Does the civilizied world have the stomach for true war anymore?

[FMCoug]

The discussions on torture and the war on terror really make me wonder. Could we pull of a WWII again, or would Hitler win (or at least draw)? Not to mention Japan.

Carpet bombing, fire bombing cities, nukes that killed more civilians than military, etc.

I'm guessing no.

[beelzebabette]

I'd say yes. There was a precipitating event that drew us into WWII just as October 2001 had a different feel from April 2009. War's always been ugly; people through the years have known that; I think it's just a matter of standards of what we determine makes it worth the cost. If the stakes were as high as they were 65 years ago, I think the cost we were willing to accept would be as high as well.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'd say yes. There was a precipitating event that drew us into WWII just as October 2001 had a different feel from April 2009. War's always been ugly; people through the years have known that; I think it's just a matter of standards of what we determine makes it worth the cost. If the stakes were as high as they were 65 years ago, I think the cost we were willing to accept would be as high as well.

Agreed.

I'd also point out that how the US has fought in a "war" since WWII is much different. Before Korea, Congress' role was asking the military what was needed to win. Now, Congress' role has been to tell the military what it could and couldn't do.

[FMCoug]

I hope you're right. But the fact that so much of the country has its panties in a wad over treatment of combatants which does not involve physical pain or damage makes me wonder.

If our "values" don't allow us to inflict psychological discomfort on people who are sworn to obliterate us off the face of the earth, I have a hard time believing we'd be okay with civilian casualties on the scale of WWII.

[Indy Coug]

The civilized world doesn't have the stomach, but the uncivilized world does. Therein lies the problem.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I hope you're right. But the fact that so much of the country has its panties in a wad over treatment of combatants which does not involve physical pain or damage makes me wonder.

If our "values" don't allow us to inflict psychological discomfort on people who are sworn to obliterate us off the face of the earth, I have a hard time believing we'd be okay with civilian casualties on the scale of WWII.

I have tremendous respect and gratitude for the allied leadership during WWII, but I am not sure I am convinced that all of the civilian casualties in WWII were necessary to win the war.

In any case, if we faced a similar threat today, I think the US citizens would be supportive of the war effort.

I don't think our "war on terror" is remotely similar to WWII.

[happyone]

Remember the US had to dragged kicking and screaming into WWII.

If HItler hadn't been "kind enough" to declare war on us, he might have been able to get a draw in europe as we concetrated on the Japanese.

With out a Pearl Harbor type of event I don't think we could fight a WWII scale war. Even with 9-11 the US population is not wholeheartedly behing the war on terror.

One of the reasons is that the access to news footage of the battle field. War is a nasty, ugly business. Before Viet Nam the public never saw that.

Plus democrocies have an inheritant problem fighting sustained wars. Even with WWII and Pearl Harbor the US population was getting war weary by 1945.

[UtahDan]

The civilized world doesn't have the stomach, but the uncivilized world does. Therein lies the problem.

Exactly. Not everyone will sit down to talk over tea and crumpets. Some diplomacy has to occur at the tip of the bayonette if it is to occur.

[The Wankster]

I have tremendous respect and gratitude for the allied leadership during WWII, but I am not sure I am convinced that all of the civilian casualties in WWII were necessary to win the war.

In any case, if we faced a similar threat today, I think the US citizens would be supportive of the war effort.

I don't think our "war on terror" is remotely similar to WWII.

Were it not for the civilian casualties inflicted on Japan, we might be saluting a flag with a red dot in the middle, and we sure as hell would have had tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands more casualties in battle.

Pretty hard to argue with those kind of results.

As for your assessment of the war on terror vs. WWII.

[RobinFinderson]

Were it not for the civilian casualties inflicted on Japan, we might be saluting a flag with a red dot in the middle, and we sure as hell would have had tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands more casualties in battle.

Pretty hard to argue with those kind of results.

As for your assessment of the war on terror vs. WWII.

Do the ends always justify the means?

[beelzebabette]

Do the ends always justify the means?

Why apply such an unequivocating term?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Were it not for the civilian casualties inflicted on Japan, we might be saluting a flag with a red dot in the middle, and we sure as hell would have had tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands more casualties in battle.

Pretty hard to argue with those kind of results.

As for your assessment of the war on terror vs. WWII.

I am on record supporting the use of the A-bombs to end the war. Could it have been used on different targets with the same outcome? Maybe.

I am much more ambivalent about the fire-bombing of major Japanese cities directed by Curtis LeMay. Or the firebombing of Dresden.

Do you think the bombing of London by the Luftwaffe helped the Germans?

That's the interesting thing about history. Just because a certain outcome was achieved doesn't mean that an alternative approach would have failed.

[KillerDog]

Do the ends always justify the means?

Almost never.

[Indy Coug]

Do the ends always justify the means?

In war, you are faced with choosing the lesser of many evils. There are no nice, tidy resolutions that can snuggle up and spoon with 21st century morality.

[Jeff Lebowski]

In war, you are faced with choosing the lesser of many evils.

Hence, plenty of room to argue about what is the lesser evil.