Intresting Death tolls

Hobbes

(snagged from /. post)

WTC death toll: ~5200
US weekly deaths attributable to smoking: ~9000
US weekly deaths attributable to traffic accidents: ~3400
US weekly deaths attributable to drinking: ~2300

Nagilum

Total American Deaths From Selected Wars and Battles:

American Revolution (April 19, 1775-Oct. 18, 1781): 4,435

Antietam (Sept. 16-18, 1862): 3,654

Pearl Harbor (Dec. 6, 1941): 2,388

D-Day (June 6, 1944): 4,900

Iwo Jima (Feb. 19-March 25, 1945): 6,503

Inchon Landing (Sept. 15-22, 1950): 670

Tet Offensive (Jan. 27-June 1, 1968): 7,040

Terrorist Attack, WTC and Pentagon: ~5000-5500 Americans?

Hobbes

Just kind of funny that smoking kills more people a week then all of those examples, yet nothing is done about it?

Why is that?

LoLth

well, I would say that without tabacco the Surgeon general would have nothing to do with the time he doesn't spend writing "smoking kills" etc. on each packet.....

anyway, the Marlborough man was too cool to turn into a bad guy

ssniper

How about other terrorist, rather than just American death tolls?

How many civilians died in the illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia? Over a million between the two.

What happened last week *was* awful, but we need a sense of perspective here folks!

- SNIP

Manach

Laos and Cambodia happened about 30 years ago in another continent, and I never heard of figures of a million related to them (only in context of Khmer Rouge activites in that region.)

The WTC figures provided a sense of awful theatre. The fact that soon many died in such a short time on real-time tv.

TwoShedsJackson

800,000 to 1 million people were killed (mostly hacked to death with machetes) in Rwanda in 1994. I suppose because that didn't happen on TV it makes those deaths less horrifying does it? :rolleyes:

Strangly I don't recall any three minute silences or nationwide shutdowns in commeration of those or numerous other massacres. I am not implying the US had anything to do with Rwanda by the way, in case some fool that can't read properly flies off the handle.

Nagilum

Originally posted by Manach
Laos and Cambodia happened about 30 years ago in another continent, and I never heard of figures of a million related to them (only in context of Khmer Rouge activites in that region.)

The WTC figures provided a sense of awful theatre. The fact that soon many died in such a short time on real-time tv.

Yes Manach, but only American actions count. Its would be far too insensitive to criticize someone else.

By the way, I too, defend Hiroshima. It was horrible, but it was the best option. Look at Japan today. They were allowed to surrender without having their entire infrstructure crushed. As a result, and because of McArthur's taking the lead role to make sure Japan was not punished in the way Germany was after WW2, Japan flourished.

I'm not saying that dropping the bomb was a good thing. It was a terrible event in human history. It was also the correct decision at the time. Based on the number of casualties during the island hopping campaigns and the ferocity of the Japanese soldiers, we could safely say that more than double the amount of Japanese would have died trying to invade and occupy Japan, nevermind the American soldiers.

As far as the siege strategy goes, someone suggested it would not work because the people were starving already and too weak. But, desperation can inspire people to do great things. Also, keep in mind that the non-Taleban civilians make up 95% of the population. If they really rose up, they could overthrow the Taleban. At lease this option gives them a choice. Ultimately, it is up to a country to make sure its people have the means to live. We previously told the Taleban, after they would not hand bin Laden over for the embassy bombings, that if any act of terrorism was perpetrated by bin Laden, we would consider it an act of war by Afghanistan.

Now, instead of just criticising, how about coming up with an alternative idea? I'm willing to listen. But, please, don't simply state that the US foreign policy is to blame and should be changed. Whether that is true or not, it does not affect the immediate solution.

Nagilum

Originally posted by Hobbes
Just kind of funny that smoking kills more people a week then all of those examples, yet nothing is done about it? <snip>

Yes Hobbes, its hillarious. You're sick.

Dustaz

People choose to smoke , they are aware of the risks. People do not choose to have jets crash thru the office window.

It just occured to me that a lot of ppl must have been sneaking their first smoke of the day outside the WTC building and so escaped injury thanks to smoking.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Nagilum


Yes Hobbes, its hillarious. You're sick.

It's funny how your grasp of the English language fails you.

Funny can mean "ha ha" as well as "Peculiar". Not my fault you seem to think I find it humour in it when I don't.

