Of course not, nobody drops bombs in the countryside.

And while some Japanese cities were obliterated (Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima) I would say Japan as a whole wasn't as damaged as Germany, where at least in part, the fighting was town to town in addition to (much heavier) bombing.

But seriously Draug, if every major industrial center is pulverized, its pretty much an equivalent for the country. If Akron, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus were 75% destroyed, would it be safe to say Ohio was destroyed, since probably half of the population is in those metro areas?

Munich was and is a major city. Tokyo wasn't obliterated. Heavily damaged? Sure. And if London was so obliterated, what about Big Ben and the palace and Whitehall?

*obliterated means wiped out. Germany still had manufacturing going on. Oskar Schindler's metal presses were still stamping out shell casings (albeit intentionally bad ones) and the Allies didn't know he was protecting the Jews, so they had no reason not to bomb the fuck out of it.

But let's back up. Krellin argued that Germany and Japan were developing nations after WWII. Do you agree? A simple yes or no will suffice. Remember a developing nation is one that is still at pre-industrial levels where agriculture is the primary product in their GDP.

Perhaps we should convene a subcommittee to determine the meaning of the word "obliterated".

Anyone want to second?

I think you're using obliterated much more literally than I am. Still though, Tokyo sustained more damage than Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. In one raid, 16 square miles of the city were destroyed and a quarter million people killed or wounded. By the end of the war, over half the city was destroyed. To me, that fits the definition of obliterated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

I kinda agree with krellin though. They were still developed nations in the sense that the people did not automatically lose their education, skills, etc. But they had zero capital to work with. No savings, no nothing. Their economies had to be built up from scratch. So, in terms of factors of production they had the labor still - that didn't go away - but they needed capital to grow, much like developing nations now need capital to grow (as opposed to developed which can fund projects with their own capital)

I second that, dirge.

"I kinda agree with krellin though. They were still developed nations in the sense that the people did not automatically lose their education, skills, etc. But they had zero capital to work with. No savings, no nothing. Their economies had to be built up from scratch. So, in terms of factors of production they had the labor still - that didn't go away - but they needed capital to grow, much like developing nations now need capital to grow (as opposed to developed which can fund projects with their own capital)"

GF, while I agree with the facts of your statement and even part of your conclusion about postwar rebuilding required capital and literal rebuilding of infrastructure, I have to nevertheless maintain there is a categorical difference in terms in the sociopolitical-cultural realm. There has been a lot of ink spilled about the post-colonial development and nation building problem and many of the barriers to development of both infrastructure and stable effective government cannot be solved by capital and construction alone. To my mind this is very different from postwar rebuilding.

In other words Somalia is not going to turned into a functioning nation state the way we think of it in the same manner the Japan was rebuilt after the war.

"My point is the US does have to act against terrorist in an assertive manner regardless.
"

But if the interventions simply lead to weaker states and government take-overs by elements hostile to US interests, what purpose did the intervention serve? You abduct one terrorist and you're rewarded with a terrorist government. It's a self-defeating strategy.

The only function that these interventions serve is some kind of catharsis or fulfilling some kind of misplaced notion of revenge. I think our foreign policy planners should watch Princess Bridge and get over themselves.

On Pakistan's price in the War on Terror -

http://tribune.com.pk/story/527016/pakistani-victims-war-on-terror-toll-put-at-49000/

Pakistan has lost 15,600+ soldiers fighting terrorist in the administered tribal areas since 2008 alone.

*Princess Bride

@dirge - while I actually agree that much depends on the socio-political nature as you said, I was solely focused on the definition of developing country that Draug gave, which is based on economic structure and factors of production.

"But in the long run, are democracies more stable than autocrats? I would venture to guess yes (but against a hereditary aristocracy? I'm not too sure)"

No.

Take for example the forms of government in sub-Saharan Africa since independence. Virtually every ex-French colony begin its existence as an autocracy, and they stayed very stable for decades, many even surviving the tumult of the 90s.

The British colonies were gradually introduced to self-representation (territories like Nigeria had self-government for quite a while before independence), and virtually all them began their existence as democracies. Virtually all of them experienced repeated coups and changes in governmental-type.

That's just one example. Perhaps an even better one is Latin America. Many of these countries were democracies for much of the 19th century, yet virtually all of them experienced government transition after government transition in the 20th century.

Look at the Middle East. The countries with have withstood the uprisings have been conservative monarchies. Indeed even non-oil wealthy monarchies like Jordan and Bahrain have survived virtually unscathed.

Putin, you give a lot of good examples. What then, is the reason why Western Democracies haven't fallen like Latin American ones?

As for the Middle East, I think that would fall under hereditary aristocracy, rather than autocrat (even though monarchs are autocrats, yes) because a "royal" class lends itself to longevity, whereas an autocrat (in this case) I shall define as a single leader who does not pass power down to his sons (Chavez, Castro, al-Bashir)

Mr. Putin,

I am sure your are correct about such actions weakening states as you eerily predicted the Libyan PM hostage crisis. There is a self defeating aspect to this, yes, of course you are right. I'm not sure I agree however that taking military/police actions against al qaeda is without benefit.

It seems to me we are in a situation in which either or whatever course we take, there are glaring drawbacks. It is not so much a risk-benefit analysis as a risk-risk benefit. Doing nothing but trying to build up societies and governments that we hope beyond hope will be grateful to us and someday be able to get their shit together runs the risk that we allow al qaeda and other such to grow and take actions not only against the US but also in destabilizing regions. Just look at Somalia.

