Day of Infamy Options

[cupcake]

65 years ago, on this day, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

When the Dec. 7, 1941, onslaught was over, there were 2,403 dead and thousands others wounded.

Besides the mass causalities in the two waves of attacks that lasted less than two hours, the Japanese also had sunk or damaged 18 ships and destroyed more than 180 aircraft.

It was, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt would declare, "a day of infamy."

The next day, America was at war.

Although it was a day of great tragedy, it was also a day that revived our national pride and strengthened our determination as a nation.

This spirit of unity and reborn patriotism had "awakened the sleeping giant" and ultimately led us to victory and the end of World War II.

I have a really hard time believing that if that happened today, America would have the mettle to carry out an all-out offensive on two geographic fronts, be able to accept the mass casualties (ours and collateral), indiscriminate carpet bombing, and eventual use of atomic bombs. The media would have none of that. The politicians would be talking out both sides of their mouths. The "call to arms" would fall on deaf ears.

We would have lost WWII had it been fought in the 21st century. No doubt in my mind.

[Hartmann]

I don't really feel like going through and requoting each thing, but I'll address the points.

The Me262 failed at shooting down large numbers of planes because of the way the Luftwaffe was run and because of Hitler. In the Luftwaffe, pilots flew until they were killed, wounded terribly, or promoted to General (in Adolf Galland's case he still flew after being promoted). So the pilots that needed to fly the 262 but they were dead or incapacitated. Also, Hitler insisted that the plane be made into a bomber, adding weight and taking away from the defense of the nation. The P-51 was a great aircraft, but I would chalk a lot of the kills up to the skill of pilots and the lack of skill on the German's part.

The tactic of P-51s (and P-47s) was to attack small groups of targets as a swarm, which definitely helped their shootdown numbers. But no argument, the P-51 was an awesome plane and having the opportunity to fly in a two seat version I've seen the power of the plane up close and personal, it's so easy on the controls. Personally, I'd love to find and restore one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FW-190 I consider it the F-15 of WWII in the Luftwaffe.

You are referring to the V-1, which used a pulse jet. I am talking about the V-2 which was actually a fairly accurate weapon and the first ballistic missile. It was designed by Werner von Braun, the same guy who put the U.S. on the moon.

Oppenheimer wasn't Jewish and though born in the states was actually encouraged to finish his schooling in Germany.

I pointed out the Ho229 to make the point that the Germans were very technologically advanced. It may not have flown any missions, but it did fly and it used the world's first ejection seat. The Me163 was a rocket plane that was a predecessor to the modern day Suface-to-Air missile.

[impala454]

I don't really feel like going through and requoting each thing, but I'll address the points.

The Me262 failed at shooting down large numbers of planes because of the way the Luftwaffe was run and because of Hitler. In the Luftwaffe, pilots flew until they were killed, wounded terribly, or promoted to General (in Adolf Galland's case he still flew after being promoted). So the pilots that needed to fly the 262 but they were dead or incapacitated. Also, Hitler insisted that the plane be made into a bomber, adding weight and taking away from the defense of the nation.

they also never built many of the things. so i suppose another obvious thing to add besides technology and numbers: intelligence among commanders, as well as ability to implement your technology for practical use

You are referring to the V-1, which used a pulse jet. I am talking about the V-2 which was actually a fairly accurate weapon and the first ballistic missile. It was designed by Werner von Braun, the same guy who put the U.S. on the moon.

ok to quote your source:

The ancestor of all Cold War and modern day ballistic missiles, as well as the rockets used for space exploration, the V-2 could not win the war for Germany—it was too expensive, too complicated, too inaccurate, and its warhead was too small

so we conclude, great design, start of a new era, genius mind (which ended up in the good ol USA), but in the end a non-factor.

I pointed out the Ho229 to make the point that the Germans were very technologically advanced. It may not have flown any missions, but it did fly and it used the world's first ejection seat. The Me163 was a rocket plane that was a predecessor to the modern day Suface-to-Air missile.

right but the point is, germany was not that much more technologically advanced than anyone else. they had designs, but couldn't get them built. again, blueprints don't kill. the meat & potatoes of their military was no more advanced than allied forces were. part of having a high technology military is actually implementing and using the stuff.

the united states of today implements technology on a level un-matched by anyone else. we have equal to superior numbers on almost any possible threat that's out there, experienced leaders, and an isolated mainland. imho this is what makes us, for all intents and purposes, invulnerable to conventional attack.

[Trespass]

right but the point is, germany was not that much more technologically advanced than anyone else. they had designs, but couldn't get them built. again, blueprints don't kill. the meat & potatoes of their military was no more advanced than allied forces were. part of having a high technology military is actually implementing and using the stuff.

So the germans HAD better technology but couldn't implement/use it... i think you made our point, except you tried to cop out and try to say that "technology" is only when you use it efficiently... which who "uses" it... the well trained and funded military (which if you try to lump them into being part of "technology" then you are completely correct that technology wins the day)

And why do you keep talking about a conventional war on the mainland? Im not sure anyone talked about it, but you keep bringing it up. Japan attacked us the ONE time and the rest of the war was played out elsewhere (and that was a WORLD war).

If we got attacked (pearl harbor, etc) by another nation and our country faced another country like russia that could deal out massive deaths (which they could) our country would have a hard time stomaching it. Because Russia is not an iraq, they have weapons, and "technology" very comparable to ours... they didn't just go away after the cold war and stop making better and better stuff. They have subs that could go undetected and launch devestating attacks on our mainland and go back home unscathed. They could use modern missles to bring down jets in numbers, could basically fight us and make us bring the war to them if they wanted... THEN it would be about the soldiers and tactics again, not merely technology.

I think cupcake and hartman are trying to say that if a Russia attacked us, we wouldn't have a stomach to take them on and lose LOTS of american lives to do it.

Oh and if this didn't make much since towards the top im still waking up a bit.. heh, hopefully i got the points out coherently.