And a ham-handed response would set that attitude in concrete.
Rather than look at this in a defeatist manner, we should at least take comfort in it happening now rather than 100 years later when many of these nations may have had ICBM's capable of reaching the US.
I'm not looking at it in a defeatist manner: you are.
We need to capitalize on this opportunity and will get nowhere by attacking the figureheads of the Islamic hatred of the west that prevails in most Arab nations. Treating a symptom will not cure a disease.
No, instead, let's just randomly bomb a population of 1.2 billion people for the crime of being born in the wrong culture.
I don't know if you have ever been in a fist fight and lost but the first time you are hit in the face it makes you madder than hell and you fight back harder.
Uh-huh--that's the point.
However if your opponent is able to continue hitting you over and over, pretty soon you want to stop fighting.
This isn't a fistfight, buddy.
And many of these "fistfights" "end" as you describe--right up to the moment where the "victor" turns his back and gets a Louisville slugger applied to his skull with considerable force, or they haul out a dagger and stuff it into his back, or they haul out a gun and shoot the winner in the back.
As for your contention that the vast majority of people around the world would not act in a to self preservation you need look no further than the recent Israeli (accidental) machine gunning in a Palestinian market.
Immediate self-preservation is one thing. However, the social dymanics of populations under aerial bombardment are very different.
Notice that it didn't stop the Palestinians from performing another suicide bombing.
Why by your reasoning, were the Palestinians running away from rather than towards the enemy?
Do you understand the need for revenge in human beings? Whole epics have been written on the topic. They may flee today, but anyone who lost a relative in that incident is a good candidate for "martyrdom operations."
As for the Strategic Bombing Survey, the jury is out:
"The economic consequences of the physical damage wrought by air attack are closely interrelated with the concurrent effects of the interdiction of imports, the cumulative effects of under-maintenance of plants, and the declining health, vigor and determination of the Japanese people."
Congratulations. If you look carefully, you'll see that that portion of the USSBS is discussing the mining campaign, not the firebombing campaign.
"By December 1944 air attacks from the Marianas against the home islands had begun, defeats in the Philippines had been suffered, and the food situation had deteriorated; 10 percent of the people believed Japan could not achieve victory. By March 1945, when the night incendiary attacks began and the food ration was reduced, this percentage had risen to 19 percent. In June it was 46 percent, and just prior to surrender, 68 percent. Of those who had come to this belief over one-half attributed the principal cause to air attacks, other than the atomic bombing attacks, and one-third to military defeats."
The people were still going to fight to the absolute death--and take a lot of Americans with them. But you cheerfully ignore that. Why were they going to fight to the death? Because we had convinced them that all we wanted to do was exterminate every last Japanese, so they figured that they might at least give themselves some sideboys for when they reported to Yasukunai.
Your external behavior is the only guide many people out there have for evaluating your overall intentions. A campaign of the type you describe conveys the message that you merely want them to die--so the people get convinced to take some infidels with them.
"A striking aspect of the air attack was the pervasiveness with which its impact on morale blanketed Japan. Roughly one-quarter of all people in cities fled or were evacuated, and these evacuees, who themselves were of singularly low morale, helped spread discouragement and disaffection for the war throughout the islands."
And had we come ashore in 1945, they would have made us pay blood for every square inch of Japanese soil.
Seems convincing to me.
Yup, weasel-worded studies always seem convincing to armchair commandos.
I really miss the days when wars were settled with the sword and pike--because the folks who advocate murdering (yes, I am specifically using that term) thousands of civilians could be told "Fine, here's a sword, knock yourself out." Today, they don't have to see the consequences of what they advocate.
Might also note the effect on Iraqi morale in the Gulf War.
A different dynamic was in play there. It was obvious that we were systematically destroying their ability to fight a modern war. What the Iraqis learned early on was to stay away from their equipment. What you would teach the Islamic world is that we'll kill people just for the heck of it, and that we really ARE the Great Satan.
By the way, I don't condone the nuclear option. Sets a bad precedent and the world might notice that we tell other nations not to build them but don't seem to mind using them ourselves.
Wow. The only thing that stops you from using nukes is that someone MIGHT want to pay you back in like coin.
Thank you for proving my point...