It is sad about Pakistan, and the Pakistani and US governments went arm in arm in creating a very bad thing through the cold war. Pakistan has been a willing participant with their intense fear and hatred of India. Now they have a situation where there are large armed groups acting in Pakistan and crossing the boarder into Afghanistan. This did not come about simply because of drone strikes. And I already know your going to say the drone strikes have contributed, but still, this is mostly Pakistan's problem.

"What then, is the reason why Western Democracies haven't fallen like Latin American ones?"

Well, how far back are we looking to say that the western democracies have been stable and haven't fallen? And also some countries were in the grey area between democracy & autocracy (just looking at the Polity dataset here) and so it depends on say, if you considered Wilhemine Germany democratic or not (they had legal revolutionary opposition parties sitting in parliament), or 19th century Italy democratic. That changes the answer quite a bit.

But states that we can all agree were democratic and that were democratic for quite some time - late 19th century/early 20th century Greece & Spain (not so much Portugal); 3rd Republic France; post-WWII Turkey (if you consider Turkey part of Europe) all experienced governmental transitions.

But I take your point that by and large Europe's governmental forms have been more stable than other regions. I think the main variable of interest is the role of the military and the success of countries in subordinating it to civilian rule. Where the military considers itself to be the "guarantor" of the constitutional order, you're going to have governmental transitions and instability. This happened throughout Latin America and southern Europe. Where the military has accepted its role as subordinate to civilian authority, as has been in the case in much of western Europe and to a surprising extent, eastern Europe -consolidation is going to be much easier.

"Tokyo sustained more damage than Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki"

Really... Atomic Bombs did less damage than carpet bombing over the course of the war. Interesting.

It's more than that, Draugnar, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, individually, caused less damage than the fire-bombing of Tokyo in a SINGLE NIGHT during March 1945 - specifically 9th March 1945. The single deadliest bombing raid of the war was a *conventional* bombing raid, not a nuclear bombing.

I'm not sure Somalia is a good example for you.

Southern Somalia had been without an effective centralized civil authority since the early 1990s. Yet, there had been no instance of international terrorism being carried out from Somali territory until the Kenyan/Ethiopian intervention in Somalia in 2011. Now, the very people who were ousted from power in Somalia by Kenya attacked Kenya in 2013. It seems like that intervention backfired.

You are correct that arms crossing from Pakistan to Afghanistan didn't originate with the drone strikes. This latest round originated with the war in Afghanistan but the origins really go back further than that, to the Daur Revolution of the 1970s & and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But in those older cases it was Official Policy whereas since 2001 these armed groups have turned against the government of Pakistan for supporting the US in Afghanistan. Pakistan does bear responsibility for the Islamization of their country but at the same time it doesn't appear that these drone strikes have done anything but strengthen TTP control in the tribal regions.

Who cares which bomb did more? There's no reason to bomb anyone unless they bomb you.

http://puu.sh/4Nu84.png

10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city[8] (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo)

Some 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30% of the population of Hiroshima, were killed by the blast and resultant firestorm,[102] and another 70,000 injured.[103] Over 90% of the doctors and 93% of the nurses in Hiroshima were killed or injured—most had been in the downtown area which received the greatest damage.[104] Out of some 70,000–80,000 people killed, 20,000 were soldiers.[105] Most elements of the Japanese 2nd General Army were at physical training on the grounds of Hiroshima Castle when the bomb exploded. Barely 900 yards from the explosion's hypocenter, the castle and its residents were vaporized. The bomb also killed 12 American airmen who were imprisoned at the Chugoku Military Police Headquarters located about 1,300 feet (400 meters) from the hypocenter of the blast.[106] All died in less than a second.[107]

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)

So nearly as many people killed in less than a second Hiroshima, and an estimated 40,000-75,000 died at Nagasaki in that same amount of time and the main part of the city was protected by a series of hills as the target was an industrial complex in the Urakami valley.

I agree with Dirge that West Germany & Japan aren't relevant. I would just add that a key difference between those cases and the cases we're talking about, besides level of development, is the existence of a common external enemy. In West Germany & Japan, both those countries were willing to work with the occupier because they had a shared antipathy for the Soviet Union. The US wasn't asking the West Germans and Japanese to go hunt down and kill other West Germans & Japanese, like they are asking the Iraqis and Afghans to do. The Shi'a majority Iraqis do not consider Iran to an enemy they have in common with the United States. Nor do the non-Taliban Pashtuns in Afghanistan really consider the Taliban to be a common enemy.

At the risk of appearing to contradict myself, while I applaud the US taking Mr. Mehsud, doing so while he was involved in negotiations might not have unfortunate consequences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24500286

but on the other hand, what the hell. Pakistan claims Afghans support the TTP in Pakistan. How far do you follow the thread, failing to act?

stupid typing, I meant, "might have unfortunate consequences"

Afghans probably do support the TTP in Pakistan. Afghanistan has long had the notion of extending its territory beyond the Durand Line. They also blame Pakistan for unleashing the Taliban on them in the first place, so poetic justice I guess.

So Draug, is that you agreeing with what I said?

And yeah, taking him probably will have unfortunate consequences. Though Pakistan will be quite pleased with us. Apparently he was in an Afghan army convoy when he was taken?

Pakistan is not going to be pleased. Mehsud wanted to have talks with the government, which Sharif, who ran on a "talk to the Taliban" platform, also wanted.

Oh, well I just figured an enemy of Pakistan would be a friend of Afghanistan. Guess I was wrong.

I mean maybe Sharif changes his mind. But last I knew he wanted unconditional talks.

Karzai is evidently furious. I don't blame him. Poor Karzai has been undermined at every step.