What wars would YOU have fought in?

[George S]

No one can predict the future and no one can predict the past. They are all in the realm of "what-if." My father trained fighter pilots in that war. Because of Pearl Harbor, Congress declared War. Then Germany declared War upon us and we reciprocated. We won. But we had remained neutral about the Western Front until just after December 7, 1941.

I know all of this; but you were wrong to do so.

US neutrality from 1939 to the end of 1941 is a shameful record that should embarrass those who called for it at the time. In the same vein, British and French inaction between March 1936 and their eventual declaration of war on August 3rd, 1939 was shameful; the people who turned a blind eye to the Nazi regime's illegal militarisation can, perhaps, be forgiven for wanting to avoid war, but they had no excuse for not being aware of the massive human rights abuses occurring in Germany at the time; and once war was declared by France and Britain, the USA really had no excuse for not directly joining with the democracies to fight the fascists. The existence of Lend-Lease shows that the US government knew which side was right; and yet they chose not to help until after France had been subjugated, and after the threat of the same happening to the UK had largely passed.

The Soviet Union won that war. Ironically, their regime was almost as disgusting as that of the Nazis. It is to the eternal shame of the USA that they did not send a military force to assist the democracies in Western Europe until they were themselves directly attacked by the Empire of Japan.

Is it shameful that Switzerland had maintained neutrality? Perhaps because War is evil in and of itself?

Hopefully, only to be fought when there is no other way. Perhaps withdraw all troops from the middle east and europe while taking note that all we have left to fight with if you attack us is nuclear weapons, so attack us and expect a nuclear response. Say this softly. Perhaps with only hints. Do they really want to call our hand? Really?

Should we try to mold governments abroad? If Iraq is our guide the answer must be a quiet "no." Getting in the middle of an Islamic war of Sunni vs Shi'ite brand? Might as well take sides in Northern Ireland, then.

Or we can continue our present course. Well, no one can predict the future. Uncertain, isn't it. The market's jittery. Some money is moving out of the market and into defense sector stocks. Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics at an all-time high. Somebody bought on the rumor. Not quite ready to sell on the news... but soon. Treasury Bonds are going down to 2%. And still safer than the market to those buyers. Didn't we nationalize Chrysler? Fiat owns it now. Yep, let's keep on doing what we're doing.

 

[bilby]

I know all of this; but you were wrong to do so.

US neutrality from 1939 to the end of 1941 is a shameful record that should embarrass those who called for it at the time. In the same vein, British and French inaction between March 1936 and their eventual declaration of war on August 3rd, 1939 was shameful; the people who turned a blind eye to the Nazi regime's illegal militarisation can, perhaps, be forgiven for wanting to avoid war, but they had no excuse for not being aware of the massive human rights abuses occurring in Germany at the time; and once war was declared by France and Britain, the USA really had no excuse for not directly joining with the democracies to fight the fascists. The existence of Lend-Lease shows that the US government knew which side was right; and yet they chose not to help until after France had been subjugated, and after the threat of the same happening to the UK had largely passed.

The Soviet Union won that war. Ironically, their regime was almost as disgusting as that of the Nazis. It is to the eternal shame of the USA that they did not send a military force to assist the democracies in Western Europe until they were themselves directly attacked by the Empire of Japan.

Is it shameful that Switzerland had maintained neutrality?

Very much so, yes.

Perhaps because War is evil in and of itself?

Or perhaps because that way they could get rich, and tacitly support Naziism without getting blamed for it.

Hopefully, only to be fought when there is no other way. Perhaps withdraw all troops from the middle east and europe while taking note that all we have left to fight with if you attack us is nuclear weapons, so attack us and expect a nuclear response. Say this softly. Perhaps with only hints. Do they really want to call our hand? Really?

Should we try to mold governments abroad? If Iraq is our guide the answer must be a quiet "no." Getting in the middle of an Islamic war of Sunni vs Shi'ite brand? Might as well take sides in Northern Ireland, then.

