Replace the constitution :rolleyes:

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, that's an absolute statement... NOT a moral absolute.. I hope you see the difference there .

"There are no moral principles" is itself a moral principle.

[David Floyd]

So, if the U.S. had stayed out of it, and focused on internal matters, reason dictates that it would still have had a paltry military by the end of European and/or Pacific hostilities.

Germany and Japan may not have had the capabilities to invade the war-strengthened U.S., but they might have been able to handle the sub-Portugal "lesser" America that would be produced by isolationism... No?

No. The USN was far more than enough to prevent the Germans from invading, and, once the naval expansion program of 1940 was completed (that is, the USN looking about like what it did in historical 1944), then your supposed invasion of the US becomes laughable in the extreme.

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then why was conscription in place?

It was your duty as an American to defend your nation against two aggressive enemies. Ask a WW2 vet if they were led into combat against their will.

Not really. I'm saying that the US shouldn't have fought in the war, you are saying that there is an obligation to support your society. Those are unrelated.

Fighting the war WAS SUPPORT TO SOCIETY!

So you think the ends justify the means, then.

Yes... there is a greater good.

Given time, sure, you never know. But in that time, the US would have developed atomic weapons, and would have retained an atomic monopoly for years. If the Soviets didn't have agents within the Manhatten Project, the US would have retained its atomic monopoly much longer.

If the US was at peace and not engaged in conflict, it is unlikely that so much effort and resources would have been put into the Manhatten Project.

Yes, perhaps 10-15 years down the road Germany would have had thousands of intercontinental bombers. Too bad US fighter jets would have ripped them to shreds.

No... because the US would still be in pre-war mobilization mode. Very little production, antiquated hardware, etc. And Germany would have had jet-capable long range bombers before 1948.

I think you haven't even made a coherent statement as to what those responsibilities are, nor have you backed up that non-existent statement.

They are implied... if your country is threatened, you have a responsibility to contribute to the war effort.

Then why would you oppose targeting civilians? Killing civilians prevents them from supporting the war effort, right?

Not necessarily. Destroying the military-industrial capabilies is the main objective. Bombing civilians is unnecessary if the manufacturing capabilies are effectively neutralized. The US failed in Vietnam because it could not stop the supply lines, and the NVA had an endless supply of weapons and material from China and Russia. The only way the US could have won would have been to line a wall across the borders and fully occupy the entire region with a massive ground force. And the cost of such an endeavor didn't justify the goal.

Well, Germany felt that the Jews and other ethnic minorities were a threat, so they trampled all over their rights and put them in concentration camps. Do you have trouble saying whether or not this is wrong, too?

Hitler felt that... and then manipulated enough people to get into a position of power in which to enact such a brutal policy. And they didn't just detain them, they were annihilating them. Had I been in the position of leadership in post WW1 Germany, I would have rallied all of Germany behind the goal of rebuilding the economy. The extermination of the Jews and other peoples was not in Germany's best interests. Especially considering the reaction from the rest of the world.

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No. The USN was far more than enough to prevent the Germans from invading, and, once the naval expansion program of 1940 was completed (that is, the USN looking about like what it did in historical 1944), then your supposed invasion of the US becomes laughable in the extreme.

The USN expansion only occurred because it was in preparation for war. Following your isolationist policy, America wouldn't have built up the Navy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
and, once the naval expansion program of 1940 was completed

Why would an isolationist power need such a large navy?

[Berzerker]

Why would an isolationist power not produce weapons to sell to it's allies if not for itself to eventually deter the growing threat? WWII was over before the US ever got in, The Nazis were doomed when the Battle of Britain and Barbarossa failed, and Japan, even it's military leaders, knew it couldn't defeat the USA (read Yamamoto's comments). Neither Germany nor Japan had designs on the US simply because of the logistical nightmare, much less all the guerilla wars they'd have to face for decades in those areas for which they did have designs.

[David Floyd]

Berzerker is essentially correct.

An isolationist nation is not necessarily defenseless. Conscription would certainly not have been necessary for the defense of the US, especially for the USN. In WW2, the USN/Marines were mainly manned by volunteers, for example.

However, such a large navy wouldn't have been necessary, at all. We are postulating a "what if"; ie, WHAT IF Germany/Japan decided to invade the Continental US. But why should they do that? As Berz noted, it would be a logistical and occupational nightmare, even if they DID succeed, which they wouldn't. Neither nation could have supported a large army thousands of miles from home across two major oceans. Not gonna happen.

