontation," the North's KCNA news agency said, quoting an unnamed military official.

It added that the country could be forced to counter-strike against joint US-South Korean military drills announced yesterday, which Seoul and Washington say are defensive.

"If bellicose US forces and South Korean puppets dare wage aggression against us wrapped up in foolish delusion, we will explode our might … and ruthlessly destroy the invasionary forces," KCNA said.

Radio Pyongyang reportedly said that armed skirmishes could break out near a disputed sea border at any time.

Clinton has already warned that a missile launch would be "very unhelpful" and urged Pyongyang to halt "provocative" actions.

Relations on the peninsula deteriorated after President Lee Myung-bak took office in Seoul last year, abandoning his predecessor's "sunshine policy" and cutting aid. Pyongyang recently announced it was ditching a peace deal and all other treaties with its neighbour.

North Korea is expected to top the agenda when Clinton meets Lee tomorrow, and she is also expected to discuss it with senior officials when she arrives in China for the final leg of her tour. A six-nation aid-for-disarmament deal stalled in December last year.

Clinton is believed to be the first US secretary of state since the 60s to go to Asia on a maiden trip.

Earlier today, she sought to reassure citizens in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, of America's good intentions. She said Washington had previously neglected south-east Asia.

She appeared on a popular music TV show and toured US-funded aid projects before meeting President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Tomorrow she will arrive in Beijing, to meet President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, as well as the foreign minister, Yang Jiechi. Officials said talks will concentrate on climate change, but analysts expect the global economic crisis and growing tension on the Korean peninsula to be high on the agenda.

"Some believe that China on the rise is by definition an adversary," Clinton said in New York on the eve of her tour.

"To the contrary, we believe the US and China benefit from, and contribute to, each other's successes."

The two countries have already agreed to resume the military dialogue halted last year. But optimism in China is tempered by fears of US economic protectionism and concerns about the role of sensitive issues such as human rights in discussions.

"There are two possibilities: because the US needs China even more, because of the economic situation, Sino-American relations could become even stronger," said Professor Shi Yinhong, director of the Centre for American Studies at Renmin University in Beijing.

"But another possibility is that the economic situation deteriorates and there are incentives making people keener to adopt protectionist measures and for the Obama administration to become too focused on trade disputes."

He said China generally regarded current means of co-operation as focused and effective, and would want to see detailed proposals before agreeing to reshape them.

Clinton is perhaps best known in China for her forceful speech to the UN women's conference in Beijing in 1995. She has pledged to raise human rights issues while in China and is to visit a church and hold a town hall meeting.

But Professor Shen Dingli, director of the Centre for American Studies at Fudan University, said: "Now she is more mature and a better politician [than in 1995] and I think she will better handle sensitive issues like human rights.

"She will meet with Chinese leaders privately and will certainly raise it then. But I would expect her to spend far more time focusing on areas where the two countries can co-operate."

I'm a little worried for the South if North Korea is serious on this one this time. Haven't we learn anything from the past?

[Vong]

I doubt North Korea would ever try to attack the South. Kim Jong might be crazy, but he isn't stupid.

[shoe1985]

When will these countries learn that war never solves anything, but creates more deaths.

[electriclite]

God wouldn't it be sweet if we could just get China to look the other way for like a few seconds and take that moment to squish this pompodoured twat like the spiteful little zit that he is for good?

Ah to dream.

[therealjohng]

When will these countries learn that war never solves anything, but creates more deaths.


Do you want me to say Yes or tell the truth?

[shoe1985]

Do you want me to say Yes or tell the truth?

No, I know the truth. It is just sad that these things happen.

[Homyrrh]

When will these countries learn that war never solves anything, but creates more deaths.
Um...slavery. Facism. Communism. Concentration camps...

Otherwise, what are the terms of the cease-fire from the 1950s?

[Criminal Rock]

I doubt North Korea would ever try to attack the South. Kim Jong might be crazy, but he isn't stupid.

Just curious as to why you think this... I always thought crazy people did stupid things all the time.

[MacReady]

Um...slavery.

You mean in America, of course. Slavery still exists in some parts of the world to this day, along with different forms of it (like human trafficking and sexual slavery).

Facism.

Which ironically loved to immerse itself in war, as opposed to the allies who were either attacked without a real provocation (again, USA and USSR) or wanted to stop Germany's endless wars (again, France and Great Britain).

Communism.