Or we can continue our present course. Well, no one can predict the future. Uncertain, isn't it. The market's jittery. Some money is moving out of the market and into defense sector stocks. Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics at an all-time high. Somebody bought on the rumor. Not quite ready to sell on the news... but soon. Treasury Bonds are going down to 2%. And still safer than the market to those buyers. Didn't we nationalize Chrysler? Fiat owns it now. Yep, let's keep on doing what we're doing.

The US has a history of getting involved in pointless wars that she should have stayed out of; But the one time a war came along that was actually just, she had be be dragged in kicking and screaming.

I agree, the US should stay out of all the petty bickering and tribalism she seems so keen to get involved in - and so incompetent to actually succeed in influencing. But the fight between Nazi Germany and the Poles was one that needed intervention on a purely moral level. France and Britain stepped up. The US made vague noises of support, but refused to take a direct part.

 

[Bronzeage]

Historically speaking, what wars would you have willingly fought in? If you did fight in a war, would you do it again?

For me, the American Revolution, Civil War, and WWII. That's about it. I don't know enough about the wars of other countries to really make a decision.

Any of them. The wars in which soldiers fight for ideals tend to turn out bad for idealist soldiers. Wars are fought by nations, not individuals. It's only in hindsight we can have enough information to make any kind of sensible decision, and by then, it's too late. I notice the Spanish Civil War did not make your list. Why not the War of 1812, the Blackhawk Wars, The Invasion of the Barbary Coast, The Spanish American War, or the Philippine Insurrection?

I was one of the fortunate ones whose generation never had to face such a dilemma.

 

[arkirk]

I know all of this; but you were wrong to do so.

US neutrality from 1939 to the end of 1941 is a shameful record that should embarrass those who called for it at the time. In the same vein, British and French inaction between March 1936 and their eventual declaration of war on August 3rd, 1939 was shameful; the people who turned a blind eye to the Nazi regime's illegal militarisation can, perhaps, be forgiven for wanting to avoid war, but they had no excuse for not being aware of the massive human rights abuses occurring in Germany at the time; and once war was declared by France and Britain, the USA really had no excuse for not directly joining with the democracies to fight the fascists. The existence of Lend-Lease shows that the US government knew which side was right; and yet they chose not to help until after France had been subjugated, and after the threat of the same happening to the UK had largely passed.

The Soviet Union won that war. Ironically, their regime was almost as disgusting as that of the Nazis. It is to the eternal shame of the USA that they did not send a military force to assist the democracies in Western Europe until they were themselves directly attacked by the Empire of Japan.

Is it shameful that Switzerland had maintained neutrality? Perhaps because War is evil in and of itself?

Hopefully, only to be fought when there is no other way. Perhaps withdraw all troops from the middle east and europe while taking note that all we have left to fight with if you attack us is nuclear weapons, so attack us and expect a nuclear response. Say this softly. Perhaps with only hints. Do they really want to call our hand? Really?

Should we try to mold governments abroad? If Iraq is our guide the answer must be a quiet "no." Getting in the middle of an Islamic war of Sunni vs Shi'ite brand? Might as well take sides in Northern Ireland, then.

Or we can continue our present course. Well, no one can predict the future. Uncertain, isn't it. The market's jittery. Some money is moving out of the market and into defense sector stocks. Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics at an all-time high. Somebody bought on the rumor. Not quite ready to sell on the news... but soon. Treasury Bonds are going down to 2%. And still safer than the market to those buyers. Didn't we nationalize Chrysler? Fiat owns it now. Yep, let's keep on doing what we're doing.

Endless war. Ziss boom bah! Give us this day our daily atrocity and don't forgive those who trespass against us...hell we trespass all the time ourselves. All these wars are really the same...mainly a profit center for industries that don't want to bother supplying civilian needs and love wartime profitability. It is the same cast of characters over and over again, and lately nothing that even remotely smells like victory (for anybody but the war profiteers.)

 

[Valjean]

None. These wars are all the same...two WRONG sides against each other.

Really? You think that the British and Nazi Germany were both wrong? That the world would have been a better place if the Nazis had just been allowed to take over all of Europe unopposed? Or that they could have been stopped without violence?

I agree with you that most wars are pointless and unjust; but the Western Front in Europe from 1939 - 1945?

