Michael
Interesting idea but I have never read anything that indicated the anyone outside of of the USSR knew that the USSR had a program to develope A-bombs. Besides the USSR was years behind the other allies.
The closing months of the war in the European theater was a scramble by each party to get their hands on as many German scientists and technologies as possible. The Russians were after the same things that the US was - atomics and rocketry. I think that the reason that the US got the better of it was largely due to defections, the scientists fearing Stalin, who was far bloodier than Hitler.
(edit) - the assumption that Russia was developing atomics and delivery systems was a given
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
I would be very careful taking the IHR at face value. If I remember correctly, they are the number one proponents of the idea that the Nazi holocaust is a hoax. At the very least that calls their scholarship into question.
Perhaps you are right about them. Like I said, it's not where I got the infomation from originally. I will find other sources if I get the time. :-)
Rush, I'm just going to come back with a few points and not tackle everything you've said because I don't have much time right now. So don't take it wrong becasue you know I always enjoy our discussions. :-)
If the US had lost a war, and everyone knew you had lost you would assume that your enemies would not be likely to then wipe out two of your cities. Also, if the US were to surrender you would certainly want to surrender on the best terms possible. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not strictly military targets. The people killed were not soldiers signed up to fight knowing the price they would pay if they failed. They were civilians, old men, women and children. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Do you really think revenge is a valid justification for what the US did?
Yes, the Germans and the Japanese were working on the bomb, but the UK and the US had information enough to know that they were no where near it. In fact Einstein walked off the project because he knew that. Other scientist stayed, a lot of them because they were caught up in the thrill of scientific discovery and were not really thinking about the true consequences of what they were doing.
War is a terrible thing and no one ever wins one. Do not assume that your government is thinking of your best interests when they start one, or enter one. Governments sadly serve themselves, not the people they are supposed to represent.
I would be very careful taking the IHR at face value. If I remember correctly, they are the number one proponents of the idea that the Nazi holocaust is a hoax. At the very least that calls their scholarship into question.
Perhaps you are right about them. Like I said, it's not where I got the infomation from originally. I will find other sources if I get the time. :-)
Rush, I'm just going to come back with a few points and not tackle everything you've said because I don't have much time right now. So don't take it wrong becasue you know I always enjoy our discussions. :-)
If the US had lost a war, and everyone knew you had lost you would assume that your enemies would not be likely to then wipe out two of your cities. Also, if the US were to surrender you would certainly want to surrender on the best terms possible. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not strictly military targets. The people killed were not soldiers signed up to fight knowing the price they would pay if they failed. They were civilians, old men, women and children. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Do you really think revenge is a valid justification for what the US did?
Yes, the Germans and the Japanese were working on the bomb, but the UK and the US had information enough to know that they were no where near it. In fact Einstein walked off the project because he knew that. Other scientist stayed, a lot of them because they were caught up in the thrill of scientific discovery and were not really thinking about the true consequences of what they were doing.
War is a terrible thing and no one ever wins one. Do not assume that your government is thinking of your best interests when they start one, or enter one. Governments sadly serve themselves, not the people they are supposed to represent.
Was Dresden a "military target"? Yet it was wiped out by the RAF using incendiary bombs when the war in Europe was already closing. Read "Slaughterhouse number 5", by Kurt Vonnegut, an American!
Tullio
Was Dresden a "military target"? Yet it was wiped out by the RAF using incendiary bombs when the war in Europe was already closing. Read "Slaughterhouse number 5", by Kurt Vonnegut, an American!
Tullio
Tullio,
You refer to one of my favorite books of old, by one of my longtime favorite authors.
The fire-bombing of Dresden has to be taken into context. If I remember correctly (not a foregone conclusion by any measure :-} ), that was in response to V1 and, later, V2 rocket attacks on SE England and London in particular. The V1 was a crude ramjet rocket attached to high-explosive warhead, with no guidance system, it was simply "aimed" at launch, ran at altitude, and dropped whenever it's fuel supply was exhausted, therefore absolutely impossible to use on military targets, but terrifying upon civilians. The V2, a true liquid-fuel self-contained rocket did have a guidance system, however crude by today's standards, and was employed en masse entirely against a civilian target, London.
