IMHO

1. It's always been interesting how reliable strategic delivery capability turned out to be harder to obtain than a package itself. I mean North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India... 2. Well it does not really matter if a retaliatory strike is worse or not than the first strike. I mean if it still exceeds the level of acceptable losses who cares how strong it is. 3. I guess if George W. Bush was at the helm back in fifties then we could well be up for a last act of The Play. I mean balance of forces were undeniably in favor of the US and clearly worsening ever since. I guess from a military point of view it was so tempting to exercise the first strike. Remember unanimous JCOS recommendations to Kennedy at the time of Cuban crisis and the pressure military put on civilian leadership. And the calculus was much worse for the US then. May be there were actually fewer people in fifties who wouldn't attempt a first strike than those who would have gone for it. Bless us.

Good point

And we've got Uncle Joe. He would have started something sooner or later I guess. May be he'd have been shy of going against half of the world but some minor territorial wars he might have done.

Well... I guess Hitler rose because his language and ideas were popular. The industry did support him but at the beginning it was limited. They supported him because he was gaining electoral base not that they bought votes for him.

3 fireteams are in MOUT battalions. Standard TO&E has 2.

I wonder if anyone has a text explaining the following things: 1. Why Marines have three fire teams per squad whereas an Army infantry squad has two? 2. Why Marines prefer an infantry heavy TO&E in general whereas Army has an armor heavy TO&E? I can speculate at a high level why it's done and what are the pros and cons so I'm looking for a deeper analysis.

Sorry posted to a wrong forum. Don't know how to delete a topic.

Yeah... That place is mine

You've got me on this, Magpie

Well... I'm sure Allied commanders intended to kill as many Axis troops as they could with whatever means came to hand. It was their direct responsibility actually. So 1. Japanese commanders where dumb they didn't bomb civilian population of Oahu. 2. Germans and Japanese where morons they didn't spray chemical and biological agents over American and British cities. Do you agree?

Not completely. IJ were "genocidal beasts". And they should burn in hell for that. US just didn't care about Japanese civilian casualties to stop the genocidal beasts. Agree. Good point. You can actually make it even stronger by asking a simple question. If massive Japanese civilian casualties were the only course of action to stop Japan should US and Allies have done this. And remembering those 17 million dead and counting I'd be bound to agree they should.

I think no for both cases. Having seen WWII start after WWI that was legitimately considered too risky. The difference is actually: 1. I believe that could have been achieved with less loss of civilian life if Allies talked to Japan and guaranteed all kinds of ceremonial honors. But Allies wanted a blank check in writing first and that was a bad strategy with inflexibly honor-minded Japanese commanders. 2. I believe exterminating civilians as a way of breaking the will of leaders is not acceptable. Again you can make a (favorable) comparison to modern times - no one is consciously and deliberately firebombing Pashtun villages to push Taliban into submission. Even though it might have brought in victory sooner and with less loss of American lives.

I would rather say it's not very discussable question Planning military operations while taking into account the civilian casualties is good. Calculating means to achieve the goals with utter disregard to this angle is bad. Taking a strategy of breaking the nation's leaders will to fight by annihilating the nation itself is a war crime. And that was the US strategy. Good angle is actually omnipresent in every modern military operation the US conducts yet those military objectives are achieved. In Iraqi war no one bombed civilian population of Basra, Baghdad, Mosul to push Saddam to give up. Yet this would have been exactly the modern reincarnation of the WWII strategy. So there's a "good" way to do it. People just didn't care back then.

1. To calculate casualties properly you should include 750'000 civilians killed in the US bombings. Plus the whole population of Tokyo where the third nuke was destined. 2. I do not say Japanese were angels - they were fully responsible for annihilation of huge masses of people. I say in its quest to crush Japan state the US started to exterminate Japanese population and were fully prepared to finish the job if necessary. Let's stop it here. I don't think even reading Downfall or any other book will change anything. You don't believe there could have been another way out of the mess. And I do believe there was. So this is it

Yes better read for themselves. And you're right - I was incorrect in calling it a summary of the article. It's a summary of the facts given in the article. Since the author initially shares the belief that Japan state should have been crushed at all costs (total war) he does believe that atomic bombings were lucky break. And possible continuation of the conventional bombings are not a problem either. It's seriously do it at all costs.

