National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

It wasn't indiscriminate. The "cottage industry" aspect of Japan's
military machine was well documented, whereby a considerable portion of
their military industrial output began in people's city homes and flowed
to the military factories and plants. That made the entirety of the
city a military target.

Those cities had other purely military targets. The accuracy of aerial
bombardment was not very good in WWII, so legitimate aerial bombardment
directed at a military objective could legitimately involve damage to
nearby areas.

I point out Tokyo firebombing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You respond
with a concern about accuracy not being very good.

Accuracy from high altitude was what it was, and the weather over Japan
was notoriously poor for aerial bombing; but that didn't mean that the
Allies had to refrain from aerial bombing.

An analogy to consider...

A bank is being robbed and the robbers take civilian hostages. Smoke
canisters are used to obscure visibility.

Can the police justify shooting into the "clouds" hoping that they
will take out the robbers? Bank customers and employees that get
killed fall under that callous label "collateral damage".

Here's one way the analogy breaks down:

LeMay specifically targeted the "customers and employees" along with
the "robbers". Firebombing and nuking made *no effort* to
discriminate between the groups traditionally known as combatants and
non-combatants.

Area bombing was, by definition, indiscriminate. Families with young
children were targeted. A popular theory at the time, "thanks" to a
guy named Giulio Douhet, was that if you kill the non-combatants, a
country's will to fight would collapse.

See my previous post comment above. Military related targets were
targeted, and the fact that the enemy had civilians nearby didn't mean
that the Allies had to refrain from aerial bombing.

Douhet's theories makes for interesting contrast to what you are
talking about.

See: The First Rules of Air Warfare, by Major Richard H. Wyman, USAF
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchr...apr/wyman.html

I found it interesting to see Wyman refer to "German terror bombing
against England". I expect that he'd speak of the "collateral damage"
done at Dresden, etc.

The Germans and the Japanese started wars of world conquest that became
WWII, and conducted many "terror bombing" aerial raids against England
and China.

It is interesting to note that the December 7th raids on Hawaii and
the Philippines were justified by the Japanese as an effort to
liberate the natives from American imperial agression (with Hawaii
ultimately succumbing in 1959).

I suspect that these Hague articles formed the basis for LeMay's
post-war words:
--------------
"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose
if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal..."

With the nature of the Japanese military in WWII, they undoubtedly would
have tried and killed most of a losing country's leaders as "war
criminals".

At issue here is the grounds for being tried. In LeMay's case, it is
the willful targeting of non-combatants (women, children, etc).

See above. Military related targets were what was targeted, and the
fact that the enemy (stupidly) had civilians nearby didn't mean that the
Allies had to refrain from aerial bombing.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that civilians were not
specifically targeted. Hiroshima and Nagasaki being two blatant
examples.

(A tragic irony is that Nagasaki was one of Japan's largest centers of
Catholicism.)

The Hague rules that you love so much, also prohibit a combatant from
utilizing civilians as a "shield" to "protect" a military target, and
the Japanese could certainly be accused of doing that in nearly all of
their cities; furthermore, the other combatant could legitimately
utilize aerial bombing on those military targets, and the responsibility
for any ensuing civilian casualties falls on the ground combatant.

If you are calling the civilian casualties from the Tokyo firebombings
and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a collateral damage to the
"civilian shield" of a legitimate military target, I'm not aware of a
single historian who shares your view.

Japan had already clearly lost the war by the time that the B-29s
reached Japan in 1945, so LeMay would have had no fears of the U.S.
losing the war.

I agree with that point. Now notice that LeMay isn't quoted as saying
that he had no concerns about being tried as a war criminal. Knowing
that he was expecting to win the war, I take his statement as an
expression of conscience.

I take it that you consider your self a mind reader. You don't provide
any context whatsoever for LeMay's statement.

You initiated a statement that LeMay would have had no fears, and then
you criticize me for mind reading.

As for context to LeMay's quote, here's the link if you missed it the
first time:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/pe...ndeAMEX61.html


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

Accuracy from high altitude was what it was, and the weather over Japan
was notoriously poor for aerial bombing; but that didn't mean that the
Allies had to refrain from aerial bombing.

An analogy to consider...

A bank is being robbed and the robbers take civilian hostages. Smoke
canisters are used to obscure visibility.

Can the police justify shooting into the "clouds" hoping that they
will take out the robbers? Bank customers and employees that get
killed fall under that callous label "collateral damage".

A completely inappropriate analogy, as there is no comparison between
the principles utilized in police work, and the principles utilized in a
world war.

Here's one way the analogy breaks down:

LeMay specifically targeted the "customers and employees" along with
the "robbers". Firebombing and nuking made *no effort* to
discriminate between the groups traditionally known as combatants and
non-combatants.

