How come more Americans aren't proud we can kick everyone else's butts?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: jteef
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: jteef
It's sad that glory is frowned upon these days.
Exactly what does that have to do with the USA's Military Might?

It doesn't have anything to do with the USA's military might. It has to do with the public opinon of the military's might(see: topic).

Glory promotes courage and confidence across the populace. It gives the average man a good reason to exceed his goals.

Arrogance is always better than cowardice.
Victory is always better than defeat.

jt
Who are you suppose to be, Sun Tzu?

Sun Tzu is not a person
rolleye.gif
You're not Anal are you.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Zakath15
Originally posted by: dudleydocker
<<"And yeah, a ton of restraint was shown in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ">>

Are you being sarcastic? If so, consider how many lives (American and Japanese) would have been lost if the US pursued the alternative, namely an all-out assault on maniland Japan.

Original estimates by his generals were around 60,000, max, US soldiers.

Link?
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
Here is an estimate of the casualties that might have occurred if we had invaded mainland Japan......

A June 18 estimate from the military chiefs said that casualties in the first thirty days of the Kyushu invasion could be 31,000. Adm. King estimated 41,000. Adm. Nimitz said 49,000. MacArthur's staff said 50,000. Casualty estimates for Olympic and Coronet combined ranged from 220,000 to 500,000+.19

"I asked General Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokio plain and other places in Japan," Truman said later. "It was his opinion that such an invasion would cost at minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal number of the enemy. The other military and naval men present agreed."20




Link
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: dudleydocker
<<"And yeah, a ton of restraint was shown in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ">>

Are you being sarcastic? If so, consider how many lives (American and Japanese) would have been lost if the US pursued the alternative, namely an all-out assault on maniland Japan.

Gee good point. Never heard that argument before. The fact is that is a possibility. We DON'T know. But we do know that. About 100,000 died in Hiroshima and about 70,000 ppl died in Nagasaki. I doubt conventional warfare would have killed that many Japanese.

Go do a little reading on the subject before you embarrass yourself further. That is all I will say unless you want me to start looking for links... from mainstream researchers, not one link from some idiot who also believes that we didnt actually land on the moon.

Are you aware that the Japanese tried to negotiate peace with the US prior to the A-bombs being dropped? Truman was more interested in impressing the Russians with US military might than preventing the deaths of innocent Japanese civilians.

The Japanese tried to negotiate a peace settlement that was quite unacceptable to the USA. If FDR had accepted their offer, he would have been impeached. The country was not at all happy about Pearl Harbor.

BTW, the way the Russians figured into Truman's plans was that he didnt want them to invade Japan and then, after the war, have to split Japan like we did with Germany. Nuking Japan was not done just so we could tell the world that our leader's penis is bigger than their leaders penis.

BTW, as clarification of my talking about SherEPunjab needing to do some research, I'm not disputing the casualty number from the nuclear bombs. I am disputing that no where have I ever seen a major source say the the USA casualties would be lower, never mind the USA + Japan's total casualties.

Any guess on American casualties had we not dropped the A bombs would be just that, a guess. Are you more concerned at looking at guesses or looking at facts Mookow? Are you also implying that a surrender on the part of Japan had there been a conventional war is out of the question? How can you put faith into something that is unknown when it comes to your argument that the casualties would have been more had we not done what we did, yet when others on here say maybe Japan would have surrendered mid-war (again, an uknown) that is out of the question.

Do you believe in global warming, as caused by the human race, and do you think steps should be taken to stop it?

If you do, then I advise you to re-evaluate your position. People earlier in this thread made statements that the USA dropping the Bomb on Japan was bad/wrong. Several people, including myself, brought up that estimates for the cost of the invasion called for large casualties. Now, if dropping the bombs were bad to do on an overall scale, it is because it killed more people than otherwise would have happened. Now, the people that draw up estimates dont pull their thumb out of their ass, smear it on a sheet of paper, and guess at how many men are going to be killed. They looked at how the Japanese soldiers fought on Iwo Jima, looked at our casualties, looked at theirs, looked at relative strength, etc. To dismiss things like this as "guesses", "we cant be totally sure unless it actually happened", is rather funny. I say its funny, because most people who talk about the invasion estimates are also running around yelling about global warming, and how the ice caps are going to be the size of Rhode Island in 100 years.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Zakath15
Originally posted by: dudleydocker
<<"And yeah, a ton of restraint was shown in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ">>

Are you being sarcastic? If so, consider how many lives (American and Japanese) would have been lost if the US pursued the alternative, namely an all-out assault on maniland Japan.

