Modern War

[Unforgiven]

Is the attack on Pearl Harbor different from the attack on the World Trade Center?

They are miles apart Robin. Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese military in a sneak attack officially condoned by the Emperor of Japan and the Japanese government.

9/11 was the work of disgruntled maniacs with no alegion to any country and other than Afghanistan where they trained, no sanction either.

And Ive limited my question here to the US because Ive no good working knowledge of warring other countries.

From the outside, it looks like the creation of the UN and the idea of "playing fair" is a hindrance to winning a war. Im certain it was intended to help prevent war, but instead seems to me to just be prolonging them. Im looking to you guys to tell me what the difference is.

Well I would say that in some view point it is, but this is not the idea behind the creation of the UN. In reality, if the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for that matter, was fought with an alternate strategy such as nuclear strikes in major cities to result in massive amounts of civilian casualties while still rendering any military there disposed of, then I suspect the wars would be counted in hours rather than years. Long over by now and probably we could be to the impeachment part.

But our short attention spans would have allowed for us to have gotten over the horrors of that and on to building new cities and cultures on top of the ruins, like Japan. The UN is supposed to be a world wide representation of nations who can through diplomacy, work through problems, manage rouge countries and make the world a better place for all. Instead, it has become a quagmire of red tape and rhetoric, prone to corruption and so bloated, it can no longer act effectively to resolve issues. It does act as a blanket for covert actions by members of the security council to spy on everyone else though.

What was the reason for the Korean war? I know the others since have been the US trying to police other countries. I have mixed feelings about that. I think the US should be asked to help before they get involved but even then thier hands are pretty much tied by the UN and the Geneva Convention (specifically the third and fourth conventions).

It started as a civil war which the US entered followed by China and a limited support from the USSR.

Im not looking for arguements about what is justified and what is not. Im looking for informed opinion on what the difference is between modern war and WW2.

Now war is televised, opinionized and franchised. War is hell and the details that come out of a war zone are used to play on our feelings and alter political will. Few are willing to accept that a war means going somewhere and using everything you have to murder people into submission to your will. Now no one wants people especially innocents to be harmed. But that is exactly what war is supposed to do. Instead someone as sold us on the idea that you win the hearts and minds of the people you fight by beating their friends and relatives into a pulpy stain rather than forced surrender followed by great compassion and aid to build a new society based on peace and prosperity.

Maybe it's that some American figured out that you make a lot more money from an on going war or series of wars than you do a quick onslaught of mass execution.