Disgusting or not.

I dont know that I can agree with that its just the nature of how wars are fought. I mean its not like we had smart bombs in WW1 and WW2 and just didnt use them to kill more civilians.

Back then if you wanted to take out a single factory in a city you had to drop hundreds or thousands of bombs because so many missed the target.So your going to get massive amounts of civilians dying. That was the limits of the tech.

Also in wars of that scale people working in factories making weapons are not really civilians they are all part of the war machine. You have to take out your enemies ablity to to produce for its war machine. Was it pretty no but it was vital for victory and ending the war much quicker.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont know that I can agree with that its just the nature of how wars are fought. I mean its not like we had smart bombs in WW1 and WW2 and just didnt use them to kill more civilians.

Back then if you wanted to take out a single factory in a city you had to drop hundreds or thousands of bombs because so many missed the target.So your going to get massive amounts of civilians dying. That was the limits of the tech.

Also in wars of that scale people working in factories making weapons are not really civilians they are all part of the war machine. You have to take out your enemies ablity to to produce for its war machine. Was it pretty no but it was vital for victory and ending the war much quicker.

Okay fair enough but can you not see how wars like , Nam , Japan nuke attack,Korea and other post ww2 wars where technology had advanced enough to cut down on casualties, but they where still used to the same effect as pre-ww2

The tech to cut down on them really only came with the introduction of the smart bomb which is rather recent. Korean tech was really not that much smarter then WW2 tech for instance. Vietnam so very very limited use of smart weapons. The Gulf War was really the first to see a modest use of them.


Do you have any number of Civilian Casualties broken down by each war?

[edit on 22-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

I would bet if you compared the ratio of numbers of targets hit to civilian casualties deaths in wars like WW2, Vietnam and Gulf War1 and 2 you would see a drastic decrease in the numbers.

We are moving toward smarter tech for just this reason to prevent collateral damage.

Even if we compare Gulf War 1 and 2 we can see this trend

By the time of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, laser-guided weapons were in widespread use and accounted for about one in ten bombs 10% dropped by U.S. and coalition forces

In Operation Iraqie Freedom smart bombs made up 68% percent of all bombs dropped. A vast reduction in the number of dumb bombs dropped

Smart bombs are perhaps the most important invention to help limit civilian casualties since the invention of the bomb.

You can clearly see that smart weapons are on the rise. They are not perfect though but compared to a dumb bomb its like night and day.

granted but in wars technology is only as he who weilds it I wonder how Bush is going to weild it in the event of conflict with Iran and Korea both nuke concerns.
I also wonder if he will use tactics use in the previous Lorean war as his own , as they where battle hardened , if so we will see a large up step in collateral damages with our stronger weapons.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
They also had nukes dropped on them though. If more wars used nukes they would have real effect on population.

To this point I will state that more Japanese civilians were killed in the Tokyo city incendiary bombing raids as opposed to the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

However, I will say the shock value would be much greater with Atomic weaponry.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
They also had nukes dropped on them though. If more wars used nukes they would have real effect on population.

To this point I will state that more Japanese civilians were killed in the Tokyo city incendiary bombing raids as opposed to the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

However, I will say the shock value would be much greater with Atomic weaponry.

only because they are less frequent and for a lack of a better set of words , flashy and effective total destruction , there is also no morals use in the weapon it is an equal oppurtunity killer , it will kill every thing friend or foe, innocent or not.

I was in the Navy almost two decades ago, as a Missile Technician. We could drop warheads inside of a six foot circle from thousands of miles away without being laser guided. Now, being Nuclear warheads, It really didn't matter all that much if it was six feet left or right, but the accuracy was there.

My concerns are. These are Laser Guided and they not only miss the target they are supposed Laser'd in on. They hit a completely different target all together.

Laser Guided Bomb Kills 11 Civilians.
Link

14 Civilians Killed near Mosul by Laser guided Bomb.
Link

Ton for Ton, Serbian bombings killed civilians at the same rate as the air campaigns over Vietnam a quarter-century earlier.
Link

If the bombs are getting smarter, the civilian casualties should be getting lower.

