← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · w.bales

Thread 5398

Thread ID: 5398 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2003-03-07

Wayback Archive

w.bales [OP]

2003-03-07 14:16 | User Profile

Here is the military strategy question I was talking about the other day.

My brother and I have this conflict on two theories of war.

War is an all or nothing proposition. Once the decision (ASSUMMING THE WAR IS MORAL, ETHICAL, HAS THE WIDE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, WAS LEGALLY DECLARED, AND IS IN ONLY AND IN THE REAL INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES) to mobilize the United States for War is made, then the war should be turned over to the generals with the orders of “Get it done. Get it done NOW with a minimum of American casualties.” As a battlefield general, would you utilize (and, very early on) every possible weapon in your arsenal to complete this objective? Specifically, would you use battlefield tactical nuclear weapons or, larger/other NBC weapons, for that matter as well as massive use of any other means of destroying the enemy in the war. I lean this way.

For example (and setting aside whether the 2nd Div. should be there in the first place), say North Korea amasses troops along the DMZ and attacks to the south. I say the small nukes should fly. War is war. My combat vet brother say no -- that these weapons are too drastic; too devastating; inhumane. Also, I guess he would have just landed the troops on the Japanese mainland. I think Truman did what had to be done in that case. If Truman [read that, Roosevelt] had the capability on Dec. 8, 1941, should he have cut to the chase the day after Pearl? Would have saved a lot of hassle, yes?

Or, should we keep the battle conventional unless and until the other side ups the ante so to speak?

Faust

2003-03-08 01:05 | User Profile

w.bales,

The "Unlimited War" idea gave us WWI and WWII. "Limited War" gave us the Korea War. And the Korea War came to a much better end than the other two. I think the "Art of War" gave as one of the First rules of War as give the Enemy a way out and said it is better to win the war without fighting.

Back to WWII, the reason why the Japs gave up was gave them a good deal. We did mistreat them or stave them, all their POW were sent home, the Russian were not given part half of Japan, and the Emperor was unharmed. The lie that Japan surrendered unconditionally is still told.

If we had given the German the same deal, the generals would have taken Hitler out the war would end without the Soviets getting Eastern Europe. Heinrich Himmler tried to work out a deal at the end of the War. This would saved the lives of many Americas and even more Germans. Even without deals with the Germans, the US Army could have made it Berlin and taken some of Eastern Europe. The main goal of our fighting in WWII was to give the Soviets as much land and people as we could get away with.

As for A-bomb, one might remember that far more people were killed at Tokyo and Dresden raids than were killed at the A-bomb drop sites. We do not need to use them. B-52, B-1, and rockets can get the job dome. The A-bombs are somewhat overrated in some ways.

What the “Liberals” tell us is War to fight anti-Marxist “Racists” must be won at all costs and Wars with Marxist must be avoided at all costs.

Sertorius

2003-03-11 11:56 | User Profile

W. Bales,

Sorry to take so long in getting back to you on this. My answer is this:

**Or, should we keep the battle conventional unless and until the other side ups the ante so to speak? **

Korea is no doubt the worse case for this because of the stupid way U.S. Forces are deployed, the fact that so much of the South Koreans live in the Seoul area, which, as you know means alot of casualties because of all the artillery the North Koreans have massed in the Uijongbu corridor and along the coast at Kaesong, and the fact that Kim Jong Il is like alot of orientals. The further east you go, the more contempt for death and human life you encounter. This is where they would make their main effort. Because of the forces the DPRK has in the area, there is a very good chance they could breakthrough to Seoul, bypass it for followup forces to deal with and move further south. There will be alot of pressure to use the nukes. Despite this, Im against their first use not because of some namby-pamby "liberal" reason, but because it **does** raise the ante and I think that it puts U.S. troops at an even greater risk. Id let the DPRK be the first to initiate this and deal with it accordingly. Id add this as well. I dont believe in deliberately targetting civilians like we saw from WW II, despite that it appears that some of our "leaders" are contemplating that today. Let the enemy open this particular can of worms.

I`m also against first use of chemical weapons because they impose as much a hardship on our on men as it does our enemies. The only reason I would even have chemical weapons is to deter someone from using them on us. When everyone is in a MOPP four status, (that means in full NBC gear) not only is there no advantage, but it is actually a detriment to overall combat effectiveness. I believe that the chemical weapons effectiveness is overrated and I also think that the only way their use brings about an advantage is when the opponent has none himself nor any defensive NBC gear. If that is the case, one could just as well use CS gas avoiding the possibility of your own troops getting some of this mess on them.