Easily the worse example. What war ended communism? The results of the Korean war are obvious, Vietnam was a spectacular failure (despite several million dead, it's one of the very few remaining communist states in the world today) and the Communist bloc nations dissolved without a single bullet being fired from the West (thanks to Reagan of course).

Concentration camps...

We found that out after the war. All the Allies got involved for self-defense (USA, USSR), because they were under the command of one of the nations involved (like my own) or just wanted Germany to lay off its neighbours (France, Great Britain). On the other hand, Nazi Germany was the only country in WWII that used war to expand its reach and gain an increased access to Europe's jewish population.

Anyway, I do agree that sometimes war can actually lead to improvements for certain people who are suffering greatly (like what happened when the US finally did something about Bosnia), but often it justs ends up creating far larger problems, like how Israel can defend itself pretty well in war but each war makes it more hated by its enemies afterwards and doesn't really solve anything. Not to mention the endless amount of innocent people who are killed.

Bottom line: one shouldn't get their advice from Protest Warrior. those guys are idiots.

[Homyrrh]

You mean in America, of course. Slavery still exists in some parts of the world to this day, along with different forms of it (like human trafficking and sexual slavery).



Which ironically loved to immerse itself in war, as opposed to the allies who were either attacked without a real provocation (again, USA and USSR) or wanted to stop Germany's endless wars (again, France and Great Britain).



Easily the worse example. What war ended communism? The results of the Korean war are obvious, Vietnam was a spectacular failure (despite several million dead, it's one of the very few remaining communist states in the world today) and the Communist bloc nations dissolved without a single bullet being fired from the West (thanks to Reagan of course).



We found that out after the war. All the Allies got involved for self-defense (USA, USSR), because they were under the command of one of the nations involved (like my own) or just wanted Germany to lay off its neighbours (France, Great Britain). On the other hand, Nazi Germany was the only country in WWII that used war to expand its reach and gain an increased access to Europe's jewish population.

Anyway, I do agree that sometimes war can actually lead to improvements for certain people who are suffering greatly (like what happened when the US finally did something about Bosnia), but often it justs ends up creating far larger problems, like how Israel can defend itself pretty well in war but each war makes it more hated by its enemies afterwards and doesn't really solve anything. Not to mention the endless amount of innocent people who are killed.

Bottom line: one shouldn't get their advice from Protest Warrior. those guys are idiots.
Protest Warrior? That's where the bumper sticker came from?

I think the bottom line is that war is sometimes the only, if absolute and unfortunate, answer

[MacReady]

That's where I first saw it at least.

I can agree with you on that, I just wanted to stress that very evil people often do benefit from war as well.

[shoe1985]

Protest Warrior? That's where the bumper sticker came from?

I think the bottom line is that war is sometimes the only, if absolute and unfortunate, answer

It seems you are pro war, so, what part of the military you are in? I find it funny that a lot of people are in support of war, but almost none of them are in the military or know anyone in the military.

[Homyrrh]

It seems you are pro war, so, what part of the military you are in? I find it funny that a lot of people are in support of war, but almost none of them are in the military or know anyone in the military.
I resent such an ignorant statement. So generalized! So narrow-minded! Regardless, to answer your question, I'm in the Us Air Force. I find no humor this (though I just resent the rhetoric of the cliche "I find it funny that..."), and hope you do not either.

I also feel you are confusing one who supports the "option" of war with one who is quick to wage it. I merely feel that in the eleventh hour, when the coffee is empty and the pens are dry of ink, that the refusal to consider armed conflict is naive. All bumper sticker witicisms aside, there are triumphant events in the histories of both America and the world that could not have come to pass without the mobilization of armed forces.

I cannot deny that any given general officer in any given branch of our military would sooner fight with the quill than the trigger, but he remains in the profession of arms, understanding that there will come the time when the utilization of his services will be unavoidable.

[Vong]

there are triumphant events in the histories of both America and the world that could not have come to pass without the mobilization of armed forces.

And some of the greatest tragedies were committed when people refused to talk.

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! :rolleyes:

[Homyrrh]

And some of the greatest tragedies were committed when people refused to talk.

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! :rolleyes:
Yet, like shoe and/or any other poster yet, this is no refutation of what I have said. When it can be proved to me, with a logic that transcends some contrived requirement that I be in the armed forces or uses empirical intellectual reasoning just slightly above the splendor above that of the :rolleyes: smiley, this is worth my time.

