Author Topic: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!  (Read 29827 times)

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #75 on: November 26, 2007, 10:02:08 AM »
whether they woulda fought to the last man is questionable  what isn't is that they would try if their leaders commanded them. you old enough to remember the holdouts?  guys still hiding and fighting in the jungle for decades after the war? must be hard for you to fathom men of true commitment  i mean real commitment in action blood and tears not keyboard commando commitment to "le cause"

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2007, 10:06:05 AM »
poor len your deductive abilities are consistent albeit failing   i have never had the honor of military service. but you are getting warmer  if you knew bupkus of japan the solution to how i would end up 1/2 japanese 1/2 irish would be easy   i'm sure it is to the older men here who have servedmaybe if you ask em one of them will lead you outa lens world into the light

Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #77 on: November 26, 2007, 10:10:26 AM »
Cassie,

I don't know if you're armed, but you're certainly not polite. Good day.
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #78 on: November 26, 2007, 10:31:29 AM »
does this mean nyou are too high class to address the points of the holdouts, the plan by the japanese to fight to the last man , and the difference between western and eastern thing vis a vis your inability to make the crossover sucessfully.

or are some skeptical folks gonna say you just aren't able to address these points
shucks i'll let you have two more guesses since your first one about "what i keaked" was off. we'll call it an intellectual mulligan

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #79 on: November 26, 2007, 02:08:33 PM »
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/
you realize some of these guys held out 30 years? does that jibe with your extensive analysis of the japanese culture? albeit from afar
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/
Philippines


Occupied by the Japanese, and scene of intense fighting in 1945. 4,000 of the 114,000 troops in the Philippines as of August 1945 were still unaccounted for six months after the end of the war, in mid-1946. In the late 40's, only 109 miles from Manila, signs warned about Japanese soldiers still in the hills.

December 1945 - Holdout on Corregidor
A Japanese military person hid out alone in the tunnels under Corregidor for nine months after the island was recaptured by the Americans (March 1945).

January 25, 1946 - Mountain Battle between Filipinos and Japanese
On January 25, 1946 a Japanese unit of 120 men was routed after a battle in the mountains 150 miles south of Manila. The Japanese were armed with small arms and at least one light machine gun. 72 were killed by a Filipino battalion, led by American "Black Hawk" 86th Infantry Division. The survivors were tracked down and most were apprehended.

February 1946 - Post WWII island campaign
In February 1946 on 74 square mile Lubang Island, 70 miles southwest of Manila Bay a seven week campaign to clear the island was begun by the Filipino 341st and American 86th Division.

February 22, 1946 - Lubang island Allied casualties in a post WWII battle
Intense fighting developed on February 22, 1946 when troops encountered 30 Japanese. Eight Allied troops were killed, including 2 Filipinos. The Filipino and Americans sent for an additional 20,000 rounds of small arm ammunition, but not future battles occurred of this magnitude. In early April, 41 members of the Japanese garrison on Lubang island came out of the jungle, unaware that the war had ended.

April 1947- Mortar Team Surrenders
Seven Japanese troops armed with a mortar launcher emerged from Palawan Island.

April 1947 - Fifteen Armed Soldiers
Fifteen armed stragglers emerged from Luzon

January 1948 - Party of 200 Japanese Troops
200 well organized and disciplined troops finally gave themselves up on Mindanao.

March 5, 1974 - Lubang Island - 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onoda
Probably the most 'famous' of the Japanese holdouts, Onoda was the only survivor of a group of four.  He surrendered 29 years after Japan's formal surrender, and 15 years after being declared legally dead in Japan. When he accepted that the war was over, he wept openly.

April 1980 - Captain Fumio Nakahira on Mindoro
Captain Fumio Nakahira of the Japanese Imperial Army, held out before being discovered at Mt. Halcon in Mindoro.

January 1997 - 85 Year old Sangrayban discovered on Mindoro


March 1946
A Japanese band of unknown size attacked and killed a six man patrol on Guam.

