Re: Annual attempt at correction

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Jack_Earley@RL.GOV <Jack_Earley@RL.GOV>

An: jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Datum: Freitag, 09. August 2002 00:38

Betreff: RE: Annual attempt at correction





>John Jacobus wrote:

>

><<Wars should be fought to the total defeat of the enemy.  Otherwise, you

>have to do it again.>>

>

>That wasn't exactly our experience in Korea or Vietnam, and I don't know

>about Korea, but it wasn't even our goal in Vietnam. I guess technically

>that wasn't even a war--we just killed 50,000 U.S. soldiers--or were they

>just "advisors"? Iraq was a total "defeat," but we didn't decimate the

>population in the process. Essentially, we didn't remove their will to

>continue fighting, which seems to be what Israel is trying to accomplish in

>a somewhat restricted way with the Palestinians. International pressure

>appears to hold them back from what they really want to do. I have to look

>at it from the legal approach to self-defense--you continue until you've

>"stopped" the other person's attack, whether it occurs from the number of

>shots you fire or the number of blows you deliver. Once you've stopped

their

>attack, i.e., removed their will to continue, you've lost your right to

>cause them more harm, regardless of any vengeance, anger, or outrage you

may

>feel.

------------------------------------------------------



Thank you, Jack, for your insight. History tells us, that no war has ever

extinguished the "enemy". This would be extremely foolish, because whether

you want to conquer an area rich in minerals - you will need workers, who

mine them, whether you conquer an area which is rich in crops to nourish

your troops or settlers - you will need people who care for the fields, and

if you conquer an area, because it will be a buffer zone between you and

your even worse enemy, you will need people living in this zone. This list

can be extended. Even the worst nightmares during the cold war were only

directed to eradicate the big cities - but not the whole country. As far as

I understand the "neutron-bomb" was developed to kill people in tanks, but

not the farmers. The Japanese annected Korea in the beginning of the 20th

century - but they did not kill the population. Koreans had to work to

provide food for Japan.



If any war in Europe (or the Near East or the Far East or in Africa....)

would have ended with the extinction of some peoples, Europe would be a

devastated land since long. First of all, wars cost money and one of the

most common reasons for ending a war, was simply that the agressor ran short

of money to pay the mercenaries, to feed the regular troops after they had

robbed the attacked country of everything eatable etc. Another reason was,

that suddenly the "Big Brother" of the country attacked rose up and told the

attacker "Don't mess with my little brother - or I will send my troops".

This is a common argument even nowadays.



Politically it seems to me clear, that the "Western World" needed Germany

and Japan and other countries after WW 2 in order to have both in Europe and

in the Far East a counterweight to communism. To drop a bomb (or two bombs)

killing hundreds of thousands of people is one thing, to have allies for the

next enemy is another one.



Franz









************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/