The Samantha Carter Option.... Theory Or Remotely Possible In Outsider?

[QuakeIV]

True, using the atom bomb in that situation almost certainly saved millions of lives.

[Bamax]

The Japanese back then were something else... must have really scared the hell out the the Americans and given the stories I have read I can see why.

Japan was so low on resources I read stories that they resorted to csnnibalism on csptured American forces at tines.

And the island fighting was so terrible movies were made off of it.

[D-503]

True, using the atom bomb in that situation almost certainly saved millions of lives.

That´s the "official" folklore.
Not everybody agrees to that.
And it is still inhuman.

[D-503]

No, you could absolutely wind up in a 'win or die' situation, and trying to be nice about it can in fact be a burden to winning.

When you find yourself in that situation, you already lost.

Show me how you would solve/turn around that with kamikaze.

[Curlysan]

Praising Samantha's actions, but lecturing others on the morality of what hasn't even taken place in a milieu not yours, but merely posited about by yourself and others. Do I have that right?

[D-503]

Praising Samantha's actions

Me? No.

but lecturing others

More like being staggered over the thoughtlessness of some people.

Do I have that right?

Nope.

[Curlysan]

Praising Samantha's actions

Me? No.

but lecturing others

More like being staggered over the thoughtlessness of some people.*** On this we can agree, but not for the same reason's, I'm afraid. Reason not being strongly in evidence with what I've read so far.

Do I have that right?

Nope.

It's been a while since I read Don Quixote; but unlike his antipathy towards imagined giants; I'm not so inclined to joust with windmills, or any other moving goalposts.

[QuakeIV]

True, using the atom bomb in that situation almost certainly saved millions of lives.

That´s the "official" folklore.
Not everybody agrees to that.
And it is still inhuman.

I don't really care that not everybody agrees. The estimates for combat casualties if that was fought out on the ground were basically sound. Leaving them alone only makes sense if you believe the universe will bend over backwards to give you a way out that doesn't involve violence, because it was basically the only other option and likely would've resulted in quite a bit of bloodshed shortly down the line as they tried to free themselves from their encirclement.

[Demarquis]

Rule #1 of War is that innocent people suffer and die.
Rule #2 is that you can't change Rule #1.

If killing innocent people bothers one, don't start a war.

[QuakeIV]

Or have war declared on you, as the case may be.

[Demarquis]

Fair enough, provided that's an option.

[Nemo]

[/quote]

That´s sick imo.
Live, at least "our" lives should be valued above all else.
To me, that would either be the (absolute) last resort, or, a group of, say, terminal ill or so volunteers.

This is too shallow a way of thinking. Lets use WW2 as an example, since that discussion has been broached.

Attacking an enemy fleet group with aircraft involves hundreds of aircraft and thousands of people. We see this time and again at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal campaign, Philippines sea etc etc. Its horrifically inefficient especially towards the pilots considering how few come back. Conventionally attacking the US fleet would doom the pilots you sent out and not change the course of the war. The Japanese understood this and developed Kamikaze attacks.

Kamikaze attacks out an outsized effect given the resources put in to them. Small elements, even single planes, are far more likely to evade early radar and the Mk1 Eyeball to reach the target. Guiding the weapon all the way in ensures a greater hit probability than getting "close enough" and releasing a weapon. By utilizing the entire aircraft it was possible to cause more damage than using just the bomb. So, more likely to reach the target, more likely to hit the target, cause more damage to the target.

With that in mind, forming these men into a conventional strike package and sending them off to their doom can be argued as less ethical. You are still sending them to die, their attack will be less effective, but at least some of them will come back? It was never an irrational, suicidal, emotional response only possible because of supreme devotion to the Emperor. It was a calculated, rational, and reasonable option that did the most damage to the enemy at the lowest possible cost in lives and material.



Now lets assume that it was a war of genocide. That the loser will be wiped out rather than subjugated. There is a contradiction in the "ethics" of refusing attacks of this kind of "suicidal" means when the alternative is the suicide of your entire people.

True, using the atom bomb in that situation almost certainly saved millions of lives.

That´s the "official" folklore.
Not everybody agrees to that.
And it is still inhuman.

This is muddled thinking. You can use the casualty rates on Okinawa as a taste of what would have happened on the home islands. The civilian casualty rate was staggering, and it wasn't the US Marines or Navy inflicting those losses. It was the people themselves and the Imperial military forces. The military rounded up the civilians and used them as both shields and spears. If they were overrun they would just murder them all themselves rather than fall into US custody.