1961
Two Japanese soldiers hid in the jungle for 16 years after the war. There story is told in a book called The Emperor's Last Soldiers.

Roy Wiggs who was stationed on Guam recalls:
"I remember when they found the two soldiers but other than the fact that one of them was shot and wounded by an overexcited Guamainian while he and his comrade were trying to steal some food. The other one surrendered because he was scared to death and half starved, I don't remember when just that I was there at the time."

January 1972
Corporal Shoichi Yokoi was found by two hunters while he was fishing along the Talofofo River. He brought back his army-issue rifle, which he said he wanted to return to "the Honorable Emperor," adding: "I am sorry I did not serve his majesty to my satisfaction." He had seen reports of Japan's surrender in leaflets and newspapers scattered about the island but refused to surrender because he thought they were American propaganda. "We Japanese soldiers were told to prefer death to the disgrace of getting captured alive," he said. He died on September 23, 1997 click to read his obituary

"I am sorry I did not serve his majesty to my satisfaction...We Japanese soldiers were told to prefer death to the disgrace of getting captured alive," - Shoichi Yokoi, 1972.

 



Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #80 on: November 26, 2007, 03:32:37 PM »
Well this has been enlightening, and not a little amusing...

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #81 on: November 26, 2007, 03:49:25 PM »
glad to oblige angel  if i knew being "impolite " could chase len away i'd have trotted my true nature out a long time ago. i suspect he just got way outa his depth and is regrouping. maybe for the natural childbirth thread i'm planning

Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #82 on: November 26, 2007, 03:57:14 PM »
you realize some of these guys held out 30 years? does that jibe with your extensive analysis of the japanese culture? albeit from afar

Some grunt in a cave is meaningless; you're dodging the fact that the Japanese cabled Berlin (and the US intercepted the cable) stating their willingness to accept surrender "even if the terms were hard" (NY Times, 8/11/93, p. 9). Truman's own diary, released in 1979, referred to this cable from the "Jap Emperor asking for peace." The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded, "certainly prior to 31 December 1945&Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped&and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." Dwight Eisenhower told Secretary of War Stimson that, "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary&.whose employment&[was] no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Those are solid facts concerning the Japanese command, not some nutcase hiding in the jungle.

--Len.
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #83 on: November 26, 2007, 04:07:18 PM »
None of these hopes were borne out. After the defeats of the Marianas campaign at the Philippine Sea and Saipan, and faced with the prospect of an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."[4]




you missed this i bet


and your willingness to dismiss someone else being able to muster more conviction and drive than you could as a whack job further illustrates your grasp of the eastern mindset of the time. and that attitude was pervasive rather than isolated.   very important thing i learned  was that just because i ain't got the nads doesn't mean someone else doesn't. but contact your extensive network of japanese friends and get back to us.   take a look at the reacdtions of the folks interred by our government in camps to further realize how far from understanding you are

Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #84 on: November 26, 2007, 04:24:04 PM »
...someone else being able to muster more conviction and drive than you could as a whack job...

Are you trying to get yourself banned, or just testing the boundaries?
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #85 on: November 26, 2007, 04:31:19 PM »
len i was just quoting your characterization of the guys who held true to an oath for 30 years .what boundary am i testing?the forums?  yours?was my repeating your charaterization of them gonna get me in trouble? in your world?


oops i'm sorry i reread it and saw how it could beinterpreted/ i wasn't calling you a whackjob len   rather refering to your  dismissal of folks with dedication you can only imagine so cavalierly

Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #86 on: November 26, 2007, 04:31:48 PM »
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."

This quote came from Wikipedia without any real context. It isn't clear whether it's rhetoric intended to encourage the populace, for example. Or whether it was a face-saving way to inform the emperor that surrender was the only option. Not being an expert on Japan, I don't know what happens to you when you look the god on his chrysanthemum throne in the eye and say, "You've lost; it's time to give it up."

On the other hand, MaArthur, Eisenhower, and just about all the rest of Truman's command believed the bombings unnecessary to bring about Japan's surrender. Perhaps you know something that they all didn't? Nor Truman himself, whose diary entry I have already mentioned?

