 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
So, if the U.S. had stayed out of it, and focused on internal matters, reason dictates that it would still have had a paltry military by the end of European and/or Pacific hostilities.
Germany and Japan may not have had the capabilities to invade the war-strengthened U.S., but they might have been able to handle the sub-Portugal "lesser" America that would be produced by isolationism... No? |
No. The USN was far more than enough to prevent the Germans from invading, and, once the naval expansion program of 1940 was completed (that is, the USN looking about like what it did in historical 1944), then your supposed invasion of the US becomes laughable in the extreme.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Then why was conscription in place? |
It was your duty as an American to defend your nation against two aggressive enemies. Ask a WW2 vet if they were led into combat against their will.
quote:
Not really. I'm saying that the US shouldn't have fought in the war, you are saying that there is an obligation to support your society. Those are unrelated. |
Fighting the war WAS SUPPORT TO SOCIETY!
quote:
So you think the ends justify the means, then.
|
Yes... there is a greater good.
quote:
Given time, sure, you never know. But in that time, the US would have developed atomic weapons, and would have retained an atomic monopoly for years. If the Soviets didn't have agents within the Manhatten Project, the US would have retained its atomic monopoly much longer. |
If the US was at peace and not engaged in conflict, it is unlikely that so much effort and resources would have been put into the Manhatten Project.
quote:
Yes, perhaps 10-15 years down the road Germany would have had thousands of intercontinental bombers. Too bad US fighter jets would have ripped them to shreds. |
No... because the US would still be in pre-war mobilization mode. Very little production, antiquated hardware, etc. And Germany would have had jet-capable long range bombers before 1948.
quote:
I think you haven't even made a coherent statement as to what those responsibilities are, nor have you backed up that non-existent statement.
|
They are implied... if your country is threatened, you have a responsibility to contribute to the war effort.
quote:
Then why would you oppose targeting civilians? Killing civilians prevents them from supporting the war effort, right? |
Not necessarily. Destroying the military-industrial capabilies is the main objective. Bombing civilians is unnecessary if the manufacturing capabilies are effectively neutralized. The US failed in Vietnam because it could not stop the supply lines, and the NVA had an endless supply of weapons and material from China and Russia. The only way the US could have won would have been to line a wall across the borders and fully occupy the entire region with a massive ground force. And the cost of such an endeavor didn't justify the goal.
quote:
Well, Germany felt that the Jews and other ethnic minorities were a threat, so they trampled all over their rights and put them in concentration camps. Do you have trouble saying whether or not this is wrong, too? |
Hitler felt that... and then manipulated enough people to get into a position of power in which to enact such a brutal policy. And they didn't just detain them, they were annihilating them. Had I been in the position of leadership in post WW1 Germany, I would have rallied all of Germany behind the goal of rebuilding the economy. The extermination of the Jews and other peoples was not in Germany's best interests. Especially considering the reaction from the rest of the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Berzerker is essentially correct.
An isolationist nation is not necessarily defenseless. Conscription would certainly not have been necessary for the defense of the US, especially for the USN. In WW2, the USN/Marines were mainly manned by volunteers, for example.
However, such a large navy wouldn't have been necessary, at all. We are postulating a "what if"; ie, WHAT IF Germany/Japan decided to invade the Continental US. But why should they do that? As Berz noted, it would be a logistical and occupational nightmare, even if they DID succeed, which they wouldn't. Neither nation could have supported a large army thousands of miles from home across two major oceans. Not gonna happen.
The navy existing in 1939 was essentially enough to defend the shores of the United States, backed up by ground-based aircraft. If I were in charge, using 20-20 hindsight, I'd scrap the battleships - all of them - in favor of carriers and possibly submarines.
Air power, likewise, isn't a problem. We aren't talking about supplying massive bomber forces overseas, or anything of the sort. We're talking about a large force of interceptor and tactical/naval attack aircraft. Again, conscription is not needed for this, volunteers are more than sufficient. Germany, for example, may have 1 MILLION fighters - but those are patently useless in an invasion of the US. The only fighters/tactical aircraft either the Germans or Japanese would have would be those packed onto carriers - and these are never going to outnumber the land-based aircraft of a major nation that has built up for defense.
Likewise, the Manhatten Project. Conscription isn't necessary for this, by any means. Simply hire enough researchers from universities/find them abroad, as was done historically.
The problem, then, is how to pay for all of this. Remember, we don't need anything NEAR the level of funding of the military during WW2, simply because this is a military geared towards defense, not offense. We're talking about a two-ocean navy, consisting primarily of aircraft carriers, their escorts, and submarines, an air force made up of several thousand fighters and tactical attack aircraft, and a miniscule army. Now, obviously taxation is out, too.
