First of all you are correct in that the USA have been providing military training and weapons to Georgia and pushing for Georgia along with other old Russia allies to join NATO, which would make Russia very uncomfortable.
Secondly, the USA is actively working on a European missile defence system; the Czech Republic (another old Soviet territory) has already agreed to host the radar system for this.
Yesterday, the USA signed an agreement with Poland to allow the USA to place missiles in Poland, this morning Russia has threatened Poland with a nuclear strike if they allowed missiles on their soil.
I wonder how the USA would react if suddenly Russia signed a deal to allow Russia place missiles in Canada? and Russia again started putting missiles in Cuba?
The USA in ‘fear of Iran and other rogue countries’ is going to walk us right into WW3.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
It's that "world's police" crap biting us in the butt again. :yh_frustr
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
mikeinie;954439 wrote: The USA in ‘fear of Iran and other rogue countries’ is going to walk us right into WW3.And the laughable thing is that there's no country on earth threatening the buggers. I do wish they'd take their damned toys home and get their own country straight instead.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
from the article
The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?
It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. [QUOTE]The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.
Why complicate things maybe the PM of Georgia is simply an idiot-but he does seem to have expected US support which begs the question why would he?
What is really startling about the article is the blithe assumption that it's acceptable for the US to play at Realpolitik in this day and age. The reality of the end of the cold war seems to have been missed and that perhaps there had been a chance to move beyond passed up in favour of taking advantage of perceived weaknesses in old adversaries. All in all the breakup of the old soviet union has been remarkably peaceful. It would be a pity if old tensions were stirred up for no better reason than vested interests keeping the pot boiling.
Funniest bit of this is US politicians complaining that the russians invaded a sovereign nation.
McCain says nations don't invade other nations
You can't make this kind of stuff up can you? no one would take it seriously.
posted by miekenie
I wonder how the USA would react if suddenly Russia signed a deal to allow Russia place missiles in Canada? and Russia again started putting missiles in Cuba?
How about Venezuela and cuba asking to join the warsaw pact for fear of invasion from the US (given some of the rhetoric coming out maybe they should worry.) and mexico agreed to a missile defence system along it's borders and Canada joined the EU as a better bet than nafta?
GW Bush and Putin both have their fingers on the nuclear button. Out of curiosity which do you think is the most rational and least likely to use it?
The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?
It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. [QUOTE]The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.
Why complicate things maybe the PM of Georgia is simply an idiot-but he does seem to have expected US support which begs the question why would he?
What is really startling about the article is the blithe assumption that it's acceptable for the US to play at Realpolitik in this day and age. The reality of the end of the cold war seems to have been missed and that perhaps there had been a chance to move beyond passed up in favour of taking advantage of perceived weaknesses in old adversaries. All in all the breakup of the old soviet union has been remarkably peaceful. It would be a pity if old tensions were stirred up for no better reason than vested interests keeping the pot boiling.
Funniest bit of this is US politicians complaining that the russians invaded a sovereign nation.
McCain says nations don't invade other nations
You can't make this kind of stuff up can you? no one would take it seriously.
posted by miekenie
I wonder how the USA would react if suddenly Russia signed a deal to allow Russia place missiles in Canada? and Russia again started putting missiles in Cuba?
How about Venezuela and cuba asking to join the warsaw pact for fear of invasion from the US (given some of the rhetoric coming out maybe they should worry.) and mexico agreed to a missile defence system along it's borders and Canada joined the EU as a better bet than nafta?
GW Bush and Putin both have their fingers on the nuclear button. Out of curiosity which do you think is the most rational and least likely to use it?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
You poor thing, being forced to live under the repressive American regime when you would clearly be happier in Russia. Too bad you can't get permission to go there. :rolleyes:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Scrat;955121 wrote: Stuff it AC. My overriding beef with this is the loss of potential. The 2 decades since Russias big change have been used very poorly, instead of moving towards peace and common goals the west and Russia have simply continued the cold war.
Sad, very sad.
What, besides your blatant personal bias, makes you think the current American gov't is more likely to use nuclear weapons than the current Russian gov't?
Sad, very sad.
What, besides your blatant personal bias, makes you think the current American gov't is more likely to use nuclear weapons than the current Russian gov't?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Scrat;955155 wrote: 1 word. Neocons.