Dustaz, I believe that total also includes second hand smoke afaik. (Ref: CDC)

Von

ehhh we're looking at a possible world war 3 here, good v evil, christianity v islam, west v east, "Bush's crusade". Germ or bio weapon attacks in america or europe *could* be next. That's why the WTC attacks are a bit more serious than dying from smoking fags.

Nagilum

Originally posted by Hobbes


It's funny how your grasp of the English language fails you.

Funny can mean "ha ha" as well as "Peculiar". Not my fault you seem to think I find it humour in it when I don't.

Dustaz, I believe that total also includes second hand smoke afaik. (Ref: CDC)

I know exactly what you meant Hobbes. I also know exactly what you're trying to insinuate. Play it down, hmm? Sure, the bombing was no big deal. What is everyone so upset about?

If you want to play that game, then the Omagh bombing was not even newsworthy, right?

You disgust me.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Nagilum


I know exactly what you meant Hobbes. I also know exactly what you're trying to insinuate. Play it down, hmm? Sure, the bombing was no big deal. What is everyone so upset about?

If you want to play that game, then the Omagh bombing was not even newsworthy, right?

You disgust me.

since hobbes lives in america, i would assume that he probably knows how the american people feel more than we do at this time. also, since i obviously know hobbes bettrer than you do, hes not makeing the kind of suggestion that you are talking about. coll your jets there young man.
he was making an observation and showing it up.
thats all. relax

as to whoever said the dropping of the bomb was a good idea. thats rubbish. the japs were beaten. they were about to sign a surrender. the americans really just wanted to test its latest weapon. simple as that. there was no need to drop one, let alone two nuclear bombs on a beaten a nation, killing millions.
just a show of power.
drop the bomb... lets hope that was the last one to ever be used in any situation.

and good v evil. get real. this isnt dungeons and dragons here.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Nagilum, much of what you post comes close to the truth, yet misses it completely. Let's start with this:

By the way, I too, defend Hiroshima. It was horrible, but it was the best option. Look at Japan today. They were allowed to surrender without having their entire infrstructure crushed. As a result, and because of McArthur's taking the lead role to make sure Japan was not punished in the way Germany was after WW2, Japan flourished.

You show here, only one side of a situation that, far from being unanimous, was debated to the death by Truman's war cabinet. There was a powerful case for us not dropping the bomb on Japan. Here are some of those reasons:

1) Our cryptographers(incidentally, with the help of Japanese Americans being forcibly interred in prison camps) had cracked the Japanese "Sorubashi" code- we knew Japan was planning to surrender- the very goal that some of the more bloodthirsty in the Cabinet wanted to achieve by dropping the bomb...was going to fall into our lap anyway. So the argument that more Japanese and American lives would have been saved is an empty justification- we knew about their intention to surrender, and dropped the bomb anyway. As such, several prominent historians maintain that the only reason many felt we should have used the bombs was to send a clear message to the Soviet Union, a message of the potential destruction they might suffer if they maintained their buffer of satellite states. I'll come back to this later.

If you're going to quibble about "unconditional surrender"- many felt that in order to maintain a strong ally after the war, there should be (as in any sane form of surrender), terms and conditions for surrender and cessation of hostilities. The upshot of unconditional surrender, is the removal of the Emperor's powers(which had already been effectively usurped by the council for war), and the complete re-writing of the Japanese constitution by us.

We wrote pacifism into their constitution, something that has deprived the world for over 50 years, of Japan's expertise in many areas of peacekeeping in Asia, where their expertise could have been so useful. Not to mention the way we alienated the Chinese by our aggressive attitude over the matter- an alienation we were to pay dearly for in the Korean war, only 5 years later. We also effectively forced them into a system of government that was completely at odds with their culture. They're feeling the pain of that now, throughout their unstable political and financial system, originally based on a pre-war US system, well before Bretton-Woods.

We basically occupied them for years and left them with a cameral system in a western image...pretty damn colonial I'd say. And we then had the nerve to lambast Britain for its colonial past during any conflicy involving them in the next few decades, the same sort of hegemony we've continued to pursue, and undoubtedly fostering the arrogance in foreign policy that we're so hated for. Moving on to:

2) There was a huge concern at the Pentagon at the time, about the possibility of a nuclear arms race- in fact, part of the reason that we pushed so hard for the development of a nuclear device is that we believed that German scientists were themselves close to such a breakthrough. What was completely overlooked is that the Soviets had a spy in our main development team- which is why Stalin showed no suprise at the Yalta conference, when he learned of our nuclear capability. He had known all along, which was made clear by the speed with which the Soviets tested their own device, and their willingness to pass this expertise on to the Chinese- thus creating the need for tactical isolation, the NPT and its protocols, and the possibility of nuclear war.

