NationStates Jolt Archive

Well... sort of

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1107297/Cold-war-Gas-bills-Britain-soar-Russia-switches-supply-12-freezing-countries.html

Russia today shut off all gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine, leaving 12 countries without fuel in freezing winter conditions.

As millions of people struggled to cope in sub-zero temperatures, the European Union said the continent had effectively been 'taken hostage' by a trade dispute.

It has also emerged that gas prices could soar in Britain if there is not a swift resolution to the crisis.

Moscow pulled the plug on three major pipelines after a pricing dispute with Ukraine.

Supplies have dwindled throughout this week and today Austria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic confirmed their pipelines were empty.

Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Turkey are already out of gas.

Italy suffered a 90 per cent plunge, France was down 70 per cent and Germany was affected for the first time.

Britain, however, is unlikely to run out of gas as only two per cent of supplies come from Russia which can be replaced from other sources if necessary.

The cutoff has also showed the first signs of hitting the European economy as the Hungarian unit of the Japanese automaker Suzuki said it was halting production because of restrictions on industrial users of gas.

There is little sign of resolution to the row with Moscow and Kiev both blaming each other for cutting supply.

Russia has accused Ukraine of 'stealing' about 15 per cent of the gas it ships across its former Soviet neighbour to European states.

'Ukraine has stolen gas not from Russia, but from consumers who have bought the product and paid for it,' Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said.

Ukraine's pro-West President Viktor Yushchenko blamed Moscow for the supply disruptions, saying Moscow would continue to close the gas taps to Europe or stop them altogether

Despite reassurances from Russia that the move would have little impact on Europe, the move has plunged many countries into crisis.

Two Bulgarian cities are completely without gas while shortages in Slovakia has forced the government to declare a state of emergency.

That's cold.

Anyhow, synopsis: Russia sends a good portion of its gas through the Ukraine. Russia is accusing the Ukraine of tapping this oil without paying for it, causing other countries who purchased it to receive less than what they bargained for and cheating everyone out of their fair share.

Naturally, the Ukraine accuses Russia of plunging Europe into crisis by turning it off.

There's also a map of the pipeline routes and the countries affected in that link.

Personally, if the Russian's claims are true, then I can see why they did it, however, they really should have had a backup plan - a way to route the gas around to the Ukraine to these other affected countries.

You mean gas.

I think we should the Uk should start buying more gas from Norway and start making a serious effort of weaning itself off gas.

Well... sort of


That's cold.

Anyhow, synopsis: Russia sends a good portion of its oil through the Ukraine. Russia is accusing the Ukraine of tapping this oil without paying for it, causing other countries who purchased it to receive less than what they bargained for and cheating everyone out of their fair share.

Naturally, the Ukraine accuses Russia of plunging Europe into crisis by turning it off.

There's also a map of the pipeline routes and the countries affected in that link.

Personally, if the Russian's claims are true, then I can see why they did it, however, they really should have had a backup plan - a way to route the oil around to the Ukraine to these other affected countries.

I think you'll find it isn't oil, it's gas.
And there is a backup pipeline that was built after the last dispute they had (sometime last year, can't remember the exact details though), but that runs only to Western Europe, leaving Austria, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey out in the cold...

This conflict over gas prices and gas theft has been going on for quite a while now. It's however a very unfortunate time for an escalation, for most of Europe.


BTW: It's about natural gas, not oil. Oil isn't used for large-scale heating, natural gas is.

This makes a lot of difference. Gas is much more difficult to store, and it can't be just shipped by train and truck like oil can.

Fixed. I typed the wrong thing in a hurry.

"i can see why russia did it"

i cant.

leaving massive numbers of people without heat in winter is unconscionable.

its right up there with starting a war with people who have done nothing to you (and without properly equipping your own troops) or walling a people into an area then bombing them without allowing civilians to escape.

"i can see why russia did it"

i cant.

leaving massive numbers of people without heat in winter is unconscionable.

its right up there with starting a war with people who have done nothing to you (and without properly equipping your own troops) or walling a people into an area then bombing them without allowing civilians to escape.

Hey, no thread hijacking! :p

So, you don't see the rationale in cutting off the supply from people who are robbing you blind? Who are stealing from both you and your customers?

Famous "Energy Weapon" from Putin.

Hey, no thread hijacking! :p

So, you don't see the rationale in cutting off the supply from people who are robbing you blind? Who are stealing from both you and your customers?

When that supply, a NEEDED one, is utterly cut and there is no other way to get the gas, no.

I wish Putin got stuck into a fridge turned on so he knew how it felt.

"
leaving massive numbers of people without heat in winter is unconscionable.
Russia already did it 3 years ago with Ukraine. 31st December, new year gift

Hey, no thread hijacking! :p

So, you don't see the rationale in cutting off the supply from people who are robbing you blind? Who are stealing from both you and your customers?
no i dont. not in winter.

if you are suffering some losses, you do what any capitalist does and raise the price.

if you want to make a point, you do it in summer when people just have to worry that it will last until the cold weather.

Russia already did it 3 years ago with Ukraine. 31st December, new year gift
it was wrong then too.

no i dont. not in winter.

if you are suffering some losses, you do what any capitalist does and raise the price.

if you want to make a point, you do it in summer when people just have to worry that it will last until the cold weather.

I disagree. I also disagree with the action as there's too many innocent bystanders. What Putin should do is, as you said, raise the price a little bit, and, at the same time, get pipelines run around the Ukraine so that they can isolate the one country that's screwing them, and then cut it off.

Suddenly, having been named President of Russia in the school thread yesterday is looking like a less and less good idea...

And the Ukraine thing is obviously an excuse, Putin is just making another ploy for recognition, ever so unsubtly telling everyone that he can make a significant impact on the world again.

gas price depends on oil price. Russia doesn't want to lose both major sources of income and Ukraine doesn't want to pay too much. It's key reason.
It's usefull to ukraine to wait(and Ukraine can do it) a couple of weeks when time gap between oil and gas prices will be over

I disagree. I also disagree with the action as there's too many innocent bystanders. What Putin should do is, as you said, raise the price a little bit, and, at the same time, get pipelines run around the Ukraine so that they can isolate the one country that's screwing them, and then cut it off.