Too bad. Japan started the war, committed numerous horrendous war
crimes against the U.S., China and other Asian countries (and not a peep
out of Stuffie about that), and Japan effectively lost the war at the
Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944, and if their government had any
sense, they would have surrendered then. The B-29 fire raids started in
1945. Japan sowed the wind, and they reaped a whirlwind.

They also intermingled military areas with civilian areas, so it was the
fault of the Japanese government that their civilians got hurt in those
cities.

It is interesting to note that the December 7th raids on Hawaii and
the Philippines were justified by the Japanese as an effort to
liberate the natives from American imperial agression (with Hawaii
ultimately succumbing in 1959).

Bull-oney. Japan "justified" those raids as part of their attempt to
conquer the whole western half of the Pacific Ocean and its islands and
its rim countries, to create the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere", a Japanese Empire with vast amounts of natural resources, taken
by military power.

The Hague rules that you love so much, also prohibit a combatant from
utilizing civilians as a "shield" to "protect" a military target, and
the Japanese could certainly be accused of doing that in nearly all of
their cities; furthermore, the other combatant could legitimately
utilize aerial bombing on those military targets, and the responsibility
for any ensuing civilian casualties falls on the ground combatant.

If you are calling the civilian casualties from the Tokyo firebombings
and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a collateral damage to the
"civilian shield" of a legitimate military target, I'm not aware of a
single historian who shares your view.

That shows just how unaware you are, then. Stuffie.

The "cottage industry" aspect of Japan's military machine was well
documented, whereby a considerable portion of their military industrial
output began in people's city homes and flowed to the military factories
and plants. That made the entirety of the city a military target.

I recommend that you read this outstanding book, as it will expose a lot
of the mush that is in your mind, Stuffie --

_Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire_, by Richard B.
Frank, 1999

As for context to LeMay's quote, here's the link if you missed it the
first time:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/pe...ndeAMEX61.html

'From early on he argued that, "if you are going to use military force,
then you ought to use overwhelming military force. Use too much and
deliberately use too much... You'll save lives, not only your own, but
the enemy's too."'

He's correct ... including in the case of Japan and the U.S. in WWII.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:


Too bad. Japan started the war, committed numerous horrendous war
crimes against the U.S., China and other Asian countries (and not a peep
out of Stuffie about that),


Probably because his mom was knocked up during the Rape of Chung King.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

Accuracy from high altitude was what it was, and the weather over Japan
was notoriously poor for aerial bombing; but that didn't mean that the
Allies had to refrain from aerial bombing.

An analogy to consider...

A bank is being robbed and the robbers take civilian hostages. Smoke
canisters are used to obscure visibility.

Can the police justify shooting into the "clouds" hoping that they
will take out the robbers? Bank customers and employees that get
killed fall under that callous label "collateral damage".

A completely inappropriate analogy, as there is no comparison between
the principles utilized in police work, and the principles utilized in a
world war.

It was a simple analogy about discriminate killing vs indiscriminate
killing - bystanders compared to non-combatants.

Regarding the principles of the military and the police, I happen to
see them as more similar than different. Particularly in recent times
when military operations have been justified as actions of
"international law enforcement".

Here's one way the analogy breaks down:

LeMay specifically targeted the "customers and employees" along with
the "robbers". Firebombing and nuking made *no effort* to
discriminate between the groups traditionally known as combatants and
non-combatants.

Too bad. Japan started the war, committed numerous horrendous war
crimes against the U.S., China and other Asian countries (and not a peep
out of Stuffie about that), and Japan effectively lost the war at the
Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944, and if their government had any
sense, they would have surrendered then. The B-29 fire raids started in
1945. Japan sowed the wind, and they reaped a whirlwind.

They also intermingled military areas with civilian areas, so it was the
fault of the Japanese government that their civilians got hurt in those
cities.

Incindiary and nuclear weapons are not exactly weapons known for their
surgical precision.

It is interesting to note that the December 7th raids on Hawaii and
the Philippines were justified by the Japanese as an effort to
liberate the natives from American imperial agression (with Hawaii
ultimately succumbing in 1959).

Bull-oney. Japan "justified" those raids as part of their attempt to
conquer the whole western half of the Pacific Ocean and its islands and
its rim countries, to create the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere", a Japanese Empire with vast amounts of natural resources, taken
by military power.

Perhaps the Japanese modeled their expansionism on the American
example of "sea to shining sea (and beyond)".

The Hague rules that you love so much, also prohibit a combatant from
utilizing civilians as a "shield" to "protect" a military target, and
the Japanese could certainly be accused of doing that in nearly all of
their cities; furthermore, the other combatant could legitimately
utilize aerial bombing on those military targets, and the responsibility
for any ensuing civilian casualties falls on the ground combatant.

If you are calling the civilian casualties from the Tokyo firebombings
and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a collateral damage to the
"civilian shield" of a legitimate military target, I'm not aware of a
single historian who shares your view.

