US needs to beef up its Air Force. Thoughts?

[walrus]

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

it is difficult for us to grasp. It was a world war in the 40’s and we are trying to judge it with today’s eyes. I’ve said it before here, no one hates war more than those who have actually been through it. There is no such thing as a good war, maybe in some cases good reasons for it but never is war good. You could call what happened in Germany even after the surrender genocide. The allies wanted to punish them and 100,000’s died of starvation as they continued to be punished. Bad shit all around

[TitoFan]

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

it is difficult for us to grasp. It was a world war in the 40’s and we are trying to judge it with today’s eyes. I’ve said it before here, no one hates war more than those who have actually been through it. There is no such thing as a good war, maybe in some cases good reasons for it but never is war good. You could call what happened in Germany even after the surrender genocide. The allies wanted to punish them and 100,000’s died of starvation as they continued to be punished. Bad shit all around

You got a good point there and none of us here can speak about that from personal experience (I think no one here is THAT old). But c'mon, just like we can say now that segregation was bad in the 50's and 60's, we can also say the dropping of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities was bad also. Back in the 50's and 60's, different water fountains for whites and blacks was probably a normal, accepted thing. Nowadays it would be looked at with indignation and disbelief. Maybe in the framework of the 40's, dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a good thing due to the "reducing casualties in the end" argument. But looked at now, a counter argument can certainly be made. But still, that 2nd bomb.........

[walrus]

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

it is difficult for us to grasp. It was a world war in the 40’s and we are trying to judge it with today’s eyes. I’ve said it before here, no one hates war more than those who have actually been through it. There is no such thing as a good war, maybe in some cases good reasons for it but never is war good. You could call what happened in Germany even after the surrender genocide. The allies wanted to punish them and 100,000’s died of starvation as they continued to be punished. Bad shit all around

You got a good point there and none of us here can speak about that from personal experience (I think no one here is THAT old). But c'mon, just like we can say now that segregation was bad in the 50's and 60's, we can also say the dropping of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities was bad also. Back in the 50's and 60's, different water fountains for whites and blacks was probably a normal, accepted thing. Nowadays it would be looked at with indignation and disbelief. Maybe in the framework of the 40's, dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a good thing due to the "reducing casualties in the end" argument. But looked at now, a counter argument can certainly be made. But still, that 2nd bomb.........

I’m not sticking for the second bomb nor the first. It’s just people say it like we did it out of the blue. I’m not directing that at u tits just a general observation.

[Gandalf]

Good to see we are not arguing, Tito. I think we are mostly on the same page on this. The Nagasaki bombing was a needless and cruel thing to do. I visited Nagasaki and the museum there is chilling. To see actual debris and the most horrific stories. A young Japanese child walked up to me and said 'Hello'. He was just a kid and kids like him were melted in that explosion. It really hits you to see school kids running around and people going about their work and to imagine that huge detonation taking place. I sat in the small park almost directly below where it exploded. Nagasaki is a lovely place. I don't see what any of those people living there did wrong. It was barbaric. I just think we can and should be a little bit better than that.

[brocktonblockbust]

this b******* about it was 1940 and we weren't there to experience it and it was a World War yada yada yada that's absolute garbage it has nothing to do with common sense. Common Sense has nothing to do with you being personally there and experiencing it yada yada yada. We use common sense when we sent a probe to Mars we were never on Mars but we use common sense to program the pro and to make good decisions about how to program it but yet we were never personally on Mars. There are certain things we can just use intellect in common sense to judge. There was no reason to drop atomic bombs on Japan not the first and not the second. And don't give me this garbage about unless you actually fought in a war or were in a war as a victim that you really don't know what you're talkin about when it comes to war. That is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with anything. unless your household is being invaded personally in your neighborhood where you live and you have to pick up a gun or an axe to defend yourself in your family you have no business going across to the other side of the world and incinerating people or doing nation-building or doing The White Man's Burden.


DA FUCK ATTA HE

[El Kabong]

this b******* about it was 1940 and we weren't there to experience it and it was a World War yada yada yada that's absolute garbage it has nothing to do with common sense. Common Sense has nothing to do with you being personally there and experiencing it yada yada yada. We use common sense when we sent a probe to Mars we were never on Mars but we use common sense to program the pro and to make good decisions about how to program it but yet we were never personally on Mars. There are certain things we can just use intellect in common sense to judge. There was no reason to drop atomic bombs on Japan not the first and not the second. And don't give me this garbage about unless you actually fought in a war or were in a war as a victim that you really don't know what you're talkin about when it comes to war. That is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with anything. unless your household is being invaded personally in your neighborhood where you live and you have to pick up a gun or an axe to defend yourself in your family you have no business going across to the other side of the world and incinerating people or doing nation-building or doing The White Man's Burden.


DA FUCK ATTA HE

Dropping the bombs ended the war and saved lives, American and Japanese. The Japanese weren't going to surrender they were training women and children to fend off an invasion of Honshu Island/Mainland Japan.....and yeah I'd venture a guess that if America HAD invaded Japan and killed women and children that you'd still be bitching about it because you're trolling or maybe you're being serious I don't know I don't much care either because it's been constant lately.

[brocktonblockbust]

Dropping the bombs did not end the war. Those people on their 3rd and 4th generation with birth defects now.

[TitoFan]

DA FUCK ATTA HE