Luebeck? Hamburg? Kassel? Dresden? &al?
Operation Thunderclap?

The British were terrorists too. Even when there were military targets present, there was no way to accurately target them at night (the RAF bombed at night, largely to terrify and demoralize civilians).

 

[Keith&Co.]

No US boomer carries a full missile loadout.

One tube is always reserved for a suborbital communications satellite--it's a last-resort communications option if everything else is down, to be used before the sub commander decides there will be no orders from higher authority.

???? Um, no. There's no such thing.

As for the missile warheads--while there will be limits it's a matter of Δv, not area per se. The maneuvering engines are on the bus, not the warheads. It must position for each target and drop a warhead.

Yes. There's a limit to how far apart the warheads can be spread from each other, based on the fuel the equipment section has to distribute them. Referred to as the missile's 'footprint.'

 

[bilby]

Really? You think that the British and Nazi Germany were both wrong? That the world would have been a better place if the Nazis had just been allowed to take over all of Europe unopposed? Or that they could have been stopped without violence?

I agree with you that most wars are pointless and unjust; but the Western Front in Europe from 1939 - 1945?

Luebeck? Hamburg? Kassel? Dresden? &al?
Operation Thunderclap?

The British were terrorists too. Even when there were military targets present, there was no way to accurately target them at night (the RAF bombed at night, largely to terrify and demoralize civilians).

Both sides committed atrocities; but only one side committed them against her own people as a matter of ideology.

Both sides did bad things; but they were far from equal; and while some of the tactics used by the democracies were immoral, their objective was not.

(btw, the RAF bombed at night, largely because bombing during the day was too fucking dangerous for aircrews, even by the very loose standards of the time. The aim of terrifying and demoralising civilians was secondary to the aim of still having some bombers and crews left at the end of the week.)

 

[bilby]

Is it true that one Trident sub can destroy half the world with nukes?

No. An Ohio class submarine can carry 24 Trident II missiles (the British Vanguard carries 16). Each missile can have up to 14 W88 (475kt) or W76 (100kt) warheads, but they are limited to 8 under current treaty laws. (I've read that there are further treaties in the work that may limit the number of tridents themselves) That theoretically allows a single sub to destroy 192 targets (although, not knowing the technical details of how they're deployed, I imagine a single missile's warheads all need to be targeted within a specific area); which is a *lot*. But nowhere near enough to destroy 'half' the world with nukes, even taking radiation into consideration.

It does make for a quotable meme or movie line, however.

Way back, during the cold war, I was at a museum in England where they had an exhibit about the cold war. Part of the exhibit was a graphic depiction of the world's nuclear arsenals; The Soviet and US arsenals were huge, with tens of thousands of warheads each; Britain had about 300. A chap came up, took a look at the graphic showing the UK with less than 1% of the Soviet arsenal, and started into a rant about how the Russians wouldn't take such a tiny ability as ours seriously as a deterrent.

I asked him to name the 301st largest town or city in the USSR, and imagine what the country would be like if all the bigger places had been destroyed, and he shut up.

One sub may not be able to destroy half the word, but if it can wipe out the hundred largest cities in an enemy nation, and still have a reserve in case you don't stay down, it is more than enough to make them think twice about provoking you to use it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for the missile warheads--while there will be limits it's a matter of Δv, not area per se. The maneuvering engines are on the bus, not the warheads. It must position for each target and drop a warhead.

Yes. There's a limit to how far apart the warheads can be spread from each other, based on the fuel the equipment section has to distribute them. Referred to as the missile's 'footprint.'

The point is that it's not an area per se. Distributing the warheads along a line, even a curved line, is far easier than distributing them on an X. You can't say "an area of no more than <x> mi^2". You can't even say "no two more than <x> miles apart".

- - - Updated - - -

(btw, the RAF bombed at night, largely because bombing during the day was too fucking dangerous for aircrews, even by the very loose standards of the time. The aim of terrifying and demoralising civilians was secondary to the aim of still having some bombers and crews left at the end of the week.)