Original estimates by his generals were around 60,000, max, US soldiers.



Operation Downfall
Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.

Invasion Plans
"The first amphibious assault was to take place on 1 November, 1945 on Kyushu with a second landing scheduled for 1 March, 1946 on Honshu. With an army of 2 million men and a force of some 8,000 aircraft remaining, the Japanese retained sufficient strength to make an invasion extremely costly. Military advisors to president Truman estimated that an invasion of Japan would cost between 250,000 and one million Allied casualties, plus an equal number for the enemy. Fortunately, for the peoples of all nations involved, the inestimable carnage in human lives was not necessary. "




SHOULD THE ATOMIC-BOMB HAVE BEEN DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA?

8) From June to beginning of August 1945, the six members of Japan's ruling council are split (3 yes; 3 no) on whether to give unconditional surrender to Allies. Even after the Hiroshima bomb is dropped (Aug. 6), they are still split 3 to 3; 3 still insist must have Emperor's sovereignty after war. On Aug. 9, Emperor insists to council, Japan must surrender. (Also Aug. 9 - Nagasaki bomb dropped.) On Aug. 14, Emperor announces to Japan that they will surrender on Allies terms.

--350,000 Purple Hearts were made between Mar-Aug. 1945, in preparation for the Japanese Invasion. Military still has a surplus.
 

darren

Senior member
Feb 26, 2000
401
0
0
Originally posted by: LordJezo
Hell.. I am proud to be in the strongest country in the world.

Sure beats being in one that someone else could trample on at any time.

how bout...
absolute power corrupts absolutely.
and
might doesnt make right. (all too often it makes wrong - see above)
 

darren

Senior member
Feb 26, 2000
401
0
0
Originally posted by: LordJezo
Originally posted by: dudleydocker
<<"And yeah, a ton of restraint was shown in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ">>

Are you being sarcastic? If so, consider how many lives (American and Japanese) would have been lost if the US pursued the alternative, namely an all-out assault on maniland Japan.

Yup.


People will die. That?s just the nature of the world. If we sat around and never did anything to protect our interests and our people, other countries would walk all over us.

People complain that our wars will take out some civilians on the other side.. BIG WHOOP! They didn't seem to give a crap about that when they flew those planes into the two towers...

yea! those damn iraqis!?! why'd the fly those planes into our towers.
roll;
 

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
How come more Americans aren't proud we can kick everyone else's butts?

Because pride blinds us to our own fatal flaws, bringing about our own self-inflicted destruction. Haughtiness guarantess our eventual fall. Ask the Romans.

The more powerful one is, the more humble and self-effacing one should be.

Roosters strut. Eagles have no need to impress.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
It is amazing what lengths some people will go to try to rationalize the targeting of civilians and the dropping of atomic bombs on them. Its also very easy and comfortable for them to say these things, as they have probably never spoken with someone who has been victimized by war. War sucks. Period. The loss of human life is a horrible thing. Its not a football game or something that only happens thousands of miles away. Out of sight, out of mind, huh? I think that whenever we make arguments about what is justified or not on here, we should not forget that the fate of the entire world is in the hands of a select few. The choices that this select few makes has little adverse consequences on them personally, no, it is the average person on the street that is more concerned about putting food on the table and saving for his child's education, a person who has no political power - that ends up suffering.

Our presidents, prime ministers, and dictators all have air conditioned bunkers to go and hide in when the sh*t heads south. 99.9999% of the population of any country does not. And those are the very people that have very little, if anything, to do with why they were attacked in the first place. Any one of us on here could have been born into another country, such as Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, or Japan. It is nothing more than a matter of fate that we were born here or that we had the resources to come here if we weren't. But every human being has pride, and whether we were born in a "Great" country like the United States, or a "Sh*tty" country like Iraq, we love our country. It doesn't matter if your country has new shiny buildings and straight roads or if it is made up of mud huts and crooked gravel roads, it is HOME, and you'll be damned if anyone tries to destroy it. Whether we live in a free democratic country or we live under the rule of a ruthless dictator, we love our country. Love of our country does not mean love of our government. A country is much more than who runs it, it is the people, the land, the culture, and the traditions. But most of all, it is home. No one wants to see the house that their father built with his hands, or the neighborhood that their children grew up in - destroyed by some bombs from anyone, let alone someone that they know very little about that comes from some land 8,000 miles away. You guys [and gals] can justify this war all you want to yourselves and to others, but please don't lose sight of this.

