What is the best civ?

[Cybernut]

All your points are very well taken fredlc. One thing I will say ... the thread was started under the auspices of "civ 3 type scoring". Which civ would be "best" under quasi-civ 3 scoring conditions? ... well that's the way I've been trying to look at things.

I've been trying to divorce myself from any ethical repercusions as a consequence because this is outside the scope of the question. If we were adopting an ethical stance to things, I think we'd be hard pushed to affirm any nation "great".

 

[AdamSmo]

Uhh, Fredlc, both the Incas and the Mayans were gone by the time the Spanish came..

 

[FredLC]

I'm not so sure. I'll check it and i'll reply later, ok?

 

[Magnus]

The Inca were destroyed by the Spaniard Pizarro in the 1530's A.D.

 

[Jimcat]

The Inca survived until the Spanish subjugated their empire. The Maya, on the other hand, were already in decline by the time the Europeans found them, due to a combination of disease, foreign enemies, and ecological/agricultural mismanagement. The Maya weren't extinct, but their empire was just a shadow of its former self.

 

[FredLC]

And after i checked my sources, i was also about to add the Aztec to the List

 

[AdamSmo]

Originally posted by Jimcat
The Inca survived until the Spanish subjugated their empire. The Maya, on the other hand, were already in decline by the time the Europeans found them, due to a combination of disease, foreign enemies, and ecological/agricultural mismanagement. The Maya weren't extinct, but their empire was just a shadow of its former self.

That's what I meant, they were pretty much down to nothing.

And I didn't mean to say the Inca whoops

 

[Cybernut]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Which civilisation do you think is the best - society? in civ3 kind of score? - in success?.

Are we getting a little off topic here?

 

[macaskil]

Civ3 uses a scoring system based on averaging a number of factors over the whole game.

If we apply this system to World History, China comes out top in my opinion

- largest population - I believe it had double the pop. of the Roman Empire in 1AD and that only the British Empire ever exceeded the Chinese population - and that only for a few decades.

- culture - a unique culture which spread across much of Eastern Asia and influenced that of Japan

- military - not so sure here, the Chinese were frequently conquered by eg the Mongols and Manchus. However with an open frontier thousands of miles long it was a difficult task to defend.

- technology - unfortunately the West took Chinese inventions, developed them and by the time the civs met in the 19th C...... infantry and ironclads versus swordsmen and galleons!

Of course, NOW the top "empire" in all respects (except territory size and population) is the USA but it has only held this title since approx. 1918 when the European Empires destroyed each other in WW1. As recently as 1941 its military was smaller than that of Germany, Russia or Japan.

Other contenders

- Rome (military - and we use Roman alphabet). "only" lasted 1100 years though.
- Greece (culture - democracy and scientific method). Counting the Byzantine empire, lasted 2,000 years
- Islam (culture and expansion)
- India (culture - science (number system))
- Britain (commercial, expansion, industrial - but only for 100 years or so)
- Russia (expansion - still the largest country in the World!)
- Egypt
- Mesopotamia
- Persia

It can be argued that both America and Britain are merely offshoots of Greco-Roman and Germanic cultures....and Japan an offshoot of Chinese culture (same writing system, Shinto and Buddhism came from China, etc)

And modern day Iran - is it a continuation of the Persian empires of the past, or part of Islamic culture?

Aztecs, Zulus, Iroqouis etc all dropped out of the game several hundred turns ago.

My own culture, Celtic, barely rates a mention. Our languages are almost extinct, only Ireland survives as an independent entity. Our culture exists mainly for the benefit of tourists.

Maybe someone could come up with a spreadsheet scoring the various civs at the end of each "turn" and adding it all up? First of all we'll have to agree what a "civ" is, or will we just accept the ones in the game.

 

[Cybernut]

Good well-informed post macaskil. Just a few points of reply.

I don't think that size and longevity are everything. Listen, there is still a place called Greece. There is still a place called Britain. There is still a place called Egypt. You all make it sound like China is the only country with a long history. If this were the case then Egypt is by far the "greatest" nation! And where has China been for the past 300 years? - the most rapidly advanced period in human history. If population is the key measure, then India is the greatest nation on earth.