--Len.
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #87 on: November 26, 2007, 04:46:20 PM »
Japan's War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters stated1: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."



just a lil context




After the nuclear annihilation of two of Japan's cities, the commitment of the Japanese Government to fight until the bitter end was broken and Japan surrendered. France may have it right: The mindset of the enemy is that suicide attacks involving every last person are acceptable and encouraged. Nuclear arms stopped the kamikaze as the population was frightened away from fighting


http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/1/19/152553/459


to give you another peerspective on how distant the japanese mindset is from yours  len  have you heqard of familial suicide?

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,807
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #88 on: November 26, 2007, 06:31:21 PM »
Len, my understanding is that the alternatives to nukes were blockading Japan and starving people, continuing to bomb them and killing people, or invading and killing people.  Either way, people die.  I really doubt the nukes killed more people than those other ways would have killed in time. 
One other issues was that they didn't want Stalin (worse than Hitler) taking any more territory than they already had such as South Korea.


I also remember that the Germans tried to surrender as well prior to being defeated.  I believe that US and its allies were determined not to accept any conditional surrender.   
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #89 on: November 26, 2007, 06:37:40 PM »
heck we've killed more in a single nites conventional raid. it wouldn't have taken much to start starvin folks food was already in short supply. thats what almost wiped out akitas ii hear they were down to a couple hundred pair by the end of the war

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,838
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #90 on: November 26, 2007, 10:47:40 PM »

I also remember that the Germans tried to surrender as well prior to being defeated.  I believe that US and its allies were determined not to accept any conditional surrender.   

I believe len is making the point that a conditional surrender, on terms that we ended up accepting anyway (not deep sixing the emperor), would have been the alternative.  I also think that the evidence shows that accepting such a condition would have ended the war as well.  At least, that's what the documentation provided here shows to have been the sincere belief of the US government at the time.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #91 on: November 27, 2007, 12:13:30 AM »
heck we've killed more in a single nites conventional raid.

I'm not sure that is quite true, I think the Dresden figures were exaggerated initially although they were high. Interesting to ponder on whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were possible without Dresden.
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #92 on: November 27, 2007, 02:06:36 AM »
I really doubt the nukes killed more people than those other ways would have killed in time. 

You're right. The firebombing of Tokyo killed about the same number of people as each of the nuclear bombs did.

Quote
One other issues was that they didn't want Stalin (worse than Hitler) taking any more territory than they already had such as South Korea.

Absolutely. The decision to drop the bombs was apparently intended to be a message to Stalin.

Quote
I also remember that the Germans tried to surrender as well prior to being defeated.  I believe that US and its allies were determined not to accept any conditional surrender.   

Totally agree. But demanding unconditional surrender isn't reasonable. There are always terms.

--Len.
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #93 on: November 27, 2007, 07:01:42 AM »
I think some folks who overly invest in theory are unwilling to acknowledge the diversity of the human condition, perspective, and culture; because in doing so, it voids their theory.

How many workers slacking off from their toil does it take to make Marxism untenable?  How many charismatic sociopaths or fanatics does it take to make anarcho-capitalism untenable?  The precise answer to both questions is unknown, but the existence of both (slackers and fanatics) crap all over the theoretical edifices of the theory-bound.  Refusing to acknowledge the guano is not a solution to folks not so invested in the theory.


Note:  Acknowledging that cultures are different and are at some level, incompatible is not a claim to understanding all/most/lots of those cultures foreign to Western Civ.  Understanding specifics is well and good, but the first and most important intellectual step is being cognizant of differences.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #94 on: November 27, 2007, 07:20:34 AM »
I really doubt the nukes killed more people than those other ways would have killed in time. 

You're right. The firebombing of Tokyo killed about the same number of people as each of the nuclear bombs did.

Quote
One other issues was that they didn't want Stalin (worse than Hitler) taking any more territory than they already had such as South Korea.

Absolutely. The decision to drop the bombs was apparently intended to be a message to Stalin.