That shows just how unaware you are, then. Stuffie.

Douhet's theories of aerial bombardment of non-combatants as practiced
in WWII happens to be mainstream history. I see your position here as
out on the fringe.

The "cottage industry" aspect of Japan's military machine was well
documented, whereby a considerable portion of their military industrial
output began in people's city homes and flowed to the military factories
and plants. That made the entirety of the city a military target.

One could also attempt to justify the targeting of high schools
because that is where a considerable portion of draftees flow out of.

I recommend that you read this outstanding book, as it will expose a lot
of the mush that is in your mind, Stuffie --

_Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire_, by Richard B.
Frank, 1999

If you have any quotes to offer that support your position, I'd be
glad to consider them.

As for context to LeMay's quote, here's the link if you missed it the
first time:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/pe...ndeAMEX61.html

'From early on he argued that, "if you are going to use military force,
then you ought to use overwhelming military force. Use too much and
deliberately use too much... You'll save lives, not only your own, but
the enemy's too."'

He's correct ... including in the case of Japan and the U.S. in WWII.

It's not hard to imagine that Tojo (who unlike LeMay, was tried and
punished for war crimes) wanted the raid on Pearl Harbor to be an
example of overwhelming force.

Whether Tojo thought of the attack as *saving* American lives, I do
not know.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

A completely inappropriate analogy, as there is no comparison between
the principles utilized in police work, and the principles utilized in a
world war.

It was a simple analogy about discriminate killing vs indiscriminate
killing - bystanders compared to non-combatants.

The analogy is bogus. Police work is within one country, and it deals
with one or a few criminals in an incident, and is not to be compared to
two countries that are at war with each other. Police powers are quite
limited and circumscribed, whereas when two countries are at total war,
all possible resources are mobilized to win the war.

Regarding the principles of the military and the police, I happen to
see them as more similar than different. Particularly in recent times
when military operations have been justified as actions of
"international law enforcement".

Those are properly called a "war".

Japan started the war, committed numerous horrendous war
crimes against the U.S., China and other Asian countries (and not a peep
out of Stuffie about that), and Japan effectively lost the war at the
Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944, and if their government had any
sense, they would have surrendered then. The B-29 fire raids started in
1945. Japan sowed the wind, and they reaped a whirlwind.

They also intermingled military areas with civilian areas, so it was the
fault of the Japanese government that their civilians got hurt in those
cities.

Incindiary and nuclear weapons are not exactly weapons known for their
surgical precision.

Too bad. The U.S. was under no obligation whatsoever to use "surgical
precision" on those military targets. The Japanese had 6 months to
surrender after Leyte Gulf, before the first Tokyo fireraid occurred,
and this was at a time when about 300,000 people per month were dying on
the Asian mainland as a direct result of WWII.

Japan "justified" those raids as part of their attempt to
conquer the whole western half of the Pacific Ocean and its islands and
its rim countries, to create the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere", a Japanese Empire with vast amounts of natural resources, taken
by military power.

Perhaps the Japanese modeled their expansionism on the American
example of "sea to shining sea (and beyond)".

Economic expansion is not to be compared with attempted world conquest
of a dozen countries by military force.

What about what China and the Indochina countries had to say about the
"Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

That shows just how unaware you are, then. Stuffie.

Douhet's theories of aerial bombardment of non-combatants as practiced
in WWII happens to be mainstream history. I see your position here as
out on the fringe.

-Your- position is what is on the fringe, the lunatic fringe.

The "cottage industry" aspect of Japan's military machine was well
documented, whereby a considerable portion of their military industrial
output began in people's city homes and flowed to the military factories
and plants. That made the entirety of the city a military target.

One could also attempt to justify the targeting of high schools
because that is where a considerable portion of draftees flow out of.

Bogus. The "cottage industry" aspect meant that in many homes, hardware
and electronic sub-assemblies were manufactured there for the war
effort, and then transported to the main war factories. That made the
homes an extension/feeder of the war factories.

I recommend that you read this outstanding book, as it will expose a lot
of the mush that is in your mind, Stuffie --

_Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire_, by Richard B.
Frank, 1999

If you have any quotes to offer that support your position, I'd be
glad to consider them.

You obviously haven't read the book.

He's correct ... including in the case of Japan and the U.S. in WWII.

It's not hard to imagine that Tojo (who unlike LeMay, was tried and
punished for war crimes) wanted the raid on Pearl Harbor to be an
example of overwhelming force.

Whether Tojo thought of the attack as *saving* American lives, I do
not know.

If the Allies had to invade Japan by land, it was estimated that they
would have lost between 150,000 and a million lives, and that the
Japanese would have lost (additionally) between 3 million and 20 million
lives. These were reasonable estimates, and the war as prosecuted by
the Allies avoided such a land invasion.

