If preemptive strikes are justified....Follow

Or 3000 of some of the best economic minds from around the world and at home.. 9-11 was a feeble attempt of poorly educated religious zealots to force their theocratic doctrine on the civilized world.

Personally, I find it difficult to argue the morality of dropping the atomic bombs as more than just an intellectual exercise.

The atomic bombs were developed over years during the war in the hope of finding a 'super weapon' with which to bring an end to what must have seemed like an unending war.

The USSR lost 6,000,000 troops during WWII. We lost 300-400,000. China lost more than a million. By one site (unofficial) the total number of troops killed in WWII was more than 10,000,000. And that's not counting Italy, Germany and Japan.

Again unofficially, the number of civilians killed was more than 20,000,000 worldwide not counting japan and germany.

Yes we had some ideas about the effects of the bomb. But long term effects? No.

It's easy to second guess now that maybe we could have used conventional weapons for the same result but who knows? At what point do you just say, ***** it, drop the atomic bombs, I want this war over'.

Yes, you can say we had no guarantee that they would work. But, you know what, they did. And you can sit back in your plush chair and make silly arguments about how many civilians have to die before it's ok to drop an a-bomb, or how many troops have to perish, but at some point a person has to look at the number of dead, look at the prognosis for the war and make a decision. Truman made what I think was the right decision for the time. For the time. Dropping the bomb nowadays is a different story. With the number of nukes out there and the number of countries having nukes it would be a tough decision to drop another with the threat of worldwide destruction hanging over your head.

--DK

When countries like N Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons then nuclear weaponry itself becomes weaker. There is no "nuclear deterrant" anymore. We unleashed the most awesome of awesome weapons on the world and now that everybody and their pet dog seeks to have them we no longer have any advantage by having them in our ******** The only other option is to build a weapon even more powerful and fierce than atomic weaponry to have the same subjigating effect or psychological advantage in a world war type setting.

ok the whole damn thing was a war of attrition but Im speaking in terms of the world war. The Japanese fought much much differently than the europeans

Totem--You obviously meant that for everything except



--DK

That's OK, I forgive you.

The "star wars" project is a fuc[/b]king joke.

[b]
The only other option is to build a weapon even more powerful and fierce than atomic weaponry to have the same subjigating effect or psychological advantage in a world war type setting.


There is nothing. Anyone who can build an H-bomb can build a weapon that will destroy life as we know it. There's no step up from that. What would you do, build a weapon that could destroy the galaxy? Who would care?

Yeah, Lucas should have left the films alone.

--DK

Did you see "Spies Like Us". They almost had it perfected then, and that film was made in 1985. They're bound to have worked it out by now.

The Eastern front in the European theater was a war of attrition for the Russians, but a tatical one for the Germans.

The Pacific theater became a war of attrition for the Japanese later in the war, as they had no hope of a tatical victory.

The Western front in the European theater was very much a tatical war, since the Germans had commited the majority of troops to the east, and both sides were bent on minimizing casualties.

Italy was a war of attrition, both sides threw haymakers as much as possible or dug in like a armidillo. The terrain in Italy prevents modern warfare from being very tacticle.

To be honest though, a war of attrition vs. a war of tacticle victories is usually dependent on if you are winning or losing.
Losers tend to try to trade ground for casualties, and winners usually try to take land with little casualties.

Don't be fooled, Smash is secretly constructing his own Death Star.
I never understood how a laser from something the size of a moon could destroy an entire planet, but then I'm no physicist. I doubt Lucas is, either

If the laser cuts through the solid crust so easily, why doesn't it just blow a hole clean through the planet?

Maybe they change the intensity of the laser once it clears the crust.