It seems that for every factor in a civilisations favour, there is some offshot to this. China may have a long border, but it's easy to defend for the most part (sea, jungle, mountains) - which is why China has stayed largely homologious (luck). Yet China was still repeatedly invaded by Mongol's for centuries. Is there any other "great" nation that were repeatedly invaded and defeated for centuries without repost?

Of course, NOW the top "empire" in all respects (except territory size and population) is the USA

"In all respects" (discounting territory, size and population) ... hmmmm ... do we have anything left? - let's do a check list:

Longevity / Timescale / Status - 50-60 years. It's only since the end of WW2 that American has emerged as the world's "superpower". You were historically accurate in drawing America's "economic" dominance to the First World War, but economic dominance is not, by itself, a category for "greatness". At the start of WW1 America was a debtor nation - she owed a fortune to the European nations (Britain especially). Essentially she sat back and profited at the expense of the European powers ... and then jumped in when it was all but over ... stealing the glory. However, unlike others, I don't think that America was under any obligation to get involved. This was an Imperialist war, and a war that ended Imperialism. It was a different matter in WW2 though.

WW2 was not an Imperialist war, it was a "race" war. It was a war against "evil" - the racist forces of Nazism. A war against an enemy with genocide and destruction as its very creed. The tactic of standing back and profiting at the expense of Europe in this instance is nothing more than immoral war profiteering. Remember America was still suffering from the depression in 1939, and like WW1, this was a way out of the economic malaise ... by not getting involved.

If the Japanese hadn't have bombed Pearl Harbor who knows how long it would have taken this "great" nation to get involved ... presumably when she'd made enough money to guarantee economic stability and prosperity ... all the while the British Empire "stood alone" against Nazism (Russia didn;t get involved until 1941). This was essentially the "last stand" of the British Empire, and if anything, "it was her greatest hour". And where was our "urstwhile" greatness nation ... "preparing".

This of course is not a slight on the US forces who eventually fought and died. As with all the civ's in question, it's the leaders who make the decisions, and in this regard it's ultimately the actions of the leaders that will determine greatness. America is caught wanting in my opinion.

Military - America's military history is very mixed (especially recently). Ousting the Bristish forces was great achievement. As was her "performance" in WW2. But Vietnam comes right in heart of America's "great" period, and that was an unmitigated disaster - the most technologically advanced nation on earth defeated by peasants?

Regarding recent history (post-Vietnam), there are serious ethical question that need answered. American military tactics are unethical. Technology fights her battles for her so as not to fight for herself. What great military nation is frightened to fight? I don't think that the Mongol's were afraid to fight. There is a massive outcry when a single American serviceman losses his/her life. What about the thousands of innocent civilians who loose their lives? American air-superiority is nothing more than a human shield - whereas Sadam famously strapped civilians to tanks in order to deter the enemy, American bombs the enemy, killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process, in order to "protect" their soldiers. They justify this according to some "acceptable loss" chart.

The way I look at it is this. Soldiers volunterily join the military. They know what this entails. Being a soldier involves going into battle. It involves the potentiality of dying in battle. It's better that a soldier dies in battle rather than a civilian. Civilians do not volunterily choose to be bombed to death. All measures should be taken in battle in order to prevent civilian loss. Soldiers get paid to defend civilians ... not vice versa! Therefore the acceptable loss chart should be the other way around - "only x number of civilians were killed" (the ethical way) ... NOT "only x numbers of soldiers were killed" (the American way).

Culture - This is were America is genuinely affective on a global scale. Through Hollywood (film, music ...) and commerce (McDonalds, Burger King ...) you can see America being "sold" in every corner of the world. I could go into detail here about what's good and bad, but what's the point ... we all know. It doesn't change that fact that this is where America leads and other's follow. We might not like British Imperialism in India, but it doesn't change the fact that it existed.

Economic - Again this speaks for itself. America's "superpower" status is built on its economic might.

