If we can have thousands of nuclear bombs...why can't North Korea have a couple? [Archive]

E.J.Armstrong

15th April 2005, 01:28 PM

originally posted by Ziggurat
Funny, but the only real empire in the second half of the 20th century was the Soviet Union (you know, those communist fellers whom you seem to think weren't any worse than capitalists), and the only people who really aspire to empire right now are the radical Islamists who want a return of the Caliphate. Unfortunately this does not appear to square with the facts that the US deployed troops in a huge number of states and exerted control in the likes of Central and Souith America by using the CIA (you remember those US felleas who supported murderous tyrants as with the KGB) to destabilise democratic movements. Now that the USSR is gone the US empire is the largest thing on the planet.
The radical Islamists are way behind the USA.The US isn't an empire, we're a hegemon. Really. Try telling that to the people of Diego Garcia. Perhaps you are not aware of one definition of hegemony. 'Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; or more broadly, that cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group. '
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemon
I keep telling you this, but you seem constitutionally incapable of understanding the difference. Where? Even if you did, does the fact that I might disagree with you mean that I cannot understand what you mean. Sort of a silly argument isn't it? Maybe it's because when Britain was powerful, it dreamed of empire, and you assume that because the US shares the same language and is now very powerful, we somehow must also dream of the same thing. No. Amongst many other things it is because you refuse to take your troops out of other people's countries, because Bush starts illegal wars for the US economy, because the neocons of the PNAC are effectively in power and their aim is clearly stated as 'We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.' and 'The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire' from http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. This is clearly an imperial strategy. You just won't admit it.

But the US is different than Britain. That's why we left your empire. We have little interest in starting our own. I am afraid that is total nonsense. The document 'Declaration of The Causes And Necessity of Taking up Arms' in fact demonstrates that the authors actually wanted the empire to persist when they stated 'Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored.' It also indicates that one of the prime reasons you rebelled was economic. Interestingly, one of the things complained of was 'for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace.' Not unlike maintaining US troops all over the world perhaps.

Your many attempts to destabise democracies and democratic movements around the world give the lie to your public protestations about 'spreading' democracy. Bush's treatment of the nationals of my own country and others shows a contempt for what even so-called 'coalition partners' think and your insistence on increasing the number of countries in which your troops are stationed and your refusal to remove them demonstrate a de facto empire builders strategy and mentality. Your military strategy of full spectrum dominance is merely the provision of power to support this empire.The only land we actually own in Europe (aside from embassies) is that little plot of land on Normandy where we burried our dead who gave their lives to liberate Europe. And the only time in our history when we ever really gave empire a shot was after the Spanish-American war, with the Philipines, but we gave that up because we had no taste for empire. And we still don't. But accusations of "hegemonist" doesn't get leftist blood boiling nearly so well as "imperialist" or, if they're feeling particularly ornery, "colonialist". I honour the memory of every man and woman who gave their lives in the struggle against Hitler and his allies in WWII. The USA owns over 143 million sq ft of buildings across the world. The US will not remove its soldiers of its own accord and you personally see no need to ask the people of those countries through democratic referenda if they want the US to remain. With the US of Bush showing such contempt for international agreements, the opinions of host countries and international law that pretty well defines a lot of what constitutes an empire. Call it what you will but a turd by any other name etc.

Ziggurat

15th April 2005, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Really. Try telling that to the people of Diego Garcia.

Bwahahahaha! The best you can come up with for evidence of US imperialism is that we've got a base on an Island that is still one of the remnants of the BRITISH empire? You've really got to do better than that.

Perhaps you are not aware of one definition of hegemony. 'Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; or more broadly, that cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group. '
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemon

Damn you're an idiot, you managed to find out what hegemony means but you couldn't be troubled to find out what an empire is. Yes, America is a dominant economic and cultural power. There's nothing wrong with that, and I see no reason we should apologize for it or try to change it. But an empire is something different. From www.m-w.com, an empire is "a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority." We do not have sovereign authority over the countries we have bases in. We have nothing even resembling that. We are not, therefore, an empire. We do not even aspire to BE an empire.

... because the neocons of the PNAC are effectively in power and their aim is clearly stated as 'We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.' and 'The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire' from http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. This is clearly an imperial strategy. You just won't admit it.

I really don't know who peed in your metaphorical cornflakes, but where I come from, wanting to be in a leadership position isn't a bad thing, unless you strive for mediocrity and detest accomplishment. And American leadership isn't exactly synonymous with empire either. As for meeting threats before they become dire, that should be bloody well obvious to anyone as basic common sense. Wouldn't it have been great if, for example, the rest of Europe stood up to Hitler as soon as he started to rearm Germany, rather than waiting for him to actually invade Poland? Oh, but what would the will of the international community have said about such imperialistic moves if the allies had challenged Hitler at the start? Can't have that, now, can we?

Interestingly, one of the things complained of was 'for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace.' Not unlike maintaining US troops all over the world perhaps.

You have stumbled upon a truth, but then you picked yourself up and hurried off as if nothing happened. No, it's VERY unlike our maintaining troops all over the world. Perhaps you are as ignorant about what "quartering" troops means as you are about so much else. Here I refer you to the quartering act of 1765:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h641.html
The colonists were being forced to pay for the maintenance of British troops, and this cost was the source of much of the protest against quartering troops. In contrast, US troops around the world inject money INTO local economies, they don't suck from them.

Your military strategy of full spectrum dominance is merely the provision of power to support this empire.

No, it's merely the decision, quite emminently sensible, that we want to be able to win any military conflict as easily and decisively as possible. That's bloody common sense. The only reason that's not a GENERAL military strategy of every country is because we're the only country capable of doing it. But somehow you think that choosing weakness is the only moral course of action. Not in my book, it isn't. It's just the quickest way to make sure you get a beating.

I honour the memory of every man and woman who gave their lives in the struggle against Hitler and his allies in WWII.

You may like to pretend you do. You may even have deluded yourself into believing you do. But you do not. Not when you idolize an institution that consistently fails in its stated objective to stop genocide. Not when the inheritors of that military tradition go to free a country from the grasp of another dictator who had a special affinity for gassing ethnic minorities, a burning hatred for Jews, a propensity to invade his neighbors, and a bad mustache to boot, and all you can cry is "Imperialism!" because this time, it's not YOUR freedom at stake. You do not honor them at all. You disgust me.

Rob Lister

15th April 2005, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I honour the memory of every man and woman who gave their lives in the struggle against Hitler and his allies in WWII.

What about Neville Chamberlain? Do you honor his memory as well?

Iamme

15th April 2005, 04:06 PM

(Ziggurat)

The US isn't an empire, we're a hegemon.

(Iamme)

A female pokemon?:D

Actually, perhaps this hegemon you speak of is just as bad, or worse than being an occupation style empire that invades, conquers, and takes over.

If we, through our influences and in using our power regarding free trade sanctions, that we are 'westernizing' the world...there are countries taking offense to this. They feel our presense and don't like it. Well, some of the folks living there obviously like it. But those radical fundamentalist orthodox wackos in those countries don't. (The ones that somehow seem to get their hands on bombs, anthrax and such stuff)

I wonder how many countries in the world have a McDonalds there?

It seems harmless enough, doesn't it? So we have some corporate interests in many counties. But what do the countries feel threatened by more: The number of military bases we have over seas, or the expansion of our capital corporate interests?

Don't these countries get this feeling that we are using a non-militaristic move in which to 'take them over'...without firing a shot?

Rob Lister

15th April 2005, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Iamme
Don't these countries get this feeling that we are using a non-militaristic move in which to 'take them over'...without firing a shot?

I don't know, do you? Let me run through the last five resturants at which I've dined:

Mexican
Italian
Chinese
Thai
Chinese

I'll take a quick peek under some of the equipment that happens to be on or near my desk. Made in:

China (mouse)
China (very cool projector clock)
Taiwan (speakers)
Japan (keyboard)
Joystick (Hey! USA!!!)

New Ager

15th April 2005, 04:22 PM

(Ziggurat)

Funny, but the only real empire in the second half of the 20th century was the Soviet Union...

(New Ager)

Not so. Didn't Darth Vader lead one too? :D

Ziggurat

15th April 2005, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Iamme
I wonder how many countries in the world have a McDonalds there?

It seems harmless enough, doesn't it? So we have some corporate interests in many counties. But what do the countries feel threatened by more: The number of military bases we have over seas, or the expansion of our capital corporate interests?

Don't these countries get this feeling that we are using a non-militaristic move in which to 'take them over'...without firing a shot?

The fear of which you speak is real. It is the fear of the elite that their own people will choose to live like Americans, rather than according to whatever system they already have in place. Because that, at the end of the day, is the ONLY way American culture really takes over. Nobody forces French people to buy McDonalds food, they do so because they WANT to, however much it might annoy their intellectuals. But you'll have to forgive me for not sympathizing in the least with such fears. I believe in individual liberty, I'm not scared of people being empowered to decide how they want to live.

Look at a place like Japan: it's got tons of influence from American culture. The Japanese aren't the least bit afraid of us Yanks. And yet, they maintain a very distinctive culture of their own, and even export some of that culture back to the US. And they are able to do so because their own culture is appealing, and their people don't feel the need to abandon it. Contrast that with the French whose culture is so unappealing in comparison (despite all their fine food) that they still need to pass laws in order to make sure that their own people don't choose to watch too much English-language television. Or the Saudis who need to ban Barbie because they're worried that their girls might want to walk outside one day dressed as something other than a tent. I'm quite positive that our cultural hegemony is extremely frightening to some people. But I'm not in the least bit sorry for it.

New Ager

15th April 2005, 04:25 PM

(lamme)

If we can have thousands of nuclear bombs...why can't North Korea have a couple?

(New Ager)

Simply put, we're the good guys and they're the bad guys!!

Ziggurat

15th April 2005, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by New Ager
Not so. Didn't Darth Vader lead one too? :D

No, the emporer led it, Darth was only his enforcer, and it was long ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
:jedi:

Iamme

15th April 2005, 04:53 PM

[i]

Is that simple enough for you, Lamme?

MattJ [/B]

--------------------------------------------

Hmmmmm. More atttacks?:p

Mike B.

15th April 2005, 05:00 PM

I think the highest per capita cultural impearilism is from the UK.

Think about it...

The English language is taking over the world.

British literature is read everywhere and taught to school children everywhere.

Just about every government in the world has some institution that was started in Britian. (i.e. Prime Minister, etc.)

So be proud Brits!!!

RandFan

15th April 2005, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Of course, the majority of the rest of the world doesn't trust us to possess them in a responsibe manner either but adding more countries to the possession-list doesn't make things much better under most circumstances...not that their are not other circumstances in which the world would. Good post!