I have to agree with your brother on this one. Using weapons like this, particularly nuclear weapons, is a major political decision because of the far reaching consequences. I`d rather not cross that bridge until forced to.

Biological weapons I won`t even consider.

Here is a link that builds upon Faust`s excellent post that finally convinced me that dropping the bomb was unnecessary.

[url=http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no17/vo11no17_bomb.htm]http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no1...11no17_bomb.htm[/url]

I used to think that "Operation Olympus," was the sole alternative until I read this and some other writings that cast doubt upon this enterprise.

The link below is a "bonus" link, so to speak.

[url=http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no17/vo11no17_quotes.htm]http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no1...no17_quotes.htm[/url]

edward gibbon

2003-03-11 20:32 | User Profile

w. bales you wrote:

**My combat vet brother say no -- that these weapons are too drastic; too devastating; inhumane. **

I did not see combat, but was shot at and shot back. I suspect your brother’s attitude might be different if he were to see combat again. People do let circumstances change their mind. Herr Doktor Faustus wrote:

Back to WWII, the reason why the Japs gave up was gave them a good deal. We did mistreat them or stave them, all their POWs were sent home, the Russian were not given part half of Japan, and the Emperor was unharmed. The lie that Japan surrendered unconditionally is still told.

The Japanese were going to starve to death on their homeland. Very, very few ships penetrated the submarine blockade.
As I previously wrote:

In the May 5, 2002 issue of the Japan Times Donald Richie reviewed Tokyo Central by Edward Seidensticker.  Richie recognized Seidensticker as a very moral man who made stern judgments.  One was “That the emperor was neither forced to abdicate nor taken to court as a war criminal was owing to General MacArthur’s vanity.  He loved having an emperor under him…”  Both Richie and Seidensticker are pre-eminent authorities on Japanese culture, history and politics.  Both recognize that Hirohito was a great war criminal by any definition.[ [url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fb20020505dr.htm]http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getart...b20020505dr.htm[/url] ]  His Japan killed more people and occupied more territory than Hitler’s Germany.   Yet he was never held to standards of justice that were applied to the Germans.  The Chinese will never forget this.

Jews wanting to be the only ones remembered as the only ones who died in World War II have taken great care to push the Chinese deaths that were many times that of Jews from American memory. If I know anything at all about the Orient, we will regret this bitterly some day. Hirohito was the great war criminal, not Hitler.

Sertorius wrote:

Here is a link that builds upon Faust`s excellent post that finally convinced me that dropping the bomb was unnecessary. [url=http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no1...11no17_bomb.htm]http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no1...11no17_bomb.htm[/url]

As I wrote:

**After Iwo Jima the next step for the American military was the invasion of Okinawa prior to landing on the home islands of Japan.  American military force historically has relied on firepower superiority to gain battlefield objectives with little consideration to maneuver and other soldiering skills.  In May and June of 1945 during the battle of Okinawa American forces had an advantage which may never have had an equal.  Early in the fighting the entire island of Okinawa with a length of sixty miles and most land within two miles of the ocean was bombarded by six battleships, six cruisers, and eight destroyers.  Afterwards American forces on the ground had the fire support of twenty-seven artillery battalions.  Against these 342 pieces the Japanese had virtually no retaliatory power.  Yet the Japanese had dug so deeply and so well, they were able to repel initial American attacks. When the inevitable occurred, the Japanese had lost about 100,000 men, and American forces had suffered almost 45,000 casualties.   The Okinawans who survived have referred to this onslaught as the typhoon of steel.  Among the dead the Marines lost over 3,000, and the Navy suffered its worst losses of the war with close to 5,000 dead and more than 5,000 wounded.  Navy losses could almost all be attributed to the use of kamikaze aircraft by the Japanese.  Almost forgotten in recounting the invasion was that 4 out of 5 British fast carriers supporting American troops invading Okinawa had taken hits by kamikazes.  Unlike American carriers with wooden decks, the British had steel decks which a text described as "kamikaze proof".  One sensed the British did not care to press their luck.  The history of World War II used at West Point concluded that few veterans of Okinawa would have wanted to attack the Japanese on their home islands after experiencing kamikazes attacks and using huge flamethrowers on Japanese holed up in caves.  More of the same "might have been too much". **

The battle of Okinawa was much fiercer than commonly remembered.