Technology and Industry - America still leads the world in technology (the internet, military tech) ... but let's not forget Japan. When I look around my room I see more Japanese hi-tech goods than American. And most manufacturing and industry tends to be in the Far East. America still lead the way, but she's far from "dominant" in these fields.


In conclusion, America is merely the most influential nation right now. She does not measure favourably with the truly "great" civs: the Greeks, the British, the Chinese, the Romans and the Egyptians. I think too many people are listening to too much American propaganda - This is what America is truly great at doing ... selling an image of greatness.

Britain (commercial, expansion, industrial - but only for 100 years or so)

This is completely inaccurate. Britain's dominance stems from from Elizabeth I (with the defeat of the Spanish Armada) to the end of WW2 ("her greatest hour"). That's 500 years!

It can be argued that both America and Britain are merely offshoots of Greco-Roman and Germanic cultures

This is half true - the part about the Greek influence. However the rest is contentious. I think your direct historical link between Britain /America and Greece / Rome is dubious. The small matter of Christianity came inbetween. Sure, the roots of Britain and America (western civilisation for that matter) lie with the ancient Greek's (this is why Greece is the premier Civ in my book), but they are no mere "offshot".

Islam (culture and expansion)

This is not relevant. Islam is not a civilisation. It is a religious ideology. If we include Islam, then we would have to include Christianity or Marxism.

[sorry I went on a bit]

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Cybernut
I think if (when) the Chinese do become an economic powerhouse (along with America, Europe, India ...) it will merely proliferate the use of English as the global language. India will (by 2020) have the largest population in the world (superceding China) and thier "official" second language is already English. The Chinese will learn English (for good or bad), the rest of the world will not be learning Chinese. If there is going to be One market, then there has to be One language ... English is ALREADY accepted as the international language and besides, Chinese is an incredibly difficult language to learn.

Chinese is an incredibly easy language to learn, compared with English. Trust me, I speak both.

I don't mind having English as a second language for the Chinese people. Then we are one up on the Westerners cos we can communicate with each other using our special secretive ancestral language in front of you guys. Mwahaha!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Cybernut
In any case, Jimcat is quite correct in his assessment of the "greatness" of Chinese civilisation. I guess the only thing that differentiates his analysis from mine is the conditions we use for greatness. For me it has to be an equal combination of all factors - military (including conquest), economic, culture (including the arts), science, language, the affect on other cultures, lasting influence ... the list is endless. In my opinion, only the Greeks and British qualify fully in all of these categories ... closely followed by the Chinese (but like I said, it was a fluke of nature that they never had the same competition as these nations, but by the same token, they might not have lasted so long if they had have had ... it's a two way-street).

One thing Westerners tend to forget about the Chinese is that we didn't start out as a single people. In fact, there're at least 2 racial groups making up what is known today as the Chinese people - the North Chinese (more akin to Mongols, Koreans) and the South Chinese (more akin to Vietnamese, Thais, Burmese). What do you think all the 'Chinese' dialects are? They are the modern renmants of those languages spoken by the S Chinese peoples before they were absorbed into the Chinese fabric. There're probably other subgroups as well.

It was during the Warring States period (500BC to 221BC) when the different 'Chinese' states fought massive wars betw each other until finally one arose to conquer the rest and China was forged. In other words, it wasn't that the Chinese didn't meet any 'competition' but that all the competition was routed and absorbed until China reached all its geographical limits and couldn't expand further.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Cybernut
I don't think that size and longevity are everything. Listen, there is still a place called Greece. There is still a place called Britain. There is still a place called Egypt. You all make it sound like China is the only country with a long history. If this were the case then Egypt is by far the "greatest" nation! And where has China been for the past 300 years? - the most rapidly advanced period in human history.

But China today is 20 times the size of Britain today or Greece today or Egypt today. And Egypt today is Arabic and Islamic; not quite the same as Egypt of Pharaonic times. They have been absorbed into the Islamic fabric.

If population is the key measure, then India is the greatest nation on earth.