I think it worthy to note that we were the only nation in history that had the absolute power to rule the world the way others have wanted and did not use that power. Patton wanted us to at least take on the Soviets. We demonstrated that we were capable of restraint. Those who are intellectually honest could only conclude that while we have had disastrous policies in South America and other places trying to control through subterfuge and other untoward methods we have not used our nuclear might to overthrow countries and we have a track record of proven restraint. Now I can understand anyone having concern about any nation with such capability like ours. But that concern must be tempered by our willingness to show such restraint.

I should add that the Missiles of October was a moment that could reasonably give one pause. I'll concede that our record isn't completely unblemished.

CapelDodger

15th April 2005, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Iamme
Well? Why not. What kind of example are we setting? Who do we think we are? The nuclear cat is oozing out of the bag and Great Power (WW2 vintage) monopoly is a long gone option. This is a reality that has to be acknowledged and dealt with. On the other hand, we don't want all and sundry to have them. North Korea I would put in the "Let's not" column straight off. It's more than strange, it's like a demonstration of just how strange a society can be. An object-lesson in what to make sure can never be done to the whole species at once. They cannot be expected to act rationally. Which makes for a tricky problem, but I hope it gets solved before something goes horribly wrong.

CapelDodger

15th April 2005, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
I think it worthy to note that we were the only nation in history that had the absolute power to rule the world the way others have wanted and did not use that power. Patton wanted us to at least take on the Soviets.Good old Patton. What was it he said, six weeks to Moscow? "Let's just keep rolling!" I reckon between 8 and 12 weeks. It would depend on whether the US Army had to evacuate through Spain - 8 weeks - or managed to get into Italy quickly enough and evacuate to North Africa - 12 weeks. One thing's for certain : they wouldn't have evacuated through the UK. The Brits would have stood well back from that sort of nonsense, and the North Sea ports would have busy getting Empire forces out. The job was done.
We demonstrated that we were capable of restraint. Patton was certifiable, Truman wasn't. (McCarthur was another maniac. Where do you find these people?) So the US had the bomb; so what? They had 50,000 troops fighting in China in1946 who wanted to know why, and really wanted to go home; what good did the bomb do there? Were they going to save China from the Chinese by nuking it? Were they going to bomb the Soviet Union, which they knew would have no impact in China? These kids had votes; their families had votes. They were told they were there to disarm and re-patriate Japanese soldiers. They knew they were fighting alongside re-mobilised Japanese divisions, paid and supplied by the US via the KMT, in support of ghost KMT divisions on behalf of a government of pimps. The bomb didn't solve that problem, and they had to come home.

US power was not unlimited then, and it isn't now. Be warned. Your vote could make a difference. Vote for restraint.

15th April 2005, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Funny, but the only real empire in the second half of the 20th century was the Soviet Union (you know, those communist fellers whom you seem to think weren't any worse than capitalists), and the only people who really aspire to empire right now are the radical Islamists who want a return of the Caliphate. The US isn't an empire, we're a hegemon. I keep telling you this, but you seem constitutionally incapable of understanding the difference. Maybe it's because when Britain was powerful, it dreamed of empire, and you assume that because the US shares the same language and is now very powerful, we somehow must also dream of the same thing. But the US is different than Britain. That's why we left your empire. We have little interest in starting our own. The only land we actually own in Europe (aside from embassies) is that little plot of land on Normandy where we burried our dead who gave their lives to liberate Europe. And the only time in our history when we ever really gave empire a shot was after the Spanish-American war, with the Philipines, but we gave that up because we had no taste for empire. And we still don't. But accusations of "hegemonist" doesn't get leftist blood boiling nearly so well as "imperialist" or, if they're feeling particularly ornery, "colonialist".

There is also a small plot at Runnymede that has a JFK memorial.

New Ager

15th April 2005, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
No, the emporer led it, Darth was only his enforcer, and it was long ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

I think Vader overthrew him by "throwing him over". ;)

egslim

16th April 2005, 08:18 AM

I think it worthy to note that we were the only nation in history that had the absolute power to rule the world the way others have wanted and did not use that power.
I don't think this is a very realistic assesment, for two reasons.

First, the US is a democracy. Democracies generally favor self-government as a principle for their own people, and by extension for others as well. Colonies were different, in that the natives were easily considered children in need of guidance.
For example, Britain after the Napoleontic war would have been easily capable of reconquering North America, from a millitary point of view. But without justification nobody wanted to. In other words, the country as an entity wasn't able to.

Of course, this is a form of restraint, like you pointed out. I'm just generalising this by claiming it's a consequence of being a popular democracy, not particular to the US.

Second, after conquest comes occupation, and thats when things get really difficult. Because people tend to resist. And nuclear weapons won't help there. One either needs to be very ruthless (like the Gestapo) or have lots of soldiers on the ground to keep things under control. (138.000 in Iraq, and thats just one country - mostly desert too.)
Note: I'm not implying Iraq is being occupied, if that were the case the number would probably need to be even higher.

Rob Lister

16th April 2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Good old Patton. What was it he said, six weeks to Moscow? "Let's just keep rolling!" I reckon between 8 and 12 weeks. It would depend on whether the US Army had to evacuate through Spain - 8 weeks - or managed to get into Italy quickly enough and evacuate to North Africa - 12 weeks. One thing's for certain : they wouldn't have evacuated through the UK. The Brits would have stood well back from that sort of nonsense, and the North Sea ports would have busy getting Empire forces out. The job was done.
[/B]Patton was certifiable, Truman wasn't. (McCarthur was another maniac. Where do you find these people?) So the US had the bomb; so what? They had 50,000 troops fighting in China in1946 who wanted to know why, and really wanted to go home; what good did the bomb do there? Were they going to save China from the Chinese by nuking it? Were they going to bomb the Soviet Union, which they knew would have no impact in China? These kids had votes; their families had votes. They were told they were there to disarm and re-patriate Japanese soldiers. They knew they were fighting alongside re-mobilised Japanese divisions, paid and supplied by the US via the KMT, in support of ghost KMT divisions on behalf of a government of pimps. The bomb didn't solve that problem, and they had to come home.

US power was not unlimited then, and it isn't now. Be warned. Your vote could make a difference. Vote for restraint. [/B]

That was a really great post C. Dodger. I'm curious though if your analysis regarding the UK's participation was correct/meaningful.

Let's suppose, for arguments sake, that Patton's idea was also Truman's idea. Just suppose. Think what the world would be like now had Patton gotten his way. Consider what would have happened had the cold war never taken place? Consider the U.S. defeating the Soviet foe so early in the game (which may or may not have happened). What does your way-back machine tell you?

I admit to being at a loss. The way-back machine needs adjustment. No cold war? Then no massive technological military build-up. No cold war? Then a return to U.S. isolationism. No cold war? ...
...
...

Just thinking

16th April 2005, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by New Ager
(Ziggurat)

Funny, but the only real empire in the second half of the 20th century was the Soviet Union...

(New Ager)

Not so. Didn't Darth Vader lead one too?

How quickly we forget ...

In a galaxy far far away
in a time long long ago ...

RandFan

16th April 2005, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Patton was certifiable, Truman wasn't. (McCarthur was another maniac. Where do you find these people?) I'll grant you that they were at times wacky. I hope you will concede that they were also genius in their fields.

So the US had the bomb; so what? Odd question... If it were Hitler's Germany with the bomb they would have likely used it in ways that we wouldn't have.

Bear in mind that no one could have done anything to prevent us from using the bomb to become an empire and control the world as others had so wanted throughout history to do. The united states could have become the equivalent of Alexander.

They had 50,000 troops fighting in China in1946 who wanted to know why, and really wanted to go home; what good did the bomb do there? Again, odd example. You only prove my point. We showed restraint and did not use the bomb. Of course at some point the Soviets had the bomb and it would have been ill advised.

Were they going to save China from the Chinese by nuking it? Were they going to bomb the Soviet Union, which they knew would have no impact in China? These kids had votes; their families had votes. They were told they were there to disarm and re-patriate Japanese soldiers. They knew they were fighting alongside re-mobilised Japanese divisions, paid and supplied by the US via the KMT, in support of ghost KMT divisions on behalf of a government of pimps. The bomb didn't solve that problem, and they had to come home. I see nothing in your response to rebut my point. That we didn't use the bomb does not mean that we couldn't. Further, we didn't need to destroy any country. We would only need to drop one or perhaps two at the most and any nation would have capitulated. What would the Chinese or Soviets do? What did Japan do?

US power was not unlimited then, and it isn't now. Actually it was, though I concede that it isn't now. At the time there was simply no way that Japan was going to surrender. The die was cast and a nightmare was in the works for the invasion. Two bombs ended all of that. A single bomb anywhere, China, Soviet Union, etc. would have brought any conflict to a head.

Don't get me wrong. There were good reasons not to use the bomb including a sense of morality and that America didn't want to rule the world. That is why we didn't.

Be warned. Your vote could make a difference. Vote for restraint. Rhetorical, thanks for that...I guess.

RandFan

16th April 2005, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by egslim
First, the US is a democracy. Democracies generally favor self-government as a principle for their own people, and by extension for others as well. Colonies were different, in that the natives were easily considered children in need of guidance. No argument. But it is besides the point. In fact it supports my notion that we (American) are more likely to be trusted because of your argument.

Of course, this is a form of restraint, like you pointed out. I'm just generalising this by claiming it's a consequence of being a popular democracy, not particular to the US. Absolutely, agreed. These are some of the reasons why America would be a better choice to give a nuclear weapon to if such a choice existed.

Second, after conquest comes occupation, and thats when things get really difficult. Because people tend to resist. And nuclear weapons won't help there. One either needs to be very ruthless (like the Gestapo) or have lots of soldiers on the ground to keep things under control. Again absolutely correct.

Good post.

CapelDodger

16th April 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
I see nothing in your response to rebut my point. That we didn't use the bomb does not mean that we couldn't. Further, we didn't need to destroy any country. We would only need to drop one or perhaps two at the most and any nation would have capitulated. What would the Chinese or Soviets do? What did Japan do?How could the bomb have been used against the Chinese Communists? Drop it somewhere in China and there's a big new hole in China and the war goes on. What would it have been used for against the Soviets? Demand that they give up their naughty Commie ways, and when they don't, bomb cities one by one until they do? The bomb isn't a very useful weapon except as a deterrent. The damage done in Japan was equivalent to a few full-scale conventional raids. I don't see that there's anything more the US could have done in the world than it actually did - the US has hardly been isolationist since 1945, after all. The only thing it hasn't done is drop a nuke, which tends to indicate there's never been a useful purpose in doing so.

CapelDodger

16th April 2005, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
That was a really great post C. Dodger. I'm curious though if your analysis regarding the UK's participation was correct/meaningful.The Brits wouldn't have got involved in such an insane enterprise. So insane that there was never the slightest chance of it happening. If it had, it would have been a US war, not Britain's or Canada's. They'd have made that very clear and speeded-up their evacuation through the North Sea ports - which would not be available to the US, not even Bremen in the new circumstances. The US Air Force would not be allowed to operate from the UK, since we'd be neutrals. So supply is coming direct from the US and across France, where the Maquis (mostly Communist) is gleefully interdicting it. Loss of air dominance throws tactics out, as does being in frantic retreat as the Red Army rolls on. It'd be a shambles, and nobody else would want a part of it. Stands to reason.