This is not a relevant question in my view concerning this situation. Ask something realistic such as who why and where will this conflict spread in the coming months.
Then that's what you should've answered to gmc in the first place instead of typing the first stupid kneejerk response that popped in your head.
This is not a relevant question in my view concerning this situation. Ask something realistic such as who why and where will this conflict spread in the coming months.
Then that's what you should've answered to gmc in the first place instead of typing the first stupid kneejerk response that popped in your head.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
tsk tsk put down the verbal clubs.
I was being deliberately provocative cos I know you two disagree with each other so i wanted to see what you would say.
It is relevant IMO as any use of military force by the US or NATO would quite likely result in a nuclear exchange unless the respective peoples stop their government.
Rather than a chance for peace and working towards a better future the neocons-for want of a beter word have seen as the end of the cold war as a golden opportunity to secure and extend american influence and access to the necessary resources without the hindrance of having to worry about another superpower. bUt pursue policies without the apparent capacity to think how other nations will react based on the fallacious assumption that in reality they will be unable to do anything about it. You have to be an idiot to think you can impose democracy by force-it comes from below, always has and always will. NATO isn't an alliance but rather a tool of the americans. I think now you will see it's members having a good hard think about where they go now. Economically and militarily I wouldn't write off europe.
posted by scrat
This is not a relevant question in my view concerning this situation. Ask something realistic such as who why and where will this conflict spread in the coming months.
What happens next will depend on GW Bush. This isn't the OK corrall but if he decides he has to be firm with the Russians and threaten with military action it won't be a bluff because I think the Russians will call him on it. Realistically a shooting war with conventional weapons would be bad enough but both sides have nuclear weapons so which idiot uses them first is pertinent. Which one is least likely to do so is, I would put it to you, highly relevant. I would agree with Scrat on this one.
I was being deliberately provocative cos I know you two disagree with each other so i wanted to see what you would say.
It is relevant IMO as any use of military force by the US or NATO would quite likely result in a nuclear exchange unless the respective peoples stop their government.
Rather than a chance for peace and working towards a better future the neocons-for want of a beter word have seen as the end of the cold war as a golden opportunity to secure and extend american influence and access to the necessary resources without the hindrance of having to worry about another superpower. bUt pursue policies without the apparent capacity to think how other nations will react based on the fallacious assumption that in reality they will be unable to do anything about it. You have to be an idiot to think you can impose democracy by force-it comes from below, always has and always will. NATO isn't an alliance but rather a tool of the americans. I think now you will see it's members having a good hard think about where they go now. Economically and militarily I wouldn't write off europe.
posted by scrat
This is not a relevant question in my view concerning this situation. Ask something realistic such as who why and where will this conflict spread in the coming months.
What happens next will depend on GW Bush. This isn't the OK corrall but if he decides he has to be firm with the Russians and threaten with military action it won't be a bluff because I think the Russians will call him on it. Realistically a shooting war with conventional weapons would be bad enough but both sides have nuclear weapons so which idiot uses them first is pertinent. Which one is least likely to do so is, I would put it to you, highly relevant. I would agree with Scrat on this one.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Scrat;955208 wrote: He asked the question, one that I have considered before I gave an answer that I think is well founded although the scenario is very unlikely. Well-founded my ass. I asked what makes you think the current American gov't is more likely to use nuclear weapons than the current Russian gov't, and you gave me nothing relevant.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
[QUOTE=Scrat;955095]Let's clarify this. Russia did not say they would strike Poland with nuclear missiles if they are deployed,
Here is the headline and story:
Russia threatens nuclear strike on Poland as Cameron demands withdrawal from Georgia:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... l?ITO=1490
Here is the headline and story:
Russia threatens nuclear strike on Poland as Cameron demands withdrawal from Georgia:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... l?ITO=1490
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Accountable;955231 wrote: Well-founded my ass. I asked what makes you think the current American gov't is more likely to use nuclear weapons than the current Russian gov't, and you gave me nothing relevant.
Because none of them are statesmen, they've demonstrated time and again that they're opportunistic chancers with no idea of restraint unlike the Russian leadership which builds for the future.
