Accidental Nuclear Armageddon

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
62

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, in 1945 we already knew about the Cold War beginning? [/quote]

Yeah, we did.

Leslie Groves: “There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of [the Manhattan] Project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis.”

Szilard on Byrnes (who was the one who clued Truman in on the MP): “[He believed that] our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe.”

Truman on the longevity and prospects of Japanese resistance: “[Stalin is planning to] be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini Japs when that comes about.”

Also, however, important to remember that the bombing of civilians was, at the time, simply the business of war. Meetinghouse killed more, immediately, than did the nukes.[/quote]

Nobody but nobody liked Stalin. They needed him for the war in Europe but nobody had friendly goals.

It’s worth repeating that aerial bombardment at the time was rudimentary and the sheer scope of the war and targets necessitated a different approach. No precision munitions, no radar guidance, no cruise missiles (well, ok, basic prototypes in the V2 rockets but nothing remotely recognizeable or with targeting capabilities), no ANYTHING.

The physics technology and logistics of planes and munitions were simply just not in the favor of precision anything as we know it now. And it’s also very worth repeating that there was a philosophical difference in how war was waged at this time as well that plays into carpet bombing and all the rest.

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a tragedy. I don’t think anybody can say anything else, but so was the firebombing of Dresden and a hundred other aerial missions. It was not however, as some in other circles are fond of saying, a war crime or outside of the framework of war at the time. Fortunately I have not seen anyone say it was a “crime” here on this forum for many years lol.[/quote]

Cool thing about winning a war is that, in addition to being able to write the history books, you also get to say which side committed “war crimes”.

63

Do you suppose in an alternative universe kind of way that had the Axis powers won they would have tried our leaders and generals as war criminals?

64

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You could have worked as a prosecutor.[/quote]

And I coulda worked as the defense attorney that opposed him![/quote]

“We the jury find the defendant guilty…”

: )

65

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Do you suppose in an alternative universe kind of way that had the Axis powers won they would have tried our leaders and generals as war criminals?[/quote]

I think that had the U.S. lost the war the responsible parties would have been held accountable for the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, yes.

Not to mention the atomic bombs.

Not saying they weren’t justified, just saying they’d have been hard to justify to a German and Japanese tribunal in 1945. Something tells me “I was just following orders” wouldn’t have cut it.

66

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Most planners had the U.S. losses in the MILLIONS, for an invasion.

Never mind the fact that Japan started the fucking war.

You cannot really be serious with this.[/quote]

That’s actually apparently a misquotation or some such.

The actual number is “~100,000” possible casualties in the initial invasion, and going into “hundreds of thousands” over the course of the entire fight. A far cry from millions, but certainly not a pretty number.

[/quote]

O RLY???

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1708051/posts

It’s all about how far the Japanese would have taken it.

Oh and if you were a Marine on one of those boats off the coast of Japan, would you vote for dropping that nuke? Me thinks you would.