(Patton was a good traffic manager. McArthur was good with the press. That's as close as they came to genius.)

Rob Lister

16th April 2005, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The Brits wouldn't have got involved in such an insane enterprise. So insane that there was never the slightest chance of it happening. If it had, it would have been a US war, not Britain's or Canada's. They'd have made that very clear and speeded-up their evacuation through the North Sea ports - which would not be available to the US, not even Bremen in the new circumstances. The US Air Force would not be allowed to operate from the UK, since we'd be neutrals. So supply is coming direct from the US and across France, where the Maquis (mostly Communist) is gleefully interdicting it. Loss of air dominance throws tactics out, as does being in frantic retreat as the Red Army rolls on. It'd be a shambles, and nobody else would want a part of it. Stands to reason.

(Patton was a good traffic manager. McArthur was good with the press. That's as close as they came to genius.) [/B]

Yes, but assume, for the sake of argument, that the UK went along with it. What does your way-back machine suggest?

E.J.Armstrong

17th April 2005, 06:10 AM

originally posted by Ziggurat
Bwahahahaha! The best you can come up with for evidence of US imperialism is that we've got a base on an Island that is still one of the remnants of the BRITISH empire? You've really got to do better than that.
No. Perhaps you will now take us through all the countries which have US military stationed in them such as Okinawa and discuss US reaction to the requests of local people who wanted troop reductions after awful experiences with troops they didn't want. See http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Okinawa-Troop-Cuts17nov02.htm. NBC apparently believes that overall the number of troops stationed overseas amounts to over 320,000 troops station in 120 countries. From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4489450/Damn you're an idiot, you managed to find out what hegemony means but you couldn't be troubled to find out what an empire is. Once again Zigurrat appears to believe that personal abuse means his argument is correct. Is this person really unable to construct a rational argument without abuse? It sadly appears to be so. Since when did rational people believe that not posting something is equal to be unaware of it. You just cannot make this stuff up.Yes, America is a dominant economic and cultural power. There's nothing wrong with that, and I see no reason we should apologize for it or try to change it. But an empire is something different. From www.m-w.com, an empire is "a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority." We do not have sovereign authority over the countries we have bases in. We have nothing even resembling that. We are not, therefore, an empire. We do not even aspire to BE an empire. As I have demonstrated your forefathers were very content to be in an empire. Bush's contempt for the rule of international law and for the rights of the citizens of even 'coalition' countries demonstrates that he is operating a US empire. The neocons who occupy so many powerful positions in the US administration clearly want a de facto empire when their core objective is ' We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.' and despite their fig leaf of talking about rallying support, when it comes down to the wire, as we have seen in Iraq, they are uninterested in meaningful international support for their fundamentalist cause and will invade countries on the basis of lies when it suits them. You have agreed that the US should not remove their troops of their own accord from enormous numbers of countries around the world and you do not see any reason to have referenda to put real democracy into operation and actually ask the people, especially where they have demanded action in places like Okinawa. That is an empire in operation. You simply cannot admit to it, although some of your founding forefathers were completely happy to do declare their contentedness with empire.

I really don't know who peed in your metaphorical cornflakes, but where I come from, wanting to be in a leadership position isn't a bad thing, unless you strive for mediocrity and detest accomplishment. And American leadership isn't exactly synonymous with empire either. As for meeting threats before they become dire, that should be bloody well obvious to anyone as basic common sense. Wouldn't it have been great if, for example, the rest of Europe stood up to Hitler as soon as he started to rearm Germany, rather than waiting for him to actually invade Poland? Oh, but what would the will of the international community have said about such imperialistic moves if the allies had challenged Hitler at the start? Can't have that, now, can we?There is a difference between wanting to be in a leadership position and being a bully and behaving illegally. In the middle to late part of the last century, until Bliar (the well known poodle of Bully Boy Bush) came along, we had stopped invading countries on the basis of lies to remove people we don't like. In fact we made it illegal. Luckily, that is why Bliar will soon be waved off USwards and be spending much of his time in your green and pleasant land, receiving large amounts of money for retelling you why he deserved your medals for 'Courage in the face of the British people'.
If you truly believe this strategy why are you not calling for the immediate invasion of North Korea, Iran and China? If not, why not? As you choose to be so offensive about WWII, if you truly believe your own analysis, what took you so long? Didn't the Germans have enough oil for you?You have stumbled upon a truth, but then you picked yourself up and hurried off as if nothing happened. No, it's VERY unlike our maintaining troops all over the world. Perhaps you are as ignorant about what "quartering" troops means as you are about so much else. Here I refer you to the quartering act of 1765:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h641.html
The colonists were being forced to pay for the maintenance of British troops, and this cost was the source of much of the protest against quartering troops. In contrast, US troops around the world inject money INTO local economies, they don't suck from them.
I notice that you have ignored my other truth, namely that your forefathers were happy with empire and wanted to continue to be part of it but hey ho it did show your claim on that matter to be complete rubbish. Populations around the wolrd are indeed being asked to pay an unacceptable price for the presence of US troops, including rape in Okinawa for example, and torture in Iraq and the people prostituting themselves in the Phillpines. Is injecting US sperm into local women, whether they want it or not, what you mean when you refer to 'injecting' into the local economy? Why should the locals have to put up with that abuse? Is that price worth paying according to you or to them? Local politicians in Okinawa have called for a reduction in the number of US troops but what have you done? So much for real democracy. So much for real freedom. So much for not being an empire.No, it's merely the decision, quite emminently sensible, that we want to be able to win any military conflict as easily and decisively as possible. That's bloody common sense. The only reason that's not a GENERAL military strategy of every country is because we're the only country capable of doing it. But somehow you think that choosing weakness is the only moral course of action. Not in my book, it isn't. It's just the quickest way to make sure you get a beating. Applying it to illegal invasions based on lies, constructing imaginary pressures to invade, thwarting UN inspections, torturing innocent people in Guantanamo Bay, disappearing people around the world without trial, threatening untried people with murder, shooting local Iraqi women and children at the drop of a hat, not doing what the local Japanese people want and destroying weddings from a great height with impunity etc etc etc amounts to the application of empire.You may like to pretend you do. You may even have deluded yourself into believing you do. But you do not. Not when you idolize an institution that consistently fails in its stated objective to stop genocide. Not when the inheritors of that military tradition go to free a country from the grasp of another dictator who had a special affinity for gassing ethnic minorities, a burning hatred for Jews, a propensity to invade his neighbors, and a bad mustache to boot, and all you can cry is "Imperialism!" because this time, it's not YOUR freedom at stake. You do not honor them at all. You disgust me. Well that would make you a liar then. But then you have demonstrated an incapacity to construct an argument without resorting to such personal abuse. Based on your own words it appears that people who disagree with you cannot do so without having to be deluded or being liars. Do you seriously believe that this 'logic' makes your case for you? You demonstrate many of the characteristics of Bully Boy Bush that I highlight by constructing imaginary threats based on lies. Well it doesn't wash any more. The world is aware of the way the US empire operates. You seem unable to admit is but that is your problem not mine.

What institution do I idolise? Why not support your claims with facts? Your country provided enormous support to that very tyrant, Saddam Hussein, when it was convenient for your country to do so and when your country knew exactly what he was doing to his people.

Bully Boy Bush invaded on the basis for lies - not for the people of that country, not because Hussein was gassing ethnic minorites (in fact after that atrocity your country generously provided him with additional economic assistance), not for his hatred of the Jews or Muslims nor for his facial hair but simply and only because it suited the US economy. Your hypocrisy is truly breathtaking. That is precisely why I highlight your behaviour as an excellent example of the way the US empire of Bully Boy Bush and the lying neocons operate. If you don't like the truth being highlighted, tough.

That you deliberately choose to lie about me to make your point makes my case. Thank you. I am happy to engender disgust in the likes of you because I am proud to be against all terrorism, to believe in international law, real patriotism that doesn't depend upon the unnecessary deaths of others, real freedom and true democracy based on the truth, not lies.

E.J.Armstrong

17th April 2005, 06:22 AM

originally posted by Rob Lister
What about Neville Chamberlain? Do you honor his memory as well?
Remind me again which battlefield he fell on?

CapelDodger

17th April 2005, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yes, but assume, for the sake of argument, that the UK went along with it. What does your way-back machine suggest? There are bizarre scenarios, which are fun to kick around, and impossible ones. What could possibly have induced the Brits (or anybody else, for that matter) to deliberately get involved in a train-wreck?

CapelDodger

17th April 2005, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
What about Neville Chamberlain? Do you honor his memory as well? Do you honour Roosevelt's memory? Neville Chamberlain's government pledged to go to war if Poland was attacked : Roosevelt's didn't. Chamberlain's government went to war when Poland was attacked : Roosevelt's didn't. Chamberlain's government sent troops to help (democratic) Norway when it was attacked : Roosevelt's didn't. What is it you've got against Nev?

egslim

17th April 2005, 07:01 AM

Bear in mind that no one could have done anything to prevent us from using the bomb to become an empire and control the world as others had so wanted throughout history to do. The united states could have become the equivalent of Alexander.
I think you're overestimating the effect of the first generation of nuclear weapons.

Officially the Japanese listed 83,793 killed and 40,918 injured. A total of 265,171 buildings were destroyed, and 15.8 square miles of the city were burned to ashes.
My guess is the actual losses were even higher. But this particular attack was done by 334 B29's, armed with firebombs.
http://www.historynet.com/wwii/bltrialbyfire/index1.html

Hiroshima:
Dead: 66,000
Injured: 69,000

Nagasaki:
Dead: 39,000
Injured: 25,000
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/northamerican/TheAtomicBombingsofHiroshimaandNagasaki/chap11.html
And the US was only capable of producing a very few nuclear weapons per month. Little boy and Fatman didn't do more damage than could be done by conventional means, but they emphasised the (already apparent) futility of further Japanese resistance.

Further, we didn't need to destroy any country. We would only need to drop one or perhaps two at the most and any nation would have capitulated. What would the Chinese or Soviets do?
Keep on fighting. Seriously.
The Japanese tried it: "We know we can't actually conquer the US, but if we destroy their fleet and create a defensive barrier of captured islands around us they will have no choice but to accept some kind of peace."
Germany tried it also: "We know we are unable to actually invade Britain, but if we conquer continental Europe they will have to make peace."
If you give your enemy a choice they will almost certainly choose the option you don't want them to take.

Good post.
Thank you :)

egslim

17th April 2005, 07:26 AM

One should place Neville Chamberlain and the Treaty of Munich in its historical context.

First, Britain had suffered very badly in the Great War:
http://users.tibus.com/the-great-war/figures.htm
Casualties: 144, 135 officers, and 2,953,257 other ranks. (Compared to 360,300 Americans, of course on a much larger population.)