Because none of them are statesmen, they've demonstrated time and again that they're opportunistic chancers with no idea of restraint unlike the Russian leadership which builds for the future.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Scrat;955290 wrote: Neocons/Americas government would do it in a heartbeat if they knew they could get away with it, suffer no repercussions to themsleves personally. They are drunk with power.
Simple as that. I wouldn't trust them with a peashooter. This may mean nothing to you but it is all but fact to me. That's the only answer you're getting.
Straight up paranoid prejudiced bullshit. No foundation outside of that, but thanks for playing.
Simple as that. I wouldn't trust them with a peashooter. This may mean nothing to you but it is all but fact to me. That's the only answer you're getting.
Straight up paranoid prejudiced bullshit. No foundation outside of that, but thanks for playing.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
gmc;955072 wrote: GW Bush and Putin both have their fingers on the nuclear button. Out of curiosity which do you think is the most rational and least likely to use it?Scrat;955083 wrote: I think that's an easy question. The Russians. Scrat;955307 wrote: If Russia is attacked by anyone the spearheads will disappear in nuclear fireballs. She will probably use nuclear mines to boot.:yh_eyebro
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
posted by scrat
I am hoping that. It appears that some people, the Brits and that dunder head A Merkle don't quite get it yet. I think I would write off many parts of europe but not all. At least not yet.
Bugger. I meant to say I wouldn't write off europe yet-or indeed at all.
posted by scrat
True but none is going to go that way, Europeans will put a stop to that, if they don't then Continental europe will be devastated.
The question is will the americans stop Bush. He's only a few months left and nothing to lose.
I am hoping that. It appears that some people, the Brits and that dunder head A Merkle don't quite get it yet. I think I would write off many parts of europe but not all. At least not yet.
Bugger. I meant to say I wouldn't write off europe yet-or indeed at all.
posted by scrat
True but none is going to go that way, Europeans will put a stop to that, if they don't then Continental europe will be devastated.
The question is will the americans stop Bush. He's only a few months left and nothing to lose.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Accountable;955149 wrote: What, besides your blatant personal bias, makes you think the current American gov't is more likely to use nuclear weapons than the current Russian gov't?
History since 1989?
Which of the two governments has started the most wars?
Which of the two governments has threatened the most countries?
Which of the two governments has tried most to antagonise the other?
Only one possible answer really.
History since 1989?
Which of the two governments has started the most wars?
Which of the two governments has threatened the most countries?
Which of the two governments has tried most to antagonise the other?
Only one possible answer really.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Bryn Mawr;956205 wrote: History since 1989?
Which of the two governments has started the most wars?
Which of the two governments has threatened the most countries?
Which of the two governments has tried most to antagonise the other?
Only one possible answer really.
Which of the two used nuclear weapons? Oh yeh ... neither. You're argument doesn't follow.
Which of the two governments has started the most wars?
Which of the two governments has threatened the most countries?
Which of the two governments has tried most to antagonise the other?
Only one possible answer really.
Which of the two used nuclear weapons? Oh yeh ... neither. You're argument doesn't follow.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Accountable;956374 wrote: Which of the two used nuclear weapons? Oh yeh ... neither. You're argument doesn't follow.
Which of the two has shown all of the aggression? Yes, the argument does follow.
Which of the two has shown all of the aggression? Yes, the argument does follow.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Bryn Mawr;956380 wrote: Which of the two has shown all of the aggression? Yes, the argument does follow.
It makes a leap to nukes without basis.
You can't point to a loud arguer and predict he will hit someone. You can't point to a boxer and predict he will shoot someone. It doesn't follow. It's a non-issue. Anything further would probably just be making another lap.
Feel free to throw it back in my face if the US makes a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia.
It makes a leap to nukes without basis.
You can't point to a loud arguer and predict he will hit someone. You can't point to a boxer and predict he will shoot someone. It doesn't follow. It's a non-issue. Anything further would probably just be making another lap.
Feel free to throw it back in my face if the US makes a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Accountable;956374 wrote: Which of the two used nuclear weapons? Oh yeh ... neither. You're argument doesn't follow.
Have all Americans forgotten their nuclear strike on Japan?
Have all Americans forgotten their nuclear strike on Japan?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Accountable;956391 wrote: It makes a leap to nukes without basis.