I'd bet that we all can agree that war is a terrible thing, and nobody emerges unscathed, physically, mentally, or morally in the aftermath. That said, "winning", or rather, being victorious in a war is not solely about damaging the opponent's military, it also includes inflicting damage at a level which is unacceptable to the opponent, and targeting civilians is a very effective method of demoralizing, reaching the opponent's level of unacceptability.
If you start a fight by punching someone because you don't like the way they look, you may use the best, fairest boxing form in the world, but if he retaliates by kicking you in the gonads and poking your eyes out, you hardly have room to cry "unfair". When we initiate a war, we open a portal to hell, and it is by no means a one-way door - we must be prepared to accept what comes back through that portal from the opposite direction, whatever demon it is. To imagine otherwise is delusional.
(edited for the inevitable typos)
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
Perhaps you are right about them. Like I said, it's not where I got the infomation from originally. I will find other sources if I get the time. :-)
No worries. There's nothing that I noted in that article that was ground-breaking, or particularly contentious. It simply presents too much of a point of view. But you can find plenty of sources without using the IHR.
Quote:
If the US had lost a war, and everyone knew you had lost you would assume that your enemies would not be likely to then wipe out two of your cities. Also, if the US were to surrender you would certainly want to surrender on the best terms possible. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not strictly military targets. The people killed were not soldiers signed up to fight knowing the price they would pay if they failed. They were civilians, old men, women and children. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Do you really think revenge is a valid justification for what the US did?
Revenge? Again, I'll ask you specifically: Is it wrong to use revenge against the Japanese after they slaughtered 15M Asians? War is black and white, and you fight it to WIN. You seem to arguing a biased point of view. YOU may not have chosen to use the bomb. But so what? The Air Force would have eventually just firebombed both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, melting people instead of burning them. Until Japan finally decided that enough was enough and surrendered unconditionally. What is the difference?
As noted in a prior post: If the Japanese leadership had not insisted on conditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to sacrifice one man, the Emperor -- the United States very likely would have accepted immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives. They didn't. C'est la vie.
To be more clear, Japan was STILL willing to risk it's people over the Emperor. Even AFTER Hiroshima they REFUSED unconditional surrender.
Quote:
Yes, the Germans and the Japanese were working on the bomb, but the UK and the US had information enough to know that they were no where near it. In fact Einstein walked off the project because he knew that. Other scientist stayed, a lot of them because they were caught up in the thrill of scientific discovery and were not really thinking about the true consequences of what they were doing.
Sure. And others stayed because they knew exactly the consequences of what they were doing, and that someone would get and use the bomb eventually. The physics is pretty straight forward.
Quote:
War is a terrible thing and no one ever wins one.
Well, that's a nice sentiment, but it's wrong. The Allies most certainly won the war against the Axis.
Quote:
Do not assume that your government is thinking of your best interests when they start one, or enter one. Governments sadly serve themselves, not the people they are supposed to represent.
I NEVER think gov't is serving my best interests, ever. They aren't. But one cannot be consistent, begging the gov't to save you (with Kyoto, for example) and then feel appalled when gov'ts start wars and create nuclear bombs. It's all just the application of gov't force against others.
Cordially,
Rush
elrushbo-[at]-theobviousadelphia.net
Remove the obvious...
Was Dresden a "military target"? Yet it was wiped out by the RAF using incendiary bombs when the war in Europe was already closing. Read "Slaughterhouse number 5", by Kurt Vonnegut, an American!
Tullio
Tullio,
You refer to one of my favorite books of old, by one of my longtime favorite authors.
The fire-bombing of Dresden has to be taken into context. If I remember correctly (not a foregone conclusion by any measure :-} ), that was in response to V1 and later, V2 rocket attacks on SE England and London in particular. The V1 was a crude ramjet rocket attached to high-explosive warhead, with no guidance system, it was simply "aimed" at launch, ran at altitude, and dropped whenever it's fuel supply was exhausted, therefore absolutely impossible to use on military targets, but terrifying upon civilians. The V2, a true liquid-fuel self-contained rocket did have a guidance system, however crude by today's standards, and was employed en masse entirely against a civilian target, London.