Second, Britain stood entirely alone in defending its Empire. The US was very isolationistic, Russia a potential enemy and France had the same problems as Britain.
Facing a millitaristic Japan in the Far East, Italian expansion in North Africa and a rising Germany in the West. The Great War had also ruined Britain financially. There was popular unrest in the colonies for independence.
In other words, Britain was both economically and millitarily unable and unwilling to pursue an aggressive foreign policy.
Hindsight is of course 20/20.

RandFan

17th April 2005, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
How could the bomb have been used against the Chinese Communists? Drop it somewhere in China and there's a big new hole in China and the war goes on.[/b]??? What? Could you offer some reason for this? Why didn't the war go on with the Japanese? Because of the Bushido culture these folks were fighting in an unprecedented way. They were seemingly willing to sacrifice all.

Pick a large city center and drop the bomb. If that doesn't stop them the second one will.

What would it have been used for against the Soviets? Demand that they give up their naughty Commie ways... No, force them to capitulate the way the Japanese did. Either they comply or be destroyed. End of story.

...and when they don't, bomb cities one by one until they do? I hate to be the one to break the news to you but that was exactly what happened in Japan. They simply were not going to give up without a fight. The bomb convinced them to give up with out a fight. How you can blindly ignore history is beyond me.

The bomb isn't a very useful weapon except as a deterrent. The damage done in Japan was equivalent to a few full-scale conventional raids. Wow! What can I say? Such ignorance is breathtaking. I'll let you figure this one out sparky. Why do you suppose that Japan surrendered unconditionally when they were until that time prepared to sacrifice millions of their own people? And WHY is it a deterrent? Why is it feared so much?

I will give you a little help.

Significance of the Bomb (http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_atom.html)

The toll of death and injury at Hiroshima and Nagasaki--appalling as it was--was not the most meaningful measure of the significance of the new weapon. In the massive fire-bomb raid on Tokyo on March 9, 1945, for example, the Japanese suffered more fatalities than at Hiroshima. But the attack on Tokyo engaged a fleet of many hundreds of bombers for many hours. The awesome difference was that damage on this scale could be inflicted by a single bomb carried in a single plane. One bomb and massive devastation.

Question: How does a nation with conventional means counter a threat from nuclear attack?

Answer: It doesn't.

Thanks for playing sparky. I hate to be patronizing but you are just being silly. Nuclear weapons are deterrents because they can so easily inflict so much damage with so little resources which IS the math of war.

I don't see that there's anything more the US could have done in the world than it actually did. Your inability to see is your problem. Japan is real evidence of what was possible. You have not offered a single piece of evidence to counter what happened at the end of WWII. There is no reason to assume that what we did to Japan we could not have done to the Soviet Union or China. You have only offered rhetoric and claims. Do you have any evidence to back up those claims?

The US has hardly been isolationist since 1945... Please go back and read my posts. I said that our interventionism policies had been disastrous.

...after all. The only thing it hasn't done is drop a nuke, which tends to indicate there's never been a useful purpose in doing so. Bad logic. That is only one possibility. Others have been advanced, including that we didn't want to rule the world or suffer possible consequences. That such consequences were possible did not render the use of the weapon without purpose.

RandFan

17th April 2005, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by egslim
I think you're overestimating the effect of the first generation of nuclear weapons. I don't think so.

My guess is the actual losses were even higher. But this particular attack was done by 334 B29's, armed with firebombs.
http://www.historynet.com/wwii/bltrialbyfire/index1.html

Hiroshima:
Dead: 66,000
Injured: 69,000

Nagasaki:
Dead: 39,000
Injured: 25,000
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/northamerican/TheAtomicBombingsofHiroshimaandNagasaki/chap11.html
And the US was only capable of producing a very few nuclear weapons per month. Little boy and Fatman didn't do more damage than could be done by conventional means, but they emphasised the (already apparent) futility of further Japanese resistance. I disagree. The problem is that war can be rendered to an equation. Before the atomic bomb such devastation required tremendous resources and risk on the part of the aggressor. The bomb reduced significantly the need for those risks and resources. A single plane with a single bomb could inflict massive damage. That is absolutely significant. The defender cannot fight a war of attrition against an aggressor with such capability. We could sit back and crank out atomic weapons (it took us little time to ramp up production) and drop bombs with little consequences while inflicting massive damage to the Soviets and Chinese or anyone else unwilling to capitulate. In a single day we could destroy entire city centers with the most minimum of risk. If you have not read Art of War and you will better understand the significance of the Atomic Bomb.

Keep on fighting. Seriously.

The Japanese tried it: "We know we can't actually conquer the US, but if we destroy their fleet and create a defensive barrier of captured islands around us they will have no choice but to accept some kind of peace." Until the Atomic Bomb America would have to factor in the loss of men and resources if Japan kept on fighting. After the Atomic Bomb there was no need for such an equation. We could simply let them fight and die.

Germany tried it also: "We know we are unable to actually invade Britain, but if we conquer continental Europe they will have to make peace."
If you give your enemy a choice they will almost certainly choose the option you don't want them to take. When one is fighting a foe that must commit human lives and resources such decisions are understandable. Fighting a foe that needs to expend almost nothing is not worthy of even thinking about. That is why once the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki the game was over. Two bombs, two planes, NO loss of life on the American side. NO loss of planes on the American side. The cost of the Bombs, planes, training of the pilots and fuel for the trip were the only expenditures. And what did such minimal risk and expenditure achieve? You answer that question and you will finally understand the problem of defending against a nuclear attack with conventional means.

These were battles waged by the Americans with virtually no risk. How do you fight an aggressor who has nothing to lose and everything to gain?

Ziggurat

17th April 2005, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you truly believe this strategy why are you not calling for the immediate invasion of North Korea, Iran and China? If not, why not?

In politics, the impossible is the immoral. We cannot invade China for the simple reason that they have nuclear weapons, and the concievable benefits are dwarfed by the obvious costs. Such was not the case with Iraq. With Iran, we may be able to achieve our goals through support for internal democratic opposition, which is already widespread. This was also not the case with Iraq in 2003 (though before you delude yourself into thinking you've spotted an inconsistency, I think we made a terrible mistake in not supporting the 1991 Shia uprising). With North Korea, we also have potential leverage against the regime, since it cannot support itself and relies on external aid to stay afloat (again, unlike Saddam who could smuggle plenty of oil out of the country and had successfully subverted the oil-for-food program with bribes), and the cost in lives (particularly in South Korea, our ally) would be much higher too. Practical considerations matter. But then, I wouldn't expect practical considerations to play much of a role for a communist sympathiser.

As you choose to be so offensive about WWII, if you truly believe your own analysis, what took you so long?

I'm not exactly sure why you use the term "you" here: my parents came to the US after WWII. There was a very strong isolationist movement within the US, and those people were on the wrong side of history. They made a mistake. But it's a mistake you seem to think we should be making all over again.

Populations around the wolrd are indeed being asked to pay an unacceptable price for the presence of US troops, including rape in Okinawa for example, and torture in Iraq and the people prostituting themselves in the Phillpines.

The first two cases you're trying to argue general policy from rather limited cases, and I won't bother going into why that's not exactly rigorous thinking. But that last point is a particularly egregious example of the kind of narrow-mindedness I've come to expect from you. Prostitution sucks. It's not a good life style. But US troops don't cause prostitution. Does Germany hold imperial power over Thailand because German tourists go to Bankok to have sex? No, I don't think so. And why the hell are those women prostitutes? Might it not have something to do with the fact that the Philipine economy sucks? And what, exactly, would those women do if the US soldiers up and left? I don't know myself, but I do know one thing: whatever it is they'd be doing, it's actually WORSE than being a prostitute for US soldiers, or they'd be doing it right now instead. I'm all for trying to stop prostitution, but you're really deluding yourself if you think that US military presence is the source of the problem, or that the US military leaving will somehow magically make the problem go away.

Local politicians in Okinawa have called for a reduction in the number of US troops but what have you done? So much for real democracy.

Like I said elsewhere, blame Tokyo for that, not Washington. Tokyo has sovereignty over Okinawa, not Washington. But nothing is EVER anyone else's responsibility except the US, evidently.

Based on your own words it appears that people who disagree with you cannot do so without having to be deluded or being liars.

Hardly. I've had plenty of debates here with people who are quite reasonable, and who I've treated with respect. But when you consistently equate mass-murdering ideologies with a system that has created more prosperity and peace than any other, when you hold up Kofi Annan, a man who could have stopped genocide and instead decided that inaction and a semblance of impartiality were more important, as some sort of moral superior to the US military, which recently freed 50 million people from two of the most barbaric regimes on the face of the earth, then yes, I'll call you delusional, idiotic, despicable, and hateful. Because you are. You appologize for mass murder and attack those who stand up against it. You deserve no respect from me, and you will get none.

gnome

17th April 2005, 10:30 AM

This is the way that I look at it.

- Nuclear weapons exist.
- It requires a balance of deterrent to make the use of nuclear weapons unlikely.
- This balance relies on all of the nuclear club members behaving rationally.
- The more members in the club, the less likely this becomes.

My conclusion? It's not fair, but avoiding nuclear war is more important. I would work against nuclear weapons being held by any more nations at all, even friendly ones. I'm a bit worried about Israel, even, but it seems to be too late to stop that.

egslim

17th April 2005, 11:18 AM

Before the atomic bomb such devastation required tremendous resources and risk on the part of the aggressor. The bomb reduced significantly the need for those risks and resources. A single plane with a single bomb could inflict massive damage.
Given the numbers I quoted a single nuclear bomb would be about equal to an attack with 500 B29's - and that's generous. But air raids on that scale could be conducted 8 times a month very easily. While the production of nuclear weapons was only up to 4 a month in januari 1946. Not very impressive.

Then there is the problem of delivery. The B29 which dropped the second bomb actually crashed as a result of the blast. One bomber isn't a very high price to pay. But a single aircraft would have very little chance to penetrate any serious air defence. You'd need at least a lot of fighter protection and most likely several bombers to draw attention from the aircraft carrying the bomb. That puts a strain on resources, not much smaller than those of conventional bombings.
Nuclear weapons aren't bulletproof and if damaged they won't even go off.

Until the Atomic Bomb America would have to factor in the loss of men and resources if Japan kept on fighting. After the Atomic Bomb there was no need for such an equation. We could simply let them fight and die.
Sure, but conventional weapons already did the same thing.

For Japan the war was really decided after Midway - all they could do was stall the inevitable. Trouble was, Japanese were more likely to fight to death than surrender themselves even in hopeless situations. Their plan was to have civilians with bamboo sticks await Allied soldiers at the beaches. Thus they were willing to waste millions of lives for a hopeless cause.

And even after the second bomb it was only through the Emperors personal intervention Japan surrendered. What the bombs did was make apparent a situation which was really already objectively clear.