Obviously Stuffie would have preferred to see the U.S. lose far more
lives in WWII that it did. Stuffie doesn't care about the Japanese,
either.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Hmmmm, who was it who was saying CT doesn't know what he's talking about?
:-)

That would be *nearly everyone*, and thus far there's no evidence to the
contrary.

(Stuf4) wrote:
GPS was designed from the outset to create new capability for
offensive strategic forces.

Cite, please.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
Again, you might as well class cell phones as offensive weapons.

They are. They are used as the triggers for car bombs, among other things,
especially the disposable ones.

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
According to what you are saying, in the middle of a war, a group of
soldiers can put on civilian clothes and take a train ride into the
heart of the capital city of the country that they are fighting, put
on their uniforms, pull out their guns, and *then* initiate combat.

*We should be so lucky* as to be able to do that. Sounds like an absolutely
wonderful way to get into position.

I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

You first. You are way behind in producing verifiable references.

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

A completely inappropriate analogy, as there is no comparison between
the principles utilized in police work, and the principles utilized in a
world war.

It was a simple analogy about discriminate killing vs indiscriminate
killing - bystanders compared to non-combatants.

The analogy is bogus. Police work is within one country, and it deals
with one or a few criminals in an incident, and is not to be compared to
two countries that are at war with each other. Police powers are quite
limited and circumscribed, whereas when two countries are at total war,
all possible resources are mobilized to win the war.

To check the notion of all possible resources being mobilized to win a
war, evidence the fact that no nuclear weapons have been used in
combat since 1945.

Police actions are limited and circumscribed. Pentagon actions are
limited and circumscribed. Both use deliberate homicide as a method
of dealing with problems.

Differences I see are primarily in scale.

Regarding the principles of the military and the police, I happen to
see them as more similar than different. Particularly in recent times
when military operations have been justified as actions of
"international law enforcement".

Those are properly called a "war".

Just War Theory is in large part an extension of Law Enforcement
Theory.

Japan started the war, committed numerous horrendous war
crimes against the U.S., China and other Asian countries (and not a peep
out of Stuffie about that), and Japan effectively lost the war at the
Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944, and if their government had any
sense, they would have surrendered then. The B-29 fire raids started in
1945. Japan sowed the wind, and they reaped a whirlwind.

They also intermingled military areas with civilian areas, so it was the
fault of the Japanese government that their civilians got hurt in those
cities.

Incindiary and nuclear weapons are not exactly weapons known for their
surgical precision.

Too bad. The U.S. was under no obligation whatsoever to use "surgical
precision" on those military targets. The Japanese had 6 months to
surrender after Leyte Gulf, before the first Tokyo fireraid occurred,
and this was at a time when about 300,000 people per month were dying on
the Asian mainland as a direct result of WWII.

Perhaps we could agree that if an alternative solution that did not
involve the targeting of non-combatants was known to be effective,
that we would both prefer it.

Japan "justified" those raids as part of their attempt to
conquer the whole western half of the Pacific Ocean and its islands and
its rim countries, to create the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere", a Japanese Empire with vast amounts of natural resources, taken
by military power.

Perhaps the Japanese modeled their expansionism on the American
example of "sea to shining sea (and beyond)".

Economic expansion is not to be compared with attempted world conquest
of a dozen countries by military force.

How do you think America got to be dominant over the entire planet?
Military conquest of the British, Spanish, Iroquois, Apache,
Hawaiians, etc.

A point I have made in the past...

If you take a globe and stick a pin hole in every place that a US
military base has been built, the Earth starts to look like Swiss
cheese.

What about what China and the Indochina countries had to say about the
"Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

Leads me to wonder how the phrase "manifest destiny" translates to
their languages.

I recommend that you read this outstanding book, as it will expose a lot
of the mush that is in your mind, Stuffie --

_Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire_, by Richard B.
Frank, 1999

If you have any quotes to offer that support your position, I'd be
glad to consider them.

You obviously haven't read the book.

(Whether either of us have read the book or not is irrelevant to
points made in this discussion.)

He's correct ... including in the case of Japan and the U.S. in WWII.

It's not hard to imagine that Tojo (who unlike LeMay, was tried and
punished for war crimes) wanted the raid on Pearl Harbor to be an
example of overwhelming force.

Whether Tojo thought of the attack as *saving* American lives, I do
not know.

If the Allies had to invade Japan by land, it was estimated that they
would have lost between 150,000 and a million lives, and that the
Japanese would have lost (additionally) between 3 million and 20 million
lives. These were reasonable estimates, and the war as prosecuted by
the Allies avoided such a land invasion.

Obviously Stuffie would have preferred to see the U.S. lose far more
lives in WWII that it did. Stuffie doesn't care about the Japanese,
either.

An alternative conclusion that can be gathered from the points I have
offered is that I value all life.


~ CT