Well, what he's doing isn't exactly good business practice.
Imagine your local supermarket refused to sell to you because of others shoplifting? Without being even able to prove that the shoplifting happened?

Russia is making sure that its customers are frantically trying to be less dependent on their gas... they're basically driving paying customers away.

Russia is accusing the Ukraine of tapping this oil without paying for it, causing other countries who purchased it to receive less than what they bargained for and cheating everyone out of their fair share.

Actually, it isn't just "Russia accuses Ukraine of stealing gas destined to central and western Europe". It's "Ukraine admits taking the gas destined to central and western Europe", too.

I guess Yushenko doesn't want to play the EU-enthusiast anymore.

Actually, it isn't just "Russia accuses Ukraine of stealing gas destined to central and western Europe". It's "Ukraine admits taking the gas destined to central and western Europe", too.
I guess Yushenko doesn't want to play the EU-enthusiast anymore.
^^^^ Yes.

Ukraine has admitted to this earlier. The basic issue is that the EU doesn't get all the gas, they only pay for what they get, and that's a lot less than what's been sent.

While this clearly has some political basis, that is to pressure Ukraine into changing its way of acquiring gas (theft), or otherwise be at fault for leaving EU in the cold and losing chances for admission.

^^^^ Yes.

Ukraine has admitted to this earlier. The basic issue is that the EU doesn't get all the gas, they only pay for what they get, and that's a lot less than what's been sent.

While this clearly has some political basis, that is to pressure Ukraine into changing its way of acquiring gas (theft), or otherwise be at fault for leaving EU in the cold and losing chances for admission.

To go back to my original comparison : It is the fault of the shoplifter if the shop owner refuses to sell to you, the honest customer?

To go back to my original comparison : It is the fault of the shoplifter if the shop owner refuses to sell to you, the honest customer?

Like I said, they should have built another pipeline around the Ukraine and hook it into the southern line that already runs through Ukraine. Shut it off on both sides of the Ukraine and isolate a single country.

it's blackmail

Imagine your local supermarket refused to sell to you because of others shoplifting?
It's more like the manufacturer A is delivering goods to the customer C through the transport company B. But the transport company B is stealing half the goods sent, so the manufacturer A can't break even. As such, they're refusing to work with the transport company B.

And the issue is that the transport company B are the only one delivering to the customer C.

To go back to my original comparison : It is the fault of the shoplifter if the shop owner refuses to sell to you, the honest customer?
If the shop has to close down because of the massive-scale shoplifting, yes, it is.

It's more like the manufacturer A is delivering goods to the customer C through the transport company B. But the transport company B is stealing half the goods sent, so the manufacturer A can't break even. As such, they're refusing to work with the transport company B.

And the issue is that the transport company B are the only one delivering to the customer C.

In which case it's up to company A to find a way to get the goods to company C, or lose the business. Simple.

Like I said, they should have built another pipeline around the Ukraine and hook it into the southern line that already runs through Ukraine. Shut it off on both sides of the Ukraine and isolate a single country.

They have a backup line, avoiding the Ukraine. But that can carry only a fraction of the normal gas supply...

It's more like the manufacturer A is delivering goods to the customer C through the transport company B. But the transport company B is stealing half the goods sent, so the manufacturer A can't break even. As such, they're refusing to work with the transport company B.

And the issue is that the transport company B are the only one delivering to the customer C.

The customer C should find more reliable supplier, which is free from political intrigues

In which case it's up to company A to find a way to get the goods to company C, or lose the business. Simple.
Building a pipeline is a very long (and expensive) endeavor. It can't be done overnight.

So they had to go with the option 2: lose the business. Simple.

They have a backup line, avoiding the Ukraine. But that can carry only a fraction of the normal gas supply...

Then either one of two things you have to assume. Either:

A) They need to build a larger line
B) "A" is not feasible, and they're doing the best they can under the circumstance.

If what others have said is true and Ukraine is stealing gas, then the simple resolution is to force Ukraine to give in. Even though western Europe isn't affected, they should help other countries to pressure them to make some kind of deal with Russia so that the pipe lines can go on again. Its a cheap tactic by Russia, but since this apparently happened before, the affected countries should have already looked into alternative methods of supply.

The only thing I don't get is, if Ukraine is stealing from Russia or the countries the gas is headed to? If its being stolen from people who already paid, then its an issue for those countries, if not then Russia has a legitimate claim for action. I think this is a better course than an invasion by Russia.

Point: It is not the Ukraine, it is Ukraine. Just like it's not the Germany or the France or the Russia.

Point: It is not the Ukraine, it is Ukraine. Just like it's not the Germany or the France or the Russia.

hm, i can only guess that happened because they used to be a part of another country, and not their on their own. like how someone in the US would say "the east coast" instead of just East Coast.

I think its a despicable action by both Ukraine and Russia. Is Russia trying to lose its economy, or worse yet get invaded?

Is Ukraine really stealing the gas and is there any way to prove it?

Lesson learned should be this. Don't depend on the Russians for anything.

And the Ukraine thing is obviously an excuse, Putin is just making another ploy for recognition, ever so unsubtly telling everyone that he can make a significant impact on the world again.

Especially with where the price of energy has been going lately.

Is Ukraine really stealing the gas and is there any way to prove it?
They're not even denying it.


Is Russia trying to lose its economy, or worse yet get invaded?
By whom?

Good! Now lets shut off the supply of food and grain to Russia and see how long they last.

They're not even denying it.



By whom?

An entire angry continent.

Good! Now lets shut off the supply of food and grain to Russia and see how long they last.
You mean stop importing grain from Russia, I presume.



An entire angry continent.
China and India? They must be really pissed off at gas being cut off from Ukraine.

An entire angry continent.

Invading Russia has historically been proven to be one of the worst ideas on earth, even more so now that they have the largest nuclear stockpile by nearly half...

Invading Russia has historically been proven to be one of the worst ideas on earth, even more so now that they have the largest nuclear stockpile by nearly half...


Why invade. Just build a Iron curtain. They will implode on themselves eventually.

Why invade. Just build a Iron curtain. They will implode on themselves eventually.

Exactly. They have a one-dimensional economy, and Putin isn't planning for the future.

Invading Russia has historically been proven to be one of the worst ideas on earth...
It's all about holding the Kamchatka-Alaska link, and not getting bogged down in fights with Europe.