I have not claimed that war is the only answer, or even the ideal one, but I am right that it is AN answer, and sometimes the only one.

[shoe1985]

By my commenting of finding it funny, I meant that we have all these people say, we need to go war, yet they know of nobody fighting in the military. Yes, lets send all these people, that you don't know, to a war that you want to fight, that really has no effect on them. Yes, some wars do, but not all. So, if you are not a part of the military, or have a family member in the military, shut up, and don't say we should go to war, not directed at you Homyrrh, I respect that you are in the air force. But, for every one person like you, I could find 10 or 20 other people that would be for war, yes, they are not in some form of the military.

In my opinion, after high school, or if you dropout, you should go straight to boot camp of one of the militarys, and learn how to fight. Then we bring back the draft. Oh, imagine how Iraq would have never happened. We would probably have Bin Laden by now, and we have actually lowered terrorism in one part of the world, not all of it of course.

[Homyrrh]

By my commenting of finding it funny, I meant that we have all these people say, we need to go war, yet they know of nobody fighting in the military. Yes, lets send all these people, that you don't know, to a war that you want to fight, that really has no effect on them. Yes, some wars do, but not all. So, if you are not a part of the military, or have a family member in the military, shut up, and don't say we should go to war, not directed at you Homyrrh, I respect that you are in the air force. But, for every one person like you, I could find 10 or 20 other people that would be for war, yes, they are not in some form of the military.

In my opinion, after high school, or if you dropout, you should go straight to boot camp of one of the militarys, and learn how to fight. Then we bring back the draft. Oh, imagine how Iraq would have never happened. We would probably have Bin Laden by now, and we have actually lowered terrorism in one part of the world, not all of it of course.
I understand your sentiment about a general ignorance toward warfare, and empathize with how ridiculous it is that any individual would condone or condemn a war or a conflict without fully realizing the scope or truth behind it. Again, no sensible person, military or civilian, should be quick to war, but I just think it's foolish that anyone would overlook such profound examples of moral victory forged on the battlefield.

And I just dislike the cliche "I find it funny that..." regardless of who uses it or where it used, primarily because it's never used in the right context of ever finding something humorous. Like when people say, "I could care less about...", but don't realize that if they could care less, than they obviously care about it...sorry, haha.

[QUENTIN]

Homyrrh,

To refute your notion that war is ever an appropriate option:

There is not a war in human history in which many innocent people were not murdered. Murder is never justifiable, no one has the right to take innocent human life. Human life is the greatest commodity we know of and something we can never get back. Taking a life is final and its ramifications infinite. Almost all people agree on this basic tenet ("Murder is wrong"), almost all religions adopt it as a guiding principle, almost all societies recognize and prohibit it, almost all governments dismiss it as inconvenient to their aims.

War cannot be an option because war is the intentional, acknowledged, and understood decision to murder innocent people and no cause or source of national interest could ever justify that.

The most frequently cited defense I hear nowadays to justify war or differentiate us from the "terrorists" we're fighting is that we "don't intentionally kill innocent people". This rings very hollow because we go to war with full knowledge that we will kill a lot of innocent people, and despite our supposedly technologically advanced trillion-dollar weapons, they do die in great numbers and without remorse. All our claimed superiority is shown to be ineffective at best, totally callous at worst by the actual death tolls:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5755479.ece

I don't want to tiptoe into insult territory here, but as a person of steadfast basic morality that trumps any kind of ideology, I find anyone who is comfortable with and supports the wholesale slaughter of innocent people simply monstrous. You can't value human life and support any war, they are entirely contradictory thoughts and values. Whether one openly admits to others and self that by supporting some wars what they are supporting and advocating is the murder of innocent people, it is true.

As a matter of policy, pens dry much faster and coffee runs out much quicker on compromise, conflict resolution, and diplomacy when war is always there as an option, something the powerful know they can turn to when it's more convenient than ensuring the safety of people. Accepting the basic premise of war, "We can achieve our goals by devastating these people and killing enough of them to force them to give in to our demands" not only makes war inevitable, but makes it a frequent and ever-present staple of a nation's behavior.

World War II, the most heavily propagandized and devastating war in history, subsequently considered the most just and right war by a majority of Westerners, killed over 70 million people including 47 million entirely innocent civilians in order to take a couple men and their cabals out of power. That is senseless, immoral, and tragic, as all wars are.