I'd bet that we all can agree that war is a terrible thing, and nobody emerges unscathed, physically, mentally, or morally in the aftermath. That said, "winning", or rather, being victorious in a war is not solely about damaging the opponent's military, it also includes inflicting damage at a level which is unacceptable to the opponent, and targeting civilians is a very effective method of demoralizing, reaching the opponent's level of unacceptability.
If you start a fight by punching someone because you don't like the way they look, you may use the best, fairest boxing form in the world, but if he retaliates by kicking you in the gonads and poking your eyes out, you hardly have room to cry "unfair". When we initiate a war, we open a portal to hell, and it is by no means a one-way door - we must be prepared to accept what comes back through that portal from the opposite direction, whatever demon it is. To imagine otherwise is delusional.
(edited for the inevitable typos)
Read also "Disturbing the universe" by Freeman J.Dyson, who was attached to the RAF, on the complete uselessnesa of the RAF incendiary bombings. A daylight attack on power plants and power lines could have been much more efficient.But a RAF commander who proposed such tactics was promptly sent to peel potatoes.
...on the complete uselessness of the RAF incendiary bombings. A daylight attack on power plants and power lines could have been much more efficient.But a RAF commander who proposed such tactics was promptly sent to peel potatoes.
Useless? Yes, in terms of dissuading the maniacal Hitler. But I imagine that it was of some use in bolstering the spirits of the terrorized people of England, crouching in basements and subways, that Germany could not rain hell upon them with impunity.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
...on the complete uselessness of the RAF incendiary bombings. A daylight attack on power plants and power lines could have been much more efficient.But a RAF commander who proposed such tactics was promptly sent to peel potatoes.
Useless? Yes, in terms of dissuading the maniacal Hitler. But I imagine that it was of some use in bolstering the spirits of the terrorized people of England, crouching in basements and subways, that Germany could not rain hell upon them with impunity.
Dyson speaks from a miltary point of view. But read his book. Incidentally, my homwtown, Trieste, was bombed too. I know what is to run to the nearest tunnel while bombs explode all around.
Tullio
Michael Interesting idea but
)
Michael
Interesting idea but I have never read anything that indicated the anyone outside of of the USSR knew that the USSR had a program to develope A-bombs. Besides the USSR was years behind the other allies.
The closing months of the war
)
The closing months of the war in the European theater was a scramble by each party to get their hands on as many German scientists and technologies as possible. The Russians were after the same things that the US was - atomics and rocketry. I think that the reason that the US got the better of it was largely due to defections, the scientists fearing Stalin, who was far bloodier than Hitler.
(edit) - the assumption that Russia was developing atomics and delivery systems was a given
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
Michael IMHO I think you are
)
Michael
IMHO I think you are weaving to much of the later history into the events of the summer of 1945.
RE: I would be very careful
)
Perhaps you are right about them. Like I said, it's not where I got the infomation from originally. I will find other sources if I get the time. :-)
Rush, I'm just going to come back with a few points and not tackle everything you've said because I don't have much time right now. So don't take it wrong becasue you know I always enjoy our discussions. :-)
If the US had lost a war, and everyone knew you had lost you would assume that your enemies would not be likely to then wipe out two of your cities. Also, if the US were to surrender you would certainly want to surrender on the best terms possible. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not strictly military targets. The people killed were not soldiers signed up to fight knowing the price they would pay if they failed. They were civilians, old men, women and children. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Do you really think revenge is a valid justification for what the US did?
Yes, the Germans and the Japanese were working on the bomb, but the UK and the US had information enough to know that they were no where near it. In fact Einstein walked off the project because he knew that. Other scientist stayed, a lot of them because they were caught up in the thrill of scientific discovery and were not really thinking about the true consequences of what they were doing.
War is a terrible thing and no one ever wins one. Do not assume that your government is thinking of your best interests when they start one, or enter one. Governments sadly serve themselves, not the people they are supposed to represent.