Very interesting.

Phae

Originally posted by Phaethor
I was in the Navy almost two decades ago, as a Missile Technician. We could drop warheads inside of a six foot circle from thousands of miles away without being laser guided. Now, being Nuclear warheads, It really didn't matter all that much if it was six feet left or right, but the accuracy was there.

My concerns are. These are Laser Guided and they not only miss the target they are supposed Laser'd in on. They hit a completely different target all together.

Laser Guided Bomb Kills 11 Civilians.
Link

14 Civilians Killed near Mosul by Laser guided Bomb.
Link

Ton for Ton, Serbian bombings killed civilians at the same rate as the air campaigns over Vietnam a quarter-century earlier.
Link

If the bombs are getting smarter, the civilian casualties should be getting lower.

Very interesting.

Phae

This is an example of what I am trying to say exactly , collateral damage occurs and for that fact I see the knowledgable and continued use of any violence that causes the death of innocents and to mark them as acceptable llosses is just a leagal way to say fine we are going to control population and solve a problem of politics at the same time so whats wrong with that, I will tell every one what is wrong with that it is never right to kill even if unintentional , and this is the worst mellinium ever for that since 0 ad billions have lost there lives because they where in a war zone , and since 0 ad they where acceptable losses , that is wrong and its population control and most important its legalized murder.just like its close brother abortion, and assisted suicide.where it is legal and there are places euthinasia for severly injured is legal look at the news today in fact at 1pm today a hearing will be held to take a tube out of a person who has brain damage yet is still funtioning even if on a very minimal level the tube doesnt supply air or blood but food , and so this is legalized euthenasia as well , as the claims of the womans husband is that the lady in question has asked that her suicide be assisted if ever tubes even where used in something as simple as feeding












[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn


To this point I will state that more Japanese civilians were killed in the Tokyo city incendiary bombing raids as opposed to the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

However, I will say the shock value would be much greater with Atomic weaponry.

Thats very true but Atomic bombs are the weapon that keeps on killing long after they were dropped. I wonder if all the deaths of related radiation causes was added in how many more died thanks to that years later.

There have been more people born since 1950 than all people ever born before throughout all history.

Wars (excepting those with some genocidal agenda) have little to do with population control and more to do with economic and territorial control. The fact that they cost lives and cause tremendous suffering is no less disgusting because of that.

I think it rings of the truth...

One dead person makes a difference. What do you think the NWO's goals are? Why do you think all governments have bunkers deep beneath the earth with all the comforts of home? hmmmm....

Dead troops and civilians..... That is a lot, indeed, all in the name of war for what? I wonder...

Damn it, I wanted to see if my avatar is up, guess not. How do I do that properly? I know this off topic, sorry if I offended anyone.



Ice

Originally posted by Icelandia
Damn it, I wanted to see if my avatar is up, guess not. How do I do that properly? I know this off topic, sorry if I offended anyone.



Ice

sorry if not what you need but it will point you to the right place to ask questions on avatars




Avatar info and link to avatar board help

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn


To this point I will state that more Japanese civilians were killed in the Tokyo city incendiary bombing raids as opposed to the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

However, I will say the shock value would be much greater with Atomic weaponry.

Thats very true but Atomic bombs are the weapon that keeps on killing long after they were dropped. I wonder if all the deaths of related radiation causes was added in how many more died thanks to that years later.

there where no after effect totals added in atleast as far as the report from the WHO was concerned

Originally posted by dgtempe
I think it rings of the truth...

One dead person makes a difference. What do you think the NWO's goals are? Why do you think all governments have bunkers deep beneath the earth with all the comforts of home? hmmmm....

yes they do in fact in washington they are building one right now under the capital that is larger than the whole foot print of the building its self and will have commisarry shops offices etc to keep capitalism safe as well.