[Homyrrh]

Homyrrh,

To refute your notion that war is ever an appropriate option:

There is not a war in human history in which many innocent people were not murdered. Murder is never justifiable, no one has the right to take innocent human life. Human life is the greatest commodity we know of and something we can never get back. Taking a life is final and its ramifications infinite. Almost all people agree on this basic tenet ("Murder is wrong"), almost all religions adopt it as a guiding principle, almost all societies recognize and prohibit it, almost all governments dismiss it as inconvenient to their aims.

War cannot be an option because war is the intentional, acknowledged, and understood decision to murder innocent people and no cause or source of national interest could ever justify that.

The most frequently cited defense I hear nowadays to justify war or differentiate us from the "terrorists" we're fighting is that we "don't intentionally kill innocent people". This rings very hollow because we go to war with full knowledge that we will kill a lot of innocent people, and despite our supposedly technologically advanced trillion-dollar weapons, they do die in great numbers and without remorse. All our claimed superiority is shown to be ineffective at best, totally callous at worst by the actual death tolls:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5755479.ece

I don't want to tiptoe into insult territory here, but as a person of steadfast basic morality that trumps any kind of ideology, I find anyone who is comfortable with and supports the wholesale slaughter of innocent people simply monstrous. You can't value human life and support any war, they are entirely contradictory thoughts and values. Whether one openly admits to others and self that by supporting some wars what they are supporting and advocating is the murder of innocent people, it is true.

As a matter of policy, pens dry much faster and coffee runs out much quicker on compromise, conflict resolution, and diplomacy when war is always there as an option, something the powerful know they can turn to when it's more convenient than ensuring the safety of people. Accepting the basic premise of war, "We can achieve our goals by devastating these people and killing enough of them to force them to give in to our demands" not only makes war inevitable, but makes it a frequent and ever-present staple of a nation's behavior.

World War II, the most heavily propagandized and devastating war in history, subsequently considered the most just and right war by a majority of Westerners, killed over 70 million people including 47 million entirely innocent civilians in order to take a couple men and their cabals out of power. That is senseless, immoral, and tragic, as all wars are.
I'm on my way out of class to a meeting and will return to this later this evening, but I entirely agree with your base of logic...pretty much. War has unavoidable civilian casualties indeed, and human life is that most precious of resources (except for that life which resides in a womb, ohhhh...just kidding....sort of).

With this logic, the next step has to be taken in realizing the full scope and consequences of armed conflict. WWII was rife with propaganda...looking back it's almost ludicrous, especially in places like Berlin, where the German citizen was hearing about the countless Third Reich victories mere weeks before VE Day. This was also an entirely avoidable war, but we have Chamberlain and the rest of the signers of the Munich Agreement to thank for that; this is the eternal example of the futility of appeasement.

After this, when Italy and Japan Axis-ed up, etc., there ultimately comes a point soome time after 7 Dec 1941 that tolerance and isolationism needs to cease. When you count the number of civilian casulaties inflicted by US forces from 1942-45, you come to the point where projected casualties begin to take a part in justifying something like WWII. Regardless of Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki and the 200,000+ casualties on either side projected for a conventional marine invasion, how many more lives would have been lost to Hitler's regime were America to never intervene? Great Britain wasn't quite handling matters on its own. We've would've had little worry of communism though...Europe would have been a totalitarian German state.

[Homyrrh]

Anyway, sorry about that....

My absolute point(s) is that (A) I agree that human life, and especially the preservation of it, is immeasurable, but that (B) "war" (used generically) may, and has been at times, the unfortunate means to a just end and a method for reducing the ultimate toll of life, especially civilian life.

For example, coalition presence in Afghanistan does have tangential civilian casualties. Though I choose to believe, ignorant or otherwise, that the majority of Afghan civilian deaths are not resultant of deliberate American actions, our mere presence--accidents, stray fire, crossfire, use as targets by insurgents, etc.--is the primary reason for these casulaties. However, while I am in no way Washington's candidate for an Afghan advisor, our presence in the region (in general) is intended to seek and eliminate terrorists threats abroad, including the US. I know you disagree with this, but it is, at the least, a somewhat systematic defense of my stance.

[Jon Lyrik]

Didn't Germany declare war on the US like three days after Pearl Harbor? That'd kind of invalidate "Europe would be under Hitler".