The navy existing in 1939 was essentially enough to defend the shores of the United States, backed up by ground-based aircraft. If I were in charge, using 20-20 hindsight, I'd scrap the battleships - all of them - in favor of carriers and possibly submarines.

Air power, likewise, isn't a problem. We aren't talking about supplying massive bomber forces overseas, or anything of the sort. We're talking about a large force of interceptor and tactical/naval attack aircraft. Again, conscription is not needed for this, volunteers are more than sufficient. Germany, for example, may have 1 MILLION fighters - but those are patently useless in an invasion of the US. The only fighters/tactical aircraft either the Germans or Japanese would have would be those packed onto carriers - and these are never going to outnumber the land-based aircraft of a major nation that has built up for defense.

Likewise, the Manhatten Project. Conscription isn't necessary for this, by any means. Simply hire enough researchers from universities/find them abroad, as was done historically.

The problem, then, is how to pay for all of this. Remember, we don't need anything NEAR the level of funding of the military during WW2, simply because this is a military geared towards defense, not offense. We're talking about a two-ocean navy, consisting primarily of aircraft carriers, their escorts, and submarines, an air force made up of several thousand fighters and tactical attack aircraft, and a miniscule army. Now, obviously taxation is out, too.

Sava has already given us the solution to this issue. He has implied/stated that US citizens of the time were very patriotic, and very willing to support the government. This being the case, simply fund the military through war bonds, donations, etc. There are probably several other methods that I'm not thinking about, too, that Berzerker can come up with.

So, building a military capable of stopping any German/Japanese invasion force is just not all that difficult, nor does it require 10 million men.

Now, a few particular tidbits of stupidity I need to address:

It was your duty as an American to defend your nation against two aggressive enemies. Ask a WW2 vet if they were led into combat against their will.

They were only enemies when the US made them enemies, and what WW2 vets think doesn't matter. They bought into US propaganda. I don't.

Fighting the war WAS SUPPORT TO SOCIETY!

No, society wasn't threatened, nor was there a viable future threat.

Yes... there is a greater good.

Really? I thought there were no absolute morals, right? How can a greater good exist, without absolute morals also existing?

They are implied...

By what or whom?

Hitler felt that... and then manipulated enough people to get into a position of power in which to enact such a brutal policy.

Just as the leaders of the US manipulated the American people into believing Japanese Americans were a threat.

And they didn't just detain them, they were annihilating them.

So? Oh, I see, we can detain innocent people, strip them of their possessions, keep them locked up in tiny rooms, and draft them into defending a society from which they derive no benefit and receive no protection, but we just can't kill them? Why the distinction?

[HershOstropoler]

Didn't expect a ww2 debate here... hope nobody starts mentioning the Soviets.

Originally posted by Spiffor

With your pathetic politician generation, the result would be rather sad. We just had our own constitutional convention in the EU. And the document produced has nothing like a vision you'd expect from a real constitution

Well it's not that bad, apart from 80 % of the text being useless blah. The US constitution could need some updating, but overall it's short, relatively clear and well-written.

I'm just writing a book about EU Fundamental Rights, and the new Charta is so bloated with useless stuff while leaving several critical issues open that I'll be seriously pissed should it become part of the EU constitution, as is likely. 50+ freakin' Articles!

[Ted Striker]

Well you gotta admit for being written by a room full of lawyers (no offense), the Constitution was pretty damn brief.

[Odin]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Didn't expect a ww2 debate here... hope nobody starts mentioning the Soviets.

Serb in 3... 2... 1...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I'm just writing a book about EU Fundamental Rights, and the new Charta is so bloated with useless stuff while leaving several critical issues open that I'll be seriously pissed should it become part of the EU constitution, as is likely. 50+ freakin' Articles!

I guess my favourite MEP will have quite a few headaches this year. He's the one writing the parliamentary report on the respect of fundamental rights.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well you gotta admit for being written by a room full of lawyers (no offense), the Constitution was pretty damn brief.

It took 200 more years of rooms full of lawyers and politicians to figure out what inane drivel you can put into constitutons.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I guess my favourite MEP will have quite a few headaches this year. He's the one writing the parliamentary report on the respect of fundamental rights.

As long as it is a political report, it's not that bad. And the Charta gives ample material.

The problem is with its legal application. I think the ECJ will have to use a little creativity to paper over the worst crap.

[Spiffor]

Fortunately we have lawyers to solve all this

[HershOstropoler]

Well form a scholar's point of view, you have to love the Charta. Loads of problems, need to create new terms to get a grip on some of the stuff....

But from a judge's or citizen's perspective, it's useless.