The exact point is chosen depending on what is the desired emphasis. Not only that but the fire bombing of Tokyo occurred at the end of WWII so it is definitely part of the Nuclear Era.
:shrug: you are the one who wanted precise measurement in order to place the end of WWII in the nuclear era, as opposed to it's more general usage, which is to say post-war. By your own precision you are wrong, as Tokyo preceded those bombings.
There is nothing objective about the notion that some white guy, engaged in the practice of self deception, believes that war has become less gruesome.
Oh. So you are a racist. How very shocking.
War has become less gruesome. Civilian casualties are
way down, as are raw deaths as a part of conflict. WWII was bad, certainly, but it was nothing compared to what we saw in previous centuries. Hell, when the Mongols went through Iran they killed so many people that it wasn't until the
twentieth century that Iran recovered its pre-invasion population.
The fact that warfare has become less gruesome is not a matter of right or left or neocon or realist or pacifist, it's a matter of
math and objective historical
reality. You can argue about
why that trend has occurred, but not that it
has.
It sounds just like the same garbage the Israelis regurgitate when they do things like fire missiles in the midst of innocent people to kill an old man in a wheelchair.
Actually it's the other side that targets innocent men in wheelchairs. But your dual reference to white people and unneeded segway into israel are noted.
Although it is debatable, there is strong evidence to support it
That the bombings ended the war early, saving many, many lives? :shrug: Not really. Again, come on down to the history forum. Periodically someone shows up making that same, ahistorical argument and gets' their butt handed to them.
No, he didn't. To advise is to give input into a decision or decision-making-process. Eisenhower did neither. He was informed
after the decision what was
about to occur.
Furthermore, we also happen to know that Eisenhower was
wrong. The Japanese were not about to surrender. That is why they didn't surrender after the
first A-Bomb. It is also why even after the
second A-Bomb they didn't surrender, and after we threatened them (a bluff) that we had more (we were plumb out) and were going to turn the entirety of the Home Islands into ash that
the vote on whether or not to surrender was still tied, forcing the Emperor to break the tie. And even
then portions of the military revolted, kidnapped the Emperor, and attempted to force Japan to fight down to the bitter, honorable end. If it hadn't been for the actions of a
very small number of brave individuals, the Emperor's message would never have gotten out on the radio, and we would have had to invade.
Now, towards the end of the war, we were seeing combat kill rates of a little better than 1 to 5 in the US' favor. In Okinawa, for example, the U.S. lost 14,009 men, while the Japanese Imperial Army lost 77,166. Operation Downfall was anticipating
100,000 casualties in the
first four days of the invasion of the main island group. However, they weren't facing the same, experienced, Imperial Army. They were facing young boys, old men, poorly armed conscripts. So, assuming that 14 year olds and 60 year olds with WWI-era rifles fought as well as better-trained and better-equipped veterans of the Army, that means that Japan would have absorbed roughly
500,000 casualties in the first 96 hours of the invasion. And that's not counting civilian casualties - approximately 1/4th of the civilian populace of Okinawa was killed, they still refer to it as the "steel typhoon".
Millions of Japanese civilians would have died in both the initial onslaught and then the deprivation that would have surely followed.
But again, if you want to pick a bone with that, head to the history forum. In the meantime, your entertaining claim that two bombings can disprove the mass aggregate of data on warfare only demonstrates that you continue to value emotional expression over fact.
There is no "sort of." Different eras can coincide. Just like the nuclear era also coincided with the jet age.
If you want to play semantics go play semantics. I'm here to enjoy refuting your hilariously self-centered and naive notion that the fact that some state department lady was married to a writer is why Putin invaded Crimea.
The point is that the neocons want to bring the cold war back. They need war to justify their existence, otherwise they become irrelevant.
You appear to be unaware of the history of the intellectual movement you are attacking. That's not terribly surprising, but you may want to engage in some basic background research. Neoconservatives reached their apex
after the Cold War, they didn't need it.
Yes we did encroach in Ukraine. There is no doubt about it.
fantastic. Demonstrate it.
Putin took Crimea because he had to and he would have done it regardless, because Russia had the military capability to do it.
Wait. You are
admitting that Putin took Crimea because he could and
still blaming some out-of-power intellectuals in the U.S.?
And if you say otherwise, since you feel Putin is such a problem, why not just invade Russia and overthrow him like we did Saddam?
Not least because that is an idiotic idea. You seem to be unable to grasp that opposition to pacifism and weakness abroad does not require a single solution, similar to the inability of advocates of large government to differentiate between small government and anarchy.
Why not just remove him like we did Noreiga in Panama? Why don't we do it? Because of Russia's military capability, that's why.
That is certainly one reason, though hardly the only one.
But flip the math. What would have caused Putin to decide
not to invade Georgia? What would have caused him to decide
not to invade Crimea? What would have made him decide
not to launch a cyber-attack on Estonia?
U.S. military capability and will to defend the territorial integrity of other nations under threat by nearby autocrats.
No, what's idiotic is the notion that we should go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
That's an interesting statement. Which neocons are urging the United States to go to war with the U.S. over Crimea?
