Forum menu
So, whilst WWIII was averted with no invasions or mass genocide, back in 1962, it still appears to be an issue for some.
Please discuss. Please keep on topic.
I’m not sure what the topic is.
I'll kick it off by saying I find it quite strange that Cuban cigars are still technically illegal in the USA.
Does the same apply to Cuban rum?
I think you may have had quite a bit of that rum.
I’m not sure what the topic is.
It's a vain attempt to get Chewk to post here rather than banging on about NATO in the Ukraine thread.
Does OP mean the Italian and Turkish Missile Crisis of 1961? Or the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961?
Sorry - very late to the party (watching football) and didn’t realise what had kicked off on the Ukraine thread.
Of all the places to watch England get beaten by the yanks in the World Cup you’d think Cuba would be a safe place. Nope full of smug,smirking American faces.
It’s a vain attempt to get Chewk to post here rather than banging on about NATO in the Ukraine thread.
LOL! You don't have to create a thread here tbh. Thank you anyway. I don't think people want to know tbh.
As for the rest of the US/NATO supporter ...
I mean look at the list LOL!
Does that mean this is a thread to kick US/NATO/West's double standards?
p/s: it's late .... I am out to listen to German Minimal Techno heavy bass music now
It did come rather close to wiping out the world though.
In many ways I cant really blame the Russians for wanting the weapons there. It would put them at roughly the same distance as the US equivalents in Turkey (which were withdrawn as part of the settlement albeit covertly).
We did get lucky with:
A good intelligence source giving a good idea of the Russian stance.
Vasily Arkhipov being on the sub.
Kennedy having read the guns of August recently and so being all to aware of what lack of talking between belligerents can do.
Vasily Arkhipov being on the sub.
In some ways, WWIII was averted just because of him disobeying orders as he read between the lines and acted appropriately.
Vasily Arkhipov being on the sub.
Well, at least he had the guts to disobey and to stand on the right side of history.
The same cannot be said of the WWII US "heroes" that dropped one atomic bomb each on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at peak hour with non-combatants in the cities. Not even one of them prepare to prevent the drops. One bomb is not enough, better return to try another city to make absolutely sure it works. That my friend was the first time "WMD" was properly tested on civilians by the victor or "heroes". It just shows that power resides in the victor.
But you're conveniently forgetting the bombing of peal harbour, that made the yanks quite angry.
But you conveniently the bombing of peal harbour, that made the yanks quite angry.
Yes, that was a cowardly attack but Japan when they tried to establish "legitimacy" via backdoor brute force.
As cowardly as the attack is, it is nothing by comparison to the two atomic bombs.
Mind you the Japanese occupation of SE Asia was not fun either, with the Japanese portraying themselves as super human.
Not, not trying to evade that at all.
The Rape of Nanjing was another atrocities committed by the Japanese army in those days. Plenty of other brutality in SE Asia too.
Isn’t this just troll entrapment? Shirley there must be laws against this.
Do you think the Japanese would not have used an atomic bomb if they'd had the option?
Isn’t this just troll entrapment? Shirley there must be laws against this.
Crikey, this is separate thread regarding near misses of the past or some of the atrocities that unfortunately happened.
Not sure if it is an entrapment but I don't think that way because when I mentioned Cuba in the other thread there seem to be few people considering it as off topic etc.
Therefore, focusing on Cuban missile crisis and the sanctions on Cuba is the right way to perhaps "balance" things up a bit.
Do you think the Japanese would not have used an atomic bomb if they’d had the option?
That's a good question but I think they would use it too. You know determination and all that.
Do you think the Japanese would not have used an atomic bomb if they’d had the option?
How is that relevant?
The Japanese did a lot of stuff during WW2 which I would not expect the Allies to have done.
it is nothing by comparison to the two atomic bombs.
Well, if you poke the hornets nest, don't be supprised when you get hornets.
Well, if you poke the hornets nest, don’t be supprised when you get hornets.
True, that's why I said history repeats itself.
Japan was strong but still a way behind USA and Russia in those days.