[Homyrrh]

Didn't Germany declare war on the US like three days after Pearl Harbor? That'd kind of invalidate "Europe would be under Hitler".
From what I've understood, the German and Italian declarations of war on the US were results of our 08 December 1941 decision to go to war with Japan (it was on this date that Congress immediately approved FDR's request to declare war on Japan). It was on 11 December 1941 that the other Axis powers, both Germany and Italy declared war on the US. In retrospect, you do make a logical point. However, whether to stop a tyrant from his conquest of Europe or just to defend American interests (especially following a period of isolation for 2+ years), I don't see where American involvement in WWII was anything but necessary.

As a disclaimer, however, I fully concede (as I mentioned well above) the preceding diplomatic fallacies of the French and English in the period between the world wars that could have, if executed better, avoided the war (i.e. -- appeasement at Munich regarding the Sudentenland, approach to the ridiculously-inflated German economy, etc.). By December of 1941, after Japan's harrasment of China and bombing of Pearl Harbor, Germany's invasion of Poland, etc., a declaration of was necessary to protect the US and its allies and American interests abroad.

[QUENTIN]

Homyrrh,

I appreciate that you say you recognize the value of human life and that war is certainly the wanton destruction of that, but then I think you enter into morally and logically shaky ground (as one must) to justify and defend war as still somehow necessary despite this.

What you're saying is that in an attempt to ensure entirely hypothetical, theoretical lives that we guess or assume would probably be lost at the hands of our propagandized enemy "Other", it is worth it for us to definitely kill tangible, actual people ourselves in the hopes that the number we kill is less than the number they may have killed.

Preventing the likelihood of future murders is a great thing to do. But not when the method for doing it is present murders. I recognize that not doing something preventative simply because we can't predict the future is not an across-the-board policy to take. But doing exactly what it is you're trying to prevent is no means to go about anything.

[Homyrrh]

Homyrrh,

I appreciate that you say you recognize the value of human life and that war is certainly the wanton destruction of that, but then I think you enter into morally and logically shaky ground (as one must) to justify and defend war as still somehow necessary despite this.

What you're saying is that in an attempt to ensure entirely hypothetical, theoretical lives that we guess or assume would probably be lost at the hands of our propagandized enemy "Other", it is worth it for us to definitely kill tangible, actual people ourselves in the hopes that the number we kill is less than the number they may have killed.

Preventing the likelihood of future murders is a great thing to do. But not when the method for doing it is present murders. I recognize that not doing something preventative simply because we can't predict the future is not an across-the-board policy to take. But doing exactly what it is you're trying to prevent is no means to go about anything.
To mutualize comprehension of your point, you feel that tangibly saving deaths of a number of civilians now overrides the opportunity for probably saving more lives later (?).

[Homyrrh]

And did you just say Hitler was "some, propagandized 'Other'"?

[QUENTIN]

Regardless of Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki and the 200,000+ casualties on either side projected for a conventional marine invasion

Mildly off-topic, to where the conversation has naturally shifted anyway, but we may have gone 'round this before. That's an entirely fallacious myth of national history, like George Washington never telling a lie and chopping down a cherry tree. The number 200,000, later inflated to half a million, was merely an invented number by Secretary of War Henry Stimson used to justify the dropping of the bombs that had nothing to do with preventing an American land invasion Truman, Stimson, the rest of the cabinet and military brass knew was unnecessary and wasn't ever going to happen.

[Homyrrh]

Mildly off-topic, to where the conversation has naturally shifted anyway, but we may have gone 'round this before. That's an entirely fallacious myth of national history, like George Washington never telling a lie and chopping down a cherry tree. The number 200,000, later inflated to half a million, was merely an invented number by Secretary of War Henry Stimson used to justify the dropping of the bombs that had nothing to do with preventing an American land invasion Truman, Stimson, the rest of the cabinet and military brass knew was unnecessary and wasn't ever going to happen.
Yeah, dude, I remember the conversation and all the documents than neither I nor anyone I can recall has seen yet (except you). It was actually at the end of last August...

Anyway, less jokingly, and with no disrespect, but let's be real about this...consider the sheer volume of American soldiers we'd have to send into the Japanese mainland and, perhaps more critically, the unsurrendering resolve of the Japanese people to defend their Empire to the death (like "I saw the horror of Big Boy in Hiroshima, but we still don't surrender").

The planning of Operation Downfall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall) provides convincing evidence of these projected casualties, with estimates by all elements of the government, various military sources, and even notable civilians.

In full disclosure, I learned something:

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."

For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days; and the Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 casualties over about 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether from wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock. There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.

[Homyrrh]

By the way, "casualties" is not synonymous with "fatalities".