Also, good D6 rolls.

It has also emerged that gas prices could soar in Britain if there is not a swift resolution to the crisis.

THOSE SICK FUCKS!

have they seen my heating bill? I think I should email it to every person east of Berlin :mad:

Why invade. Just build a Iron curtain. They will implode on themselves eventually.

but then they will just use Mammoth tanks...have you ever seen what one of those can do under an iron curtain!?

[QUOTE=Vault 10;14373337]You mean stop importing grain from Russia, I presume.

First time in the history of the country - a huge mistake - hopefully the last time.

The Russians are planning an underwater pipeline from St. Petersburg to Poland or Germany (don't remember which), but of course that won't be even close to operational this winter.

And this is why it pays off to make natural gas deals with Iran. The world might hate us for it, but we won't be the ones freezing our asses off.

Let's make a deal: Ukraine will stop stealing gas when Russia stops stealing Ukraine's independence. Sound fair?

It has also emerged that gas prices could soar in Britain if there is not a swift resolution to the crisis.
No they couldn't, Daily Fail, because we have an abundance of gas, but now you've given British Gas ideas. Well done.

No they couldn't, Daily Fail, because we have an abundance of gas, but now you've given British Gas ideas. Well done.

*picture of British Gas executives gleefully rubbing their hands together*

No they couldn't, Daily Fail, because we have an abundance of gas, but now you've given British Gas ideas. Well done.

Are you saying the British are gassy?

*picture of British Gas executives gleefully rubbing their hands together*

Pretty much. They haven't skyjacked prices recently as well, so they'll be all over this.

Are you saying the British are gassy?

I'm saying we have a lot of natural gas off our coast, so this won't affect us, but British Gas will use it as an excuse to raise prices.

I'll start selling these to Europeans:

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&NR=2289222&KC=&locale=en_ep&FT=E

Save your own gas, and use it to heat your house.

I'll start selling these to Europeans:

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&NR=2289222&KC=&locale=en_ep&FT=E

Save your own gas, and use it to heat your house.

Or, if you live on a farm, where your house will be more prone to losing its heat supply, you can use your animals' gas. That's genius.

If Russia cuts their gas, UK will just produce more of their own!

If Russia cuts their gas, UK will just produce more of their own!

See post at the top of this page.

See post at the top of this page.
As you might've noticed, unless you have 3 posts per page, I've even been discussing this...

Yes, they did, but it doesn't sound funny that way. Take it in past tense or whatever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7817043.stm

Has found Russia found Europe's achilles heel??
How are people in Germany, France, and Italy being affected??

Isn't Europe tougher than Russia? Why don't the Europeans just march in and seize the Russian oil fields????

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=578886

Just missed it.

I mean...

Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Grigory Nemyria placed the blame for the row squarely at Russia's door.

"If there is something to transit of course Ukraine was committed to ensure uninterrupted transit of the Russian gas to Europe but there is no gas at all as we found out today then it speaks for itself,'' he told the BBC.

Moscow counters that Kiev is to blame, saying that Ukraine has blocked the pipelines that transport gas further west and has been syphoning off gas for its own use.

...jesus fucking christ, are people not adults, just the pathetic lying that is clearly going on somewhere, it's beyond crap.

EDIT: Oh, there's another thread, oh well, still...

If Europe invades Russia, I think the Germans should spearhead the expedition.

We'll call it "Osterfront II: This time, its a gas!"

Well... sort of

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1107297/Cold-war-Gas-bills-Britain-soar-Russia-switches-supply-12-freezing-countries.html



That's cold.

Anyhow, synopsis: Russia sends a good portion of its gas through the Ukraine. Russia is accusing the Ukraine of tapping this oil without paying for it, causing other countries who purchased it to receive less than what they bargained for and cheating everyone out of their fair share.

Naturally, the Ukraine accuses Russia of plunging Europe into crisis by turning it off.

There's also a map of the pipeline routes and the countries affected in that link.

Personally, if the Russian's claims are true, then I can see why they did it, however, they really should have had a backup plan - a way to route the gas around to the Ukraine to these other affected countries.

from the map it seems they can just reroute the gas through Belarus and the Baltic states. If Ukraine does not want the money, I'm sure the Baltics can use it.

WOW. Have you seen the pipeline map? All the pipes go through Ukraine. Even the one Belarus cuts south into Ukraine instead continuing westward into Poland. What idiot decided to do that? Now Ukraine can try to claim control over any and all gas going from Russia to Western Europe. THey need new pipelines in Belarus that go straight into Poland then to Western Europe.

WOW. Have you seen the pipeline map? All the pipes go through Ukraine. Even the one Belarus cuts south into Ukraine instead continuing westward into Poland. What idiot decided to do that? Now Ukraine can try to claim control over any and all gas going from Russia to Western Europe. THey need new pipelines in Belarus that go straight into Poland then to Western Europe.

My guess is that most of them were old Soviet and CMEA pipelines that were modernized and expanded for linking to the West. If you look at them they pretty much correspond with the former Eastern Bloc, with especially heavy concentrations of pipelines in the oil regions of Romania and the industrial regions of East Germany and Ukraine.

The funny thing is that I don't think the Soviet Union would have done something like this. The Communists were too rational and too aware of the benefits of their trading relationships with the West to throw it away on nationalist pissing contests. Of course, considering Putin's regime would be literally nothing without the commodities boom and appeals to ignorant patriotism, it's not a surprise.

It's all about holding the Kamchatka-Alaska link, and not getting bogged down in fights with Europe.

Also, good D6 rolls.

Winner

here is what happened. the price of oil and gas fell by a lot. Putin realizing he has a near monopoly on natural gas to western Europe, created this issue to try and drum up prices and revenue.

Like I said, they should have built another pipeline around the Ukraine and hook it into the southern line that already runs through Ukraine. Shut it off on both sides of the Ukraine and isolate a single country.

Actually, Gazprom (russian natural gas major) is building a gasduct under the Baltic Sea. The problem isn't just Ukraine, it could be Poland, too - quite antirussian, and quite friendly with both US and Yushenko. By the way, iirc the map of Europe, Poland AND Ukraine together separate Russia (and Belarus) from the rest of Europe, except for the Baltic republics and Finnland.