When one is fighting a foe that must commit human lives and resources such decisions are understandable.
I think you're underestimating the human factor. People are willing to get themselves and others killed for something they believe in - even if its irrational.

You answer that question and you will finally understand the problem of defending against a nuclear attack with conventional means.
How about unconventional? Chemical weapons already existed and terrorism is an ancient invention. It doesn't even need government sponsoring...
There were a lot of communist resistance fighters in for example France. If they start attacking US soldiers, what can you do?
1) drop a bomb on the SU -> people sympathise with them and against you, thereby increasing the number of communist resistance fighters.
2) drop a bomb in France -> killing your own supporters is a really quick way to lose them and again increase the number of communist resistance fighters.
3) use conventional forces -> no bomb required.

I agree with gnome, unfortunately nuclear technology isn't independent from other technologies. So as those progress, so will nuclear technology become more and more accessible to everyone. We can slow this trend down, but it 'll never be stopped.

RandFan

17th April 2005, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by egslim
Given the numbers I quoted a single nuclear bomb would be about equal to an attack with 500 B29's - and that's generous. But air raids on that scale could be conducted 8 times a month very easily. But such raids NEVER even came close to bringing the Japanese to capitulation and such raids were terribly costly in resources.

While the production of nuclear weapons was only up to 4 a month in januari 1946. Not very impressive. Can you support that claim? Besides, the belief that we could produce them was all that mattered.

Then there is the problem of delivery. The B29 which dropped the second bomb actually crashed as a result of the blast. One bomber isn't a very high price to pay. But a single aircraft would have very little chance to penetrate any serious air defence. You'd need at least a lot of fighter protection and most likely several bombers to draw attention from the aircraft carrying the bomb. That puts a strain on resources, not much smaller than those of conventional bombings. I don't agree at all. Nice try but it just doesn't wash. By your own estimation a single plane and bomb is equivalent to hundreds of planes. You are correct that air defenses would be a problem and that it would require resources but no where near the number to carry out a conventional raid.

Nuclear weapons aren't bulletproof and if damaged they won't even go off. You don't need many to go off to get the desired affect. As the old saying goes, almost counts in horseshoes and atom bombs.

Sure, but conventional weapons already did the same thing. At great cost. Many men died. Many planes were lost.

For Japan the war was really decided after Midway - all they could do was stall the inevitable. Trouble was, Japanese were more likely to fight to death than surrender themselves even in hopeless situations. Their plan was to have civilians with bamboo sticks await Allied soldiers at the beaches. Thus they were willing to waste millions of lives for a hopeless cause. Which causes one to ask why they surrendered. It was obvious there simply was no point anymore.

And even after the second bomb it was only through the Emperors personal intervention Japan surrendered. What the bombs did was make apparent a situation which was really already objectively clear. This is simply putting spin on the situation. The results of the bomb were clear and unambiguous. America had a weapon that rendered conventional means obsolete.

I think you're underestimating the human factor. People are willing to get themselves and others killed for something they believe in - even if its irrational. On the contrary. I absolutely believe this. But there must be some element of hope or expectation. Hope of survival and at least hope of causing your opponent to bear a great cost. The Japanese wanted us to bear that cost. The atomic bomb absolutely ended any such hope.

How about unconventional? Chemical weapons already existed and terrorism is an ancient invention. It doesn't even need government sponsoring...
There were a lot of communist resistance fighters in for example France. If they start attacking US soldiers, what can you do?
1) drop a bomb on the SU -> people sympathise with them and against you, thereby increasing the number of communist resistance fighters.
2) drop a bomb in France -> killing your own supporters is a really quick way to lose them and again increase the number of communist resistance fighters.
3) use conventional forces -> no bomb required. I don't dispute any of these points. They are hardly relevant to my point. Start dropping bombs on city centers including Moscow and Stalingrad and they would have been asking how soon to meet for a face to face.

I agree with gnome, unfortunately nuclear technology isn't independent from other technologies. So as those progress, so will nuclear technology become more and more accessible to everyone. We can slow this trend down, but it 'll never be stopped. No argument.

CapelDodger

17th April 2005, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
??? What? Could you offer some reason for this? Why didn't the war go on with the Japanese? Because of the Bushido culture these folks were fighting in an unprecedented way. They were seemingly willing to sacrifice all. Oh ... Kay ... Pretty weird stuff, but I'll make a stab. I was addressing the "We haven't gone on to rule the world after the defeat of Japan, but we could have, oh yes, we had the bomb ..." argument. You seem here to have confused the "losing" of China (which occurred after the defeat of Japan) with the Pacific War. That ended in August 1945, which saw the dropping of atomic bombs by the US, the destruction of the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria (about a million men) and the capitulation of Japan. These events may have been related.

Pick a large city center and drop the bomb. If that doesn't stop them the second one will. This doesn't relate to the situation in China 1945-49, in which the US took a great deal of interest. Which was my point. How do you use a nuclear weapon to determine the outcome of a civil war?

No, force them to capitulate the way the Japanese did. Either they comply or be destroyed. End of story.And having capitulated, what? What do you want to make them do? What are your orders? Iraq has capitulated : how's that turning out, and is there any lack of trying?

I hate to be the one to break the news to you but that was exactly what happened in Japan. They simply were not going to give up without a fight. The bomb convinced them to give up with out a fight. How you can blindly ignore history is beyond me.Would they have capitulated if they hadn't lost Manchuria and most of their army? Japanese peace-feelers had already been extended, but they were stymied by a US refusal to guarantee the Emperor's safety and freedom post-war. Unconditional meant just that, no conditions, Emperor takes his chances. After the bombs were dropped the US breezily agreed that they had nothing against the Emperor, fine chap really, figurehead, not his fault, and peace followed. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Had the US kept the war going long enough to impress Uncle Joe with the bomb, then accepted surrender? This is a contentious issue, as you would expect. Given your rather intemperate post, I expect it confidently.

Wow! What can I say? Such ignorance is breathtaking. I'll let you figure this one out sparky. Why do you suppose that Japan surrendered unconditionally when they were until that time prepared to sacrifice millions of their own people?"Unconditionally" is a misnomer. There was a condition : that the Emperor's safety would be guaranteed. Any fule kno that.

And WHY is it a deterrent? Why is it feared so much?

I will give you a little help.
...
"But the attack on Tokyo engaged a fleet of many hundreds of bombers for many hours. The awesome difference was that damage on this scale could be inflicted by a single bomb carried in a single plane."

One bomb and massive devastation.Was it actually any cheaper than having all those planes fly out? Big savings in fuel and flight-time bonuses, of course, but all the same those two bombs cost a pretty penny. And imagine if the Enola Gay had gone down over the Pacific ... that would have been a pisser. I suppose that's why there were two bombs.Your quote supports my contention that a few convential raids would have wreaked the same destruction. The Japanese were no more able to stop those than the Enola Gay. So why was the latter more terrifying than the former? "Atom Bomb" didn't yet have the apocolyptic ring it had in the post-war years.

Question: How does a nation with conventional means counter a threat from nuclear attack?

Answer: It doesn't.And so does what? What is that these out-classed losers have to do that requires such extreme persuasion? Play nice? Send tribute? Open up their soya bean market? Convert to Christianity? What is the bomb being used to make them do?

Thanks for playing sparky. I hate to be patronizing ... No you don't, you love to think that you're being patronising ... ... but you are just being silly.When, like me, you have the wherewithal to patronise, you don't feel you have to.

RandFan

17th April 2005, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Oh ... Kay ... Pretty weird stuff, but I'll make a stab. I was addressing the "We haven't gone on to rule the world after the defeat of Japan, but we could have, oh yes, we had the bomb ..." argument. You seem here to have confused the "losing" of China (which occurred after the defeat of Japan) with the Pacific War. That ended in August 1945, which saw the dropping of atomic bombs by the US, the destruction of the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria (about a million men) and the capitulation of Japan. These events may have been related. I'm not sure of your point.

This doesn't relate to the situation in China 1945-49, in which the US took a great deal of interest. Which was my point. How do you use a nuclear weapon to determine the outcome of a civil war? Trying to determine the outcome of a civil war is not my point.

And having capitulated, what? What do you want to make them do? What are your orders? Iraq has capitulated : how's that turning out, and is there any lack of trying? Great point. However such problems did not stop the Soviet Union from Annexing a number of countries. It didn't stop Hitler from attempting to control as many countries as he could. I don't think it was a good idea for them and I certainly don't think it would have been a good idea for the reasons you bring up. This just underscores my point. We cared about such matters the Soviets didn't. THAT is why America would be the better choice if such a choice existed.

Would they have capitulated if they hadn't lost Manchuria and most of their army? That is a reasonable assumption, yes.

Japanese peace-feelers had already been extended, but they were stymied by a US refusal to guarantee the Emperor's safety and freedom post-war.give a link? Unconditional meant just that, no conditions, Emperor takes his chances. After the bombs were dropped the US breezily agreed that they had nothing against the Emperor, fine chap really, figurehead, not his fault, and peace followed. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Had the US kept the war going long enough to impress Uncle Joe with the bomb, then accepted surrender? This is a contentious issue, as you would expect. Given your rather intemperate post, I expect it confidently. Could you provide a link or some resource?

"Unconditionally" is a misnomer. There was a condition : that the Emperor's safety would be guaranteed. Any fule kno that. {sigh} wow, big deal. Japan was ruled by the United States. Hardly a meaningful "condition".

Was it actually any cheaper than having all those planes fly out? Big savings in fuel and flight-time bonuses, of course, but all the same those two bombs cost a pretty penny. And imagine if the Enola Gay had gone down over the Pacific ... that would have been a pisser. I suppose that's why there were two bombs. Not a clue as to your point.

Your quote supports my contention that a few conventional raids would have wreaked the same destruction. The Japanese were no more able to stop those than the Enola Gay. So why was the latter more terrifying than the former? "Atom Bomb" didn't yet have the apocalyptic ring it had in the post-war years. Sorry but all of the raids did NOT bring the Japanese to surrender. The atom bomb did and for good reason.

And so does what? What is that these out-classed losers have to do that requires such extreme persuasion? Play nice? Send tribute? Open up their soya bean market? Convert to Christianity? What is the bomb being used to make them do? The questions are entirely besides the point.

No you don't, you love to think that you're being patronising ...Really? We will have to come up with some mind reading label for you. UriCapel sounds good.

When, like me, you have the wherewithal to patronise, you don't feel you have to. It's customary to have a point before one can patronize. In any event you are correct. The post was intemperate. Sorry.

CapelDodger

17th April 2005, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not sure of your point.

Trying to determine the outcome of a civil war is not my point. It was my point, which is what started this exchange. What was the "choice of restraint" that the US made during the Chinese Civil War? How could they have used the bomb, if that was the restraint? If they had decided to rule China, how would they have done it? They did not have the capability, and having the bomb didn't mean that they did. And if not in China, not the world.