Exactly. Night bombing was incredibly dangerous. Daylight bombing was basically suicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One sub may not be able to destroy half the word, but if it can wipe out the hundred largest cities in an enemy nation, and still have a reserve in case you don't stay down, it is more than enough to make them think twice about provoking you to use it.

Agreed, although one sub isn't really that much of a deterrent because they can make taking it out the first step in the hostilities (everybody's boomers are vulnerable near port.) Always having a boomer or two lurking at sea makes a strike at the boomers a far more risky proposition.

 

[Hickdive]

Way back, during the cold war, I was at a museum in England where they had an exhibit about the cold war. Part of the exhibit was a graphic depiction of the world's nuclear arsenals; The Soviet and US arsenals were huge, with tens of thousands of warheads each; Britain had about 300. A chap came up, took a look at the graphic showing the UK with less than 1% of the Soviet arsenal, and started into a rant about how the Russians wouldn't take such a tiny ability as ours seriously as a deterrent.

I asked him to name the 301st largest town or city in the USSR, and imagine what the country would be like if all the bigger places had been destroyed, and he shut up.

One sub may not be able to destroy half the word, but if it can wipe out the hundred largest cities in an enemy nation, and still have a reserve in case you don't stay down, it is more than enough to make them think twice about provoking you to use it.

Britain's nuclear deterrent (and France's) presented the Soviet Union with a problem. Soviet planners might argue that the USA would be unwilling to risk a full nuclear exchange with the inevitable destruction of every major US city and millions of casualties just to save western Europe.

The fact that Britain and France had their own, independent, systems meant that even if the USA backed down there was still a strong probability that the USSR would be wrecked.

 

[dx713]

None that I can think of.
Jury's out on WW2, though. Hitler was definitely not democratic, while France was at the time, so I might have been willing to join the Resistance, but not for patriotic purposes, so I don't know how I would have been received.
(there's also the whole Shoah thing, but most Frenchmen at the time were unaware of that. But maybe the yellow star thing would have made enough of an impression on me to make me want to resist against an occupant doing that)

 

[Hickdive]

(btw, the RAF bombed at night, largely because bombing during the day was too fucking dangerous for aircrews, even by the very loose standards of the time. The aim of terrifying and demoralising civilians was secondary to the aim of still having some bombers and crews left at the end of the week.)

Britain's Bomber Command had discovered that factories and machine tools were actually very difficult to destroy even if you could get the bombs on target. Blowing a factory's roof off and walls down usually meant you could shovel the debris away from the production line and get back to work within hours even if it meant you were working in the open air.

A much softer target was the workforce. Blow a worker's house down and he'll spend his time finding a new home, relocating his family, commuting (or at least trying to commute) to his workplace from his new home across a devastated city. The authorities would also have to expend resources in supporting him and his family. That had a much greater effect on production. That's why the policy of area bombing cities at night was referred to as "de-housing". It wasn't a euphemism - the RAF would much rather not kill a worker because a live one is a drain on resources just as wounding a soldier on the battlefield is much more effective than killing one.

 

[bilby]

(btw, the RAF bombed at night, largely because bombing during the day was too fucking dangerous for aircrews, even by the very loose standards of the time. The aim of terrifying and demoralising civilians was secondary to the aim of still having some bombers and crews left at the end of the week.)

Britain's Bomber Command had discovered that factories and machine tools were actually very difficult to destroy even if you could get the bombs on target. Blowing a factory's roof off and walls down usually meant you could shovel the debris away from the production line and get back to work within hours even if it meant you were working in the open air.

A much softer target was the workforce. Blow a worker's house down and he'll spend his time finding a new home, relocating his family, commuting (or at least trying to commute) to his workplace from his new home across a devastated city. The authorities would also have to expend resources in supporting him and his family. That had a much greater effect on production. That's why the policy of area bombing cities at night was referred to as "de-housing". It wasn't a euphemism - the RAF would much rather not kill a worker because a live one is a drain on resources just as wounding a soldier on the battlefield is much more effective than killing one.

This is true, but it flatters the bomber crews and their command to suggest that targeting a factory was really possible; they had to hit the worker's housing, because it was a large enough target to have a chance of actually hitting, while the factory itself was not. I suspect very strongly that 'dehousing' was bomber command making a virtue of necessity.

