Religions > Atheism > Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2005 10:55:19 PM |
| Object: |
Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050530/30coldwar.htm
5/30/05
The Paper Trail
New details about Soviet Cold War intentions
By Alex Kingsbury
This month marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Warsaw
Pact. Newly declassified papers from former Communist states shed fresh
light on the inner workings of the Soviet Union's Cold War alliance
with its eastern European satellites and its plans for war. U.S. News
spoke with Malcolm Byrne, coauthor of A Cardboard Castle? An Inside
History of the Warsaw Pact 1955-1991, about the finds.
What was most surprising about the papers?
These military plans and after-action reports show how unrealistic the
Soviets were in planning for conflicts that included nuclear launches.
Military planners assumed that cities like Munich, Vienna, and other
major urban centers would be obliterated by nuclear weapons, yet within
a matter of days they assumed that Warsaw Pact forces would be able to
sweep through those areas with no ill effects. It's very clear that
they completely glossed over the reality of what it would mean to be
marching through a nuclear wasteland. It's only in 1987--after the
Chernobyl accident--that a Polish leader was able to openly say to the
Kremlin that "one shouldn't imagine being able to enjoy a cup of coffee
in Paris six days after a nuclear exchange."
Did the Soviets expect a war?
They were not planning to overrun western Europe so it could fall under
Communist domination, but their plans to initiate a nuclear strike were
pre-emptive. In that hair-trigger environment, if your information
isn't perfect, you may push the button before it is really justified.
It was surprising to see that the potential for miscalculation and
nuclear disaster was so high.
How good was their intelligence?
Penetration of the western military was unusually high, and they had a
lot of very specific intelligence about NATO's thinking. That should
have told them that NATO's planning was defensive, but their ideology
predisposed them to assume that capitalist states were aggressive and
that NATO was on the verge of a strike at any moment. Their ideology,
in part, explains why they ignored the findings of their own
intelligence establishment.
Where did the other pact states stand?
Over the years there was a tremendous amount of jockeying and
maneuvering and outright dissension among virtually all the allied
states, which wasn't as clear before. Some states were concerned about
the financial burden; others were concerned about the Soviet strategy,
which called for eastern Europe to be the central battleground for a
conflict. The prime directive was to defend the Soviet Union and not
the Soviet bloc.
That intention was very clear, and the allies weren't very happy about
it. Keep in mind, the only time that these forces were used wasn't to
fight the West but to crack down on its own people, in Hungary and
Czechoslovakia in particular.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/
Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike to Preempt West, Documents Show
Warsaw Pact Allies Resented Soviet Dominance and "Nuclear Romanticism"
Bloc Saw Military Balance in West's Favor from 1970s On, Especially in
Technology
New Volume of Formerly Secret Records Published on 50th Anniversary of
Warsaw Pact
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 154
For more information contact
Vojtech Mastny 202/415-6707
Malcolm Byrne - 202/994-7043
May 13, 2005
Read "The Warsaw Pact, gone with a whimper"
by Malcolm Byrne and Vojtech Mastny
The International Herald Tribune
May 14, 2005
Washington D.C. May 13, 2005 - The Soviet-led Warsaw Pact had a
long-standing strategy to attack Western Europe that included being the
first to use nuclear weapons, according to a new book of previously
Secret Warsaw Pact documents published tomorrow. Although the aim was
apparently to preempt NATO "aggression," the Soviets clearly expected
that nuclear war was likely and planned specifically to fight and win
such a conflict.
The documents show that Moscow's allies went along with these plans but
the alliance was weakened by resentment over Soviet domination and the
belief that nuclear planning was sometimes highly unrealistic. Just the
opposite of Western views at the time, Pact members saw themselves
increasingly at a disadvantage compared to the West in the military
balance, especially with NATO's ability to incorporate high-technology
weaponry and organize more effectively, beginning in the late 1970s.
These and other findings appear in a new volume published tomorrow on
the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Warsaw Pact. Consisting of
193 documents originating from all eight original member-states, the
volume, A Cardboard Castle? An Inside History of the Warsaw Pact,
1955-1991, provides significant new evidence of the intentions and
capabilities of one of the most feared military machines in history.