So, either gasduct under the Baltic Sea, or gasduct under the Black Sea. The first one being more feasible, both technically and geopolitically (Turkey!).

Btw, my house is heated with natural gas, and Berlusconi said there aren't going to be problems in Italy with natural gas, so I'm starting to worry right now.

All of this started because stupid jerkoff Bush was way too aggressive in terms of supporting NATO expansion without really changing NATO's purpose, which is designed to be anti-Soviet, and Russia still views NATO as an alliance hostile to it.

So if that imbecile in Georgia hadn't tried to do what he did, and idiot Bush had included Russia more, then all of this could have been avoided. And how do you fix it?

You start that process of Russian inclusion. Which I hope Obama will. And Europe COULD start it but it would be difficult for Europe to initiate that kind of thing because the EU is already knee-deep in a lot of complicated garbage, and I doubt idiot Bush would support it. I mean, a guy who appoints John Bolton isn't going to agree to that.

In the interim, I have some gas Europe can have. I ate a lot of beans last night. HAA! Ya'll want it? It's natural gas.

Russia wants to spark international confrontations. They are going to be as unreasonable as possible about everything.

Russia really depends upon commodity exports. The price of commodities has crashed and Russia now has no money. So what they figure is if they set off huge international arguments and tensions then the price of oil will shoot back up and they'll make some bones.

That is sort of what the Georgia thing was about. Though they sorely miscalculated over that one.

Point: It is not the Ukraine, it is Ukraine. Just like it's not the Germany or the France or the Russia.

You have The Gambia :p

You have The Gambia :p

Yeah, well, that's the only country which has "the" in their official name.

There is no problem for Europe on the short term, most countries have enough gas reserves (exception is Bulgaria) and other suppliers can fill the gap.

However, on the long term there could raise a problem. The North Sea gas bubble isn't that big and then we have to depend from the evil Ruskies.

Maybe it's time for a real change and look for alternatives (solar power, wind turbines, etc...) at a higher tempo. It's never wise to have just one supplier of any service or goods.

Today I read something that made these Ukraine dudes totally badass in my eyes. They silently accumulated almost three months' worth of gas reserves, knowing the Russians would cut them off, so that they could live on reserves for long enough for the EU to force Russia into talks, resulting in loss of face for Russia and better (than without that all) deal conditions for Ukraine :hail: :tongue:

dont worry europe.
The American Amish are coming to save you.
http://www.heatsurge.com/index.cfm

As you might've noticed, unless you have 3 posts per page, I've even been discussing this...

Yes, they did, but it doesn't sound funny that way. Take it in past tense or whatever.

I meant second top, sorry.

Yeah, well, that's the only country which has "the" in their official name.

The Democratic republic of Congo?

The Democratic republic of Congo?
The name without the title.

Like "Great Britain".

The name without the title.

Like "Great Britain".

Oh. Great Britain's not a country though.

Oh. Great Britain's not a country though.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, though.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, though.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Union of 4 different Constituent countries, actually.

Russia Trying to Bring Europe To It's Knees????

Meh, both will go down pretty easily for you as long as you ask nicely. :p

Why don't the Europeans just march in and seize the Russian oil fields????

We have this thread, but to answer that question, because most of Europe are pussies, and the UK wouldn't wanna do it on our own.

If Europe invades Russia, I think the Germans should spearhead the expedition.

We'll call it "Osterfront II: This time, its a gas!"

technically it would be the 3rd.

the first one in WWI collapsed Russia.

2nd one failed because the soviet unions was really able to control its population so no internal problems.

3rd This one would be a toss up. Russian people are still pretty tightly controlled but Germany would have help from the west rather then a second front.

All of this started because stupid jerkoff Bush was way too aggressive in terms of supporting NATO expansion without really changing NATO's purpose, which is designed to be anti-Soviet, and Russia still views NATO as an alliance hostile to it.

So if that imbecile in Georgia hadn't tried to do what he did, and idiot Bush had included Russia more, then all of this could have been avoided. And how do you fix it?

You start that process of Russian inclusion. Which I hope Obama will. And Europe COULD start it but it would be difficult for Europe to initiate that kind of thing because the EU is already knee-deep in a lot of complicated garbage, and I doubt idiot Bush would support it. I mean, a guy who appoints John Bolton isn't going to agree to that.

In the interim, I have some gas Europe can have. I ate a lot of beans last night. HAA! Ya'll want it? It's natural gas.

Russia wants to spark international confrontations. They are going to be as unreasonable as possible about everything.

Russia really depends upon commodity exports. The price of commodities has crashed and Russia now has no money. So what they figure is if they set off huge international arguments and tensions then the price of oil will shoot back up and they'll make some bones.

That is sort of what the Georgia thing was about. Though they sorely miscalculated over that one.

I like how these posts came back-to-back, and I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two.

Why are Americans always rooting for WWIII to start?

Make love not war :p Especially to hot Russian and or Eastern European babes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7817043.stm

Isn't Europe tougher than Russia? Why don't the Europeans just march in and seize the Russian oil fields????

Will it be called Operation Barbarossa? :p

Why are Americans always rooting for WWIII to start?

Make love not war :p Especially to hot Russian and or Eastern European babes.

As long as it doesn't happen in the US, I'm fine with WW III.

Why are Americans always rooting for WWIII to start?

Because we're running out of video games based on Historical wars, dammit! We can't live on WW2 forever!:p

Russia is just trying to create geo-political turmoil so it can drive up the price of oil is all.

Expect a lot of this over the next couple of years.

Will it be called Operation Barbarossa? :p

Germany just called, they want a "do over".

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Union of 4 different Constituent countries, actually.

The internationally recognised state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Germany just called, they want a "do over".

no do overs. ...I don't make the rules.

germany just called, they want a "do over".
Definitely nö.

Why are Americans always rooting for WWIII to start?


Because they've never had a war on their soil and don't experience it first hand, so war is something exciting that happens far, far, away on TV.

Run a 5 year campaign of carpet bombing, invasion, occupation and privation of America, and most of its populace will be cured of being war junkies. As an added bonus, they will also lose the "America always #1!" idiocy.

Because they've never had a war on their soil in the past century and don't experience it first hand, so war is something exciting that happens far, far, away on TV.