Nobody in WWII was able to hit what they aimed at with strategic bombing. Dive bombers could hit specific factories; but strategic bombers aimed at cities, towns, and major logistics targets such as rail yards, and just plastered the whole area in the hope of a handful of bombs on target.

A thousand bomber raid to take out one factory is an admission of failure, rather than a show of force. The technology to hit such small targets didn't exist, despite the propagandists on both sides claiming that it did.

 

[arkirk]

Really? You think that the British and Nazi Germany were both wrong? That the world would have been a better place if the Nazis had just been allowed to take over all of Europe unopposed? Or that they could have been stopped without violence?

I agree with you that most wars are pointless and unjust; but the Western Front in Europe from 1939 - 1945?

Luebeck? Hamburg? Kassel? Dresden? &al?
Operation Thunderclap?

The British were terrorists too. Even when there were military targets present, there was no way to accurately target them at night (the RAF bombed at night, largely to terrify and demoralize civilians).

That was true in Japan as well, with the firebombing to Tokyo and also the nukes which were dropped on metropolitan areas on purpose.People get pumped up with a lot of irrational feelings in a time of war.....or there would be no war.

 

[Hickdive]

This is true, but it flatters the bomber crews and their command to suggest that targeting a factory was really possible;

Hence my comment "even if you could get the bombs on target"

In the latter part of the war Bomber Command had developed techniques, aircraft, and equipment that could attack precision targets for specific purposes but the vast majority of attacks remained area ones designed to create firestorms that were the most effective means of destroying housing.

The USAAF never developed such techniques and as soon as they could reach Japan they employed night bombing of area targets to create firestorms, just as the RAF had done in Europe.

The first Thousand Bomber Raid by the RAF was primarily a propaganda stunt that required stripping of training units to provide sufficient aircraft and aircrew. It couldn't be repeated quickly because of the disruption organising it had caused. Later in the war, when Bomber Command had sufficient front line aircraft and crew to sortie a thousand aircraft in one night then these would be despatched on several different raids on several different targets in order to overwhelm and confuse German defences rather than in a single raid on a single target.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes. There's a limit to how far apart the warheads can be spread from each other, based on the fuel the equipment section has to distribute them. Referred to as the missile's 'footprint.'

The point is that it's not an area per se. Distributing the warheads along a line, even a curved line, is far easier than distributing them on an X.

Really? So many fascinating things i'm learning in this thread...

 

[Togo]

Nobody in WWII was able to hit what they aimed at with strategic bombing. Dive bombers could hit specific factories; but strategic bombers aimed at cities, towns, and major logistics targets such as rail yards, and just plastered the whole area in the hope of a handful of bombs on target.

There are some interesting accounts of the Germans looking at the pattern of bomb impacts from some of the early night bombing raids, and trying to work out which city the Allies had been aiming at...

 

[dystopian]

None. These wars are all the same...two WRONG sides against each other.

That clearly isn't the case in many of these.

However, even if it were; that'd be hindsight talking. Could you really claim you wouldn't join a war if say you were some random civilian living 300 years ago, and your country was being invaded by people who burned down your farm to deprive your country's army of food? Maybe you'd be too scared to join up, and that's perfectly fine. Maybe you would be leaving your family to your own devices by doing so and you've got work lined up to continue feeding them, so you don't join up. And that's fine. But I really don't think that under those circumstances anyone could argue "well, they're both wrong, so I'm going to be a pacifist."; that's the point of the thread, I thought. Which wars would you willingly join if you were alive at the time? Not, 'which wars would you willingly join, now that we've had decades or centuries of hindsight vision."

 

[dystopian]

One sub may not be able to destroy half the word, but if it can wipe out the hundred largest cities in an enemy nation, and still have a reserve in case you don't stay down, it is more than enough to make them think twice about provoking you to use it.

Oh, no doubt. I was just responding to the meme that a single sub can wipe out half the world, which it clearly can't. I'm not sure where that line originated, but I'm pretty sure I've heard it in a movie and tv show or two.