Sava has already given us the solution to this issue. He has implied/stated that US citizens of the time were very patriotic, and very willing to support the government. This being the case, simply fund the military through war bonds, donations, etc. There are probably several other methods that I'm not thinking about, too, that Berzerker can come up with.
So, building a military capable of stopping any German/Japanese invasion force is just not all that difficult, nor does it require 10 million men.
Now, a few particular tidbits of stupidity I need to address:
quote:
It was your duty as an American to defend your nation against two aggressive enemies. Ask a WW2 vet if they were led into combat against their will. |
They were only enemies when the US made them enemies, and what WW2 vets think doesn't matter. They bought into US propaganda. I don't.
quote:
Fighting the war WAS SUPPORT TO SOCIETY! |
No, society wasn't threatened, nor was there a viable future threat.
quote:
Yes... there is a greater good. |
Really? I thought there were no absolute morals, right? How can a greater good exist, without absolute morals also existing?
quote:
They are implied... |
By what or whom?
quote:
Hitler felt that... and then manipulated enough people to get into a position of power in which to enact such a brutal policy. |
Just as the leaders of the US manipulated the American people into believing Japanese Americans were a threat.
quote:
And they didn't just detain them, they were annihilating them. |
So? Oh, I see, we can detain innocent people, strip them of their possessions, keep them locked up in tiny rooms, and draft them into defending a society from which they derive no benefit and receive no protection, but we just can't kill them? Why the distinction?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I guess my favourite MEP will have quite a few headaches this year. He's the one writing the parliamentary report on the respect of fundamental rights. |
As long as it is a political report, it's not that bad. And the Charta gives ample material.
The problem is with its legal application. I think the ECJ will have to use a little creativity to paper over the worst crap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Well form a scholar's point of view, you have to love the Charta. Loads of problems, need to create new terms to get a grip on some of the stuff....
But from a judge's or citizen's perspective, it's useless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Berzerker is essentially correct.
An isolationist nation is not necessarily defenseless. Conscription would certainly not have been necessary for the defense of the US, especially for the USN. In WW2, the USN/Marines were mainly manned by volunteers, for example.
However, such a large navy wouldn't have been necessary, at all. We are postulating a "what if"; ie, WHAT IF Germany/Japan decided to invade the Continental US. But why should they do that? As Berz noted, it would be a logistical and occupational nightmare, even if they DID succeed, which they wouldn't. Neither nation could have supported a large army thousands of miles from home across two major oceans. Not gonna happen.
The navy existing in 1939 was essentially enough to defend the shores of the United States, backed up by ground-based aircraft. If I were in charge, using 20-20 hindsight, I'd scrap the battleships - all of them - in favor of carriers and possibly submarines.
Air power, likewise, isn't a problem. We aren't talking about supplying massive bomber forces overseas, or anything of the sort. We're talking about a large force of interceptor and tactical/naval attack aircraft. Again, conscription is not needed for this, volunteers are more than sufficient. Germany, for example, may have 1 MILLION fighters - but those are patently useless in an invasion of the US. The only fighters/tactical aircraft either the Germans or Japanese would have would be those packed onto carriers - and these are never going to outnumber the land-based aircraft of a major nation that has built up for defense.
Likewise, the Manhatten Project. Conscription isn't necessary for this, by any means. Simply hire enough researchers from universities/find them abroad, as was done historically.
The problem, then, is how to pay for all of this. Remember, we don't need anything NEAR the level of funding of the military during WW2, simply because this is a military geared towards defense, not offense. We're talking about a two-ocean navy, consisting primarily of aircraft carriers, their escorts, and submarines, an air force made up of several thousand fighters and tactical attack aircraft, and a miniscule army. Now, obviously taxation is out, too.
Sava has already given us the solution to this issue. He has implied/stated that US citizens of the time were very patriotic, and very willing to support the government. This being the case, simply fund the military through war bonds, donations, etc. There are probably several other methods that I'm not thinking about, too, that Berzerker can come up with.
So, building a military capable of stopping any German/Japanese invasion force is just not all that difficult, nor does it require 10 million men. |
A poor, lame attempt to justify your position... which is, wrong.
quote:
Now, a few particular tidbits of stupidity I need to address:
|
Like your entire position?
quote:
They were only enemies when the US made them enemies, and what WW2 vets think doesn't matter. They bought into US propaganda. I don't.
|
They were enemies because given the chance, they march through our streets and enslave us.
quote:
No, society wasn't threatened, nor was there a viable future threat.
|
So the Nazis were no threat to America. You are an idiot if you believe that.
quote:
Really? I thought there were no absolute morals, right? How can a greater good exist, without absolute morals also existing?
|
This isn't an absolute... DUH... morals are relative to HUMANS. And since we are HUMANS, the greater good is a concept CREATED BY US.