The same cannot be said of the WWII US “heroes” that dropped one atomic bomb each on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at peak hour with non-combatants in the cities
Ok but would that compare to the firebombing of Tokyo for example?
The latter required a lot more planes but in terms of damage...
Ok but would that compare to the firebombing of Tokyo for example?
The latter required a lot more planes but in terms of damage…
Can't compare to the atomic bomb at all. i.e. no way to hide.
Can’t compare to the atomic bomb at all.
Go on. Explain your reasoning in terms of destruction caused.
The primary advantage of the nuke was the one plane required. In terms of damage if you read about the firebombings they are truly horrifying.
Go on. Explain your reasoning in terms of destruction caused.
The primary advantage of the nuke was the one plane required. In terms of damage if you read about the firebombings they are truly horrifying.
The buildings in Japan were mainly wooden structures. Firebombings although caused devastation, there was still time to run etc but with atomic bomb everything just burned to ashes almost instantly regardless of plane. Japan was already incapable of air supremacy when the atom bombs were dropped.
In truth we'll never know if the use of nuclear weapons on Japan were "necessary".
It was likely that ever square inch of soil would have been won at an immense cost to the allies Americans.
That said, the Russians were advancing down towards Japan too. The home Islands could have been subjected to a total blockade extracting a huge toll on the Japanese population. That could have been worse than the nukes potentially.
The Americans no doubt wanted to study the effects of the bombs on a population too.
There was no easy answer and the Japanese were utterly brutal with the weapons they had at their disposal.
If nothing else, the world saw how utterly devastating the weapons were and that no doubt acted as a deterrent against using them again in a wider conflict.
Hopefully.
There can never be a moral justification for the use of nuclear weapons. Whether they cause the same level of destruction as conventional weapons (which they don't) is irrelevant to the moral argument against them.
Nuclear weapons must never be used - end of.
IMO
In truth we’ll never know if the use of nuclear weapons on Japan were “necessary”.
Japan knew they lost the war when they were defeated at the Battle of Midday. Their practically could not sustain themselves without the support of their naval power/logistic.
Nuclear weapons must never be used – end of.
True, but in history no matter how brutal the wars were conducted, the victor(s) always had a way to make it "legitimate".
Amongst the reasons of war in those days:
Resources
Economy
Ideology
Expansion/empire
But the most likely for Japan are probably resources and economy in those days.
Fast forward to 21st century where we are now. Look at the reasons for war. Can they be different to the four reasons?
Now compare that to the American bubble.
Do you think the Japanese would not have used an atomic bomb if they’d had the option?
How is that relevant?
Ernie - the point I was making was that chewkw was suggesting the Americans were in some way morally inferior by commenting on the fact that they dropped atomic bombs. I was pointing out that they're all barbaric. I'd also add that we're all victims of propaganda.
Amongst the reasons of war in those days:
Resources
Economy
Ideology
Expansion/empireBut the most likely for Japan are probably resources and economy in those days.
Fast forward to 21st century where we are now. Look at the reasons for war. Can they be different to the four reasons?
I don't think Expansion/empire is a reason beyond the three above. They are the drivers of expansion. Arguably resources and economy are one and the same, too.
I don’t think Expansion/empire is a reason beyond the three above. They are the drivers of expansion. Arguably resources and economy are one and the same, too.
They saw China as the great resources they can tap into and "easy" to conquer so the start of the superior complex. Historically, Japan was never occupied, submitted or invaded prior to WWII and even the Mongol could not could not occupy Japan.
Everything you need to know about Cuba here:
Everything you need to know about Cuba here:
LOL only if it is that easy.
Friends from South America all suffering the economy consequences at the moment i.e. Venezuela, Peru and Columbia (or Chile not exactly sure s/her origin).
Interesting, my Colombian friend is making a mint selling forestry waste to UK power plants.
In truth we’ll never know if the use of nuclear weapons on Japan were “necessary”.
They felt it necessary to test which of the two types they had produced the best results.
They singled out two cities that met the criteria needed for the tests.
Then recorded the results.
They felt it necessary to test which of the two types they had produced the best results.
Utter nonsense.