So they could wait until the KMT loses the war and scuttles behind the US Navy's skirts in Taiwan, then start bombing Chinese cities until they let the KMT take over again. A government that came into power on that basis is likely to have low popular esteem and - probably - a civil insurrection on their hands. Way to go. Or they could declare it a new US province and put in a Governor-General, perhaps while dangling the distant prospect of Statehood.

Great point. However such problems did not stop the Soviet Union from Annexing a number of countries. It didn't stop Hitler from attempting to control as many countries as he could. I don't think it was a good idea for them and I certainly don't think it would have been a good idea for the reasons you bring up. This just underscores my point. We cared about such matters the Soviets didn't. THAT is why America would be the better choice if such a choice existed.Choice of what, now? You're suggesting that the US could have annexed countries, not doing themselves much good - it's hardly surprising they chose that. They could have made the Saudis allow women to drive. They could have made the Pope King of Poland and Elvis the Holy Roman Emperor. Put some imagination into it.

That is a reasonable assumption, yes.But an assumption, you'll agree. Given that the Japanese had been losing cities on a nightly basis, and just this one massive army, it could use a little support.

Could you provide a link or some resource? AJP Taylor's History of WW2 is pretty comprehensive.

{sigh} wow, big deal. Japan was ruled by the United States. Hardly a meaningful "condition".Tojo was hanged. A very dishonourable death in any culture. He tried to commit suicide but was saved and nursed back to sufficient health to take the drop without it being "inhumane". It's a funny old world. The Emperor, on the other hand, got off scot-free. This may mean nothing to you, but it meant a great deal in the prevailing circumstances.

Not a clue as to your point.The point being the lack of obvious advantage - not even financial - in using an atom bomb to destroy a Japanese city rather than a conventional raid. In fact, it carries the disadvantage of a possible 100% failure rate.

Sorry but all of the raids did NOT bring the Japanese to surrender. The atom bomb did and for good reason. The good reason being what?

The questions are entirely besides the point. They're to the point of eliciting what the deferred "ruling" actually signifies in practical terms.

RandFan

17th April 2005, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It was my point, which is what started this exchange. What was the "choice of restraint" that the US made during the Chinese Civil War? But your point was an irrelevant asside. If we had wanted to invade and conquer China we could have that is my only point. That there was a civil war at the time is irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.

If they had decided to rule China, how would they have done it? They did not have the capability, and having the bomb didn't mean that they did. And if not in China, not the world. That is your opinion. It is not supported by history or the realities of the fact that Atomic bomb could not be defended against.

Choice of what, now? You're suggesting that the US could have annexed countries, not doing themselves much good - it's hardly surprising they chose that. But you ignore that The Soviet Union, England, Spain, Portugal, the Romans and so many did just that sometime in history. Just because there were potential problems does not make such a decision impossible.

But an assumption, you'll agree. And a reasonable one.

AJP Taylor's History of WW2 is pretty comprehensive. I'll have to secure a copy. Until then I'm going to have to defer any evidence. It is not my job to prove your point.

The Emperor, on the other hand, got off scot-free. This may mean nothing to you, but it meant a great deal in the prevailing circumstances. It does not at all alter the relevant facts.

The point being the lack of obvious advantage - not even financial - in using an atom bomb to destroy a Japanese city rather than a conventional raid. In fact, it carries the disadvantage of a possible 100% failure rate. ??? Odd. It caries the advantage of low risk and if there is a failure as there so often is in such situation you just do it again. Remember, atomic bombs require fewer planes and fewer resources. Your point does not stand. That you continue to make it in the face of facts is beyond me.

The good reason being what? {sigh} How often to I have to make the point? There was nothing to gain and everything to lose on the part of the Japanese.

There was little to lose and everything to gain on the part of the Americans.

They're to the point of eliciting what the deferred "ruling" actually signifies in practical terms. Sorry, that is besides the point. It is demonstrable that countries like the Soviet Union, England, Spain, Portugal have had empires. What for? It is not relevant to my point. We could have done what others did do and what Hitler wanted to do for various reasons.

That we didn't want to be Hitler or Stalin or that we did not want to be an empire like Spain, Brittan, or other empires is reason to believe that America is a better bet to have a bomb.

You only make my point.

Elind

17th April 2005, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Iamme
Well? Why not. What kind of example are we setting? Who do we think we are?

We know who we are. Do you?

egslim

18th April 2005, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't agree at all. Nice try but it just doesn't wash. By your own estimation a single plane and bomb is equivalent to hundreds of planes. You are correct that air defenses would be a problem and that it would require resources but no where near the number to carry out a conventional raid.
Assuming decent air defences, you'd need several decoy bombers, plus a fighter escort. And there would be a great incentive for defenders to fight fiercly, including suicide attacks against the bombers. Atomic weapons aren't cheap themsleves.

The cost savings would probably be neglible compared to the total cost of a naval blockade and army containment, which would have need to be continued regardless.

At great cost. Many men died. Many planes were lost.
1.3%, eventually. Japanese air defence was in shambles.

This is simply putting spin on the situation. The results of the bomb were clear and unambiguous. America had a weapon that rendered conventional means obsolete.
Nope, they had a weapon that, when used in significant quantities, had the potential to vastly increase the amount of damage done by strategic air raids.
Apart from the delivery and production issues - which could eventually be sorted out - there are lots of things airpower is simply impotent against. Thats why an army and a navy are still necessary.
Put it this way: If the USA would have tried world conquest by dropping nuclear weapons on any opposing country there wouldn't have been a safe place for US forces or civilians anywhere in the world, save in the US itself - probably.

On the contrary. I absolutely believe this. But there must be some element of hope or expectation. Hope of survival and at least hope of causing your opponent to bear a great cost. The Japanese wanted us to bear that cost. The atomic bomb absolutely ended any such hope.
In 1939, German forces witnessed an awesome Polish cavalry attack against their armoured column. Then they turned their machineguns and mowed them all down.
Probably the Polish did have some kind of hope, just not any rational one.

Part of what made the US powerful after WWII was how it held the moral highground. Liberated countries were grateful, while popular opinion in Axis countries swung to guilt. US forces behaved decently.
This goodwill meant relatively few resources had to be diverted for security. Unlike for example the German effort against partisans.
Liberal use of atomic weapons in a campaign of conquest would have demolished it.

Also, around 1945 popular opinion wasn't against the Soviet Union at all, they were considered brothers in arms. I read a book written in 1943 by Guy Gibson. (A bomber pilot) He recalls his outrage against the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, but at the time of writing he feels "they must have had good reason".

edited to add last section

18th April 2005, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by egslim
In 1939, German forces witnessed an awesome Polish cavalry attack against their armoured column. Then they turned their machineguns and mowed them all down.

No, they didn't. Or at least I have never managed to find any details on this supposed attack (or attacks).

What I have found is an account where a Polish cavalry squadron charged a German horse-drawn supply column and slaughtered Germans around a bit before a German armored car platoon came to the rescue. When the Poles saw those cars, they withdrew very quickly leaving several casualties behind.

The next day Germans brought some foreign correspondents to the place, showed the dead Poles and horses (they had cleared their own casualties away) to them, and stated that "this is what happens when you fight tanks with cavalry". Presto, instant urban legend.

Probably the Polish did have some kind of hope, just not any raional one.

BTW, a Polish cavalry regiment had more AT capabilities than a Finnish infantry regiment. Still Soviets lost over 3,000 tanks in Winter War of 1939-40. Though it has to be admitted that the Soviets faced worse tank terrain than Germans and their tanks had larger dead zones of vision so they were worse against infantry. (That casualty figure includes all tank losses from all causes so not all were lost in combat but mechanical malfunctions are also counted. Also, over 50% of them could be later repaired).

Also, around 1945 popular opinion wasn't against the Soviet Union at all, they were considered brothers in arms.

This is what I think is the weakest point in the argument for US - SU war in 1945. Would the morale of American public sustain a new war in Europe immediately after the German defeat against a former ally? In particular since the likely result of initiation of hostilities is that the American army will suffer severe initial losses.

RandFan

18th April 2005, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by egslim
Assuming decent air defences, you'd need several decoy bombers, plus a fighter escort. And there would be a great incentive for defenders to fight fiercly, including suicide attacks against the bombers. Atomic weapons aren't cheap themsleves.

The cost savings would probably be neglible compared to the total cost of a naval blockade and army containment, which would have need to be continued regardless. I see no basis for this at all. Sure there would be air defenses. Cost savings negligible? No. That is just not reasonable. One plane carrying one bomb can cause immense devastation. The equivalent of many hundreds of planes. A single atomic weapons is far cheaper than hundreds of planes. And you are comparing a conventional air raid to one or two bombers. The tactics are far different. In the conventional raid surprise is not an element and large numbers are hoped to win the day. With one or two bombers flying below radar or at night a single plane could slip in much more easily and drop its load.

Nope, they had a weapon that, when used in significant quantities, had the potential to vastly increase the amount of damage done by strategic air raids. One bomb, one plane an entire city center destroyed. You dismiss the facts far too easily.

Apart from the delivery and production issues - which could eventually be sorted out - there are lots of things airpower is simply impotent against. That's why an army and a navy are still necessary. I'm not denying that.

Put it this way: If the USA would have tried world conquest by dropping nuclear weapons on any opposing country there wouldn't have been a safe place for US forces or civilians anywhere in the world, save in the US itself - probably. I see no rationale for this statement.

Part of what made the US powerful after WWII was how it held the moral highground. Liberated countries were grateful, while popular opinion in Axis countries swung to guilt. US forces behaved decently. No argument, it is besides the point. That we did the right thing is not an argument that we couldn't have effectively done something different.

Frank Newgent

18th April 2005, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Iamme

Is North Korea going to be our next Al Quada?
No. Why?

1. Cheney's stock portfolio short on kim chee futures.

2. Nuclear Football mistakenly presented to New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick after an upset victory over the favored St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI.

3. Mrs. Donald Rumsfeld's recent choice of movie rentals - Judgement at Nuremberg - at Georgetown's BLOCKBUSTER video.

4. Body of leading world religious figure rumored to have been found in the Mideast, resulting in the cancellation of Easter and Attorney General John Ashcroft's declaration: "This changes everything. Go bomb them yourself, you son-of-a-bitch!"

5. Dawning awareness of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il as an ally of the Bush Doctrine with his challenge: "Why should I let contradictions of reality diminish the expression of untruth so grounded in firm metaphysical principle?"

6. Naive amateur Neil Bush in Pyongyang carrying a Bible, a chocolate cake and a Thermos of highly enriched uranium.

drkitten

18th April 2005, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Japanese peace-feelers had already been extended, but they were stymied by a US refusal to guarantee the Emperor's safety and freedom post-war. Unconditional meant just that, no conditions, Emperor takes his chances. After the bombs were dropped the US breezily agreed that they had nothing against the Emperor, fine chap really, figurehead, not his fault, and peace followed. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Had the US kept the war going long enough to impress Uncle Joe with the bomb, then accepted surrender? This is a contentious issue, as you would expect. Given your rather intemperate post, I expect it confidently.