You can't point to a loud arguer and predict he will hit someone. You can't point to a boxer and predict he will shoot someone. It doesn't follow. It's a non-issue. Anything further would probably just be making another lap.
Feel free to throw it back in my face if the US makes a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia.
Your analogies are inappropriate. The US government has consistently proved itself to be willing to start wars and aggressive in their use of force. The Russian government has shown no such tendencies since 1989. This strongly suggests that, of the two, the US government is the more likely to use nukes in a given situation.
You can't point to a loud arguer and predict he will hit someone. You can't point to a boxer and predict he will shoot someone. It doesn't follow. It's a non-issue. Anything further would probably just be making another lap.
Feel free to throw it back in my face if the US makes a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia.
Your analogies are inappropriate. The US government has consistently proved itself to be willing to start wars and aggressive in their use of force. The Russian government has shown no such tendencies since 1989. This strongly suggests that, of the two, the US government is the more likely to use nukes in a given situation.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Bryn Mawr;956691 wrote: Your analogies are inappropriate. The US government has consistently proved itself to be willing to start wars and aggressive in their use of force. The Russian government has shown no such tendencies since 1989. This strongly suggests that, of the two, the US government is the more likely to use nukes in a given situation.
Or before 1989, come to that. They provided assistance to the Kabul regime and got bogged into attrition by deliberate US interference for which those involved are now reaping their whirlwind. Other than that I don't remember any USSR "willing to start wars and aggressive in their use of force", you'll have to remind me. The USSR being willing to start wars and aggressive in their use of force is one of the myths of US propaganda.
Or before 1989, come to that. They provided assistance to the Kabul regime and got bogged into attrition by deliberate US interference for which those involved are now reaping their whirlwind. Other than that I don't remember any USSR "willing to start wars and aggressive in their use of force", you'll have to remind me. The USSR being willing to start wars and aggressive in their use of force is one of the myths of US propaganda.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
spot;956693 wrote: Or before 1989, come to that. They provided assistance to the Kabul regime and got bogged into attrition by deliberate US interference for which those involved are now reaping their whirlwind. Other than that I don't remember any USSR "willing to start wars and aggressive in their use of force", you'll have to remind me. The USSR being willing to start wars and aggressive in their use of force is one of the myths of US propaganda.
I didn't want to get bogged down in a war of attrition so I restricted it to the current Russian Federation rather than the old USSR.
Didn't want to include Czechoslovakia or Hungary in the discussion either.
I didn't want to get bogged down in a war of attrition so I restricted it to the current Russian Federation rather than the old USSR.
Didn't want to include Czechoslovakia or Hungary in the discussion either.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Bryn Mawr;956695 wrote: I didn't want to get bogged down in a war of attrition so I restricted it to the current Russian Federation rather than the old USSR.
Didn't want to include Czechoslovakia or Hungary in the discussion either.
Not that they count as wars either.
Didn't want to include Czechoslovakia or Hungary in the discussion either.
Not that they count as wars either.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
spot;956674 wrote: Have all Americans forgotten their nuclear strike on Japan?
Thank goodness they did. The lives lost in invading Japan with conventional means would have been far far greater without the nuclear bomb. I had some relatives who were ever so pleased they weren't going to go to the far east after all.
posted by accountable
It makes a leap to nukes without basis.
You can't point to a loud arguer and predict he will hit someone. You can't point to a boxer and predict he will shoot someone. It doesn't follow. It's a non-issue. Anything further would probably just be making another lap.
Feel free to throw it back in my face if the US makes a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia.
Don't think they will fire them first but I think they are so impressed with their military prowess they might convince themselves that russia will just cave in. Delivering an ultimatum, for instance, would be the height of stupidity as that will lead to all out war (imo )when russia Putin tells bush to get stuffed and if GW feels he can't back down. If you want to end a confrontation both sides need to leave the door open.
Feel free to throw it back in my face if the US makes a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia
Just in case it happens. I told you so:D Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
Thank goodness they did. The lives lost in invading Japan with conventional means would have been far far greater without the nuclear bomb. I had some relatives who were ever so pleased they weren't going to go to the far east after all.
posted by accountable
It makes a leap to nukes without basis.