As a result, dropping the bomb, far from making us the dominant power on the world stage, polarized the globe into a power struggle that threatened to turn Europe into a nuclear battleground for many a decade. It created the devils of McCarthyism, isolationism, and talk of our dominance over communist governments. It caused the creation of the militant NATO alliance, necessitated the maintainance of Allied bases throughout Europe, and the feeling that polarizing a conflict was our only means of survival We then set up and sponsored fascist regimes, dictatorships, Islamic states and other such governments, no matter how oppressive they were, just as long as they weren't communist.

It's unlikely that the situation would have been as severe, or the stakes as high, if we didn't drop the bomb. Soviet propaganda made the Russian people fearful of the possibility of nuclear attack, and generated enormous support for the development of nuclear arms, and for giving it to the Chinese, made their closest allies through both the political bridge of communism, and the mutual revulsion for the colonial manner in which the US dealt with Japan. They felt their only hope was to stop US hegemony elsewhere, just as the US felt a need to erradicate the "evil" of communism. A pretty messy state of affairs, most would agree.


There are two sides to every argument Nagilum- and you've chosen yours. I respect that from a debating standpoint- however, it's never a good idea to go into an argument staunchly defending your side, without at least being aware of the flip-side of the argument. I personally believe that dropping the bomb was a short-sighted quick-fix solution, which cost thousands of innocent lives- an act that has cost us dear in the political arena, and now on the home front. It caused us to enter an interventionist state of politics during the Cold war, and made us many enemies. Your Cold-War-esque "they hate our life and freedom- everything that we stand for" shtick, aside from being self-important, is just wrong. That's why the US government claimed that the Russians and Chinese hated us- and that same line is being used to trumpet why elements in Middle Eastern regimes that we set up hate us as well.

Again, we seem set to enter a conflict all guns blazing, derived more from self-interest than actually wanting to stamp out terrorism. It's just what our economy needs right? I mean, what better way to get consumers buying again than a good war, a healthy dose of blind patriotism, and a spate of isolationist security :rolleyes:

Occy

Manach

On Whitewashman's previous post.
To my mind the descion to use nuclear weapons on Japan during WWII was an ambiguous one.
But, the Japanese Imperial army prior to that event was preparing for a last man defense of their mainland, backed by millions of civilian milita armed with spears. My sources are from both American & Japanese writers.
The then mindset of the most Japanese was a virulent militarism, a surrender could not be contemplated without one final apocalytic battle on Japanese soil.

Btw I thought the short-term death toll was in the hundreds of thousands, awful though that is - which was comparable to the deaths from conventition firestorm campaigns in Tokoya or Dresden.

LoLth

just on a side note about that "good vs. evil" comment.

I pretty sure that the other side see it that way as well matey.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
1) Our cryptographers(incidentally, with the help of Japanese Americans being forcibly interred in prison camps) had cracked the Japanese "Sorubashi" code- we knew Japan was planning to surrender- the very goal that some of the more bloodthirsty in the Cabinet wanted to achieve by dropping the bomb...was going to fall into our lap anyway.

Originally posted by Manach
To my mind the descion to use nuclear weapons on Japan during WWII was an ambiguous one.
But, the Japanese Imperial army prior to that event was preparing for a last man defense of their mainland, backed by millions of civilian milita armed with spears. My sources are from both American & Japanese writers.

I've heard both of these attitudes put forward before. Although they seem irreconcileable, what I seem to recall is this :

The Americans did announce the details of crypto-successes for quite some time after the war. This is standard practice - generally, nothing in the crypto world is ever talked about until it goes well beyond being redundant.

Up until that point, most historians agreed with Manach's point of view. Since said point, there has been some debate over whether or not the messages were genuine, and/or whether or not the surrender was imminent and/or would have been carried out at all.

I tend to side with Oc on this. I believe the Japanese were posturing about "defend to the last" in order to try and get better terms and conditions when they surrendered.

As with anything in history, we will never really know the truth.

jc