[shoe1985]

Yeah, dude, I remember the conversation and all the documents than neither I nor anyone I can recall has seen yet (except you). It was actually at the end of last August...

Anyway, less jokingly, and with no disrespect, but let's be real about this...consider the sheer volume of American soldiers we'd have to send into the Japanese mainland and, perhaps more critically, the unsurrendering resolve of the Japanese people to defend their Empire to the death (like "I saw the horror of Big Boy in Hiroshima, but we still don't surrender").

The planning of Operation Downfall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall) provides convincing evidence of these projected casualties, with estimates by all elements of the government, various military sources, and even notable civilians.

In full disclosure, I learned something:

Just reading the last quote, it is written to poorly. It is like, "yeah, they got injured/killed, but they did get their medal."

Just thought I would thought I would throw that in.

[Homyrrh]

Just reading the last quote, it is written to poorly. It is like, "yeah, they got injured/killed, but they did get their medal."

Just thought I would thought I would throw that in.
I don't understand where/how you read that...the government expected an incredible number of casualties (should the US have invaded Japan) and consequently manufactured ~500,000 Purple Hearts in preparation for this. The issuance of a Purple Heart is the default decoration given to any soldier injured in the course of battle.

Of course, since the US wisely elected not to carry this through, the medals were awarded over the course of later conflicts...and they still have ~120,000 remaining. It was a statement of fact.

[QUENTIN]

To mutualize comprehension of your point, you feel that tangibly saving deaths of a number of civilians now overrides the opportunity for probably saving more lives later (?).

Well, I'd take umbrage with the use of the word "probably" since I don't feel it's accurate, and would say "possibly. We have no real basis to underlie an assumption about how many people would have been killed in the event of an entirely different circumstance where our participation in war was avoided. And this is why it does override that, because one is a hypothetical possibility that the Other will murder more people which we use as an excuse or rationale for our actions, the other has no room for guesswork and is actually murdering people ourselves.

And did you just say Hitler was "some, propagandized 'Other'"?

Yeah, the Nazis were, Al Qaeda is, the Spanish and Koreans and Japanese and Russians were, and we were to all of them. The fact is, all sides in all combats justify what they are doing in large and critical part by lionizing and propagandizing their own slaughter of innocent people as necessary to defeat a supposedly much worse, much scarier, much less moral and far more violent Terrible Evil Enemy. Hitler was most assuredly a terrible individual and those in his Cabinet were too. But like all tyrannically run countries, all of the people of Germany were not amoral/immoral and didn't need to be killed to prevent him from slaughtering all the people he wanted to.

Any more than the American people deserved 9/11 for the actions of their irresponsible government or the people of Palestine deserve to be gunned down and bombed because Hamas launches rockets into Israel, etc. etc.

Defeating violence and tyranny may absolutely be necessary sometimes, even frequently, but war is not a way to successfully or ethically go about it. I'd hate to devolve into the level of bumper-sticker discourse, but there is truth to the statement "Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity." You cannot prevent something by practicing it. As the "war to end all wars" showed us, war cannot prevent war, it inevitably propagates more of it and the number of human beings who irrevocably lose their lives only rises.

[QUENTIN]

Yeah, dude, I remember the conversation and all the documents than neither I nor anyone I can recall has seen yet (except you). It was actually at the end of last August...

Haha. I hope I'm not being taken to task because of your own ignorance on the matter. It's not as though any of the documents I was made to read, copy, and catalog are secret or not readily available. And it's not as though literally hundreds of respected, professional historians have not also read them and almost unanimously come to the same conclusion. Most prominently perhaps Howard Zinn, Sean Malloy, Sadao Asada, Ronald Takaki, J. Samuel Walker, and my former boss, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute, Peter Kuznick.

A few invaluable and non-polemic works I'd recommend on the subject are Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, The Decision to Use the Bomb: The Architecture of an American Myth, and atomic scientists Barton J. Bernstein's thorough debunking in A Postwar Myth: 500,000 US Lives Saved. Of course a wonderful, highly illuminating primary source is Harry Truman's personal memoirs from 1945 and Henry Stimson and McGeorge Bundy's book On Active Service in Peace and War.

There really isn't much disagreement on the facts here. Historians may differ to this day on the intent behind the mythmaking, but there is no doubt that a land invasion of Japan by American forces was never in the cards and the number of projected casualties was literally an invention. The war was over and we'd known that for nearly a year.