"Unconditionally" is a misnomer. There was a condition : that the Emperor's safety would be guaranteed. Any fule kno that.

Some support for this is available on-line (since RandFan seems unwilling to deal with dead trees). A paper by the US Army Combat Studies Institute (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp#01) discusses the specific meaning of "unconditional surrender," which is a surprisingly ill-defined term in this context, and specifically the meanings placed upon it in by the military and diplomatic representatives of all sides near the end of the Second World War. One quote in particular is telling:

Unconditional surrender, as an ill-defined slogan, did not foreclose any possibility, no matter how horrendous. A quick glance at American speeches, opinion polls, and movies would not reassure Japan. Thirteen percent of the respondents wanted to "kill all Japanese"; another 33 percent wanted to destroy the Japanese state. Life magazine showed photos of American war trophies sent home to loved ones in the form of hollowed out Japanese skulls. "This," responded Japan's most popular newspapers and writers, "is American Savagery Unveiled." "Barbarism is a conspicuous characteristic of their history," If Japan capitulates, they said, America will "inflict a general massacre and defile the purity of our blood." "All our men would be made into slaves and all our women would be prostitutes," ("It was a great relief," recalled one former teenager, "when the Americans came and no such things happened.") Less hyperbolic, the minister of foreign affairs wrote a subordinate in 1945: "The difficult point is the attitude of the enemy, who continues to insist on the formality of unconditional surrender.... Then our country and His Majesty would unanimously resolve to fight a war of resistance to the bitter end."39

The U.S. armed forces overheard all these diplomatic conversations, having broken the enemy's codes. Internal Japanese memos stated that "the Japanese believe that unconditional surrender would be the equivalent of national extinction."

The Japanese peace faction, instead, had long been discussing terms such as "peace with honor," and "the protection of the fundamental character of our government." So the offering of the Potsdam proclaimation was actually a tremendous step backwards from the "unconditional surrender" that had previously been demanded. From the same source:

The Potsdam Proclamation retained substantial ambiguity, to the consternation of the State Department, which warned that vague terms, under international law, are "interpreted favorably to the state which accepts them." All in all, the Proclamation represented a compromise position--too strong for America's professional soldiers and career diplomats but too weak for the political appointees who controlled State Department policy. lt was also too harsh for the peace faction inside the Japanese government, which was too weak to do more "than explain our intention in an indirect way," As for stipulations concerning the postwar occupation, they went beyond what the Pentagon supported but fell short of the State Department's objectives: only "points in Japanese territory" (not the entire nation) were to be occupied. "The terms of the Cairo Declaration," which limited "Japanese sovereignty" to its home islands, was officially superseded. Potsdam demanded "a new [political] order" ensured by a "stern justice [for] all war criminals." However, those "war criminals" could simply be military men who broke "the laws of war" in the field of operations. If the enemy surrendered on these terms, the Allied occupation was to be withdrawn as soon as its objectives were obtained. If it did not and "there are no alternatives" to the "objectives we are setting forth" - Japan would be "destroyed as a nation."

Japanese officials immediately recognized that Potsdam was far more lenient than generally expected and softer than the terms imposed on Germany -- which was never offered any terms at all. The Japanese peace faction tried to persuade the emperor that, ipso facto, the document meant the abandonment of unconditional surrender. The military faction considered the document proof that America's will to fight had eroded and demanded its unequivocal rejection to solidify morale inside Japanese Army ranks. ("For the enemy [the Allies] to say something like that means circumstances have arisen that force them also to end the war.") Whatever way it was interpreted, the proclamation failed its function according to the JCS--that is, "to induce Japan's surrender and thus avoid the heavy casualties implied in a fight to the finish." Admittedly, the document said nothing about "the basic point on which acceptance of surrender terms will hinge, the disposition of the Emperor and his dynasty." Paragraph 7 insisted that "the authority and influence of those who have misted the people of Japan , . . must be eliminated for all time."

So not only was "unconditional surrender" completely inappropriate as a description, but the specific fact and function of the Japanese Emperor was specifically recognized by both sides as being critical to any eventual diplomatic solution.

In this light, the atomic bombs provided a good excuse for the Japanese surrender under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration:

Ironically, Hiroshima turned out to be the military's face-saving device, one more powerful than an American abrogation of unconditional surrender. The emperor could now annul the unwritten constitution and capitulate without challenging the valor of the Japanese Army. One member of the peace faction would confidentially tell an American interrogator that the atomic bomb "was a good excuse" for surrender. More typical citizens would still tell American reporters that the United States "would [never] have dared attempt a seaborne invasion." On 15 August, Hirohito made his first and last radio broadcast to his nation: ''The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage. [Military defeat, per se, was never mentioned.] Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb taking the toll of many innocent lives, Should we continue to fight, it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."....

[T]he imperial government accepted the Potsdam Declaration, "with the understanding that [it] does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler." Actually, the Allied terms only offered "sovereignty" for the Japanese nation, not the dynasty per se. The rulers of the island were insisting (as one Japanese diplomat confirmed) that there would be no change in the political institutions of imperial Japan, even if no Japanese empire was left standing to rule. These men were accepting, twenty months too late, the sole demand of the Cairo Conference for the liquidation of all overseas possessions. By now this was "conditional surrender," according to NBC radio news.

This "conditional surrender," on the other hand, was exactly what Truman was willing to accept.

So, while RandFan may not believe that the distinction between having Hirohito remain unmolested on the throne and being hanged as a war criminal was significant, the Japanese evidently did. So did a number of Americans, most notably "Richard Russell, trying to take the issue out of the hands of the executive branch, [who] introduced a bill that would force the government to try the emperor as a war criminal."

In the opinion of the military analysts who have studied this, the atomic bomb neither forced the Japanese to surrender, nor did it persuade them to accept any terms that they would not otherwise have accepted. It provided, at best, "the military's face-saving device..... The emperor could now annul the unwritten constitution and capitulate without challenging the valor of the Japanese Army."

And, perhaps less importantly, the "unconditional surrender" wasn't, and everyone involved knew it

RandFan

18th April 2005, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
Some support for this is available on-line (since RandFan seems unwilling to deal with dead trees). This is such a chicken $h!t answer. I DON'T have the book. Tell us all how I'm supposed to answer without the book? I have been trying to find a copy of the book. So far I have only been able to locate The Origins of The Second World War and Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1949 both by Taylor.

Please tell my why it is wrong to ask for an internet source or expect one to wait so that the source can be obtained? I would really hope for an answer to that question. Please do not consider it rhetorical.

So, while RandFan may not believe that the distinction between having Hirohito remain unmolested on the throne and being hanged as a war criminal was significant, the Japanese evidently did. So did a number of Americans, most notably "Richard Russell, trying to take the issue out of the hands of the executive branch, [who] introduced a bill that would force the government to try the emperor as a war criminal." This is simply silly. So "Richard Russell" has his panties in a bunch for letting a war criminal off the hook. I agree with him but what on earth does that have to do with the point at hand? It is quite simply a distinction without a difference as it relates to the thesis. The problem is that you do not tell us what practical difference this distinction is. Who called the shots? Hirohito?

INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER (http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japsurr.html)

...to comply with all requirements which my be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Headquarters to issue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender un- conditionally themselves and all forces under their control.

We hereby command all civil, military and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, and orders and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to ef- fectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority. (emphasis mine...who's authority?)

We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever actions may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.

The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to ef- fectuate these terms of surrender.

In the opinion of the military analysts who have studied this, the atomic bomb neither forced the Japanese to surrender, nor did it persuade them to accept any terms that they would not otherwise have accepted. It provided, at best, "the military's face-saving device..... The emperor could now annul the unwritten constitution and capitulate without challenging the valor of the Japanese Army." Uh oh... here we go. I guess it would be bad form to ask for some background? Is the opinion of these "analysts" uncontested?

And, perhaps less importantly, the "unconditional surrender" wasn't, and everyone involved knew it Could you give us some more detail? This seems rather trite when compared to the entire scope of the surrender. The Japanese were giving completely the ultimate control of their nation to the Allies. You can dance and sing and argue semantics all you like but that fact isn't going to change.

drkitten

18th April 2005, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by RandFan

This is simply silly. So "Richard Russell" has his panties in a bunch for letting a war criminal off the hook. I agree with him but what on earth does that have to do with the point at hand? It is quite simply a distinction without a difference as it relates to the thesis. The problem is that you do not tell us what practical difference this distinction is.

The practical difference is that without a guarantee that the Emperor would have been let off the hook, the Japanese would not have surrendered.

You may not consider this a big deal. Neither, demonstrably, did the War Department (or Truman), which was why their proposal was accepted. On the other hand, the State Department (and Russell) did consider this a big deal --- and were overruled

Uh oh... here we go. I guess it would be bad form to ask for some background? Is the opinion of these "analysts" uncontested?

In large part, yes, the opinion is uncontested. In part because the historical documentation -- as illustrated by the on-line documentation I provided -- is rather uncontestable.

The Japanese would not have surrendered, bomb or no bomb, without the guarantee of Imperial sovereignty. That you consider this particular concession on Truman's part of little or no concern speaks mostly to your lack of understanding of Japanese culture, of the tenets of diplomacy, or of the historical situation at the time.

In order to achieve surrender, Truman acquiesced to the one condition that the Japanese wanted (in the teeth of his own State department, I might add) -- that of Imperial sovereignty. The Japanese didn't even care that the "sovereignty" offered was subject to American authority. What was important enough to them to keep fighting, was that Emperor Hirohito should be able to save "face." If Truman had been willing to agree to that condition six months earlier, the bombs would not have been needed -- and conversely, if Truman had insisted that Hirohito would be tried as a war criminal, the Japanese would probably still not have surrendered, even after the bombs

Iamme

18th April 2005, 02:55 PM

(Iamme)

Well? Why not. What kind of example are we setting? Who do we think we are?

(Elind)

We know who we are. Do you?

--------------------------------------------

Capitalists trying to open up world markets everywhere. Not because we are simply nice and hope the rest of the world gets to enjoy freedoms and an economy like *we* have, but so that our corporations can get richer so that the shareholders can make more money as the corporation grows. If only we were honest about our motives, maybe then we would be more readily accepted.

We have a great interest in parts of the world that are seas away from us simply because we have created 'interests' there. I have heard it oft quoted that we have to do what we have to do, regarding these countries that have become markets for us, because "We have interests there".

And other countries know all about us and our 'interests'. There are those, of course, who enjoy our presence and our westernization. But we are paying a big price in trying to convert everyone. And the radical factions step up to the plate and do everything from kill our missionaries, to bomb soldiers, barracks, embassies or even night clubs to show their displeasure.

Now regarding my OP: You have to try to put yourself in the shoes of some country like North Korea once. Picture yourself being a leader there. Imagine some other country telling you that you can't have a certain type of very effective weapon...by the very country who has the most of them and actually used them once. Imagine that one once. If that were me, that would go over like a lead balloon. I think I might have to hire goon squads to do sabotage work. (Sounds like a familiar theme, right?)