Fixed. Unless you want to forget the first hundred or so years of U.S. history, that is.

doesn't Russia kinda need our money? also Ukraine can pay its bills or feck off

SNIP

so we should cut Americas gas off?

Fixed. Unless you want to forget the first hundred or so years of U.S. history, that is.

Living memory then. However, it's never had total war visited on it. Sure, the British raided and burned down Washington DC, but it, and most of the conflict in those days, were pretty much gentlemanly insofar as war can be said to be that. Looting was kept to a minimum, and the civilian populace was pretty much left unmolested.

The sort of fighting and destruction that happened in WWII was something that simply was impossible for the average American to conceive. The 9/11 attacks were a 5 second love tap by comparison, which is why it resulted in the sort of rabid dog responses that followed shortly. A sustained campaign of destruction lasting years would quickly boil off that sort of rabid reaction, ingrain the direct effects of war into multiple generations, and crush the mostly baseless pride as war weariness sets in.

The end result? Like Europe, the Americans would be less eager to start new wars in the future.


so we should cut Americas gas off?

What does that have to do with American eagerness to start wars?

so we should cut Americas gas off?Gas, or oil? Cutting off our oil would probably have the direct opposite effect of preventing a war. :p

So we need to have WWIII in order to convince Americans that WWIII is a bad idea? *That* seems like a bad idea.

So we need to have WWIII in order to convince Americans that WWIII is a bad idea? *That* seems like a bad idea.

Any war involving America or Russia, in any combination, with pretty much any other country, is a very bad idea.

So we need to have WWIII in order to convince Americans that WWIII is a bad idea? *That* seems like a bad idea.

No, you don't "need" to. But if you want the majority of the populace to understand why war is usually bad, you need them to experience it directly and not as a sound bite on the boob tube. Keep in mind that this was in response to the question "Why are Americans always so eager for WWIII".

I don't think the majority of the populace in Canada has ever had any real experience with War either and yet the population is generally against it. IMHO - Americans are all brainwashed to think that way. You guys (addressing Americans here) should smarten up on your own.

However, it's never had total war visited on it.

The civil war pretty much fills the description of total war. At least that's what sherman thought he was doing in his march to the sea. (but he was bringing the jubilee and the flag that sets you free, so it was okay).


I will agree that the North (apart from a few skirmish thingies and Gettysburg) escaped total war type stuffs, but if you look at Sherman's march, the seige of Richmond, Vicksburg and all those things, you will see that civilians weren't spared.

At any rate, it was the bloodiest war of the 19th century. Far worse than say the British Empire's experience during WWI. (Which was the war to end all wars LOL).

The civil war pretty much fills the description of total war. At least that's what sherman thought he was doing in his march to the sea. (but he was bringing the jubilee and the flag that sets you free, so it was okay).

I will agree that the North (apart from a few skirmish thingies and Gettysburg) escaped total war type stuffs, but if you look at Sherman's march, the seige of Richmond, Vicksburg and all those things, you will see that civilians weren't spared.

At any rate, it was the bloodiest war of the 19th century. Far worse than say the British Empire's experience during WWI. (Which was the war to end all wars LOL).

Somehow I doubt that the events you describe really come anywhere similar to the kind of vicious fighting that WWII had, simply because they didn't have the tools. They had artillery, yes, but nowhere in the quantity and power to do the kind of damage incendiary bombing by massed bomber formations could bring about in the same amount of time. Also, there was just a lot less to be destroyed.

WWI operated on somewhat different standards by then, because the nature of war had changed, primarily because of the fear of gas attacks, trench warfare and huge bodycounts for maybe a few feet of ground rather than the gains you could make for equal losses in the American Civil War.

Somehow I doubt that the events you describe really come anywhere similar to the kind of vicious fighting that WWII had, simply because they didn't have the tools. They had artillery, yes, but nowhere in the quantity and power to do the kind of damage incendiary bombing by massed bomber formations could bring about in the same amount of time. Also, there was just a lot less to be destroyed.

Sherman would intentionally destroy stuff once it was captured. The north operated a scorched earth policy in the march to the sea. It was worse than anything the UK, france or the low countries suffered in WWII.

And the actual fighting was as vicious as any twentieth century war in terms of troop casualties and deaths.

The loss of property and life in the confederacy equals anything experienced by france or the UK in the past couple of centuries in %age terms. Probably exceeds it in fact. It really does fit the bill for total war. Just because there wasn't as much stuff is really beside the point. (And given the comparatively property rich nature of the US, I'm not really sure that is the case anyway).

Anyway, no question that the civil war was far worse than anything the UK has suffered in the past couple of hundred years in terms of property damage and casualties.

Oh yeah, and the south operated what was essentially a concentration camp for Northern POWs at andersonville.

WWI operated on somewhat different standards by then, because the nature of war had changed, primarily because of the fear of gas attacks, trench warfare and huge bodycounts for maybe a few feet of ground rather than the gains you could make for equal losses in the American Civil War.

Towards the end the civil war became a trench war. In any event the casualty rates were similar to slightly higher. If anything, the large strategic movement meant that there were greater civilian casualties and more property damage than in WWI.

I am not saying that the Civil was is the worst most awful war in history. But it absolutely was a total war by the end, with massive death and destruction in the theaters it was fought. It shouldn't be dismissed as a gentlemanly Napoleonic affair that had little effect upon civilians and there property.

*snip*

Fair enough. I'll concede the point. But the whole terror and destruction and privation that goes with such things have long since been forgotten and romanticized in some cases.

Fair enough. I'll concede the point. But the whole terror and destruction and privation that goes with such things have long since been forgotten and romanticized in some cases.

No doubt. And WWII didn't help the process. There's just too much hollywood propaganda still floating out there that makes it look like a rip roaring good time.

No doubt. And WWII didn't help the process. There's just too much hollywood propaganda still floating out there that makes it look like a rip roaring good time.

Which is pretty much the primary reason why the average American is always so eager to start a new war I believe. The whole "fun to watch on TV because it'll never happen to us" mentality.

Which is pretty much the primary reason why the average American is always so eager to start a new war I believe. The whole "fun to watch on TV because it'll never happen to us" mentality.

Nice sweeping generalization there. I suppose you get your ideas on the US viewpoint from Faux News?

