Why has the world lost the stomach for WW2 tactics?

In WW2, if the Germans built a munitions dump in a hospital, too bad. It got bombed.

If they put FLAK emplacements or artillery on top of a school, too bad. It got bombed.

The allies did this. It's just how the war was fought. Total war.

How can tactics that were ok for the allies in the 40s, suddenly be "war crimes" when a country (Israel) uses those same tactics in 2014?

Because new laws were formed, and people became more civilised.

Not all people - you appear to be an exception.

Because of pussies like Rick Deckard.

Because there is no total war in sight anywhere. If you're referring to Gaza - total war would mean it being eradicated within one night by Israel. But the Israelis don't want that, for reasons.

Mamma always said: if it's a sin on Sunday, it's a sin on Monday. If it's a war crime for someone else to do it, then it's a war crime when you do it.

I'm sure if we had a World War II type threat, we'd be ready enough to employ World War II type tactics* but, well, there is no Hitler with an actual army these days.

* No reason to actually think such tactics would be necessary or relevant on the modern battlefield, but for the sake of argument, I'm pretending such a scenario exists.

This is all made up.

The Germans did not place their military facilities in schools or churches,
and the allies did avoid bombing churches.

Midnight Funeral is upset that Isreal isn't murdering millions of Palestinians
for his cubicle gratification.

Don't think all out war couldn't happen again?
This fella begs to differ!


http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...aved hitler's brain&sprefix=they sa,movies-tv

Why did people lose their taste for World War II tactics?

Uh, World War II.

Yep - specifically the 60 million dead that came along with it.

World Wars 1 & 2 were the culmination of the historical savagery at the core of Europe's psyche, and modern armaments. Coupled with industrial mechanization, it led to the horrors we're all aware of.

The adults are in charge now, and the continent is better off under our thumb.

We have a winner!

In a word.

No.

The reason: Beyond the fact that you don't need whole fleets of bombers to destroy a single factory or bridge. Beyond that you don't need a entire destroyer squadron to hunt a submarine. Beyond the supposed "rules of war" and the more "civilized nature" of war that some like to blather about.

Americans do not have the stomach for total warfare for one huge reason:

No draft.

In World War Two, you have 7.5% of American citizens serving in uniform. Basically almost EVERY American family had a son, husband or at least a nephew serving in the U.S. military. When the level of immediate commitment is that strong and widespread, Americans did mind using whatever level of violence was available.

"Who cares about the damned Japanese people in Kokura (initial target of second atomic bomb)!! I've got a son, two nephews, and four cousins serving over there!!!".

By contrast today's military is made up of trained professionals who have served for years. IIRC, the average age of Americans killed in World War 2 was 18. While in the current wars the average age is 30. Like it or not is is no longer "our boys dying over there" but MEN (and women) who wanted to go.

Agree.
"We learn by doing."

We did have a brief revisit of WWII tactics during Desert Storm. carpet bombing of the Republican guard; open land tank battles; close air support of troops; a couple of dogfights...
The common factor with WWII being a well-defined enemy with a normal armed forces belonging to an established nation.

We ain't got that now. We're not up against a country. We can't target Al Queda's or ISIS's infrastructure, attack the morale of their citizens, reduce their industrial capabilities, capture their capital city and plant a flag.

Really, even genie-poofing away the nukes, the human race wouldn't have survived more WWII style wars.
Well, pockets would have, but kiss the 21st century as you know it goodbye.

Seems like I remember reading (can't remember where) that an all out conventional World War in the modern era could easily destroy civilization as we know it.

IIRC, millions upon millions across the world would die due to the disruption of trade and destruction of power supplies alone.

I feel a need to read Red Storm Rising again.


Wait.... no, it's gone now.

Whew!

I've read it many times. Trying to create an accurate time line (I think I figured the war lasting 5-6 weeks roughly). The Soviet Commander in Iceland thinking to himself says that he was told "the war would be over in two weeks. He had held out more than four weeks".

And of course trying to get an estimate of the death toll.

Not easy as Clancy and Bond seem concerned mainly with the naval war.

Okaaaayyyy.

Holy shit. I find myself agreeing with Dayton.

The draft is little more than an antiquity. With the types of machines and weapons, those do need specialists to run, not Joe Schmuckatelli that graduated at the foot of his class. They're more powerful so they require fewer people...Navy ships are being built around the idea of downsizing nowadays.

Short of a nuclear Armageddon, it's unlikely any of the older folks among us will see a full scale war like WWI and WWII

Well, to be fair a "World War" would require probably at least some relative equality of capability between sides.

It is pretty hard to conceive of any war that would feature any kind of alliance that could match or threaten the war making potential of the U.S. and its allies.

If there ever is another major war it will certainly be by mistake. A relatively minor clash somewhere. Probably an air or naval battle that is of little note but starts the ball rolling. Just large enough that both sides think they need to win. But small enough no one thinks it will escalate and get out of control. Lots of miscalculations on all sides.

Like, oh, I dunno, maybe Russia and Ukraine?

Or if China is ever stupid enough to invade Taiwan.

Here's how WW3 goes down, if it ever does. Russia, China and North Korea ally and attack somewhere, anywhere. The US splits it's forces, between Europe and the pacific. Japan (they are on our side this time) and the US invade mainland China. The US, France(yeah, I said France), Britain and probably Germany (yeah, this time they are the good guy)take the European side. Provided no nukes are used, it will be a long war that will eventually end with Russia and China gaining nothing and millions of people dead. If nukes are involved, well, at least we know eventually Zephran Cochran will test fly the first warp engine and the Vulcans will discover us, but we will all be dead by then anyway.

"invade mainland China"

Yeah, not so much. We aren't that stupid.

China has no reason to start a war.

Right now it looks like the likely candidates would be Russia. But these guys are coldly calculating - they aren't likely to make the major mistake that causes true cataclysm. They are well familiar with brinksmanship - and the potential of modern weapons.

In the not too distant future, a major war is more likely over the attempt to recreate the Caliphate - threatening the major oil and trade routes through the middle east.

But honestly, I don't see too many likely reasons for war in the near future. Most of the governments are secular rationalists. Nut job religious guys (hell, maybe here if we aren't careful) causing shenanigans seem more likely.

If we are directly attacked, we will at some point invade China. This whole thing is a made up scenario anyway, so it's really not worth arguing the finer points.

Invade with what?

It's a made up scenario, there's no need to go into details.

Well in that case we'll win because our side will use Starfleet battlecruisers to lay waste to the whole of China.



I figured it out, Wordforge.

Federal Farmer is Boy Jenee.