Highlights of the 726-page volume include highly confidential internal
reports, military assessments, minutes of Warsaw Pact leadership
meetings, and Politburo discussions on topics such as:
The shift beginning in the 1960s from defensive operations to plans to
launch attacks deep into Western Europe. (Documents Nos. 16, 20a-b, 21)
Plans to initiate the use of nuclear weapons, ostensibly to preempt
Western first-use. (Documents Nos. 81, 83)
Soviet expectations that conventional conflicts would go nuclear, and
plans to fight and win such conflicts. (Documents Nos. 81, 83)
The deep resentment of alliance members, behind the fa=E7ade of
solidarity, of Soviet dominance and the unequal share of the military
burden that was imposed on them. (Documents Nos. 4-6, 33-37, 47, 52)
East European views on the futility of plans for nuclear war and the
realization that their countries, far more than the Soviet Union, would
suffer the most devastating consequences of such a conflict. (Documents
Nos. 22b, 38, 50, 52)
The "nuclear romanticism," primarily of Soviet planners, concerning the
viability of unconventional warfare, including a memorable retort by
the Polish leader that "no one should have the idea that in a nuclear
war one could enjoy a cup of coffee in Paris in five or six days."
(Documents Nos. 31, 115)
Ideologically warped notions of Warsaw Pact planners about the West's
presumed propensity to initiate hostilities and the prospects for
defeating it. (Documents Nos. 50, 73, 79, 81)
The impact of Chernobyl as a reality check for Soviet officials on the
effects of nuclear weapons. (Document No. 115)
The pervasiveness and efficacy of East bloc spying on NATO, mainly by
East Germans (Documents Nos. 11, 28, 80, 97, 109, 112)
Warsaw Pact shortcomings in resisting hostile military action,
including difficulties in firing nuclear weapons. (Documents Nos. 44,
143)
Data on the often disputed East-West military balance, seen from the
Soviet bloc side as much more favorable to the West than the West
itself saw it, with the technological edge increasingly in Western
favor since the time of the Carter administration (Documents Nos. 47,
79, 81, 82, 130, 131, 135, 136)
The motives accounting for the Warsaw Pact's offensive military culture
included not only the obsessive Soviet memory of having been taken by
surprise by the nearly fatal Nazi attack in June 1941 but primarily the
ideological militancy of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine that posited
irreconcilable hostility of the capitalist adversaries. The influence
of the doctrine explains, for example, the distorted interpretation of
secret Western planning documents that were unequivocally defensive
documents to which Warsaw Pact spies had extensive access. So integral
was the offensive strategy to the Soviet system that its replacement by
a defensive strategy under Gorbachev proved impossible to implement
before the system itself disintegrated.
The Soviet military, as the ideologically most devoted and disciplined
part of the Soviet establishment, were given extensive leeway by the
political leadership in designing the Warsaw Pact's plans for war and
preparing for their implementation. Although the leadership reserved
the authority to decide under what circumstances they would be
implemented and never actually tried to act on them, the chances of a
crisis spiraling out of control may have been greater than imagined at
the time. The plans had dynamics of their own and the grip of the aging
leadership continued to diminish with the passage of time.
The new collection of documents published today is the first of its
kind in examining the Warsaw Pact from the inside, with the benefit of
materials once thought to be sealed from public scrutiny in perpetuity.
It was prepared by the Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw
Pact (PHP), an international scholarly network formed to explore and
disseminate documentation on the military and security aspects of
contemporary history. The book appears as part of the "National
Security Archive Cold War Reader Series" through Central European
University Press.
The PHP's founders and partners are the National Security Archive, a
non-governmental research organization based at The George Washington
University; the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich; the
Institute for Strategy and Security Policy at the Austrian Defense
Academy in Vienna; the Machiavelli Center for Cold War Studies in
Florence; and the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies in Oslo.
In addition to documents, the volume features a major original essay by
Vojtech Mastny, a leading historian of the Warsaw Pact, and contextual
headnotes for each document by co-editor Malcolm Byrne. A detailed
chronology, glossaries and bibliography are also included.