Physics is for gurls!
RE: RE: I would be very
)
Was Dresden a "military target"? Yet it was wiped out by the RAF using incendiary bombs when the war in Europe was already closing. Read "Slaughterhouse number 5", by Kurt Vonnegut, an American!
Tullio
RE: Was Dresden a "military
)
Tullio,
You refer to one of my favorite books of old, by one of my longtime favorite authors.
The fire-bombing of Dresden has to be taken into context. If I remember correctly (not a foregone conclusion by any measure :-} ), that was in response to V1 and, later, V2 rocket attacks on SE England and London in particular. The V1 was a crude ramjet rocket attached to high-explosive warhead, with no guidance system, it was simply "aimed" at launch, ran at altitude, and dropped whenever it's fuel supply was exhausted, therefore absolutely impossible to use on military targets, but terrifying upon civilians. The V2, a true liquid-fuel self-contained rocket did have a guidance system, however crude by today's standards, and was employed en masse entirely against a civilian target, London.
I'd bet that we all can agree that war is a terrible thing, and nobody emerges unscathed, physically, mentally, or morally in the aftermath. That said, "winning", or rather, being victorious in a war is not solely about damaging the opponent's military, it also includes inflicting damage at a level which is unacceptable to the opponent, and targeting civilians is a very effective method of demoralizing, reaching the opponent's level of unacceptability.
If you start a fight by punching someone because you don't like the way they look, you may use the best, fairest boxing form in the world, but if he retaliates by kicking you in the gonads and poking your eyes out, you hardly have room to cry "unfair". When we initiate a war, we open a portal to hell, and it is by no means a one-way door - we must be prepared to accept what comes back through that portal from the opposite direction, whatever demon it is. To imagine otherwise is delusional.
(edited for the inevitable typos)
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
RE: Perhaps you are right
)
No worries. There's nothing that I noted in that article that was ground-breaking, or particularly contentious. It simply presents too much of a point of view. But you can find plenty of sources without using the IHR.
Revenge? Again, I'll ask you specifically: Is it wrong to use revenge against the Japanese after they slaughtered 15M Asians? War is black and white, and you fight it to WIN. You seem to arguing a biased point of view. YOU may not have chosen to use the bomb. But so what? The Air Force would have eventually just firebombed both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, melting people instead of burning them. Until Japan finally decided that enough was enough and surrendered unconditionally. What is the difference?
As noted in a prior post: If the Japanese leadership had not insisted on conditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to sacrifice one man, the Emperor -- the United States very likely would have accepted immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives. They didn't. C'est la vie.
To be more clear, Japan was STILL willing to risk it's people over the Emperor. Even AFTER Hiroshima they REFUSED unconditional surrender.
Sure. And others stayed because they knew exactly the consequences of what they were doing, and that someone would get and use the bomb eventually. The physics is pretty straight forward.
Well, that's a nice sentiment, but it's wrong. The Allies most certainly won the war against the Axis.
I NEVER think gov't is serving my best interests, ever. They aren't. But one cannot be consistent, begging the gov't to save you (with Kyoto, for example) and then feel appalled when gov'ts start wars and create nuclear bombs. It's all just the application of gov't force against others.
Cordially,
Rush
elrushbo-[at]-theobviousadelphia.net
Remove the obvious...
RE: RE: Was Dresden a
)
Read also "Disturbing the universe" by Freeman J.Dyson, who was attached to the RAF, on the complete uselessnesa of the RAF incendiary bombings. A daylight attack on power plants and power lines could have been much more efficient.But a RAF commander who proposed such tactics was promptly sent to peel potatoes.
RE: ...on the complete
)
Useless? Yes, in terms of dissuading the maniacal Hitler. But I imagine that it was of some use in bolstering the spirits of the terrorized people of England, crouching in basements and subways, that Germany could not rain hell upon them with impunity.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
RE: RE: ...on the
)
Dyson speaks from a miltary point of view. But read his book. Incidentally, my homwtown, Trieste, was bombed too. I know what is to run to the nearest tunnel while bombs explode all around.
Tullio