Quote
I also remember that the Germans tried to surrender as well prior to being defeated.  I believe that US and its allies were determined not to accept any conditional surrender.   

Totally agree. But demanding unconditional surrender isn't reasonable. There are always terms.

--Len.



you are looking in the wrong direction  you seem to think that is was the allies that the japanese leadership was worried about.   typically confused   the japanese leaders cared lil then or now. they were however concerned with the reaction of their own people.    you able to wrap your mind around suicide on a familial level?as atonement rather than punishment.   its nearly impossible for a westerner and some modern japanese have trouble with it. don't be confused into thinking the scads of exchange students you passed in class were reprentative of their parents and grand parents. there is a huge difference between pre and post war japanese folk

Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #95 on: November 27, 2007, 07:30:24 AM »
I think some folks who overly invest in theory are unwilling to acknowledge the diversity of the human condition, perspective, and culture; because in doing so, it voids their theory.

It only voids the theory if there are enough of them. The assumption behind anarcho-capitalism is that criminals will be roughly as numerous with or without government--bearing in mind that absence of government is NOT absence of security services comparable to "police." The theory would be void if Maned is right, and everyone is really a murdering thieving rapist, barely held in check by fear of the police. If he's right, the second the government goes away, Maned and everyone else will immediately open fire on his neighbors and steal their women and Doritos.

The second assumption behind anarcho-capitalism is that the evil people you're talking about are especially eager to get their hands on the levers of power--whether it be a taser and a badge, or C in C of all the armed forces. Under anarcho capitalism, those people will still be there, and will still be evil bastards, but there won't be such terrifying powers out there for them to get hold of. They can become security guards, but since private police are in competition with other private police, they're no longer protected by a blue wall of silence. And so on.

--Len.
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #96 on: November 27, 2007, 07:42:52 AM »
If you want a mini model of the consequences of anarchy, look to the papers that have been written on the earlier MMORPGs, before the staff was able to be as effective in controlling abuses as they are now.

The early "Ultima Online" was quite telling. PK (Player Killer) gangs would cluster and ambush newbies coming out of town gates, take their stuff, and use resources to build vast private, ostentatiously decorated fortresses for their l33t gangs...which then ruined the experience for everyone else. Moreso, they were absolutely brutual, usually dismembering their victims for no reason and taking the heads with them, throwing the body parts and items they didn't want around the scene.

Their levels were also so high that the "weak", the new players, would be killed almost instantly and had no chance of fighting back at all, their attacks did little or no damage.

Once the moderators were able to effectively be law and order and respond to complaints quickly with punishment, such things ceased out of fear of punishment, not because the brutal sorts had changed at all.

This sort of behavior has followed natural disasters in the form of looting, and I firmly believe that any large city that lost power for more than a week or so would result in pretty close scenarios to that, utter chaos and lawlessness of a violent sort.

Basically, there's some good people out there, and also some that become absolute animals when they have no fear of punishment.

Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #97 on: November 27, 2007, 07:48:46 AM »
If you want a mini model of the consequences of anarchy, look to the papers that have been written on the earlier MMORPGs, before the staff was able to be as effective in controlling abuses as they are now.

 rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes

Yep. If you want a model of anarchy, look at the video game Grand Theft Auto.
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #98 on: November 27, 2007, 07:55:01 AM »
Interacting with program-run NPCs in the intent of a game is not quite the same as people being completely antisocial idiots to other real people in a social-game-world environment that encouraged cooperation instead.

There's a big difference between someone hitting a program with a car, and a bunch of people responding to a paged plea of "Please leave me alone, why are you doing this?!" from a newbie, unarmed healer with "HAHAHA!" and "LOL!" as they surrounded and tore the character apart.

That's not quite the same at all.



Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!
« Reply #99 on: November 27, 2007, 08:02:25 AM »
That's not quite the same at all.

Neither is a good model of reality. In reality, cost, profit and consequences are all real. That someone is an ax murderer in an MMORPG tells you nothing about their behavior in real life.

--Len.
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.