China has more people than India, thru out most of history and also today. But maybe will be ovetaken in one-two decades. However, a big population is a problem, not an achievement.

 

[Cybernut]

Interesting post about China's internal warring. I'd be interested in hearing more about this. What does it historically and culturally mean to be Chinese? What does the Chinese identity entail?

With reference to your analysis of the unification of the Chinese state, could we, by way of analogy, say that China, as a conglomoration of other "cultures" is merely akin to say modern day Europe?

I hold to my point about the difficulty of the Chinese language for Westerners. I had a Chinese flatmate (from Hong Kong) two years ago. He tried to teach me some elementary sentences. But I just couldn't handle the tonal differences and subtleties of the language. Western languages tend not to have this "tonal" aspect (I don't know any other way to describe it). It's easier for the Chinese not use these aspects, than it is for Western to learn a totally new means of speaking.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Cybernut
Interesting post about China's internal warring. I'd be interested in hearing more about this. What does it historically and culturally mean to be Chinese? What does the Chinese identity entail?

With reference to your analysis of the unification of the Chinese state, could we, by way of analogy, say that China, as a conglomoration of other "cultures" is merely akin to say modern day Europe?

China during the Warring States was very much like Europe. Each state was moving in its own direction and began to use its own characters even. Given enough time, each would evolve its own identity. Even in these times, there were non-Chinese states bordering the more 'Chinese' states like Wu and Yue.

However, the draconian Qin (who themselves were considered barbarians by the purer Chinese) put an end to all that, unified the land and imposed a standard set of characters on the whole land (in 221 BC). So even if each Chinese grouping speak the language differently, we can still communicate with each other using the written language. In a way, China today is the result of a great cultural and racial melting pot taking place over a few thousand yrs, absorbing all sorts of non-Chinese.

I hold to my point about the difficulty of the Chinese language for Westerners. I had a Chinese flatmate (from Hong Kong) two years ago. He tried to teach me some elementary sentences. But I just couldn't handle the tonal differences and subtleties of the language. Western languages tend not to have this "tonal" aspect (I don't know any other way to describe it). It's easier for the Chinese not use these aspects, than it is for Western to learn a totally new means of speaking.

Well, I can learn to speak English fluently (but fr young, so.... ); I don't see why Westerners find it so hard to learn Chinese. You'll have to practise it more often. Chinese don't really have as many rules and grammatical stuff as English.

On the whole, English is a lot more complicated with all its tenses, articles, plurals and all sorts of funny rules....

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Cybernut
Good well-informed post macaskil. Just a few points of reply.

Longevity / Timescale / Status - 50-60 years. It's only since the end of WW2 that American has emerged as the world's "superpower". You were historically accurate in drawing America's "economic" dominance to the First World War, but economic dominance is not, by itself, a category for "greatness". At the start of WW1 America was a debtor nation - she owed a fortune to the European nations (Britain especially). Essentially she sat back and profited at the expense of the European powers ... and then jumped in when it was all but over ... stealing the glory.

This comes across as very much like trolling, but I've read many of your other posts, so I'll respond to this very UK-centric diatribe and respond in like tone.

WWI: the US had many people killed, and the sheer manpower advantage was really the only reason you still don't have French, British, and German in foxholes north of Paris slugging it out today.

There was no glory to be had by either side, and it was stupid self-important European war that helped to shape American opinion when the next one rolled around.

Originally posted by Cybernut
WW2 was not an Imperialist war, it was a "race" war. It was a war against "evil" - the racist forces of Nazism. A war against an enemy with genocide and destruction as its very creed. The tactic of standing back and profiting at the expense of Europe in this instance is nothing more than immoral war profiteering. Remember America was still suffering from the depression in 1939, and like WW1, this was a way out of the economic malaise ... by not getting involved.

If the Japanese hadn't have bombed Pearl Harbor who knows how long it would have taken this "great" nation to get involved ... presumably when she'd made enough money to guarantee economic stability and prosperity ... all the while the British Empire "stood alone" against Nazism (Russia didn;t get involved until 1941). This was essentially the "last stand" of the British Empire, and if anything, "it was her greatest hour". And where was our "urstwhile" greatness nation ... "preparing".

