DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Unconditional Surrender & Civilian Casualites

**doogiehoussi** · 05-03-2011, 06:10 AM

To get out of the weeds. If I'm not mistaken the question is about unconditional surrender and the ethics of such a thing.

I don’t think it is ethical. Most wars (in my horribly amateur study of history ) are based on resources, i.e. land. Soldiers aren’t serial killers (usually). They want to go home and feed their families, despite all the politics.

Germany and Japan were ruled by serial killers, didn't you
know that?!

There are types of enemies and circumstances where only
unconditional surrender is apporpriate, and WW2 was a
definitive example, as you will learn if you take the effort
to learn more about it.

Yes, you could argue that some enemies, well, can’t be reasoned with. (like here) To have a whole army of fanatics is rare. They are people, like your own soldiers.

The emotional constitution of the service members does not
necessarily have anything to do with it. What matters is if
they carry out the orders of a fanatical and homicidal leadership.
If they do then they must die, sometimes in large numbers,
before before the leaders can be put out of business.

So I’ll take it from the soldier’s level to that of the generals and the politicians.

What does this mean?

Then things change. And we aren’t talking about military tactics, we are talking about politics.

We are talking about goals. If the goal is to never have to fight
enemy A again then you must start by obtaining enemy A's
unconditional surrender.

“Unconditional Surrender” reeks of bad politics and poor leadership. You won.

It does not, but why do you think it does?

If genocide isn’t your thing, then a heavy handed victory only brings resentment (and those wars that don’t seem to end).

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Get to work reading up on the
post WW2-era.

To me the bottom line is….Your defeated enemy is either someone who could be a neighbor, or someone who should be killed.

We have done a reasonably good job being neighborly, unconditional
surrender or no unconditional surrender.

It seems only politicians can remove that human element.

Sorry, but like it or not politicians we cannot do without
politiicians, and I do not think our record is so awfully bad,
even if it is not close to perfect.

05-03-2011, 06:10 AM	#19
doogiehoussi Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 534 Senior Member	To get out of the weeds. If I'm not mistaken the question is about unconditional surrender and the ethics of such a thing. I don’t think it is ethical. Most wars (in my horribly amateur study of history ) are based on resources, i.e. land. Soldiers aren’t serial killers (usually). They want to go home and feed their families, despite all the politics. Germany and Japan were ruled by serial killers, didn't you know that?! There are types of enemies and circumstances where only unconditional surrender is apporpriate, and WW2 was a definitive example, as you will learn if you take the effort to learn more about it. Yes, you could argue that some enemies, well, can’t be reasoned with. (like here) To have a whole army of fanatics is rare. They are people, like your own soldiers. The emotional constitution of the service members does not necessarily have anything to do with it. What matters is if they carry out the orders of a fanatical and homicidal leadership. If they do then they must die, sometimes in large numbers, before before the leaders can be put out of business. So I’ll take it from the soldier’s level to that of the generals and the politicians. What does this mean? Then things change. And we aren’t talking about military tactics, we are talking about politics. We are talking about goals. If the goal is to never have to fight enemy A again then you must start by obtaining enemy A's unconditional surrender. “Unconditional Surrender” reeks of bad politics and poor leadership. You won. It does not, but why do you think it does? If genocide isn’t your thing, then a heavy handed victory only brings resentment (and those wars that don’t seem to end). Wrong. Just plain wrong. Get to work reading up on the post WW2-era. To me the bottom line is….Your defeated enemy is either someone who could be a neighbor, or someone who should be killed. We have done a reasonably good job being neighborly, unconditional surrender or no unconditional surrender. It seems only politicians can remove that human element. Sorry, but like it or not politicians we cannot do without politiicians, and I do not think our record is so awfully bad, even if it is not close to perfect.
	Quote