In war what is the max force you can use to kill people?

[Epidemic]

I write this thread because everone seems to think that nuking Japan was worse than killing millions more in a conventional war.

Oops I forgot an option.

Anything goes in war back in the 40's. The bigger the bang the more effective your war.

Back in the 40's and for all of history people have always used the latest and greatest technology pummel, pulverize, slice, dice other peoples defenses and armies to little bits.

Why is a the use of nukes back in the 1940's so different from carpet bombing.

Why is 2,000,000 dead better than 130,000.

If I have not made the rules of this exercise apparent I would like every one to think in 1940's terms.

[ClubMed]

Music by ABBA or Queen...

[Warthog]

weeeeeee willl weeeee will ROCK YOU
w00t

Killing is killing, I read that the US likes to ideally go in with 10x (at least) the firepower....fast and furious, why be fair??

Referring to WWII, I have read many articles and it was the best way to end that conflict. Even though hundreds of thousands of Japanese were killed, many more would have died in an invasion of the mainland. They were and still are a very proud people, they would have been coming at us with pitchforks and spears.
*edit
So what are we talking about?

The use of the A-bomb in WWII?

What is the worst way to die?

Being stabbed would suck. Drownign would too.

Why is 2,000,000 dead better than 130,000.

If we are talking about a WWII invasion of the homeland, 130k instantly is better than even 130k over 8 months.......we could have nuked Tokyo, but we didn't need to.

Warthog

[daveleau]

There were a little less than 500,000 killed by each nuke, including after-effects (at least those that can be measured)

2 mil were not killed by the bombs.

More than that would have been lost without the bombs. And many of those would have been Americans.

[ClubMed]

In my opinion, the choice of arms should be in balance with the threat. When a nations existance is at threat, the highest arms should be used. If the threat can be eliminated with lesser weapons, so be it.

[Epidemic]

In 1945 I do not believe that there were that many studies on the after affects of radiation. So I do not include the people killed by side effects in their knowlegebase.

So the threat from Japan was hundreds of thousands of us sodiers dead over 8 months to 2 years. How do you measure the threat? Only use the same weapons as the other side. Perhaps the same number of troops as well?

[kenyg]

In war what is the max force you can use to kill people?

Answer is - whatever it takes but it depends on the circumstances.

I agree, the use of the Atomic bombs on Japan in '45 was justified, and saved alot of lives - at that time - ask any Marine that was in the Pacific at that time. They all said a prayer of thanks when the war ended, and the invasion plans were called off. I've heard estimates of over 3 million casulties to take Japan.

However, in today's world, I abhor weapons of mass destruction, be they Nukes, chemical, biological. - I much prefer the precision guided munitions used by our military.

[Epidemic]

KenyG,

I agree with you 100%. I would not use them today. Nor would I use any of the mass destruction. It is a different world with a whole host of new information.

I just get sick of 2002 monday morning quarterbacking the 1945 game.

I wish we had a Japanese person give input here.

PS thanks dave that last option completes the list.

[daveleau]

In 1945, they had no idea. Seeing their training videos is eerily humorous.

I think alot of it depended on the fact that the only other way to fight that war was to storm the beaches. If we'd had B-52s, B-2s, F-15Es, F-16s, F-22s, Tomohawks and other guided munitions, then the answer to nukes should have been a resounding NO! Since they were not available then, the nuke was the best way to resolve the conflict.

PS- np Epidemic.

[Epidemic]

Dave I concur with you as well. You forgot sattelite though. Could you have seen the japanese sneaking up like that again. The whole war would have been a different field of battle. Your standard world war will probably never happen again. The face of war has changed in the past 30 years.

I am still waiting for the people that have flamed me on this one before.