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.

[impala454]

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)

well yeah who uses the technology is important, but i was referring to the practicality and use of a technology in war. the first jet fighter did the germans no good because they couldn't build the things in big enough numbers. the V2 did the germans no good because it didn't help them accomplish anything. the flying wing design did the germans no good because they never even used it. So basically as far as WWII comes down to it, the technology difference of the germans vs allied forces was negligible.

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.

this is what pretty much spurred that talk:

there's no way in hell we could deal with the threat of the (equivalent of) axis powers today. like say if china, russia and NK decided fuck it, let's get it on! heaven help us.

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 you over-estimate the abilities of the post-cold war era Russia. what's required to invade us is a very strong navy, which nobody comes close to matching us. check out this little tidbit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...of_armed_forces
and nobody will ever drop nukes on us in open war... it'd be suicide.

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.

yeah, and i think they highly underestimate our population's ability to kick some ass. not to mention our popluation has nearly doubled since WW2, people deal with increasing crime rates, murder, gangs, and private gun ownership is way up. i just read an estimate of privately owned guns at 215 million in 1999, and almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.

[Hartmann]

yeah, and i think they highly underestimate our population's ability to kick some ass. not to mention our popluation has nearly doubled since WW2, people deal with increasing crime rates, murder, gangs, and private gun ownership is way up. i just read an estimate of privately owned guns at 215 million in 1999, and almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.

2 things.

1. I don't think it takes a massive navy to invade a country anymore. Our forces here in the states are by no means what they were during the Cold War. Hell, more than half of the bases that were meant to supplement pushing back an invasion force have closed. Most air defense protection has fallen on the Air National Guard and they've definitely proven themselves in do or die situations (shoe bomber incident, took 'em I think 8 minutes to scramble, that's insane)

We do not have an missile defense system because most Americans don't want a SAM site setup down the street from their Malibu home. I think Russia still has some of its SAM sites setup around Moscow.

2. Your point about gun ownership is well taken, but how many of those people are willing to shoot to kill? And if they are willing to shoot to kill, how good of a shot are they. War isn't going to be a Red Dawn situation with teenage kids taking out convoys of tanks, I hate to break it to everyone but that was just a movie.

You must look at how are population has doubled and the age of that population. We are nearly turning the corner of being 50%+ of 50+ year olds. Yes, I'm sure all those folks with their arthritis and hemorrhoids would be a great defender of the U.S. And trying to get them up to speed on a computer? Uh huh. I like pipe dreams too.

Also, look at immigration as bringing in a lot of our population. Do you think the people who just came here are willing to fight to stay? Hell no. They'll run.