RandFan

18th April 2005, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
The practical difference is that without a guarantee that the Emperor would have been let off the hook, the Japanese would not have surrendered. This is not proven. Only that we agreed.

You may not consider this a big deal. Neither, demonstrably, did the War Department (or Truman), which was why their proposal was accepted. On the other hand, the State Department (and Russell) did consider this a big deal --- and were overruled If Japan would not surrender then why would Russell or the War Department object? Such a concession would save a million American lives. Is not one war criminal worthy of a million lives? I'm not as convinced that the Japanese would not have surrendered. I suspect that neither was Russell or the War Department.

In large part, yes, the opinion is uncontested. In part because the historical documentation -- as illustrated by the on-line documentation I provided -- is rather uncontestable. It is your claim. I'm trying to prove your point reading your documentation but I am unable to do so. Could you outline where and why you think it is uncontested? Could you quote the relevant material?

The Japanese would not have surrendered, bomb or no bomb, without the guarantee of Imperial sovereignty. I've yet to see evidence of this. Only a concession to the Japanese but that could have simply been a concession to a bluff. Again, why did Russell and the war department want to reject the concession?

That you consider this particular concession on Truman's part of little or no concern speaks mostly to your lack of understanding of Japanese culture, of the tenets of diplomacy, or of the historical situation at the time. On the contrary, I understand the culture of Bishudo. It is central to my argument, that only the bomb could bring about the surrender of the Japanese. Please don't patronize me.

National Atomic Museum (http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/decision.cfm)

The Decision to Drop

Military Considerations

During the bloody struggle to take the Philippines and Okinawa, President Truman and his military were concentrating on an invasion of Japan. The U.S. Navy was cruising off the Japanese coast and submarines were patrolling the Sea of Japan. Those in power in Tokyo were making plans for a house-to-house resistance to any invasion. Japan had over 5 million men under arms, of which 2 million were stationed on the home islands. Based upon the dogged resistance at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies determined that as many as 500,000 to one million allied soldiers would die if the invasion, scheduled for November 1, 1945 took place. Important points:
Einstein, Roosevelt, Truman and others believed that Bomb would be central to ending the war.

The bomb was believed to be so important that an unprecedented action was taken. Also known as the Manhattan project.

Many believed the bomb would be effective long before the Bomb was even proven possible.

The bomb did exactly as predicted. Coincidence?

In order to achieve surrender, Truman acquiesced to the one condition that the Japanese wanted (in the teeth of his own State department, I might add) -- that of Imperial sovereignty. The Japanese didn't even care that the "sovereignty" offered was subject to American authority. What was important enough to them to keep fighting, was that Emperor Hirohito should be able to save "face." If Truman had been willing to agree to that condition six months earlier, the bombs would not have been needed -- and conversely, if Truman had insisted that Hirohito would be tried as a war criminal, the Japanese would probably still not have surrendered, even after the bombs Proof would be nice. BTW, I'm sure that there are opinions out there but do you have something more than opinions? Remember many people believe that Pearl Harbor was due in part to Roosevelt letting the Japanese bomb with little resistance.

One more question: If the bomb could offer no strategic or tactical importance then why was so much energy and so many resources expended in its development?

E.J.Armstrong

18th April 2005, 04:01 PM

originally posted by Ziggurat
In politics, the impossible is the immoral. We cannot invade China for the simple reason that they have nuclear weapons, and the concievable benefits are dwarfed by the obvious costs. Such was not the case with Iraq. No indeed. Not much thought for the oppressed people of China, including the enormous numbers China murders each year in farcical 'judicial' proceedings including convicting at least one person of murder when the person he 'killed' wasn't even dead.With Iran, we may be able to achieve our goals through support for internal democratic opposition, which is already widespread. This was also not the case with Iraq in 2003 (though before you delude yourself into thinking you've spotted an inconsistency, I think we made a terrible mistake in not supporting the 1991 Shia uprising). With North Korea, we also have potential leverage against the regime, since it cannot support itself and relies on external aid to stay afloat (again, unlike Saddam who could smuggle plenty of oil out of the country and had successfully subverted the oil-for-food program with bribes), and the cost in lives (particularly in South Korea, our ally) would be much higher too. Practical considerations matter. But then, I wouldn't expect practical considerations to play much of a role for a communist sympathiser. Ah the true whiff of a Ziggurat post. Personal abuse absolutely makes your case for you doesn't it? You are so obviously right that I am ashamed to have the cheek take issue with you and highlight some of your country's history. That history in Iran includes subverting democratic movements. That subversion was indirectly responsible for the situation that applies in that country at the moment but empire builders don't give up do they?

Remind me how North Korea can be such a formidable opponent when it cannot even support itself? For the record, your country supported Saddam Hussein while it knew he was murdering his own people but then I don't expect an empire builder to acknowledge its part in the deaths of probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. It's just too inconvenient.

I'm not exactly sure why you use the term "you" here: my parents came to the US after WWII. There was a very strong isolationist movement within the US, and those people were on the wrong side of history. They made a mistake. But it's a mistake you seem to think we should be making all over again. By you I mean the USA. I am not arguing for the repitition of any mistakes. I am however very vigourously arguing against the contempt for international law that your country is now displaying while deploying troops in countries that you so clearly have contempt for. I am highlighting the unacceptable actions of Bush in starting illegal wars based on lies and the fact that his example in that regard and many others is unworthy of being following by decent democracies. I am arguing for the rise of the EU as a counterweight to the international law breaking supported by the USA and the UK under Bliar. I am arguing for the sort of true multi-lateral association of like minded, sacrificing democracies that was successful in WWII, not the abuse of power that your country and mine are now engaged in and the patent lies and gross exaggeration of threat that underpins it, as so clearly exemplified by your own attitude to 'debate'. Calling me names obviously makes your arguments inherently correct and you seem unable to do without it.The first two cases you're trying to argue general policy from rather limited cases, and I won't bother going into why that's not exactly rigorous thinking. A claim but no support. Plus ca change.But that last point is a particularly egregious example of the kind of narrow-mindedness I've come to expect from you. Prostitution sucks. It's not a good life style. But US troops don't cause prostitution. Does Germany hold imperial power over Thailand because German tourists go to Bankok to have sex? No, I don't think so. And why the hell are those women prostitutes? Might it not have something to do with the fact that the Philipine economy sucks? And what, exactly, would those women do if the US soldiers up and left? I don't know myself, but I do know one thing: whatever it is they'd be doing, it's actually WORSE than being a prostitute for US soldiers, or they'd be doing it right now instead. I'm all for trying to stop prostitution, but you're really deluding yourself if you think that US military presence is the source of the problem, or that the US military leaving will somehow magically make the problem go away. It seems that you really do believe that injecting US sperm into local women whether they like it or not is something the locals should be happy to put up with. Simply unbelievable.Like I said elsewhere, blame Tokyo for that, not Washington. Tokyo has sovereignty over Okinawa, not Washington. But nothing is EVER anyone else's responsibility except the US, evidently. It seems that they have to be happy with what the US troops do. A classical attitude of empire.

You won't leave, even when the local people protest. Why won't you leave? It's a simple question. What are you so afraid of that you hang around like a fart in a spacesuit?Hardly. It seems you are simply unable to acknowledge your own abusive behaviour.I've had plenty of debates here with people who are quite reasonable, and who I've treated with respect. But when you consistently equate mass-murdering ideologies with a system that has created more prosperity and peace than any other, when you hold up Kofi Annan, a man who could have stopped genocide and instead decided that inaction and a semblance of impartiality were more important, as some sort of moral superior to the US military, which recently freed 50 million people from two of the most barbaric regimes on the face of the earth, then yes, I'll call you delusional, idiotic, despicable, and hateful. Because you are. You appologize for mass murder and attack those who stand up against it. You deserve no respect from me, and you will get none. Once again you choose resort to personal abuse and lies. Please quote one post of mine where I say that I apologise for mass murder? Just one. Once again you demonstrate modus operandum no. 1 in spades, attacking the man rather than the message. Kofi Annan is completely clear that your country and mine invaded Iraq illegally. You seem unable to accept that simple fact. You have demonstrated a contempt for international law and for other countries and will not remove troops from those you despise of your own accord. The USA has also been responsible for th deaths of huge numbers of people but you seem unable to accept that simple fact. That you equate simply mentioning the deaths caused by the USA as equivalent to apologising for mass murder says much about your attitude to facts.

Your inability to construct a rational argument without larding it with personal abuse is clearly demonstrated throughout this thread and in this, your latest tirade. It makes my point more eloquently than I ever could. The lies and the personal abuse that Bush sees fit to deploy instead of consensual international action based on a respect for the truth and a respect for international laws. I am happy that the likes of you do not respect me as I never have, do not and never will seek respect from those who so clearly despise international law, the international community and the truth.

Elind

18th April 2005, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Iamme
[B](Iamme)

Well? Why not. What kind of example are we setting? Who do we think we are?

(Elind)

We know who we are. Do you?

--------------------------------------------

Capitalists trying to open up world markets everywhere. Not because we are simply nice and hope the rest of the world gets to enjoy freedoms and an economy like *we* have, but so that our corporations can get richer so that the shareholders can make more money as the corporation grows. If only we were honest about our motives, maybe then we would be more readily accepted.

I get the impression that you think the US is somehow alone in international "capitalism". The rest of the industrial world does more of it than the US, and for exactly the same reasons and often with less ethically based conditions, like taking or giving bribes, for example, or requiring standards in working condition. You don't make any point here.

We have a great interest in parts of the world that are seas away from us simply because we have created 'interests' there. I have heard it oft quoted that we have to do what we have to do, regarding these countries that have become markets for us, because "We have interests there".

Ditto

And other countries know all about us and our 'interests'. There are those, of course, who enjoy our presence and our westernization. But we are paying a big price in trying to convert everyone. And the radical factions step up to the plate and do everything from kill our missionaries, to bomb soldiers, barracks, embassies or even night clubs to show their displeasure.

Ditto, and throw in BS while we are at it. Convert? Bombs because they don't like McDs. BS.

Now regarding my OP: You have to try to put yourself in the shoes of some country like North Korea once. Picture yourself being a leader there. Imagine some other country telling you that you can't have a certain type of very effective weapon...by the very country who has the most of them and actually used them once. Imagine that one once. If that were me, that would go over like a lead balloon. I think I might have to hire goon squads to do sabotage work. (Sounds like a familiar theme, right?)

You seem to suggest that the beloved fat boy and friends in N.K. is on a par with all other nations. They are not. They are a bunch of gangsters milking and killing their people daily, and they want nukes to make sure nobody rescues their slaves. You have a strange view of the world and think it's our duty (in the US) to do everything on the basis of whether or not it will make people love us. Why don't you direct the same complaints at the French, for example? Nobody likes them much.