WW2 a race war???? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Was it a war of "good" versus definate evil, certainly. But you greatly overstate the relative "goodness" of the UK. If it was such a good and noble cause, why the the UK allow many eurpoean countries to fall under the Nazi boot, all the time appeasing Hitler? Gee, that sure is the way to stand up to him you brave and rightous people indeed...

America was providing real assistance to the UK during those months that they "stood alone". Contrary to popular belief, FDR couldn't just start attacking on his own (something later further defined after the Gulf of Tonkin), the basis of a republic requires some kind of national discourse on the matter, and the US Generals hardly expected the French and British to have their asses kicked quite so quickly and thoroughly.

Originally posted by Cybernut
Military - America's military history is very mixed (especially recently). Ousting the Bristish forces was great achievement. As was her "performance" in WW2. But Vietnam comes right in heart of America's "great" period, and that was an unmitigated disaster - the most technologically advanced nation on earth defeated by peasants?

Regarding recent history (post-Vietnam), there are serious ethical question that need answered. American military tactics are unethical. Technology fights her battles for her so as not to fight for herself. What great military nation is frightened to fight? I don't think that the Mongol's were afraid to fight. There is a massive outcry when a single American serviceman losses his/her life. What about the thousands of innocent civilians who loose their lives? American air-superiority is nothing more than a human shield - whereas Sadam famously strapped civilians to tanks in order to deter the enemy, American bombs the enemy, killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process, in order to "protect" their soldiers. They justify this according to some "acceptable loss" chart. [/B]

Do you read the Guardian for your "facts" on American military strategy? The reality is that while smart weapons are sexy, and CNN loved to show those pictures every night, there were many forces on the ground who executed the plan that devistated what was once a powerful military force in record time with nearly no losses on the friendly side.

Clinton is guilty of using the technology approach too much. Get a embassy attacked, throw a few cruise missles around and spend $100 Million to destroy $50K in tents, but hey, nobody gets hurt.

Fortunately GWB has readopted the Powell Doctrine which involves bringing superior force to bear and then kicking the crap out of the opponent quickly and decisively. And yes, many, many people will die (at least 250,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the Gulf, including some civilians, but as opposed to our enemies, we do not target civilians, something I can't seem to reconcile in your follow on comments snipped out here. Doing this leads to overall fewer deaths.

Your comments on civilians casualties are just plain misguided. The US does not target civilians with modern weapons, nor has it taken an offensive role unprovocted, yet that isn't good enough for you, and somehow the British model is okay, such as bombing Berlin during WWII?

Vietnam is an experience the pervades all US military thinking. Bush Sr's best move as president was to reestablish the principle that once diplomacy is exhausted, turn over the resolution to military force and keep politics out of it. The problem in Vietnam was that the "allies" we helped were probably worse than the enemy, and people in Washington were making military decisions vice the commanders in the field.

Are you saying that much like a Chuck Norris movie, the US should throw down it's superior weapons and say hey, Saddam, or Kadafy, or Osama, or whomever is stupid next, that's okay, let's just duke it out, mano-a-mano?

Bill

 

[Cybernut]

Firstly, you were right about one point:

There was no glory to be had by either side

That was a stupid comment of mine ... but you were wrong to say that I'm being uk-centric ... the UK are allies of the American's in using these unethical military tactics ... but I was replying to all these flipant and incorrect comments about the USA as the "greatest" civ. In any case ...

WW2 a race war???? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

WW2 was a race war. There is not even any doubting this. Nazism is based on a racist ideology, and this was the determining factor in all the Nazi actions. Hitler's dream was to create a greater Germany under the rubric of Nazi ideology. The Nazi's had no real designs on Western Europe. They only invaded France and the lowlands in order to prevent her from having to fight a war on two front ("German's nightmare"). Her real aim was always the East. This is where the Holocaust (for the most part) took place. This is were in the "infidel" slavs were occupying true Germanic land. As the German army stormed through Poland and the Ukraine into Russia, the SS followed behind them massacring millions of slavs. The SS never massacred millions of Belgians and French. Why? Because they were never her target. It was always the Jews and the Slavs.

