Once the first Country gets the balls to drop a 'nuke, others Nations will try their hand as well, then everything goes to shit.
Things are heating up in the Donbass
- Thread starter holdover
- Start date
Bigfoot
.475 A&M Magnum
I certainly don't want to see things go nuclear. I hope President-elect Trump turns off the money spigot to Ukraine and can negotiate an end to this war as he says he can. We have enough problems in our own country as it is. America First is the way.
This isn't like 1945 when the US was the only country with nuclear capabilities.
Last edited:
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Once the first Russian nuke detonates anywhere outside Russian soil, then the rest of the world will eliminate Russia's nukes as quickly as possible.
There isn't anything faster than an ICBM.
I do not think so. I do not think the Ukraine is important enough for all of them to launch
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Russians wont nuke what has been, and will soon be , thier own country/ and countrymen. People come and go , but the earth is here forever.
The reality is, he doesnt need to , in 2 months the money will be shut off or reduced ,and a bad situation will become even worse for Ukraine .
Those long range missiles are not going to change the outcome of the war, Plain and simple. They cant defeat Russia with them . To make a big dent they would need to be deployed in the thousands , not tens.
The only purpose they serve is to bait Putin into a response where NATO can jump in and save the day, But the Mad man from Moscow is shrewder than they thought. hes not biteing, He is going to sit there and burn out the clock , He won the game, all he has to do is not lose it now
Honestly I think Europe is tired of this war also, its depleting thier stocks weakening their military's and costing a hell of a lot of money
The reality is, he doesnt need to , in 2 months the money will be shut off or reduced ,and a bad situation will become even worse for Ukraine .
Those long range missiles are not going to change the outcome of the war, Plain and simple. They cant defeat Russia with them . To make a big dent they would need to be deployed in the thousands , not tens.
The only purpose they serve is to bait Putin into a response where NATO can jump in and save the day, But the Mad man from Moscow is shrewder than they thought. hes not biteing, He is going to sit there and burn out the clock , He won the game, all he has to do is not lose it now
Honestly I think Europe is tired of this war also, its depleting thier stocks weakening their military's and costing a hell of a lot of money
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Doesn't matter how important Ukraine is.
The use of nuclear weapons will not be tolerated.
It would matter if it was Somalia that got nuked. Once you cross that line once, nobody can trust you to have them.
That line was already crossed, guess by who.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That would be the ultimate Apples and Oranges argument.
Robin
Robin
OSINT guys are saying signs point to Russia doing some sort of launch shortly.
There was less of a reason to nuke Japan, by that time it was no longer a threat.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Someone has used nuclear weapons aggressively ?
If you're talking about 1945, it might be worth reminding you that was during a world War. Nobody was going to *start* a war over it, everyone was already fighting it.
Japan never attacked U.S. mainland (Hawaii wasn't even a state at the time). By August of 1945 and after Soviet Union entered the war Japan was defeated and not a threat. There was no need to destroy two cities and kill thousands of civilians. Japan wasn't launching missiles or anything at the U.S.
I was out quite a bit today. Got tires, did a bit of last minute shopping for Turkey dinner.
Russia did not Nuke today, huh??
Russia did not Nuke today, huh??
spat
.700 Nitro Express
LoL, OK, whatever you say.
I don't think you'll find too many people here who would agree with that assessment, but it is a thing for sure.
*I* think we did exactly what was necessary, and most of the trouble we ran into in the 2nd half of the 20th century was because we weren't willing to pursue conflicts far enough to get an unconditional surrender.
Ask any American that was a POW of the Japanese about how they and the People of other Countries were treated...I've hear it all before from people that studied, speculated, and feelings from antebellum armchair commando's, and I've listened and spoken to Men that were actually there: those Atomic Bombs were full blown fuck you...to this Day, the Japanese view the US as the aggressor and wholly at fault for the War against Japan.
Sorry, not sorry...War sucks, loosing a war sucks even more, we did not loose.
Whether Hawaii was a state or territory is irrelevant. It was US territory. It would be like saying we don't count it if china attacks Guam or cuba attacks Puerto Rico. They attacked our fleet and killed a bunch of people and then simultaneously on the other side of the Pacific attacked a bunch of other US interests.