If the US and allied forces had invaded the main islands, there would be no Japan. No Japanese people or culture as we understand it today. The losses would have been too horrific. Don't take my word for it. From the Nihon Hikikomori Kyoukai:

[SaintofM]

That´s sick imo.
Live, at least "our" lives should be valued above all else.
To me, that would either be the (absolute) last resort, or, a group of, say, terminal ill or so volunteers.

This is too shallow a way of thinking. Lets use WW2 as an example, since that discussion has been broached.

Attacking an enemy fleet group with aircraft involves hundreds of aircraft and thousands of people. We see this time and again at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal campaign, Philippines sea etc etc. Its horrifically inefficient especially towards the pilots considering how few come back. Conventionally attacking the US fleet would doom the pilots you sent out and not change the course of the war. The Japanese understood this and developed Kamikaze attacks.

Kamikaze attacks out an outsized effect given the resources put in to them. Small elements, even single planes, are far more likely to evade early radar and the Mk1 Eyeball to reach the target. Guiding the weapon all the way in ensures a greater hit probability than getting "close enough" and releasing a weapon. By utilizing the entire aircraft it was possible to cause more damage than using just the bomb. So, more likely to reach the target, more likely to hit the target, cause more damage to the target.

With that in mind, forming these men into a conventional strike package and sending them off to their doom can be argued as less ethical. You are still sending them to die, their attack will be less effective, but at least some of them will come back? It was never an irrational, suicidal, emotional response only possible because of supreme devotion to the Emperor. It was a calculated, rational, and reasonable option that did the most damage to the enemy at the lowest possible cost in lives and material.



Now lets assume that it was a war of genocide. That the loser will be wiped out rather than subjugated. There is a contradiction in the "ethics" of refusing attacks of this kind of "suicidal" means when the alternative is the suicide of your entire people.

[/quote]

We are also dealing with 2 different war tactics. In gaming terms, Loroi look more like an eleite army, smaller armies/fleets but they pack a punch and or alot of specialists (The blue space babes seem to be the former). Think Eldar, Tau, or Dwarves in Warhammer. WHat they lack in numbers they make up for in abilities and punch.

The Shells are a swarm army/hoard Army. Space Orks, Imperial Guard, Skaven, Tyranids. They are "we have reserves" the faction. The phrase "Quantity has its own quality" applies heavily here. They literally throw their troops at the enemy, with outdated vessals still fighting along side state of the art ones, until victory or defeat. The enemy only has o many power for lasers and so many torpedoes.

I think tactics and the psycology behind them need to be explored before this has an answer.

True, using the atom bomb in that situation almost certainly saved millions of lives.

That´s the "official" folklore.
Not everybody agrees to that.
And it is still inhuman.

This is muddled thinking. You can use the casualty rates on Okinawa as a taste of what would have happened on the home islands. The civilian casualty rate was staggering, and it wasn't the US Marines or Navy inflicting those losses. It was the people themselves and the Imperial military forces. The military rounded up the civilians and used them as both shields and spears. If they were overrun they would just murder them all themselves rather than fall into US custody.

If the US and allied forces had invaded the main islands, there would be no Japan. No Japanese people or culture as we understand it today. The losses would have been too horrific. Don't take my word for it. From the Nihon Hikikomori Kyoukai:

People always forget two very important things about WW2: Everyone drank the Coolaid, and everyone believed the propaganda. Part of the zeel and literal suicidal ferver of the Japanese at the time was the desire to please the Emperor, but more so out of fear. As much as American propaganda made them to seem inferior, savages, and even compared to rats, the Japanese compared us to demons with a penchant for cannibalism. Mothers jumped off cliffs with their newborns because they saw my grandparents generation of Americans in the same way the common people in the Firefly tv show saw the Reavers. Will look at the youtube video later, looks interesting

[Nemo]

It is part of a pair of NHK documentaries that shed a lot of light on the tragedy at Okinawa. They both take a "US indiscriminate attack, the horror!" narration track at times, but its mixed in with the orders from the military to conscript the people, to use children as soldiers, to have everyone fight and die together. How Japanese troops wore civilian clothes to try to find an edge in combat. How Marines begged civilians holed up in caves to surrender only to have them set off a bomb and kill themselves. Last one hurts, one of the survivors was a child sitting in his mothers lap at the time. As part of his recovery he drew pictures of what happened. The kid lived, but everyone he knew was lying around him dismembered. Including his mother.

I say pair, they were produced a few years apart. Not really linked except by topic. This one is uploaded with a lower quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lsE5KX7a9k I saw some of the film the Marines took during this time when I was young, including the mothers killing their own children before killing themselves as the Marines tried to stop them. The documentaries note the tremendous spike in civilian casualties AFTER principal combat was over. And the location, a set of cliffs on the south of the island where the civilians jumped off en masse. When you understand this is what we would have faced across all of Japan it really changes any thought you might have towards invasion, or Japanese surrender.

