Nuclear Power and Foreign Policy (Iran, North Korea, and others)

[yezhanquan]

@Mumitroll: I'm not unaware of what you mentioned on Stalin. (Heck, I have a test on him, and other European dicators in December.)

Spoiler for Stalin:

Yes, he was neither wanted nor elected. But, the fact remains that the Bolsheviks held power after 1917. There was already enough carnage in the Civil War before Lenin's death. After his death, it seemed almost natural that the next leader would emerge from the same group.

On Stalin: He may be Georgian, but you cannot deny that he championed the "Greater Russia" cause. His handling of the Georgian affair in 1922 angered Lenin, who wasn't a Russian chavinist, at least to the same extent.

Also, I take the view that Stalin, like Hitler, was not omnipotent. He provided the set-up of the Purges, but I don't believe he could micromanage every single killing in the Soviet Union. No, the Russian people took the opportunity to settle scores among themselves, save themselves...

If there is one difference between Hitler and Stalin, it was that Stalin continually purged the purgers.

When I said that Stalin was Russia/the USSR, I meant that he took it onto himself to speak for the peoples in the country he bent with his will. He may not be qualified to do so, but I have difficulty pinpointing another political figure from that era to represent the USSR.

Spoiler for Franco:

Franco was not a "Nazi" tyrant. He was a tyrant, but he was not a Nazi in the vein of Hitler. The Right of the period was a whole array of groups who had different aims. Probably the only thing which unite them was the desire to destroy the elected government.

Franco was greatly assisted by Italy and Germany, but after he took power, he didn't claim to be the old sweeping out the new, which is a main point in fascism. If anything, he claimed to restore the "old" order.

Spoiler for liberal democracy:

Note that I used the term "liberal democracy". Russia may be a democracy today (which I didn't dispute). But, I don't think it is a liberal democracy.

Spoiler for Serbia:

The Balkans had a big part to play in the agitation between Russia and Austria-Hungary prior to WWI.

@Reckoner: I personally think that the second bomb was needed. Heck, after the second bomb, the Japanese High Command still had the will to fight on. It was Hirohito who thought that it was enough. And the High Command even mounted a last-minute coup attempt to reverse the decision.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

@Reckoner: I personally think that the second bomb was needed. Heck, after the second bomb, the Japanese High Command still had the will to fight on. It was Hirohito who thought that it was enough. And the High Command even mounted a last-minute coup attempt to reverse the decision.

So, people actually don't regret using the atomic bomb after the first drop and witnessing the terror of humanity erased by mass destructive weapons? Of course, the High Command had the will to fight on, especially when their enemies don't have any mercy on innocent civilian lives. Notice that the atomic bombs were targetting civilians mainly, not the military. However, since the mercy of the civilian lives were at the hands of the inhuman atomic bombers, there was no choice but to surrender and thus, Emperor Hirohito made the right choice.

Knowing the tragedy of the atomic bombs, yet people still continue to mass produce nukes in modern times. It is truly pitiful.

[Tri-ring]

To my knowledge dropping the two bombs was more of a political choice rather than a military one.
The US military knew that Japan did not have any will left to fight back when they were doing the carpet bombing since there were no interceptor fcoming after them and had little/no resistance. Japan also tried to negotiate a peace treaty through the Swiss in June which was completely ignored by the allied forces.
The US could have simply created a blockade for 6 month and finish off whatever was left. The Japanese urban population at this point were eating weeds and roots and did not have enough oil to maintain even bare necessities.
The reason why they didn't do this was because the Soviets were closing in. The US did not want to share Japan like Germany so they dropped the bomb finishing it off before Soviets could mount a real invasion.
The reason for dropping two to my understanding was to test the difference in design, little boy dropped on Hiroshima was a Gun-type Uranium 235 bomb and the US military knew it will go off because of it's simple design.
On the other hand, Fat boy dropped on Nagasaki was an implosion type Plutonium bomb and although they tested it in Los Alamos the military was not sure if it will detonate in real life conditions being dropped from a B-29 so they did a live amo test on Japan.
The US science team also wanted to know if there was any difference in damage and radiation exposure on humans between the difference in design and material.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

So, people actually don't regret using the atomic bomb after the first drop and witnessing the terror of humanity erased by mass destructive weapons? Of course, the High Command had the will to fight on, especially when their enemies don't have any mercy on innocent civilian lives. Notice that the atomic bombs were targetting civilians mainly, not the military. However, since the mercy of the civilian lives were at the hands of the inhuman atomic bombers, there was no choice but to surrender and thus, Emperor Hirohito made the right choice.

Knowing the tragedy of the atomic bombs, yet people still continue to mass produce nukes in modern times. It is truly pitiful.

Civilians becoming valid targets was a relatively new item on the list, but once it was put on the list, all armies didn't want to take it off. Civilians are the backbone to any army. Break them and you break the enemy, or so the theory goes.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Civilians becoming valid targets was a relatively new item on the list, but once it was put on the list, all armies didn't want to take it off. Civilians are the backbone to any army. Break them and you break the enemy, or so the theory goes.