The John Birch Society defended Dan Quayle’s evasion and cowardice during the Vietnam War, but they long have maligned George Marshall. Yet this man had many problems to deal with. A great one was the treatment of Allied prisoners by the Japanese.

Absent from all deliberations was any thought of what the Japanese were doing in China and the rest of Asia at that time.  Perhaps this was to be expected from the press of the United States, but what was surprising was that the India of Gandhi did not consider the barbarities of the Japanese sufficient reason for the war to be halted as soon as possible.  General George Marshall in an internal memorandum agonized over the fate of the Allied prisoners and wanted to warn the Japanese, not only as a nation, but as a race, that their fate would depend on their ability "to progress beyond their original barbaric instincts".   When the Japanese did torture and execute captured Allied airmen, Representative Sikes of Florida spoke of the cold horror gripping American hearts.  Mr. Sikes wanted to defeat the "criminal Jap nation" by bringing them to their knees.  Then he wanted to throw them out of the family of nations.   In May and June of 1945 after the surrender of the Germans eight captured B-29 crewmen were used in vivisection experiments in Japan by Professor Ishiyama, director of external medicine at Kyushu Imperial University.  In one experiment Ishiyama extracted a prisoner's lungs and placed them in a surgical pan.  Then he made an incision in the lung artery allowing blood to flow into the thorax killing the victim.  In another Ishiyama removed ribs from a prisoner and stopped blood flow by holding a large artery by the heart so the resulting death could be timed.  In a third incisions were made into the skull of a prisoner, and a knife was inserted to cause death.  These ghastly operations were hardly unique and were repeated many, many times over on Chinese.

For the record one more time about the darling Japanese:

A comparison between the German and Japanese treatment of Allied prisoners showed some marked differences.  [color=blue]Of 235,473 United States and United Kingdom soldiers captured by Germany and Italy only 9,348, some 4 percent, died in captivity.  Among the 132,134 Anglo-American prisoners of war held by the Japanese some 35,756 did not survive.  This death rate was 27 percent.  For the 25,697 men of the American Army captured in May 1942 some 10,957, or over 40 percent, died. [/color]  After the war had ended, and the Americans had started to occupy Japan, an American who had been a prisoner of the Japanese complained Americans were too soft in their occupation policy, and the Japanese deserved to be occupied by the Chinese and the Russians.

Finally about Korea and their people. I cared little for the South Koreans and much less for the North Koreans. The South brought much of this dilemma on when they refused to merge with the North for economic reasons. If we are sane, we will let the Chinese and Japanese with Russian assistance work this out. Time to come home for Americans.

toddbrendanfahey

2003-03-11 20:50 | User Profile

Finally about Korea and their people. I cared little for the South Koreans and much less for the North Koreans. The South brought much of this dilemma on when they refused to merge with the North for economic reasons. If we are sane, we will let the Chinese and Japanese with Russian assistance work this out.

You'd not say this, had you (or were you) living (lived) in South Korea.

In many ways, South Korea is freer than Amerika. Lower-taxes; superior IT-technology (can YOU access the Internet from your home via cable- or ADSL tech?: 500kbs; thought not). & WHY NOT? Well, 'cos the U.S. has regulatory (GUBM'T-cartels, via corporate f*cks like Cisco and Microsoft at AT&T) that preclude high-tech 'net-access.

Ditto cellular phone technology, which is already satellite-based in South Korea (CDMA technology), and which does not rely on physical station-to-station geographic (hard-wired or fiber-optic) tech.

I'm living in the most-wired place on Earth. & very happily so. &, as per my recent EtherZone article, as an English professor at a South Korean university, I PAY ONLY 4% taxes. Total. No U.S. taxes and no "Social Security."

Can you top that?

Not on yr life.

So, I'd hate to see S.K. go under to communist China or N.K.

Fire away.

Texas Dissident

2003-03-11 21:01 | User Profile

Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Mar 11 2003, 14:50 ** So, I'd hate to see S.K. go under to communist China or N.K. **

I would too, Todd, but the real issue for me is is it worth American blood and treasure to keep it from happening?

I don't think so. Bring the Americans home.

toddbrendanfahey

2003-03-11 21:09 | User Profile

Bring the Americans home.

As a Constitutionalist, opposing foreign aid of any stripe, I agree, Tex.

But, first, let's bring ALL TROOPS HOME FROM GERMANY and "NATO" states, the former YUGOSLAVIA, the BALTICS...and THEN we can bring home our troops from Korea.