My grandfather fought in the European theater of WW2, and didn't have anything good to say about war. Combat games are fun, but I'm smart enough to notice how many times I need to re-spawn at last checkpoint even though I'm generally 10x as badass as anyone I face in the game. War is not a desirable circumstance, and no one I know is eager for war here or abroad.

And I live in a VERY "red" region of a very "red" state.

Nice sweeping generalization there. I suppose you get your ideas on the US viewpoint from Faux News?

Public polls data on populace sentiments during build ups to aggressive wars bear me out quite well really, especially when the reasons for the wars were about as fake as a three dollar bill to anyone with a little bit of critical thought.


My grandfather fought in the European theater of WW2, and didn't have anything good to say about war. Combat games are fun, but I'm smart enough to notice how many times I need to re-spawn at last checkpoint even though I'm generally 10x as badass as anyone I face in the game. War is not a desirable circumstance, and no one I know is eager for war here or abroad.

And I live in a VERY "red" region of a very "red" state.

Political inclination has nothing to do with it. It's all about whether the populace views war as something that happens to someone else, and whether it's glorified. A populace that doesn't live through such a war happening in their country and in fact, has war glorified, is likely to have a poor understanding of what war really brings, and so, would easily support it.

Nice sweeping generalization there.

Well we were speaking in generalities. So that would make sense, wouldn't it?

I mean, you cannot deny that the general public in the US is usually more favorably disposed to bombing other countries than, say, the general public in Sweden - at least polls would indicate such - even though I am sure you can find individual Swedes who are quite keen on the idea and vice versa.

That these exceptions exist have little bearing on the matter in hand.

Sherman would intentionally destroy stuff once it was captured. The north operated a scorched earth policy in the march to the sea. It was worse than anything the UK, france or the low countries suffered in WWII.

And the actual fighting was as vicious as any twentieth century war in terms of troop casualties and deaths.
The hell it was. Britain alone probably had more troop casualties in WWI than both sides of the civil war. With (I suspect) a smaller population.

So source for that, and for the rest of it.

The hell it was. Britain alone probably had more troop casualties in WWI than both sides of the civil war. With (I suspect) a smaller population.

So source for that, and for the rest of it.

You're right about the casualties-the UK had more than 800,000, while combined death totals for the U.S. Civil War was a bit more than 600,000. That being said, I think he/she meant damage to the cities/land. In which case, I advise you look at pictures of Atlanta after Sherman went through. Just as bad as cities bombed out during WWII.

Maybe they should start buying it from US, Canada, Mexico, and South America...We make money, Europe doesnt have to deal with a bunch of Douchebag Russians...

We just need a Massive Pipeline, lol....

You're right about the casualties-the UK had more than 800,000, while combined death totals for the U.S. Civil War was a bit more than 600,000. That being said, I think he/she meant damage to the cities/land. In which case, I advise you look at pictures of Atlanta after Sherman went through. Just as bad as cities bombed out during WWII.

Though, the war itself was a much more deadly war because of a few technological advancements.
-Machine gun
-gas
-farther and more accurate artillery
-tanks
-planes
-more accurate rifles

Not to mention that Britain has a smaller population alone than the US at the time, but when Germany is added to the equation, the population in the war is exploded.

Just out of curiosity, why does it matter if the Civil War was worse than WWII? It was in two different countries, and We were on the same side...and still are as far as I can tell...

But, isnt it a little OT?

Public polls data on populace sentiments during build ups to aggressive wars bear me out quite well really, especially when the reasons for the wars were about as fake as a three dollar bill to anyone with a little bit of critical thought.

Political inclination has nothing to do with it. It's all about whether the populace views war as something that happens to someone else, and whether it's glorified. A populace that doesn't live through such a war happening in their country and in fact, has war glorified, is likely to have a poor understanding of what war really brings, and so, would easily support it.

I actually completely agree with this.

I can't believe that I actually agree with you on something, and I hate saying it, but I really do.

I think America would be less eager to support wars (even after terrorist attacks) if we had more wars on our soil. Look at how India responded to the terrorists that came from Pakistan. India is a place where people know what war is like, and thus war has (so far) been avoided, and India's reaction to Mumbai was far less warlike than America's.

Which, I think, is greater evidence against the idea of nuclear parity. No one knows what nuclear was is like.

So if nuclear parity existed, by this logic, wouldn't the world be more likely to engage in nuclear war?

Fair enough. I'll concede the point. But the whole terror and destruction and privation that goes with such things have long since been forgotten and romanticized in some cases.

Why don't you go to a bar in Georgia and tell all the nice folks there about this theory of yours?

In other news, it is worth noting that despite machine guns, gas, whatever, the American Civil War was actually quite deadly compared to the relative populations. The South for example had 5.5 million citizens (excluding slaves who did not fight in the Southern armies nor were targets of things like Sherman's march to the sea). It lost roughly 260000 dead plus I don't remember how many wounded. I'm willing to bet that the population of the British Empire going into World War One was a hell of a lot more than 5.5 million.

Just out of curiosity, why does it matter if the Civil War was worse than WWII? It was in two different countries, and We were on the same side...and still are as far as I can tell...

The suggestion is that the US is more warlike because the populace hasn't had a major war on home soil to dampen their enthusiasm. Although more specifically we're really arguing if they ever have, or just haven't in the last century or so.


But, isnt it a little OT?

Very. Welcome to NSG:)

Not to mention that Britain has a smaller population alone than the US at the time, but when Germany is added to the equation, the population in the war is exploded.

If you take all casualties of WWI in with the populations I think you end up with 10 million troops dead, not counting how many civilians died (a lot iirc). And all the others who were involved etc.

The civil war was terrible I'm sure, but it doesn't compare to WWI imho. Especially given it's still (just about) within living memory.

Why don't you go to a bar in Georgia and tell all the nice folks there about this theory of yours?
Compared to WWI and WWII? I'd say it's a fair call to say they live more firmly in the memory of Europeans, and less romanticised.

In other news, it is worth noting that despite machine guns, gas, whatever, the American Civil War was actually quite deadly compared to the relative populations. The South for example had 5.5 million citizens (excluding slaves who did not fight in the Southern armies nor were targets of things like Sherman's march to the sea). It lost roughly 260000 dead plus I don't remember how many wounded. I'm willing to bet that the population of the British Empire going into World War One was a hell of a lot more than 5.5 million.
We're talking about Europe, so the populations of other parts of the British Empire, (India etc) are immaterial.