Hitler grouped the peoples of the new "Third Reich" according to the following pattern:
1. The Jews and other sub-human races. These people were to be iradicated in the concentration camps ... as if they never existed.
2. The slavs. These "sub-human" races were to kept as slaves for their new Aryan masters.
3. The other western races (French, Belgian, Dutch). They were to be tolerated as long as they remained peacefully within the new Greater Germany.
4. German's allies such as Italy were to be given special priveleges.

The Nazi's were never interested in "world domination". They never even had a substantial plan to invade Britain. Hitler always figured that Britain would never risk her Empire abroad by entering into a long protracked war with Germany.

It was to the East were the real Nazi intentions lay ... in the destruction of the Jews, the inslavement of the slavs and the manifestation of the centuries old dream of Lebansraum. It's no great insight of mine to say that WW2 was a race war ... read some history books that were published after 1990.

I can understand you not liking the idea of a race war or the terms "good" and "evil" ... If it was a war against "evil" (and I think Nazi ideology qualifies) why weren't the American's involved sooner? Would the potential for profit have anything to do with it?

America was providing real assistance to the UK during those months that they "stood alone".

Your right here. America was providing assistance ... but was this assistance for free, as would be the case if America was an ally in War? I think you'll find not ... but that's the American way ... if there's a profit to be made ...

Contrary to popular belief, FDR couldn't just start attacking on his own (something later further defined after the Gulf of Tonkin), the basis of a republic requires some kind of national discourse on the matter

So I guess you'll be bombing Afgahanistan some time around September 2003. Come on ... the American's and the British new what was brewing in Europe well before 1939 ... and it doesn't take 2 years to have an informed debate! I wonder ... did you have an informed debate between the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the eventual declaration of war?

Your comments on civilians casualties are just plain misguided. The US does not target civilians with modern weapons, nor has it taken an offensive role unprovocted, yet that isn't good enough for you, and somehow the British model is okay, such as bombing Berlin during WWII?

I never said American's deliberately "bomb civilians". I said that American military planners take a "POLITICAL" decision about the "acceptable loss" of civilian life. But if you know your tactics are going to cause the loss of large numbers of civilian lives ... what else are we to call it? Of course, this is all for the benefit of US politicans who are afraid that Public Opinion will turn against them. So ... what we have is a scenario were civilians lives are lost (it's a necessary consequence of these tactics), on the one hand to protect GI Joe from harm, and on the other to protect US politicians from criticism ... how decent and honourable of ya'll.

These military tactics are a "shield" to protect US politicians from negative public opinion. Innocent lives are NECESSARILY lost using these tactics. Therefore, the loss innocent lives is necessary to protect US politicians from negative public opinion. How can you justify this ??????

And yes, many, many people will die (at least 250,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the Gulf, including some civilians, but as opposed to our enemies, we do not target civilians, something I can't seem to reconcile in your follow on comments snipped out here. Doing this leads to overall fewer deaths.

It may lead to fewer deaths overall ... but like I said before ... civilians are the real casualties of war ... especially modern warfare. I would sooner see soldiers die than civilians. Soldiers are paid to fight and die. But this is just my opinion... I feel that civilian loss is the most tragic aspect of war. All measures should be taken to prevent civilian loss. Therefore, any "acceptable loss" chart is completely unethical ... no matter who uses it ... American's or British!

The US does not target civilians with modern weapons, nor has it taken an offensive role unprovocted, yet that isn't good enough for you, and somehow the British model is okay, such as bombing Berlin during WWII?

Perhaps you're forgetting about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And when did I ever defend the carpet bombing of cities? (the example of Dresden would be more potent if you want to criticise the Brits). Criticise me by all means, but do so for what I say, not for what I didn't say.

Are you saying that much like a Chuck Norris movie, the US should throw down it's superior weapons and say hey, Saddam, or Kadafy, or Osama, or whomever is stupid next, that's okay, let's just duke it out, mano-a-mano?