Social contrat... see John Locke
quote:
Just as the leaders of the US manipulated the American people into believing Japanese Americans were a threat.
|
And a little incident called Pearl Harbor never happened right? Tell that to the Americans who died in the attack. 
quote:
So? Oh, I see, we can detain innocent people, strip them of their possessions, keep them locked up in tiny rooms, and draft them into defending a society from which they derive no benefit and receive no protection, but we just can't kill them? Why the distinction? |
Yes, or they can leave... it's part of living in a society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dom Pedro II
|
 |
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
Actually, its pretty much an established fact that Roosevelt goaded the Japanese into attacking the US. I mean, the only people who DIDN'T know that we knew were 1) the American people, and 2) the Japanese. And I would bet the Japanese had an inkling...
And you know what? I believe 100% that we knew it was coming (though I don't think we knew how bad it was going to be) and I don't care. I think Roosevelt did the right thing. We HAD to get into that war. There is simply no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Well, maybe some ands...
The term used today for America in the 1930s was intranationalist... not isolationist. You want to see isolationist? Look at Korea in 1880. THAT'S isolationist. The United States just liked to play its own cards and not be held down by any agreements with anyone else.
And also I see all the ingredients for YET another World War II pissing contest........
EDIT: Also, on the earlier matter of secession... I think saying that secession was illegal at the end of a bayonet didn't prove anything. The issue, I think, is still an open one. It was, in fact, the Civil War which was the fire that forged the One Nation. It had never been called a nation beforehand... and yet in the Gettysburg address, Lincoln uses again and again the word he had been careful to avoid previously.
But the issue of secession was never really settled. Because of this one point... according to Lincoln and the Republicans, the Southern states DID NOT secede. They could not have seceded. It was illegal. Fair enough. Then why did the states have to be REadmitted to the Union? If they never left, why would they have to come back in? Never made any sense, no one ever bothered to question it because the gun was to their back, and its never been answered since.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
A poor, lame attempt to justify your position... which is, wrong. |
Tell us why. Astonish us with your intellect.
quote:
They were enemies because given the chance, they march through our streets and enslave us. |
Hitler didn't want war with the US, and Japan only went to war so that the US wouldn't interfere with her conquests 5000 miles away.
quote:
So the Nazis were no threat to America. You are an idiot if you believe that. |
Another ad hominem with no substance to back it up 
quote:
This isn't an absolute... DUH... morals are relative to HUMANS. And since we are HUMANS, the greater good is a concept CREATED BY US. |
But saying that the ends justify the means in the name of the greater good is a moral concept.
quote:
Social contrat... see John Locke |
First of all, don't try to use John Locke to support your position, given that you don't support his major position on rights and the like. Secondly, I don't really care what John Locke says. I'm asking YOU to justify it, not to point to someone else's justification (someone you generally don't even agree with, at that).
quote:
And a little incident called Pearl Harbor never happened right? Tell that to the Americans who died in the attack. |
What does this have to do with American citizens who happened to be of Japanese descent? Further, many Germans blamed the Jews for the "stab in the back" in WW1, so again, you just created another parallel.
quote:
Yes, or they can leave... it's part of living in a society. |
I don't recall any of the detainees having the ability to leave. And I want no part of a society that can legally do what it did to those American citizens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dom Pedro II
|
|
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
Well, David, he IS right about one thing there... he said IF GIVEN THE CHANCE the Germans and Japanese would've been marching through our streets...
Hell, if given the chance, the people of Botswana would be marching through our streets. The distinction is whether or not it'll happen.
And on another note about Japanese detainees, there were MANY Japanese in the United States who were furious of what their country did. In fact, I remember one story of a first-generation Japanese man, elderly at that, who upon finding out about the attack, went into a little room of the house where they had a sort of shrine to the homeland, and he tore the room to pieces.
And as far as Pearl Harbor goes, it was war. The attacked a military target, we did not extend the same curtesy to them when we firebombed Tokyo... If you want to talk about Japanese atrocities, however, take a look at Nangking. That really reflects why we absolutely had to get involved... not for our own sake but for the MILLIONS who were dying around the world...
what was that saying? 90% of the world threatened by 10%? Something to that effect...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Well, David, he IS right about one thing there... he said IF GIVEN THE CHANCE the Germans and Japanese would've been marching through our streets... |
I still don't think this is correct. Neither nation had designs on the US.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2003 08:55
. 
|