So may I summarize the article: Japan 1. Most of the Japanese leadership wanted to start negotiations with Allies. But the idea of negotiations didn't have a universal support among the military. Unconditional surrender and removal of Emreror were not acceptable as a starter. What was acceptable is not specified. In any case Japanese leadership did not feel immediate urgency to start the negotiations ASAP. Japanese leaders were not concerned with military or civilian losses when formulating their strategy. 2. Japanese military was quite able to put a fight in case of invasion of the homeland. And they were prepared to fight until the utter destruction. They counted on the political pressure that high losses would put on the American leadership. Japanese commanders hoped for eventual negotiations from a relatively stronger political position for Japan. US 1. US leadership fought not for the defeat of the Japanese military but for the total dismantling of the state of Japan the way it existed at that moment. Thus the only possible negotiation option for the US was unconditional surrender and total submission to the american occupying force. 2. Since the only US goal in the war was destruction of the state of Japan American leadership felt invasion of the Japanese homeland is required. Invasion would have been accompanied by very high casualties among american military at the time of high war weariness at home. Because of these considerations the idea of invasion was not universally accepted - Navy would have argued for blockade and bombing campaign. 3. Nuclear bombing were not expected to bring about the collapse of Japanese empire. Conventional bombing (500'000 civilians killed) was expected to continue after the nuclear one (250'000 civilians killed) then possibly followed by the invasion. 4. And as a conclusion, US was more or less ready to bear high price in terms of military losses during the invasion campaign to reach the goal of unconditional surrender and dismantling of the the state of Japan. And US was ready to inflict ANY kind of civilian losses on the Japanese nation to reach the stated goal. Personally, so far US leaders do not look that much different from Japanese. Both parties were willing to exterminate as many civilians as needed to reach the goal of utter destruction of their political enemies.

Steve, 1. May be you can tell what test setup you would consider helpful? I mean this way you would get more help from the community. Like when I did CMSF tests I ran it 10 times for each variable change - distance, elevation, building type etc. Variance was manageable and I learned what I wanted to learn. I tested in hot seat mode as it provides better control. Though it seems a post here gives pretty convincing evidence that RT and WeGo gives different results for some reason. 2. May be you could consider telling which variables go into the model? Apart from the obvious stuff. I understand it might be tricky.

1. Frankly speaking 50 times is hard to believe (it would have made the toll 12.5 million or 37.5 million if count in fire bombing) but I read Downfall first before seriously arguing for or against. 2. I think "occupied by Russians" is very important in the context of how Truman and Churchill might think at that point of time. Seems like even if they didn't believe in Russians eating people alive their thinking did not exactly go that far from the idea. Like Vietnam - nobody thought of Vietnamese peasants - imaginary Domino Effect was more important than their lives. Total war at all costs.

Russians must be eating people alive heh... To justify the killing of 250'000 civilians.

Right. Well... I'd differentiate between knowledge and values. And on the advice of the councellor I refuse to go into details. Lest it opens another can of worms

Sorry I didn't know about the ban. Actually I'd rather stop the (im)moral line here. It's clear it will not go anywhere.

Simplistic answer - blockade the Japanese islands. Destroy Japanese military in China and the Pacific islands. Start the negotiations in parallel. A better answer should take into account the political dynamics in Japan. Were they ready to accept "conditional armistice" and when? What were the costs in terms of life lost in China and other occupied lands? But I can't argue this case now. I don't have enough detailed information on faction politics in Japan. And just like Michael Emrys said - it all depends on how you view that war. Total destruction of Axis nation states at all costs or not.

Again you're right. I actually have no problem with that. But then we're obliged to accept the argument that, for example, Hamas is also fighting the war for survival. And Cole was also an act of war for the survival or resurrection of someone's dream state (Yes, I know I do not stick 100% to the definitions given in the conventions). I mean "winning at all costs" is also a logical position but then let us not be fooled by the PR brainwashing about the "heinous" one.

True. What really makes Japan case emotional - there were no danger to Allies any more. Just like Dresden. One thing when one has a compelling military necessity and another - when one just does it for revenge. And what would have happened if Japan hadn't surrendered? There were a good chance they'd have continued fighting. Most probably the US would have went on with the civilian mass murders - nukes or fire bombs. Another interesting angle is, if I'm not mistaken, Allies didn't try to go after the Axis leaders but felt OK decimating civilian population. I believe Iraqi COIN success proves there IS an alternative to decimation of population. More KIAs/WIAs on the attacker side but way fewer overall casualties if you take the case of total annihilation with stand off weapons. And if one is not after "total victory by tomorrow morning" one can keep the attackers casualties at a manageable level. However bad the use of the word in the context of human life.

You're right and I'm wrong. I was stressing the point but I should have mentioned it was really no excuse for Hitler.