1. The implosion device (Trinity and Nagasaki) was a much more difficult technical challenge than the gun-type design (Hiroshima). The gun-type design was considered so safe that they didn't even test it before it was used in anger. They tested the implosion design first to make sure that it would actually work. The implosion design is much better, so all subsequent weapons are based on that. The gun-type design was pursued as a safe fall-back in case the much more difficult implosion design failed.
2. The reason they were used was because the U.S. wanted to end the war as quickly as possible. They had seen how fanatically Germans had resisted - they kept fighting long after any realistic hope of victory was gone. Japanese troops generally also fought to their deaths rather than surrendering. Trying to invade and occupy a country as large as Japan, with a lot of very rugged terrain, was a daunting task. The Japanese leadership knew that they could not beat the U.S., their aim was to make victory so costly that the U.S. would accept a negotiated peace, with the Imperial system retained. The U.S. flat-out rejected that. Invading and subduing Japan the same way they did in Germany would have cost tens or hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives, along with millions of Japanese. The atomic bomb had the potential to end the war quickly and save untold American lives. That's why the U.S. used them. The idea that they just wanted to test them is utter nonsense.
I like Cuba.
I'll not argue with you thols. The world is a wonderful place and the people in it fantastic individuals.
It did come rather close to wiping out the world though.
Although the Doomsday Clock says we are significantly closer to the end of the world right now than we were back then - it only reached 7 minutes to midnight during the Cuban Crisis and it's at 90 seconds to midnight right now.
Happy Easter
Nuclear weapons must never be used – end of.
Though it is probably their use in Japan that has led to this view.
It was likely that ever square inch of soil would have been won at an immense cost to the allies Americans.
Yes. Its only recently the USA finished up using their stockpile of purple heart medals (for those wounded/killed on active duty) that they had prepared for the invasion of Japan.
Although the Doomsday Clock says we are significantly closer to the end of the world right now than we were back then – it only reached 7 minutes to midnight during the Cuban Crisis and it’s at 90 seconds to midnight right now.
The Doomsday Clock is not based on any particularly objective criteria. I do agree that we face some big risks, but the Cuban missile crisis was a far more dangerous time than now as far as nuclear war was concerned. Putin huffs and puffs, but he's not actually insane. If he was going to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, he would have done so by now. If he was going to take military action to prevent Finland joining NATO, he would have done so as soon as they applied. If he was going to attack NATO countries for supplying weapons to Ukraine, he would have done so by now. That's not to say we should be complacent, but the Cuban missile crisis was very, very close to a nuclear conflict.
The reason they were used was because the U.S. wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.
This puts it better than I can:
As a Japanese tragedy, the atomic bombings tend to displace the many voices of other Asian peoples for whom the war was equally or even more tragic. Intentionally or not, remembrances of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have enabled a process of forgetting in postwar Japan about how and why the Japanese government initiated and conducted its wars in Asia. Despite the considerable efforts of Japanese citizens and scholars to tell a more balanced story over the last decade or so, the sense of victimization symbolized by the bombings remains powerful.12 This kind of forgetting may not be as intentional as, say, the writing of a textbook, but its consequences are equally profound. For Americans, remembrances of these events are similarly problematic. Like the Smithsonian exhibit, remembrances of the atomic bombings through textbooks and other media still tend to focus on the “fact” that the bombs were necessary to shorten the war and save countless American lives.13 In doing so, these writings ignore or “forget” that professional historians have disputed these claims for forty years, and from their research we know that the decision to use the bombs was complex and, especially after that fact, constantly contested.
from their research we know that the decision to use the bombs was complex and, especially after that fact, constantly contested.
Being a complex decision does not mean that the main priority of the U.S. was not to win the war as quickly as possible. The bombs were not used as a test to see how the different designs compared, they were used as a weapon to try and force Japan to capitulate.
Being a complex decision does not mean that the main priority of the U.S. was not to win the war as quickly as possible. The bombs were not used as a test to see how the different designs compared, they were used as a weapon to try and force Japan to capitulate.
What are you basing this on? Were you included in the decision making process in 1945? If not, then you know as much as any of the rest of us, and have probably read the same books as the rest of us.