The suggestion is that the US is more warlike because the populace hasn't had a major war on home soil to dampen their enthusiasm. Although more specifically we're really arguing if they ever have, or just haven't in the last century or so.



Well, I think the real problem is that there is a duality in the American population's willingness to go to war at the current time...

You have one section of society that is very militaristic and resorts to war at the drop of a hat...

And then you have another that is totally pacifist and will abandon any attempt at security at the drop of a hat...

And then you have the majority that although they dont necessarily want war, there are places, like in Afghanistan where they feel it is necessary, and the NRA and Warhawks prey on them based on this, and then you have wars that are very ambiguous, and most feel isnt necessary, like Iraq, and the Hippies and Code Pinkers prey on them based on that...

And because of the two party system, the majority end up having to side with one or the other, and there is no moderate voice...


/end of rant, lol....

We're talking about Europe, so the populations of other parts of the British Empire, (India etc) are immaterial.

Perhaps a better comparison?

The ratio of casualties (includes killed and wounded) for the British in World War I was, if memory serves (I'm really not sure on this one and would appreciate corroberation?) roughly 4 to 10 enlisted men.

I am sure of the ratio for the Confederacy, it was roughly 3.5 to 10.

So they are not that different. Besides the small numerical difference the Confederacy probably suffered more outright dead and fewer surviving injured and the British the opposite, but that would be due to better medical practices.

In any case many people view the Confederacy in a romantic light, but then many people look at the Battle of Britain in the same way, don't they?

Polish and Ukrainian memories of World War II may differ slightly from the British in this respect, I'll grant you that.

Perhaps a better comparison?

The ratio of casualties (includes killed and wounded) for the British in World War I was, if memory serves (I'm really not sure on this one and would appreciate corroberation?) roughly 4 to 10 enlisted men.

I am sure of the ratio for the Confederacy, it was roughly 3.5 to 10.

So they are not that different. Besides the small numerical difference the Confederacy probably suffered more outright dead and fewer surviving injured and the British the opposite, but that would be due to better medical practices.
Dubious, given we're talking about the effects on the societies as a whole. Also doesn't take into account that WWI is practically proverbial for the suffering of uninjured soldiers.


In any case many people view the Confederacy in a romantic light, but then many people look at the Battle of Britain in the same way, don't they?

Polish and Ukrainian memories of World War II may differ slightly from the British in this respect, I'll grant you that.
To an extent the B of B and Dunkirk yes. There's talk of the blitz spirit but that's coupled with the fear of the blitz. And WWI and the trenches isn't at all, and the British version of Veteran's Day is primarily based around WWI remembrance.

Plus WWI (just) and WWII definitely are still within living memory. Most people's grandparents talk about hearing bombers and rockets overhead, and talk about the generation before's trench experiences. There's still that direct link there that the US doesn't have so much.

Plus WWI (just) and WWII definitely are still within living memory. Most people's grandparents talk about hearing bombers and rockets overhead, and talk about the generation before's trench experiences. There's still that direct link there that the US doesn't have so much.

What are you talking about? We have people that talk about the same stuff, in the same wars...As well as Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia...

The whole bit...If youre trying to say that we dont have people that remember war, youre entirely wrong...

What are you talking about? We have people that talk about the same stuff, in the same wars...As well as Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia...

The whole bit...If youre trying to say that we dont have people that remember war, youre entirely wrong...

You have soliders who've gone off to war. You don't have a civilian population with any memory of being under attack.

You have soliders who've gone off to war. You don't have a civilian population with any memory of being under attack.

Not directly no, but several generations worth who lost people in the conflicts I stated...

And memories of being under threat of annihilation during the overall conflict with the Soviet Union, that alot of those were a part of...

As well, not to kick a dead horse, but, 9/11 was most definitely on our soil, and everyone remembers that...Speaking of which there was also Pearl Harbor of the aforementioned WWII...

You have soliders who've gone off to war. You don't have a civilian population with any memory of being under attack.

we may still have some Hawaiians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)/Alaskans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign)(techinaly there may have been no natives in the area but still) and even possibly some west coasters (http://www.historynet.com/japanese-bomb-the-continental-u-s-west-coast.htm) that would disagree with that. not to mention the before mentioned risk of nuclear annihilation during the cold war.

The hell it was. Britain alone probably had more troop casualties in WWI than both sides of the civil war. With (I suspect) a smaller population.

So source for that, and for the rest of it.

Population of the US (including confederacy; excluding slaves) in 1860: 27.5 million.

Population of the UK in 1914: 46,000,000

War casualties US (civil war): 600,000

War casualties UK (1914-1918): 800,000

The civil war was worse.

Population of the US (including confederacy; excluding slaves) in 1860: 27.5 million.

Population of the UK in 1914: 46,000,000

War casualties US (civil war): 600,000

War casualties UK (1914-1918): 800,000

The civil war was worse.

Well...Not that I agree with the guy...but, the Civil War in particular doesnt refute his argument, being that no one is left alive that witnessed it from either side...

Well...Not that I agree with the guy...but, the Civil War in particular doesnt refute his argument, being that no one is left alive that witnessed it from either side...

I don't disagree. But I was refuting the point that the US has never had a total war on its soil. It obviously has.

we may still have some Hawaiians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)/Alaskans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign)(techinaly there may have been no natives in the area but still) and even possibly some west coasters (http://www.historynet.com/japanese-bomb-the-continental-u-s-west-coast.htm) that would disagree with that. not to mention the before mentioned risk of nuclear annihilation during the cold war.

The West coast 'bombing' was apparently 4 incendiary bombs in non-populated areas that very few people knew about. Even if you take that as anything beyond pedantry in terms of American soil being attacked the secrecy means it wouldn't affect society. Likewise for the Alaskan campaign. Pearl Harbour to an extent, but it's on a military base.

Doesn't compare to the Blitz, V1 and V2 rockets etc.



Population of the US (including confederacy; excluding slaves) in 1860: 27.5 million.

Population of the UK in 1914: 46,000,000

War casualties US (civil war): 600,000

War casualties UK (1914-1918): 800,000

The civil war was worse.
And you're excluding slaves why?