If we had invaded the Emperor could not have ordered a surrender. Communications would have been targeted to deprive the military of the ability to send or receive orders. Even had a message gotten through deception would be assumed. There is likely no possibility for a coordinated surrender after invasion. It was not the loss of life at Hiroshima or Nagasaki that prompted surrender. More people died in the bombing of Tokyo in Operation Meetinghouse than to the atomic bombs. It was the ability to lay the blame of the surrender on the horrific new weapon and in so doing save face. To surrender and maintain honor because "we have no means of fighting against the new weapon."

As much as American propaganda made them to seem inferior, savages, and even compared to rats, the Japanese compared us to demons with a penchant for cannibalism. Mothers jumped off cliffs with their newborns because they saw my grandparents generation of Americans in the same way the common people in the Firefly tv show saw the Reavers. Will look at the youtube video later, looks interesting

I would challenge the notion you have of American propaganda during the war, unless you're referring to some Looney Tunes style cartoon that was billed for humor. News reel propaganda played up the enemy's strength. And it has to, why else would a people suffer and accept such deprivation? Here's a prime example of early to mid war propaganda, yes it bigs up the noble cause - but you will find it does not dehumanize the enemy. Just casts them and their actions as villainous. And to be perfectly fair...

[SaintofM]

It is part of a pair of NHK documentaries that shed a lot of light on the tragedy at Okinawa. They both take a "US indiscriminate attack, the horror!" narration track at times, but its mixed in with the orders from the military to conscript the people, to use children as soldiers, to have everyone fight and die together. How Japanese troops wore civilian clothes to try to find an edge in combat. How Marines begged civilians holed up in caves to surrender only to have them set off a bomb and kill themselves. Last one hurts, one of the survivors was a child sitting in his mothers lap at the time. As part of his recovery he drew pictures of what happened. The kid lived, but everyone he knew was lying around him dismembered. Including his mother.

I say pair, they were produced a few years apart. Not really linked except by topic. This one is uploaded with a lower quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lsE5KX7a9k I saw some of the film the Marines took during this time when I was young, including the mothers killing their own children before killing themselves as the Marines tried to stop them. The documentaries note the tremendous spike in civilian casualties AFTER principal combat was over. And the location, a set of cliffs on the south of the island where the civilians jumped off en masse. When you understand this is what we would have faced across all of Japan it really changes any thought you might have towards invasion, or Japanese surrender.

If we had invaded the Emperor could not have ordered a surrender. Communications would have been targeted to deprive the military of the ability to send or receive orders. Even had a message gotten through deception would be assumed. There is likely no possibility for a coordinated surrender after invasion. It was not the loss of life at Hiroshima or Nagasaki that prompted surrender. More people died in the bombing of Tokyo in Operation Meetinghouse than to the atomic bombs. It was the ability to lay the blame of the surrender on the horrific new weapon and in so doing save face. To surrender and maintain honor because "we have no means of fighting against the new weapon."

As much as American propaganda made them to seem inferior, savages, and even compared to rats, the Japanese compared us to demons with a penchant for cannibalism. Mothers jumped off cliffs with their newborns because they saw my grandparents generation of Americans in the same way the common people in the Firefly tv show saw the Reavers. Will look at the youtube video later, looks interesting

I would challenge the notion you have of American propaganda during the war, unless you're referring to some Looney Tunes style cartoon that was billed for humor. News reel propaganda played up the enemy's strength. And it has to, why else would a people suffer and accept such deprivation? Here's a prime example of early to mid war propaganda, yes it bigs up the noble cause - but you will find it does not dehumanize the enemy. Just casts them and their actions as villainous. And to be perfectly fair...

I can stand corected.

[Nemo]

No worries. Thats just what people are taught, and honestly without someone picking through old archives and digitizing the actual stuff how would people know any different?


If you want a good laugh though, give this one a watch. And again, its not particularly portraying the enemy here as anything but competent. Its like a Monty Python sketch a few decades early. I split my side listening to the accent.

[Nemo]

Kamikaze attacks... [were] a calculated, rational, and reasonable option that did the most damage to the enemy at the lowest possible cost in lives and material.

I felt like dragging this topic back up. Bit of necromancy but I felt it warranted. Drachinifel, youtube naval historian, tackled the "senseless, insane tactic!" premise surrounding Kamikaze attacks.

[Urist]

<3 Drach. But yes, the kamikaze tactics are an excellent example of how IRL war & the calculations which go into it are often so much more brutal than people unfamiliar with them can imagine.