Originally Posted by The Reaper
Where did I argue for that? I asked you a couple of questions that you have refused to answer.
Let me ask you again.
1. Were the firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo justifiable?
At the time, sure. It's not like precision strikes were available back then.
2. Were the two nuclear weapons employed against Japan reasonable?
We didn't have the overwhelming advantage in military power in WWII that we have now, so sure. Many many hundreds of thousands of US troops would have died had we had to invade. Now that we do have such conventional military superiority, it would not be reasonable to "nuke them til they glow".
3. Were the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable targets?
Yes. See above.
4. In the event of an Islamic WMD deployment killing a large number of American citizens, would Mecca or Medina be an acceptable target? How about a lesser Islamic shrine?
No. It would serve no military or strategic utility. Furthermore, it's likely that non-state actors would be responsible; under such circumstances, how you would nuke a definitive country as retaliation for the actions of a non-state organization? It would be beyond any logical reasoning I could see, unless that state has helped facilitate the attack in some way.
5. Are you familiar with reprisals, as permitted by the laws of land warfare?
Yes. Of strategic and military value. Decapitation of leadership, destruction of critical infrastructure, military targets, etc. The concept of Proportionality comes into play with such strikes.
This does not include holy places or civilian populations centers by and large. Only in a M.A.D. scenario are civilian population centers and civilian targets brought into the picture.
Finally, when did the era of modern warfare begin, as you define it?
I would say during the Cold War.
That is your construct. Where did I suggest that?
When you advocated for Total War as was done in WWII. You don't think fire bombing of population centers was indiscriminate killing of men, women and children?
I asked if there was number of American dead that could ever justify that level of response again. 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? 100,000,000? Surely with all of your studies, you must have a general idea of how many Americans you are willing to sacrifice before striking back. You are the POTUS and CINC. Do you just avoid taking action and accept the losses? What if the casulaties destroy America, or make it open to invasion? What if your family was among the casualties. Does that make any difference?
Do you see terrorists as having the capability to even make such a scenario likely?
Say they got hold of a Soviet era Bio Warfare strain of virulent airborne virus that could kill 100,000,000 Americans. And say they made it here with it and released it. Who do you retaliate against? Islamic countries? Russia? Who would you target and who would you retaliate against? See the difficulty in such a scenario?
Did I? Where?
I assumed that's what you were getting at when you were defending WWII fire bombing and implying that such tactics might be applicable to situations today.
Hypotheticals here.
You are in a convoy of three vehicles. The lead and trail vehicles are destroyed by command detonated IEDs. Your buddies are trapped inside,screaming as they are burned alive. You are close and know their families. Your remaining crewmates move quickly and you catch the trigger man still holding the detonator, but otherwise unarmed. What do you do?
He's still holding a detonator. How do I know he doesn't have yet another IED he's trying to set off. Smoke him!
Your team is receiving small arms and RPG fire from a family dwelling. You know that there are women and children there. In fact, the insurgents have deliberately selected that structure to avoid artillery and air attacks. Ground reinforcements are hours away. You lose several teammates to the fire, run low on ammo, and are at risk of being wiped out. A B-1 is on station and has acquired the target. Do you clear him to deliver the ordnance on the house?
In that scenario, you are left with no other option. I see what you are trying to do, but the matter of fact is, we do have other options in persecuting this war other than killing civilians wholesale. That is why the war is being fought as it is today. Civilians are killed in war, but we do everything we can to prevent civilian deaths, and that is the way it should be. I am no pacifist. I believe there are plenty of people out there that need killing. I believe that WAR SUCKS and that people, both good and bad will die. It's unavoidable. However, we should do everything possible to make collateral damage as minimal as we can. It's the moral and ethical responsibility we have when conducting war.
Where did I do that to you?
Not you, I was speaking of Penn. He was insulting toward me, and I was disrespectful in response.
TR
|