Also you're talking about fatalities, not casualties. And as mentioned the ratio in the civil war would lean more towards fewer injured surviving. Leaving aside the comparative trauma of even uninjured soliders that WWI is known for.

Quick glance at wiki puts 1860 population at 31 million. So your figures need reworking, or sourcing.

Not directly no, but several generations worth who lost people in the conflicts I stated...
Comparatively small compared to numbers experiencing the blitz etc (or think they did, which is much the same thing) and cancelled out to an extent by UK involvement in various conflicts.


And memories of being under threat of annihilation during the overall conflict with the Soviet Union, that alot of those were a part of...
The overall lack of conflict. And the US was hardly alone in that.


As well, not to kick a dead horse, but, 9/11 was most definitely on our soil, and everyone remembers that...Speaking of which there was also Pearl Harbor of the aforementioned WWII...
Remembers it yes. Wasn't affected by it. The US hasn't had that frontline experience on the scale of the World Wars. Even if you take the civil war (which I might concede) that's out of living memory now and even out of living memory+1 generation. Neither world war is.


Note that I'm using UK history because it's what I most familiar with. And the UK is arguably more warlike than the likes of France Germany and other European nations who have even more direct experience.

I have to go to bed now, I'll pick this up tomorrow if I remember.

Quick glance at wiki puts 1860 population at 31 million. So your figures need reworking, or sourcing.

I expect the discrepancy comes from the 3.5 million slaves in the south. Black people in the north (who did serve in the Union army to an extent) would have been counted in the northern census, but the slaves in the South did not fight in the Southern armies. For extremely obvious reasons.

Note that I'm using UK history because it's what I most familiar with. And the UK is arguably more warlike than the likes of France Germany and other European nations who have even more direct experience.

I have to go to bed now, I'll pick this up tomorrow if I remember.

Well to move away from the stagnant debate over the Civil War (it was a pretty vicious war as wars go, perhaps we can leave it at that?) I guess overall I just do not buy the argument that Europe is peaceful and the US not because one remembers a major war and the other does not. If this were a valid argument one would expect Russia and China to be the most peace-loving countries in the world since those two countries were both horribly mangled in WWII.

the slaves in the South did not fight in the Southern armies.


Thats actually not true, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Civil_War#Confederate_States_Army

Obviously not as prolific as in the North, for, as stated, Obvious reasons...

But still...

Thats actually not true, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Civil_War#Confederate_States_Army

Obviously not as prolific as in the North, for, as stated, Obvious reasons...

But still...

If you read it you will note that the article does not in fact cite any examples of slaves fighting in the Southern armies. The closest it gets are the anecdotal accounts of some black people fighting, and that there may have been seven freedmen (out of an army of 75000) who fought and were captured at Gettysburg. Freedmen as the name implies would have been part of the free, not slave, population of the South.

It is true that as things started to get desperate in the South they debated and eventually decided to start arming slaves, but as the article notes the war ended before that had come to anything.

If you read it you will note that the article does not in fact cite any examples of slaves fighting in the Southern armies. The closest it gets are the anecdotal accounts of some black people fighting, and that there may have been seven freedmen (out of an army of 75000) who fought and were captured at Gettysburg.

It is true that as things started to get desperate in the South they debated and eventually decided to start arming slaves, but as the article notes the war ended before that had come to anything.

I said it wasnt as prolific, And you forgot about the Navy as well, and it does state units, such as the Louisiana State Guard...

Im not saying it was a Major part, or even at an official level, just that it did happen...

People get so defensive over that crap....

And you're excluding slaves why?

Because they are sort of in their own category. And they had shit lives before and after the war in any case. Though I'd imagine in many respects the war was really an undiluted blessing for the vast majority of them.

Also you're talking about fatalities, not casualties. And as mentioned the ratio in the civil war would lean more towards fewer injured surviving. Leaving aside the comparative trauma of even uninjured soliders that WWI is known for.

You'd really have to have the figures for permanently disabled and it's not immediately clear how that breaks out. You'd also have to have some uniform standard for what constitutes wounded. Given the state of battlefield medicine probably a great many people who would be counted as wounded in WWI weren't even treated officially in the civil war.

As near as I can make out there were several hundred thousand union troops on disability pensions after 1865. Confederates received nothing and weren't counted. The UK had about 500,000 permanent disabled as of 1918. So the numbers are probably comparable in respect of the population base.

Disease made up for the lack of machine guns.


Quick glance at wiki puts 1860 population at 31 million. So your figures need reworking, or sourcing.

31 million including slaves. So they don't need reworking.

It really was quite bad.

I said it wasnt as prolific, And you forgot about the Navy as well, and it does state units, such as the Louisiana State Guard...

Im not saying it was a Major part, or even at an official level, just that it did happen...

People get so defensive over that crap....

Two quotes from the article on that unit:

The 1st Louisiana Native Guard (CSA) was a Confederate Louisiana militia of "free persons of color"

The South did not use this Confederate Native Guard regiment in any military action, and failed to provide it with uniforms or arms.

So number one, they were freedmen and not slaves (the distinction being relevant in that freedmen were not counted as part of that 3.5 million slave population) and number two, they didn't fight anyway.

I'm not being defensive (I'm a Northerner and have no particular reason to be offended on behalf of Louisiana anyway) but it is true that slaves did not fight for the Confederacy.

Hopefully minor digression ends now.

Why don't you go to a bar in Georgia and tell all the nice folks there about this theory of yours?

If it's the sort of people I'm thinking (the South will rise again sort) you're talking about, then yes, they have no idea what war is, except for a glorified abstract image of it.

Not directly no, but several generations worth who lost people in the conflicts I stated...

And memories of being under threat of annihilation during the overall conflict with the Soviet Union, that alot of those were a part of...

As well, not to kick a dead horse, but, 9/11 was most definitely on our soil, and everyone remembers that...Speaking of which there was also Pearl Harbor of the aforementioned WWII...

9/11 was a 5 second love tap compared to an actual war on the American homeland. When bombs and rockets and bullets, the screams of the dying and the stench of death filling your nostrils become a question of daily life for years, when you lose loved ones right in front of your eyes as they get gunned down, it drives home the horrors of war more deeply than anything else. Even Pearl Harbor was on an island far away from the mainland and mostly a military base. The civilian populace was well shielded from the direct impact of the events.