You can't point to a loud arguer and predict he will hit someone. You can't point to a boxer and predict he will shoot someone. It doesn't follow. It's a non-issue. Anything further would probably just be making another lap.
Feel free to throw it back in my face if the US makes a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia.
Don't think they will fire them first but I think they are so impressed with their military prowess they might convince themselves that russia will just cave in. Delivering an ultimatum, for instance, would be the height of stupidity as that will lead to all out war (imo )when russia Putin tells bush to get stuffed and if GW feels he can't back down. If you want to end a confrontation both sides need to leave the door open.
Feel free to throw it back in my face if the US makes a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia
Just in case it happens. I told you so:D Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
gmc;957161 wrote: Thank goodness they did. The lives lost in invading Japan with conventional means would have been far far greater without the nuclear bomb. I had some relatives who were ever so pleased they weren't going to go to the far east after all.
I'll offer the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War), Washington, D.C.
1 July 1946:Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... tml#jstetw
"The Japanese had already sued for peace, with the only condition being the safety of the emperor. And most historians agree that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria is what finally triggered the complete unconditional surrender. Note that after the unconditional surrender, the US guaranteed the safety of the emperor, making the final terms equal to what the Japanese were asking for far before Hiroshima and Nagasaki." - from someone else's web discussion of the same question, I don't feel like re-wording what's there and it says what I wanted to write.
The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore has a detailed chapter on the timing and on Truman's motives as described first-hand in his personal diary. The US deliberately strung out agreement with the Japanese simply in order to be able to demonstrate the bombs to Stalin.
I'll offer the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War), Washington, D.C.
1 July 1946:Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... tml#jstetw
"The Japanese had already sued for peace, with the only condition being the safety of the emperor. And most historians agree that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria is what finally triggered the complete unconditional surrender. Note that after the unconditional surrender, the US guaranteed the safety of the emperor, making the final terms equal to what the Japanese were asking for far before Hiroshima and Nagasaki." - from someone else's web discussion of the same question, I don't feel like re-wording what's there and it says what I wanted to write.
The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore has a detailed chapter on the timing and on Truman's motives as described first-hand in his personal diary. The US deliberately strung out agreement with the Japanese simply in order to be able to demonstrate the bombs to Stalin.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
They certainly would have surrendered after the first one if you can argue in favour of it, but there was not need to drop the second one.
but , this is way off topic.
Once again the whole Eastern Europe/West Asia is becoming a hot spot, like WW1 and WW2, and now to add the Pakistan President resigning to the mix, the whole region is growing in tension.
The world leaders need to be careful.
but , this is way off topic.
Once again the whole Eastern Europe/West Asia is becoming a hot spot, like WW1 and WW2, and now to add the Pakistan President resigning to the mix, the whole region is growing in tension.
The world leaders need to be careful.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
spot;957184 wrote: I'll offer the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War), Washington, D.C.
1 July 1946:Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... tml#jstetw
"The Japanese had already sued for peace, with the only condition being the safety of the emperor. And most historians agree that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria is what finally triggered the complete unconditional surrender. Note that after the unconditional surrender, the US guaranteed the safety of the emperor, making the final terms equal to what the Japanese were asking for far before Hiroshima and Nagasaki." - from someone else's web discussion of the same question, I don't feel like re-wording what's there and it says what I wanted to write.
The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore has a detailed chapter on the timing and on Truman's motives as described first-hand in his personal diary. The US deliberately strung out agreement with the Japanese simply in order to be able to demonstrate the bombs to Stalin.
Hindsight is wonderful and it's easy to ascribe motives after the event. Would a nuclear war have been more likely if the results hadn't been seen in 1945? perhaps Stalin would have been more ready to keep manchuria and push harder in 1947 and taken over the rest of germany if they hadn't known the US had nuclear weapons ready to deploy. Who knows. I am of the opinion it was the right decision. We can argue the toss elsewhere if you like it's kind of off topic here. More people were killed by the firestorms started the wooden cities of Japan (using techniques learned from the British) than by the two nuclear weapons.
Realistically there is not a lot nato can do about Georgia without all out war. The question is how to pull back from the brink. Looks like Putin is now winding the Americans up to make the point. All the benefits from the end of the cold war pissed away. I doubt russia will try and reclaim poland, latvia, Czechoslovakia etc etc.