I think you're half-kidding, but still, it was an attempt to slight my information on the subject which really is about as strong, uncontested, direct and thorough as it could be. The fact that accessing this information requires more than a rudimentary google search is perhaps unfortunate, but certainly not my fault.


Anyway, less jokingly, and with no disrespect, but let's be real about this...consider the sheer volume of American soldiers we'd have to send into the Japanese mainland and, perhaps more critically, the unsurrendering resolve of the Japanese people to defend their Empire to the death (like "I saw the horror of Big Boy in Hiroshima, but we still don't surrender").

The planning of Operation Downfall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall) provides convincing evidence of these projected casualties, with estimates by all elements of the government, various military sources, and even notable civilians.

Was completely never going to happen. Wasn't necessary, no one in the military or Cabinet or decision-making ring ever had any illusion within the final year of the war that we'd need to invade. This is like having me consider the sheer volume of American soldiers we'd need to invade Canada. Okay, yes, it would be a lot. But it won't happen, it's a purely hypothetical under circumstances that aren't real. The Japanese had been suing for peace for months, if anyone was going to invade Japan it would have been the USSR and it wouldn't have lasted more than a couple days.

It's not letting me quote that last part, but the people it cites were not in on the war planning, operation, or information and communiques and offers from Japan and the USSR. They were guessing lots of American lives would be lost if we entered Japan because they would, if we had ever invaded, which we were never seriously considering. Again, the Canada analogy.

The manufacture of purple hearts is an interesting trivia note but little else. The people who manufactured purple hearts (making work in a time of war) were also obviously unaware of the confidential knowledge that we had about the Japanese and would not have known or taken into account that the war was about to be over. In the government, as you may have already learned, independent arms often operate independently, hence all the inefficiency.

***

As a side note, and particularly since we've been down this road before, it might be better to continue on the more general discussion of the efficacy, morality, and necessity of war than this particular specific that may alienate other schmoes from the discussion, though I'm happy to talk about anything related.

[shoe1985]

I don't understand where/how you read that...the government expected an incredible number of casualties (should the US have invaded Japan) and consequently manufactured ~500,000 Purple Hearts in preparation for this. The issuance of a Purple Heart is the default decoration given to any soldier injured in the course of battle.

Of course, since the US wisely elected not to carry this through, the medals were awarded over the course of later conflicts...and they still have ~120,000 remaining. It was a statement of fact.

Yes, but it is sad that you believe you have to create these thinking people will die. You should create them when someone passes.

I am curious, you are for war. Do you believe the people sending the American people to war should have been in the military? I believe this should be a requirement to be in Congress and to become president. I don't believe you should be people off with a great chance to die, if you have not done the same. Yes, I know, the majority of people in Congress would be kicked out, but if you can send people off to die, you should have been in the same boat.

Do you believe there should be a draft?

[QUENTIN]

I am curious, you are for war. Do you believe the people sending the American people to war should have been in the military? I believe this should be a requirement to be in Congress and to become president. I don't believe you should be people off with a great chance to die, if you have not done the same. Yes, I know, the majority of people in Congress would be kicked out, but if you can send people off to die, you should have been in the same boat.


That's asinine. It would intentionally limit the entire field of expertise of all of our top decision makers to military matters.

The law and public/civil service are the most directly related to political office and meeting the requirements of the job. People can come from everywhere to achieve the ability to represent the American people, that's a key principle in democracy.

A much, much better solution to the problem you seem to be addressing is that Congress and the President don't send people off to die in wars. You don't need to have experienced combat to know it is unnecessary, brutal, and tragic.

As for the draft, a volunteer army both produces a more efficient and effective military and at least superficially avoids the unconstitutional, openly fascist principle that all citizens of a state must actively work via force and coercion at the risk of imprisonment to advance the largely violent and self-serving goals of their government. No one in this country should be forced to do anything against their will, particularly if it involves directly risking their lives and requiring them to commit murder. There is nothing good about a draft.

[shoe1985]

That's asinine. It would intentionally limit the entire field of expertise of all of our top decision makers to military matters.

The law and public/civil service are the most directly related to political office and meeting the requirements of the job. People can come from everywhere to achieve the ability to represent the American people, that's a key principle in democracy.

A much, much better solution to the problem you seem to be addressing is that Congress and the President don't send people off to die in wars. You don't need to have experienced combat to know it is unnecessary, brutal, and tragic.