Look, I will actually listen to an argument that the US provoked Japan into a war by our oil embargos. That's not a stretch. We were waging economic war on them. They escalated to kinetic war.
WW2 was total warfare. It was a clash of civilizations. There had to be a winner and loser.
Japan drew first blood they have no right to complain how it ended. They had proven over and over and over they do not surrender even against all odds. It wasn't in their culture. They had to be destroyed to submitted and accept defeat. And yes, at the time dropping the first atomic bomb absolutely was the right decision. When they refused to still accept defeat and surrender, dropping the 2nd bomb was also the correct decision. Getting Japan to surrender one way or another saved countless American lives and also saved a factor more of Japanese lives. Japan still had enough people left to rebuild and start over. If the US and allies had to invade Honshu another few million Japanese of all ages would have been wiped out for the emperors honor. So yes its unfortunate a bunch of people died in the atomic blasts but let's be pragmatic they saved more. And as bad as the atomic bombs were, they weren't even the worst of the war. The wholesale firebombing of cities killed more people. Firebombing Tokyo was more devastating. And at the time the whole concept of radiation fallout was not well understood so you can't Monday morning quarterback it with today's knowledge.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Quibbling about whether Hawaii was part of the mainland is ridiculous.
As if it wouldn't be still be an act of war if they'd sunk the battleships in the middle of rhe Pacific.
Imagine China sinking a modern Carrier Battlegroup and someone saying "well, they didn't attack the mainland, so we should just let it go" LOL.
Iran laid some mines that a US frigate hit and *almost* sunk, so we sunk half their navy one morning.
After pearl harbor unconditional surrender was the only acceptable solution.
We nukes Hiroshima, and they didn't surrender, so we nuked Nagasaki. If they hadn't surrendered then, we would have kept them coming until they either surrendered or there wasn't anyone left to bomb.
And that's how you fight a war. Don't start shit if you can't handle the endgame.
I will go with opinion of these men, who were actually fighting the war.
____________________________________________
Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[108]
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[109][110] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet), and even the man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay:
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [101]
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [111]
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [112]
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [113]
____________________________________________
Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[108]
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[109][110] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet), and even the man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay:
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [101]
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [111]
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [112]
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [113]
Last edited:
Worth a read to get into the mentality of those who are the muscle for tyrants. It's specific to Ukraine but the mentality can be anywhere.
1341
.45 acp
History professor Robert James Maddox wrote:
Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.'
Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?'
The best that can be said about Eisenhower's memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time.
Notes made by one of Stimson's aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower's part
Pointing out from the same Wikipedia article
Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.'
Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?'
The best that can be said about Eisenhower's memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time.
Notes made by one of Stimson's aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower's part
Pointing out from the same Wikipedia article
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yeah, like right across the border.
Robin
Spin vs Direct Quotes
Last edited:
spat
.700 Nitro Express
McArthur wanted to nuke North Korea.
That doesn't seem like anything he would say. I really have to question your sources.
Have a ball.
[109]Manchester, William. American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880–1964, Dell, p. 512
[110]Norman Cousins writes, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." See Cousins 1987, pp. 65, 70–71.
It's about the "I'm just following orders, I'm just doing my job"
This is the mentality of how it happens. Thought it was worth sharing to get a perspective on how it happens. You can condone it or make excuses or say "hey look over there" but regardless it's worth understanding
Curtis Lemay was responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in firebombing Japanese cities to bring them to surrender. You think that guy would view the atomic bomb any differently? Hell no.
At the time most of them just viewed the A bomb as a shit ton of TNT in a single bomb. They didn't comprehend how different it was and the physics and chemistry.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
People today really overestimate the difference between a nuke and a shit ton of TNT.
Politically they are obviously in a completely different class. But from a military context, they are not.
The conventional firebombing of Tokyo just a few weeks earlier killed far more people than Hiroshima did, even if you account for radiation deaths 20 years later.
Dresden too.
Last edited:
spat
.700 Nitro Express
So, just spin, no direct quotes ?