2008-11-16, 23:44 | Link #121 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Considering that history is written in the perspective of the winners, regardless of the war. It is entirely possible that the numbers of casualties caused by the losers are highly inflated, while the number of casualties on the loser's side are deflated. This does not apply to WWII only, but to every war that occurred throughout history.
Let's take the Vietnam War as an example. When the numbers of American soldiers die, they were considered by the American government at that time as war heroes and the survivors as war veterans. On the other hand, the civilians were killed by the military were considered as the same-level as the guerillas, whether it be young children or the elderly, it did not matter. In terms of inflation, by considering innocent civilians as soldiers would definitely increase the kill count by the winning military forces. Thus, it is actually difficult to determine the actual number of casualties for each and every war, regardless of the country or situation. Last edited by Shadow Kira01; 2008-11-16 at 23:57. Reason: adding example |
2008-11-17, 00:09 | Link #122 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
That is certainly true for exact numbers, which is why most statistics have an error margin. As for your Vietnam example, I should point out that at the time is not the same as ex post facto. People do go back and reevaluate their numbers, which is why we are more aware today of what actually happened.
|
2008-11-17, 01:42 | Link #123 | |
Gundam Boobs and Boom FTW
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
As for why nukes are still produced today, so they're used as bargaining chips and to put fear into the hearts and minds of enemies. And when the fear factor stops being significant, we just might drop one to show we're willing to use them. |
|
2008-11-17, 02:29 | Link #124 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
I know the theory behind the deterrent issue, but still.. If every nuclear warhead producing nation practice and work hard on their diplomatic skills, there wouldn't be a need to show their will to use it. After all, the reason why countries built so many nukes in the first place is their will to actually use it someday, not like they are wasting money for no reason. Even so, it would be so much better if the world will not go into a war involving nuclear warheads. Perhaps, the ones who support the idea of utilizing nukes as bargaining chips would consider the anti-nuke crowd, such as myself as wishful thinking. It does not matter.
|
2008-11-17, 06:57 | Link #125 | ||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 44
|
Spoiler for ответ:
Quote:
its just that nowadays that is considered terrorism. and judged as such - when the "right" people do it. i.e. Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden. when a H.S. Truman or G.W. Bush - or even their proxy underlings like Suharto - do it, on the contrary, it's all for the greater good. Quote:
I'd think twice about that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
nuke-building history started with Nazi Germany. the US nuke program was famously suggested by Einstein in several letters to Roosevelt, who was afraid that otherwise the Nazis would have nukes before the US would - so it was basically a preemptive defense (although today they have pretty much lost that function for the US since it is clearly on top in terms of regular military power anyway). USSR started its nuke program to keep up with the US and also as a method of defense. UK and France followed to have a method of defense against the USSR. China followed to be on par with the US and USSR. etc. most recent cases - for Israel its a defense against Arab states, for North Korea it is defense against the US, for Iran its a defense against the US and Israel. Quote:
|
||||||||
2008-11-17, 07:16 | Link #126 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
At least in the McCarthy years, you don't "disappear" permanently, and the ratting under the Nazis continued even after they're well-established. That was how the Gestapo earned its reputation.
All the "without reason" scenarios: You must be someone to get selected for this sort of stuff. Unless the departments like doing random stuff. Besides, after looking/listening to my stuff, what are they going to do about it? Comment to their colleagues that oh, I'm discussing anime stuff with my friend? Maybe, they'll contact my insurance company to notify that I'm hiding an illness? Don't forget where I'm living. The second part of those lines is my reality. Ok, maybe except the "policy counter to people's wishes" part. I think my local press is objective. Others obviously don't agree, and certainly, it's not free.
__________________
Last edited by yezhanquan; 2008-11-17 at 07:57. |
2008-11-17, 08:36 | Link #127 | |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Quote:
Insted of ''context of general brutality'' think of the concept of ''the whole country at war''. By the way Mumitroll and Mike_Z , why are you ''speaking'' russina on this forum? Self-censoring or what?
__________________
|
|
2008-11-17, 17:13 | Link #129 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
All right, this has gone on long enough. This topic is supposed to be about the benefits and disadvantages of the spread of nuclear power, so take all of this talk about World War II and what not elsewhere. I'll delete any further posts that deviate from this topic, so consider this a warning.
On a different note, the discussion on Truman's decision to drop the nuclear bombs is quite interesting, and it'd make good fodder for a separate thread. Also, Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-11-17, 19:13 | Link #130 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 44
|
Quote:
"I wonder, do they learn history from newspapers?" "From newspapers, TV, what they are taught at schools, etc. The problem with it is that all that represents reality in a very warped way regarding everything concerning the USSR (since it was the "evil empire" in the Cold War) and Russia (out of inertia)." Quote:
but anyway... i'll just open another thread and will name it generically enough to include discussions about ANYTHING even remotely related, be it benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power, military implications of having or not having nuclear weapons, historical reasons for that, and so on. Last edited by 4Tran; 2008-11-17 at 20:17. Reason: Deleted off-topic material. |
||
2008-11-17, 20:28 | Link #131 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, this kind of post would be better if it were in a PM.
__________________
|
|||
2008-11-17, 20:53 | Link #132 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 44
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|