Accidental Nuclear Armageddon

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Why is it that when I brought this up a few months ago, the “consensus” was that I was missing my tin foil hat? Seriously, Bismark tore me a new one and everyone jumped on the bandwagon calling me stupid and crazy… But now it’s plausible? No Shit…
[/quote]

Funny, I thought of that too.[/quote]

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Seriously, Bismark tore me a new one
[/quote]

I found the problem…

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Why is it that when I brought this up a few months ago, the “consensus” was that I was missing my tin foil hat? Seriously, Bismark tore me a new one and everyone jumped on the bandwagon calling me stupid and crazy… But now it’s plausible? No Shit…
[/quote]

Funny, I thought of that too.[/quote]

[/quote]

Ha ha. I love Dangerfield’s stand up. His best jokes were about masturbation and his wife.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Anyway, shouldn’t the sane world have a responsibility to launch a first strike against the loonies in North Korea before they annihilate us all for starters?

Edited[/quote]

Russia seems to be the bigger threat. Why not nuke them pre-emptively?
[/quote]

Because they can fight back.

It is against US military doctrine to preemptively strike anyone who can launch an effective counterattack. [/quote]

You should’ve done it in 1946.[/quote]

We should’ve listened to Patton. Saved ourself a lot of trouble.
[/quote]

Sorry to derail, but we would have a wildly different 2015 if we pummeled/nuked the Soviets back in '46. They were already punch drunk from the Nazis, but so was the rest of the Allies. No cold war, total US supremacy, China wouldn’t have had any support, N Korea, etc., Afghanistan, the whole ME… Wow.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, who has the US attacked preemptively other than a Bosnia or Libya (which I didn’t necessarily support FTR)?

[/quote]

Every war started by the US government has been preemptive war.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, who has the US attacked preemptively other than a Bosnia or Libya (which I didn’t necessarily support FTR)?

[/quote]

Every war started by the US government has been preemptive war.
[/quote]

Which wars would those be?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, who has the US attacked preemptively other than a Bosnia or Libya (which I didn’t necessarily support FTR)?

[/quote]

Every war started by the US government has been preemptive war.
[/quote]

Which wars would those be?[/quote]

All of them. I’m also including those where they did not specifically start it but entered it without being attacked first.

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam,…

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, who has the US attacked preemptively other than a Bosnia or Libya (which I didn’t necessarily support FTR)?

[/quote]

Every war started by the US government has been preemptive war.
[/quote]

Which wars would those be?[/quote]

All of them. I’m also including those where they did not specifically start it but entered it without being attacked first.

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam,…[/quote]

You should be aware that “preemptive” wars decidedly fall under customary international law and the rights that tradition bestows upon states; specifically, the right of lawful intervention.

[quote]TheKraken wrote:
Sorry to derail, but we would have a wildly different 2015 if we pummeled/nuked the Soviets back in '46. They were already punch drunk from the Nazis, but so was the rest of the Allies. No cold war, total US supremacy, China wouldn’t have had any support, N Korea, etc., Afghanistan, the whole ME… Wow. [/quote]

Different in what sounds like a good way. One of Eisenhower’s biggest regrets is allowing the soviets to get Prague after the war. We really should have sent the red army back to the hole it crawled out of after Berlin fell.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TheKraken wrote:
the article you linked to was interesting, but I don’t see the connection to an accidental first strike. A couple years ago there was an article about the aging Soviet “doomsday device.” Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine | WIRED It is supposed to be an essentially automated “all-in” nuclear response to any strike on Russia. The scary part of the article was that it is allegedly still active and with very little controls in place.

On the other hand, the whole USSR 2.0 is pretty concerning stuff. I lurk in another group based around the US/UK intelligence community. They seem very concerned about Russia. That makes me concerned. I try not to blame Obama for everything wrong in the world but he seems to turn every diplomatic situation to shit with his Audacity of Hope. I can only hope there are some strong diplomats acting who quietly disregard the POTUS’s tactics and do something right. [/quote]

Yes I’ve heard about that. The OP article is only tangentially related to the subject in that the Cold War is not really over; quite the contrary. But whatever direction the comments go is okay with me. It’s a broad topic.
[/quote]

Check out the Perestroika deception. Putin was always a shadowy hand running Yeltsin.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, who has the US attacked preemptively other than a Bosnia or Libya (which I didn’t necessarily support FTR)?

[/quote]

Every war started by the US government has been preemptive war.
[/quote]

Which wars would those be?[/quote]

All of them. I’m also including those where they did not specifically start it but entered it without being attacked first.

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam,…[/quote]

WWII… You need a new dealer my man. He’s selling you some bad stuff.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
considering the US government is the only country to have ever used them against people before.

[/quote]

For a DAMN good reason.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
considering the US government is the only country to have ever used them against people before.

[/quote]

For a DAMN good reason.[/quote]

What reason is that?

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
considering the US government is the only country to have ever used them against people before.

[/quote]

For a DAMN good reason.[/quote]

What reason is that?
[/quote]

Victory.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
considering the US government is the only country to have ever used them against people before.

[/quote]

For a DAMN good reason.[/quote]

What reason is that?
[/quote]

Read the book, Flags of Our Fathers, like I am right now. The reason is in there and a million other places as well.[/quote]

I was under the impression the nuke was dropped as a warning to the Soviets. The conventional firebombing of Japan was equally as effective, and a ground invasion could have been avoided using either method.

Is this interpretation incorrect?

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
considering the US government is the only country to have ever used them against people before.

[/quote]

For a DAMN good reason.[/quote]

What reason is that?
[/quote]

Read the book, Flags of Our Fathers, like I am right now. The reason is in there and a million other places as well.[/quote]

I was under the impression the nuke was dropped as a warning to the Soviets. The conventional firebombing of Japan was equally as effective, and a ground invasion could have been avoided using either method.

Is this interpretation incorrect?
[/quote]

Ummmmmmmm yea.

My grandfather was training for the invasion of mainland Japan after he left the European theater…they were told that 3 in 5 would die during the campaign.

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.

Why is is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are well remembered, but the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, Pearl Harbor, the burning alive of the Wake Island POW’s, and other atrocities committed by the Japanese in Asia and their allies in Europe are somehow brushed aside?

And don’t get me going on Viet Nam, but since you mentioned it: one may question the sanity of US involvement there, but one cannot dismiss that more than 10 times as many innocents were slaughtered in the decade after we abandoned the South East Asian people to the barbarity of the North Viet Nam government, the Russians, the Khmer Rouge, et al.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
considering the US government is the only country to have ever used them against people before.

[/quote]

For a DAMN good reason.[/quote]

What reason is that?
[/quote]

Read the book, Flags of Our Fathers, like I am right now. The reason is in there and a million other places as well.[/quote]

I was under the impression the nuke was dropped as a warning to the Soviets. The conventional firebombing of Japan was equally as effective, and a ground invasion could have been avoided using either method.

Is this interpretation incorrect?
[/quote]

Ummmmmmmm yea.

My grandfather was training for the invasion of mainland Japan after he left the European theater…they were told that 3 in 5 would die during the campaign.

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]

I’m well aware of the conventional narrative: that the nukes were dropped to prevent the enormous losses projected to have occurred if an invasion of the Japanese mainland were to have occurred.

I’ve also come across some narratives in the historiography that say Japan was close to surrendering regardless, but it presented the best opportunity to test the weapons and display their power as a strategic deterrent against further Soviet aggression. Note, in this interpretation American lives were also spared.