Before I get personally attacked, yet again, let me say this: Personally, I love this country, but do not love our government.
 

SlowSS

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2002
1,573
1
0
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
.

Before I get personally attacked

As long as you don't plagiarize someone's work.........

War is hell and you fight to win with any means available to you. Of course you wouldn't know anything about that.

It is easy for civilians say "awww, we should hurt civilians, blah, blah, blah" while they are sitting in a cafe sipping their coffee.

As for the topic of being proud that we could kick everyone's butt........Whatever, all I know is that there are lot of dead and injured
military people just so we can be proud of our country's might, but yet some of our veterans are homeless and ignored.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
.

Before I get personally attacked

As long as you don't plagiarize someone's work.........

War is hell and you fight to win with any means available to you. Of course you wouldn't know anything about that.

It is easy for civilians say "awww, we should hurt civilians, blah, blah, blah" while they are sitting in a cafe sipping their coffee.

As for the topic of being proud that we could kick everyone's butt........Whatever, all I know is that there are lot of dead and injured
military people just so we can be proud of our country's might, but yet some of our veterans are homeless and ignored.

Are people really this stupid?
 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
Originally posted by: LordJezo
Hell.. I am proud to be in the strongest country in the world.

Sure beats being in one that someone else could trample on at any time.

i grew up. sorry to hear you didn't.
 

AaronB

Golden Member
Dec 25, 2002
1,214
0
0
How come more Americans aren't proud we can kick everyone else's butts?

Because we can't.

Both the Soviet Union and China are capable of destroying this country with nuclear weapons just the same as we can destroy theirs. Well, the Soviet Union can. China may or may not be able to wipe us out but we would be so devastated that we would no longer be a world power.

As for invasion, thats a draw. They have no real chance of sucessfully invading us but we wouldn't stand a chance in hell of taking Moscow or Beijing either.

So no, we can't kick everyone else's butts.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
It is amazing what lengths some people will go to try to rationalize the targeting of civilians and the dropping of atomic bombs on them. Its also very easy and comfortable for them to say these things, as they have probably never spoken with someone who has been victimized by war. War sucks. Period. The loss of human life is a horrible thing. Its not a football game or something that only happens thousands of miles away. Out of sight, out of mind, huh? I think that whenever we make arguments about what is justified or not on here, we should not forget that the fate of the entire world is in the hands of a select few. The choices that this select few makes has little adverse consequences on them personally, no, it is the average person on the street that is more concerned about putting food on the table and saving for his child's education, a person who has no political power - that ends up suffering.

Our presidents, prime ministers, and dictators all have air conditioned bunkers to go and hide in when the sh*t heads south. 99.9999% of the population of any country does not. And those are the very people that have very little, if anything, to do with why they were attacked in the first place. Any one of us on here could have been born into another country, such as Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, or Japan. It is nothing more than a matter of fate that we were born here or that we had the resources to come here if we weren't. But every human being has pride, and whether we were born in a "Great" country like the United States, or a "Sh*tty" country like Iraq, we love our country. It doesn't matter if your country has new shiny buildings and straight roads or if it is made up of mud huts and crooked gravel roads, it is HOME, and you'll be damned if anyone tries to destroy it. Whether we live in a free democratic country or we live under the rule of a ruthless dictator, we love our country. Love of our country does not mean love of our government. A country is much more than who runs it, it is the people, the land, the culture, and the traditions. But most of all, it is home. No one wants to see the house that their father built with his hands, or the neighborhood that their children grew up in - destroyed by some bombs from anyone, let alone someone that they know very little about that comes from some land 8,000 miles away. You guys [and gals] can justify this war all you want to yourselves and to others, but please don't lose sight of this.

Before I get personally attacked, yet again, let me say this: Personally, I love this country, but do not love our government.

bravo:D
 

XCLAN

Platinum Member
Mar 22, 2001
2,401
0
0
the way we bully people now...will only cause us massive wars in the future. :(
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
I'm much more proud of our ingenuity, diversity, and work ethic. Those have been some of the strongest contributors to our success - much moreso than our military.
 

nemo160

Senior member
Jul 16, 2001
339
0
0
"They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force--nothing to boast of, when you have it,since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others"-Joseph Conradin Heart of Darkness