As for the draft, a volunteer army both produces a more efficient and effective military and at least superficially avoids the unconstitutional, openly fascist principle that all citizens of a state must actively work via force and coercion at the risk of imprisonment to advance the largely violent and self-serving goals of their government. No one in this country should be forced to do anything against their will, particularly if it involves directly risking their lives and requiring them to commit murder. There is nothing good about a draft.

The military develops one of the strongest routes of leadership. Which is the only reason I bring up the idea of those who serve in the military being only allowed in Congress or run as President.

A draft would reduce the amount of wars we have. If a draft was in place, would we have gone to Iraq? Most likely not. Making every citizen, well not everyone because some people would not be able to fight for different reasons, train for the military builds character and leadership. I have had friends who have been nothing but trouble their entire lives. They joined the army, came back different people. This is the common thing for most people, not all.

Maybe it is my idea of this country today. We lack true leaders and values in this country.

[QUENTIN]

The military develops one of the strongest routes of leadership. Which is the only reason I bring up the idea of those who serve in the military being only allowed in Congress or run as President.

A draft would reduce the amount of wars we have. If a draft was in place, would we have gone to Iraq? Most likely not. Making every citizen, well not everyone because some people would not be able to fight for different reasons, train for the military builds character and leadership. I have had friends who have been nothing but trouble their entire lives. They joined the army, came back different people. This is the common thing for most people, not all.

Maybe it is my idea of this country today. We lack true leaders and values in this country.

I agree that military training and experience can significantly contribute to leadership skills. I'm actually doing the fairly rigorous Marine Corps Officer Candidate Course in Quantico this summer before grad school in large part to become competent and confident in directing large crews and leading teams. But it is far from the only route to leadership and the values it instills are also potentially very dangerous.

The notion that a draft would reduce wars is tempting and often touted nowadays, but historically it doesn't prove to be true. The Vietnam War was was as avoidable and foolish as the Iraq War, yet we went with a draft. Ditto all wars before the abolition of the draft. Would it provide some incentive to be less obsessed with warmongering and providing endless resources for the military-industrial complex? Perhaps, but the idea that it would outright prevent us from engaging in aggressive warfare doesn't jibe with our history and how we've always behaved. Also, it comes at the expense of forcing our population to become trained killers and put their lives at risk, an entirely undemocratic, anti-individualist, anti-freedom policy that would also negatively impact the function of our military and that military brass repeatedly states they do not want.

A lot of people and certainly the majority of our political leaders do lack real values, but forced military service would exacerbate not eliminate that problem.

[Homyrrh]

Damn, out for a day and the thread's made many turns. Anyway, Quentin, long story short, I'll agree to once again head down another road (BTW, that initial line was mostly a jest, whether that was ambiguous or not). I've never heard of these documents, read anything other than projections of ridiculously large number of casualties, or been familiar with options to end the war in the Pacific theater. I'm leaning towards getting into Air Force Intel...so maybe I can figure out what the hell you're tlaking about...

As for the draft and its effect on changing the decisions for war...I'd ideally hope not. WHO is going to war for this nation should not matter (outside of obvious physical/mental limitations). "War" is, by its very definition, an orifice used to propagate political desires. I should think the least qualified to make these decisions are our politicians, and that our military brass (i.e. - Petraeus, Odierno, Jones, Mullen, Pace, etc.) should be making them, but the soldier is fundamentally accountable to the diplomat and that is the way of the world (well, at least we see when it isn't and we have military juntas). I really wish that every candidate for the US presidency would have served time in the military, even if it's a minimal 4-year officer stint. I don't fully trust a draft though: with it comes the pacifists who don't want to fight, the criminals who shouldn't be trusted to represent with a uniform, etc. The problem is that, even with recruiting numbers skyrocketing across the board because of the recession, both the Corps and the Army remain in deep need for Marines and soldiers.

By the way, Quentin, mega props on OCS, even if it's not with the intention of commissioning. Tell you what, I'm currently in the midst of four years in the AFROTC, an incredible leadership program, but there's no better place for instilling leadership qualities than in a Marine officer training course. Quantico isn't the only place for equiping yourself with the tools to lead, but definitely go in with an open mind.

As a single honest bit of advice, be in prime physical shape. PRIME PHYSICAL SHAPE. If the minimum is ~60 push-ups in two minutes (I forget what it is), be able to do 100+ without sweat. I figure you know this isn't Parris Island, but it isn't fat camp either.