I'm not saying the West should throw away its technological advantages. Just the unethical "acceptable loss" charts. Preventing civilian loss should always be the priority. If the adoption of new tactics means the loss of more military personnel in order to save civilian lives, then so be it. This is especially pertinent with modern day conflicts involving Western nations (not just the USA). No nation who adopts these tactics can ever take the moral high ground.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Cybernut

WW2 was a race war. There is not even any doubting this. Nazism is based on a racist ideology, and this was the determining factor in all the Nazi actions.

I can understand you not liking the idea of a race war or the terms "good" and "evil" ... If it was a war against "evil" (and I think Nazi ideology qualifies) why weren't the American's involved sooner? Would the potential for profit have anything to do with it?

Potential profit has a lot to do with everything that happens in this world, and to think otherwise is misguided.

I don't disagree with your short history of the aims of the Reich overall, though I do believe that Hitler was quite direct in stating that european dominance was most definately a goal of his.

Regardless, if this is such a just and nobel cause, and you fault the US for not joining sooner, why then did the UK and France take so long to join themselves?

I would answer by saying they were looking out for their own self interests....kind of like the US was doing...hmmmm.....

I think we actually disagree with each other on little here. I am not aware of anyone, outside of certain extremist groups, who feel that civilian casualties are good. In fact, the US does not use "civilian casualty tables" like insurance agents (though all nuclear weapon possessing parties, including the UK, used such analysis in the past).

Does the US assess the potential for civilian death? Most definately, and why is that bad?

Bill

 

[Cybernut]

I think you're right Bill_in_PDX. We have a genuine difference of opinion. But I guess I did provke such a response

Hitler was quite direct in stating that european dominance was most definately a goal of his

Sure. But was it the key motivating goal I was trying to get at. It was a racially motivated war. I can't think of any really good books of hand or I'd recommend them. They were really enlightening to me when I read them many moons ago.

Regardless, if this is such a just and nobel cause, and you fault the US for not joining sooner, why then did the UK and France take so long to join themselves?

Again, a good point. They promised Czechoslovakia support if Germany invaded and then reneged. But in their credit, they declared war on Germany after Poland, and in declaring, they knew they were setting out against an enemy who was technologically superior in every aspect. They knew they probably couldn't halt the Nazi war machine ... although I'm sure even they thought they'd put up a better fight against the Germen Blitzkreig than they eventually did.

Does the US assess the potential for civilian death? Most definately, and why is that bad?

If the military and political machine know X amount of civilians are going to die as a consequence of these tactics, then maybe alternative tactics should be employed? Prior knowledge of the outcome of an event goes hand-in-hand with moral responsibility for that outcome ... especially if that outcome or the tactics used are not a necessity. Therefore the relative military and political machines must take moral responsibility for their actions given their prior knowledge of the outcome.

 

[FredLC]

"If the military and political machine know X amount of civilians are going to die as a consequence of these tactics, then maybe alternative tactics should be employed? Prior knowledge of the outcome of an event goes hand-in-hand with moral responsibility for that outcome ... especially if that outcome or the tactics used are not a necessity. Therefore the relative military and political machines must take moral responsibility for their actions given their prior knowledge of the outcome."

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

I partially agree with Cybernut. Responsability must be taken.

However, let's remember that a war is an extreme situation, and therefore, may possibly require extreme solutions.

Now, I don't think that anything really justify the death of civilians; but when a superior army kills them just in a way of minimizing their military losses, there's absolute no sense or justification at the act.

On the other hand, when a visibly inferior army does that as a last resource of survival, it's understandable, yet condemnable.

In brazilian's law, there's an institute called "legitimate defense" that works as an excuse when someone is forced to break the law in order to protect an extremely high value, like the own life.

In a defensive war, i think the situations can be very well compared.

I know i'm rationalizing; If i were a General, and were put in such an extreme situation, maybe i'd choose to die with my hands clean. But I can't make everyone live by my standarts.

And war never brings the best on people. Just the worst. Always.

Regards .