By concept, you are correct. However, the ones who drop the atomic bombs were from a democratic society where human rights are well-acknowledged and that makes it a little different. Obviously, any military body in this world don't really care much about civilian lives, all they care about is the success and outcome of the mission given to them by their superiors.

[mike_z]

The USSR was ready to invade Japan in case you did not know by the way, it was probably the biggest reason that the US even dropped the bomb.

where you read it? in newspapers?

Nagasaki was an implosion type Plutonium bomи

*rectification* Uranium 238

Civilians becoming valid targets was a relatively new item on the list, but once it was put on the list, all armies didn't want to take it off. Civilians are the backbone to any army. Break them and you break the enemy, or so the theory goes.

no comments kill yourself

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by mike_z

where you read it? in newspapers?

Nope, in the history books.

Kurile Landing Operation (August 18, 1945 - September 1, 1945)

Originally Posted by mike_z

*rectification* Uranium 238

Wrong again,

"Fat Man" was an implosion-type weapon using plutonium 239. A subcritical sphere of plutonium was placed in the center of a hollow sphere of high explosive.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

. Obviously, any military body in this world don't really care much about civilian lives, all they care about is the success and outcome of the mission given to them by their superiors.

Somr army are worse than others, after all killing civilians waiste ammunition and get bad Public Relation. But if they can be call 'Terrorists'' like the russian did in Afganistan.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Obviously, any military body in this world don't really care much about civilian lives, all they care about is the success and outcome of the mission given to them by their superiors.

What the heck is the Geneva conventions for....

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

By concept, you are correct. However, the ones who drop the atomic bombs were from a democratic society where human rights are well-acknowledged and that makes it a little different. Obviously, any military body in this world don't really care much about civilian lives, all they care about is the success and outcome of the mission given to them by their superiors.

The racism of the Pacific War (on both sides) was very well-documented. It has to be read to be believed.

Originally Posted by mg1942

What the heck is the Geneva conventions for....

Hint hint: Hitler refused to sign them.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

The racism of the Pacific War (on both sides) was very well-documented. It has to be read to be believed.

Most of this racism was from ignorance. That waht you get when both sides are from culture so differente. And the superiory complex didn't help.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Most of this racism was from ignorance. That waht you get when both sides are from culture so differente. And the superiory complex didn't help.

I think it was more about arrogance, financial greed and sense of maintaining the status quo then anything else.
Japan petitioned for human equality at the Paris Peace Conference which was over ruled by the British and the US.
Japan was also pushed by the US with denial of the counter proposal with other provocations which led to the infamous ultimatum, the Hull note.

For the record I am not saying Japan was purely an innocent victim since she had her own political problems after the 30's when the military highjacked the government and the Emperor was impotent to take more aggresive action against the military but it was not Japan's fault alone that led to the bloody war and every party had blood on their hands.

[Mumitroll]

I'm sure that invading the island where little kids were being trained to fight with sharp sticks would have caused less deaths. And I am sure that Japan would have wanted to become split in half as the USSR encroached on their little island. While the bombing was not necessarily that humane, it ended the war quickly. The one thing I'll say about the dropping of the bombs, was the first may have been justifiable, but the second wasn't. They did not need to bomb Japan a second time.

neither the first nor the second time were needed in order to simply defeat Japan, and certainly the destruction of cities was not needed. thats the overwhelming consensus of non-US historians today.

Oh and since you seem to be comparing death tolls for the countries in modern history, lets not forget the Soviet-Afghan war...

i'm just saying the US is at the top for post-WWII. the USSR war in Afghanistan was certainly in many ways similar to the US war in Vietnam though.

The USSR was ready to invade Japan in case you did not know by the way, it was probably the biggest reason that the US even dropped the bomb. They wanted to keep them out, and they also wanted to strike fear in Stalin. Japan could have easily become like Germany, but Asia's version.

yes. now you are coming close to the real reason. it was not primarily to end the war. it had little military significance - especially with that choice of targets. it was, before everything else, a power demonstration to Stalin.

Also, I take the view that Stalin, like Hitler, was not omnipotent. He provided the set-up of the Purges, but I don't believe he could micromanage every single killing in the Soviet Union. No, the Russian people took the opportunity to settle scores among themselves, save themselves...

of course he did not "micro-manage" everything. he had many other people to do that - like Lavrentiy Beria . it's an undeniable fact though that he was the single holder of power (or, more accurately, became it after he cleaned out all the potential rivals like Kirov, Bukharin, Tuchachevsky, Trotsky, etc) and fully responsible for the so-called "purges" which resulted in the deaths of millions.

your view of "Russian people taking the opportunity to settle scores" is more or less nonsense. the idea of the purges encouraged telling on people who were supposed to be an "enemy of the people". imagine yourself in such a situation. where any asshole, if he doesnt like you for some reason, can send an anonymous note to the NKVD saying that you said anti-Soviet things. and that would be enough to land you in a Siberian work camp. it's enough if 1 person out of 100 is such an asshole to ruin the lives of many people in such an environment. there is a word in Russian for such people - "stukach" - and thats a very derogatory word.

