are war crimes and the roe only items on the escalation list?
certainly there are lines that warplanner's draw, but they're planning for all contingencies, after all. there must be an account for total warfare, where warcrime/roe doctrine are tossed aside, and considered as bullshit to worry about later if ever.
i mean, it's obvious right guys? an open secret right? any public officials comment on this since the red scare days?
>an open secret
Is it even that?
We have a nuclear doctrine and nooks break any number of international laws.
Warcrimes are just what the winners hold against the losers. "Winners" never get charged for warcrimes
>MUH DRESDEN
>>30516202
They were ready and willing to nuke Germany had the war dragged on.
There's a lot of writing about the justifications of total war in regards to WW2 and what they were prepared to do if deemed necessary.
But like >>30516126 says the only recent mentions are from nuclear doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentials_of_Post%E2%80%93Cold_War_Deterrence
>The document claims that the capacity of the United States in exercising deterrence would be hurt by portraying U.S. leaders as fully rational and cool-headed, stating that:
>"The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially 'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."
>>30516325
Still, total war or not, when we dropped the nukes on Japan, it wasn't even about ending the war, it was about first proving we had the capability, and then proving we were going to use it again.
Japan's shit was getting invaded from Russia in the north, and they were ready to surrender, but wanted their emperor to remain in power. US and friends said "Total, unconditional surrender, or nothing."
Besides, how else would we have proved to the ruskies that continuing military operations past the end of the war in an effort to secure the most of war torn Europe they could was a bad fucking idea?
>>30516335
Reminds me of the joke Reagan made about outlawing Russia and that they were going to begin bombing in five minutes. It was never broadcast over the air but it was leaked later, and still caused the Russians 30 minutes of full alert.
>>30516335
kek, it doesn't seem like they think it's such a good idea anymore
>In a January 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal, veteran cold-war policy makers Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, George Shultz, and Sam Nunn reversed their previous position and asserted that far from making the world safer, nuclear weapons had become a source of extreme risk.[4] "Senior European statesmen and women" called for further action in 2010 in addressing problems of nuclear weapons proliferation. They said: "Nuclear deterrence is a far less persuasive strategic response to a world of potential regional nuclear arms races and nuclear terrorism than it was to the cold war".[5]
>>30516393
Nixon was big on it too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
>>30516360
Why couldn't Japan both surrender and keep the Emperor? Why would the US give a fuck over a king?
>>30516455
because fuck monarchs
>>30516510
No shitpost, really. I've always heard that and always wondered why it was.
>>30516428
This is funny because the North Vietnamese laughed it off and won anyways.
>>30516551
Because, if you lose, that's it, go home. There wasn't anymore room for potential enemies to come back with some kind of weird ww2 grudge. Better off to just depose of the motherfucker and use your political influences and propaganda to make sure that the next people in power are aligned with your interests.
Basic warfare right there.
On top of that, with all the torture of allied soldiers, and the shit that was going on with his own population (they turned their backs on him) there was no way that any reconstruction effort could occur with him remaining in power. The Allies were trying to rebuild Japan, and part of that is ensuring you don't fuck up your public relations.
Doesn't matter how many generals you have on your side if the entire population of your own country, and several extremely powerful world leaders to boot, want you gone.
Essentially, it was a public relations move to secure the Japanese islands and the ability to reconstruct and bring the nation back from the brink of being completely fucking annihilated.
We wanted to help them, they wanted our help, Hirohito was telling us to fuck off.
>>30516428
Holy shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Giant_Lance
He really was a fucking psycho. He had the shit on planes, and flying. That's really goddamn close to having some kind of miscommunication happen where a pilot decides they do have to drop the bombs.
Shit like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
>On September 26, 1983, just three weeks after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile, followed by another one and then up to five more, were being launched from the United States. Petrov judged the report to be a false alarm,[2] and his decision is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in large-scale nuclear war. Investigation later confirmed that the satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned.[3]
Imagine if he had decided it wasn't a false alarm? That dude had the fate of the world in his hands, literally.
That's a fucking tough decision. "Do I launch, and ensure the safety of my country, and my legacy? If they really are nukes, I just lost us the war."