I blame the vikings, if they hadn't settled in Russia none of this would have happened. That's it let's blame the swedes, cause all this trouble over the years and stay neutral when the **** hits the fan.
1 July 1946:Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... tml#jstetw
"The Japanese had already sued for peace, with the only condition being the safety of the emperor. And most historians agree that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria is what finally triggered the complete unconditional surrender. Note that after the unconditional surrender, the US guaranteed the safety of the emperor, making the final terms equal to what the Japanese were asking for far before Hiroshima and Nagasaki." - from someone else's web discussion of the same question, I don't feel like re-wording what's there and it says what I wanted to write.
The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore has a detailed chapter on the timing and on Truman's motives as described first-hand in his personal diary. The US deliberately strung out agreement with the Japanese simply in order to be able to demonstrate the bombs to Stalin.
Hindsight is wonderful and it's easy to ascribe motives after the event. Would a nuclear war have been more likely if the results hadn't been seen in 1945? perhaps Stalin would have been more ready to keep manchuria and push harder in 1947 and taken over the rest of germany if they hadn't known the US had nuclear weapons ready to deploy. Who knows. I am of the opinion it was the right decision. We can argue the toss elsewhere if you like it's kind of off topic here. More people were killed by the firestorms started the wooden cities of Japan (using techniques learned from the British) than by the two nuclear weapons.
Realistically there is not a lot nato can do about Georgia without all out war. The question is how to pull back from the brink. Looks like Putin is now winding the Americans up to make the point. All the benefits from the end of the cold war pissed away. I doubt russia will try and reclaim poland, latvia, Czechoslovakia etc etc.
I blame the vikings, if they hadn't settled in Russia none of this would have happened. That's it let's blame the swedes, cause all this trouble over the years and stay neutral when the **** hits the fan.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
gmc;957266 wrote: Hindsight is wonderful and it's easy to ascribe motives after the event.No, that's the relevance of the Truman diary, it was written as events progressed and discusses the bomb, Stalin and the countdown to accepting the Japanese offer of unconditional surrender with reservations on the Emperor (which were on offer by the Japanese before the bombs were used and were identical to the terms finally agreed). That's contemporary material, not hindsight.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
gmc;957161 wrote: just In Case It Happens. I Told You So:d Goodbye And Thanks For All The Fish.
:wah:
:wah:
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
Your article was very interesting Scrat.i wondered why russia had invaded Georgia too. Thanks for posting this.
The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.
spot;957272 wrote: No, that's the relevance of the Truman diary, it was written as events progressed and discusses the bomb, Stalin and the countdown to accepting the Japanese offer of unconditional surrender with reservations on the Emperor (which were on offer by the Japanese before the bombs were used and were identical to the terms finally agreed). That's contemporary material, not hindsight.
I've read the truman diaries. I didn't put my point very well. I don't dispute the validity of what you say. In hindsight dropping the bomb seems a terrible thing to do because we now fully understand the consequences but in 1945 people didn't see the world as we do now and to judge actions taken with a 21st century perspective and morality is a difficult thing not to do. This was total war remember there were terrible things done on all sides. Stalin was already changing from uncle joe to the bogey man how to warn him off? He wasn't exactly thinking like 21st century man either. In isolation perhaps it seems a heinous act, in the context of the times I'm not so sure.
Both Hitler and Stalin would have used the nuclear bomb if they had had it first. Hitler came very close. On balance it was probably preferable the americans got it before stalin.
I've read the truman diaries. I didn't put my point very well. I don't dispute the validity of what you say. In hindsight dropping the bomb seems a terrible thing to do because we now fully understand the consequences but in 1945 people didn't see the world as we do now and to judge actions taken with a 21st century perspective and morality is a difficult thing not to do. This was total war remember there were terrible things done on all sides. Stalin was already changing from uncle joe to the bogey man how to warn him off? He wasn't exactly thinking like 21st century man either. In isolation perhaps it seems a heinous act, in the context of the times I'm not so sure.
Both Hitler and Stalin would have used the nuclear bomb if they had had it first. Hitler came very close. On balance it was probably preferable the americans got it before stalin.