Franco was not a "Nazi" tyrant. He was a tyrant, but he was not a Nazi in the vein of Hitler.

in terms of his basic political stance Franco was a Fascist. whether you call his regime Nazi or not is more of a term thing - in any case it was a cruel, hardline nationalist one sympathizing with the Nazis and providing them troops.

Note that I used the term "liberal democracy". Russia may be a democracy today (which I didn't dispute). But, I don't think it is a liberal democracy.

do you think the US today is a liberal democracy?

Civilians becoming valid targets was a relatively new item on the list, but once it was put on the list, all armies didn't want to take it off. Civilians are the backbone to any army. Break them and you break the enemy, or so the theory goes.

terrorism theory you mean? what you described is what commonly got people sentenced to death and executed at places like Den Haag or Nürnberg.

[mike_z]

Hint hint: Hitler refused to sign them.

German singed Hague convention.
Mumitroll

Spoiler for mmm:

интересно, они познания об истории берут из газет?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

terrorism theory you mean? what you described is what commonly got people sentenced to death and executed at places like Den Haag or Nürnberg.

Am I wrong or even back at Clausewitz, civil area could be seen as military targets. From the time of the Mass production , civilians was the ones building the war material and potential low-qualified troop. It was the time of the bigger the army, the better.

[mike_z]

Am I wrong or even back at Clausewitz, civil area could be seen as military targets. From the time of the Mass production , civilians was the ones building the war material and potential low-qualified troop. It was the time of the bigger the army, the better.

If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him. (c)

[yezhanquan]

@Mumitroll: The US today may not be an full liberal democracy, but I wouldn't mind Singapore taking a few steps in that direction.

As for the Soviet ratting, 'derogatory' doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Franco being fascist: I sure hope my lecturer wouldn't ask this question in my exam. Then again, due to a little screw-up, our part on Spain was supposed to be confined with the Spanish Civil War.

The nukes: Add to "show of power" "scientific curiousity". After spending a ton of money on the stuff, they needed to see some action.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

do you think the US today is a liberal democracy?

In our dreams... and looks like USA is set to become a complete nanny state like UK/EU/Australia

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by mg1942

In our dreams... and looks like USA is set to become a complete nanny state like UK/EU/Australia

Funny. I thought my Singapore was the nanny state.

[Lathdrinor]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

To my knowledge dropping the two bombs was more of a political choice rather than a military one.
The US military knew that Japan did not have any will left to fight back when they were doing the carpet bombing since there were no interceptor fcoming after them and had little/no resistance. Japan also tried to negotiate a peace treaty through the Swiss in June which was completely ignored by the allied forces.
The US could have simply created a blockade for 6 month and finish off whatever was left. The Japanese urban population at this point were eating weeds and roots and did not have enough oil to maintain even bare necessities.
The reason why they didn't do this was because the Soviets were closing in. The US did not want to share Japan like Germany so they dropped the bomb finishing it off before Soviets could mount a real invasion.
The reason for dropping two to my understanding was to test the difference in design, little boy dropped on Hiroshima was a Gun-type Uranium 235 bomb and the US military knew it will go off because of it's simple design.
On the other hand, Fat boy dropped on Nagasaki was an implosion type Plutonium bomb and although they tested it in Los Alamos the military was not sure if it will detonate in real life conditions being dropped from a B-29 so they did a live amo test on Japan.
The US science team also wanted to know if there was any difference in damage and radiation exposure on humans between the difference in design and material.

The US did indeed want to secure a quick victory due to the Soviet advance. There was also the concern of domestic support for the war - a quick victory was deemed necessary (over a long duration siege/blockade) to end the war on favorable terms without inciting widespread unrest at home.

However, I think it's an exaggeration to say that Japan did not have "any will" to fight, left. Given the fanaticism of the Japanese military, if the Emperor did not give the word to surrender, they might very well have fought on. And as for a peaceful settlement, it was believed that Japan wanted a peace accord that would allow them to retain their empire or, at least, "save face." That, to the US and its allies, was unacceptable.

It is necessary to see the atomic bombing of Japan in the context of the general brutality of World War II. Yes, it was tragic, and yes, it was wrong (though, as others have said, one cannot easily predict how many lives would've been lost if either the US or the Soviets invaded). But civilian targeting is part of total war, and World War II was a total war. The level of dehumanization reached disgusting levels during the course of the war, which led, in part if not in full, to the atrocities committed. The Japanese certainly didn't spare much in their invasions of China and Southeast Asia, so in some sense, they got what they dished out (compare Japan's wartime civilian casualties to China's, if you don't believe me).

The best that can be said about World War II is that it showed humanity the true depravity of total war and fascism, which has led to an era of (relative) peace and liberalism. There are also important lessons for how to manage emerging powers (Japan and Germany were emerging powers at the time), which I hope the current batch of established powers took to heart.

If not - if humanity fails to learn from history - then, as Einstein said, "I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV; with sticks and stones."