First things first. Ain't no threat to Germany, currently. There is a king-hell threat, currently, to South Korea. Let's reposition troops where they're needed, and retract them back to the U.S./Mexico border if they're not needed.

Fair deal? (I thought so.) :)

Texas Dissident

2003-03-11 21:17 | User Profile

OK, sounds good to me. I won't quibble about the order, just as long as we're actively in the process of bringing them home.

toddbrendanfahey

2003-03-11 21:26 | User Profile

& I have no objections to bringing our troops back home (& into non-Gubm'tal payroll, at that...the military being just one facet of the drain on U.S. taxpayers). But this is an incremental thing.

First, where are our military needed?:

1) Chiefly, on the U.S./Mexico border 2) To protect Taiwan and South Korea (why?: 'cos these are the buffer states against China)

Dig? I'm sure you do. You're a sane voice, realizing geopolitical concerns, at the same time encouraging U.S. national (domestic--U.S., the 50 contiguous states') interests.

Best, TBF

edward gibbon

2003-03-11 22:05 | User Profile

toddbrendanfahey (Posted on Mar 11 2003, 21:50)

> Finally about Korea and their people. I cared little for the South Koreans and much less for the North Koreans. The South brought much of this dilemma on when they refused to merge with the North for economic reasons. If we are sane, we will let the Chinese and Japanese with Russian assistance work this out.**

[color=blue]You'd not say this, had you (or were you) living (lived) in South Korea.

In many ways, South Korea is freer than Amerika. Lower-taxes; superior IT-technology (can YOU access the Internet from your home via cable- or ADSL tech?: 500kbs; thought not). & WHY NOT? Well, 'cos the U.S. has regulatory (GUBM'T-cartels, via corporate fcks like Cisco and Microsoft at AT&T) that preclude high-tech 'net-access[/color].*

In many ways I am a Luddite and would like to throw a wooden shoe in the path of progress. From more than 30 years previous I remember South Koreans attempting to blame all their problems on American and Americans. I have tired of it. I also question how valuable all this information is.

Ruffin

2003-03-12 04:31 | User Profile

Originally posted by edward gibbon@Mar 11 2003, 14:32 ** If we are sane, we will let the Chinese and Japanese with Russian assistance work this out. **

Is it clearer now than it was in 1941, that the American big stick policy of provocation creates enemies for us? I doubt it.

Originally posted by edward gibbon@Mar 11 2003, 14:32 ** If I know anything at all about the Orient, we will regret this bitterly some day. **

The Orient? And Europe. And the Middle East. Let's see, who else have we taught to dread and hate us?

Originally posted by edward gibbon@Mar 11 2003, 14:32 ** Hirohito was the great war criminal, not Hitler. **

Ah, those brutal Japanese who didn't welcome our direction of their Asian policies. Again, treat the world brutally and don't complain when the favor's returned. It is on the great criminal Roosevelt's head, not Hirohito's or Hitler's. It is on ours, unfortunately, at least as long as Americans behave Rooseveltianly. Or should I say Lincolnianly? Wilsonianly? Clintonianly? Bushianly?

Originally posted by edward gibbon@Mar 11 2003, 14:32 ** Time to come home for Americans. **

We have a government that not only doesn't care what we think or want, but that uses us to buy hatred of us from the world. Now let me see.... what must change for this policy of purchased enmity to be reversed?

Faust

2003-03-12 06:27 | User Profile

edward gibbon,

Great Post

His Japan killed more people and occupied more territory than Hitler’s Germany. Yet he was never held to standards of justice that were applied to the Germans. ... Jews wanting to be the only ones remembered as the only ones who died in World War II have taken great care to push the Chinese deaths that were many times that of Jews from American memory. If I know anything at all about the Orient, we will regret this bitterly some day. Hirohito was the great war criminal, not Hitler.

The Chinamen has never had much power in America(well not back then). Gen. George S. Patton did not like being forced to give the Jews better rations and housing. And the help Russian destroy Europe.

Very True. Of 235,473 United States and United Kingdom soldiers captured by Germany and Italy only 9,348, some 4 percent, died in captivity. Among the 132,134 Anglo-American prisoners of war held by the Japanese some 35,756 did not survive. This death rate was 27 percent. For the 25,697 men of the American Army captured in May 1942 some 10,957, or over 40 percent, died. A member of my Family was shot in back of the head by a Jap after falling down during the "Bataan Death March."