The documents in the collection were obtained by numerous scholars and
archivists, many of them associated with PHP and its partners,
including the Cold War International History Project at the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington D.C.
The vast majority of the documents were translated especially for this
volume and have never previously appeared in English.
Attached to this notice are ten representative documents taken from the
list above. They appear as they do in the volume, i.e. with explanatory
headnotes at the top of each item.
The documents in their original languages can be found in their
entirety on the Center for Security Studies website.
On Saturday, May 14, a book launch for A Cardboard Castle? will take
place in Warsaw at the Military Office of Historical Research. The
address is: 2, ul. Stefana Banacha, Room 218. It will begin at 11:30
a=2Em. Speakers include:
Gen. William E. Odom, former Director, U.S. National Security Agency
Gen. Tadeusz Pioro, senior Polish representative to the Warsaw Pact
Brig. Gen. Leslaw Dudek, Polish representative to the alliance
Prof. dr. hab. Andrzej Paczkowski, Polish Academy of Sciences
Dr hab. Krzysztof Komorowski, Military Office of Historical Research
Prof. dr hab. Wojciech Materski, Polish Academy of Sciences
.
|
|
| User: "Shark school missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 03:17:00 AM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> suddenly spluttered:
nothing, really.
<snip pasted article - opossible copyright infringement>
Misleading title again, TurdsofWrath. Didn't even read it, did you?
because it flatly contradicts your assertion even in the bit you
pasted:
They were not planning to overrun western Europe so it could fall
under Communist domination, but their plans to initiate a nuclear
strike were pre-emptive.
Oh! Where did that come from?
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IsaacKuo" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 01:44:29 PM |
|
|
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050530/30coldwar.htm
5/30/05
The Paper Trail
New details about Soviet Cold War intentions
By Alex Kingsbury
[...]
How good was their intelligence?
Penetration of the western military was unusually high, and they had a
lot of very specific intelligence about NATO's thinking. That should
have told them that NATO's planning was defensive, but their ideology
predisposed them to assume that capitalist states were aggressive and
that NATO was on the verge of a strike at any moment. Their ideology,
in part, explains why they ignored the findings of their own
intelligence establishment.
The funny thing is that the exact same thing was true the other way
around. Western intelligence of Soviet equipment, tactics, and
strategies was very good. That should have told them that their
planning was defensive, but their ideology predisposed them to
assume that Communist states were aggressive and that the
Soviets were on the verge of invading Western Europe at any
moment.
There's nothing inherently wrong with preparing for the worst.
Unfortunately, a trigger-happy policy of pre-emption has the
potential to turn "the worst" into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Isaac Kuo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 12:59:14 AM |
|
|
Maybe i've missed something but as far as I'm concerned, the only
country to have used nuclear bombs against civilians (and twice...) is
the USA. Which, I guess, accroding to your logic, makes the world safe
for corrupted theocracies all over the world...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe ForAtheism |
04 Nov 2005 06:04:54 AM |
|
|
Parsifal wrote:
Maybe i've missed something but as far as I'm concerned, the only
country to have used nuclear bombs against civilians (and twice...) is
the USA. Which, I guess, accroding to your logic, makes the world safe
for corrupted theocracies all over the world...
Civillians of a nation which started the war in the first place.
Consider the alternative: A massive invasion with one million allied
casualties and maybe five to ten million Jap casualties (not that it
upsets me, mind you). The Japs should thank us.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 09:53:37 AM |
|
|
*Civillians of a nation which started the war in the first place.
*
*Consider the alternative: A massive invasion with one million allied
*casualties and maybe five to ten million Jap casualties (not that it
*upsets me, mind you). The Japs should thank us.
This whole question is a never-ending discussion with right and worng
arguments for either side. My point was only that we keep hearing about
the nuclear threat, about dangerous countries with irresponsible
leaders and still, only one country has used it (why twice, actually?),
the United States. So why should I discuss about what MIGHT have
happened if the USSR has used it when we're dealing with a country
which has ACTUALLY USED IT and where several opinion leaders would
gladly encourage to use it AGAIN without one second of hesitation.
Bottom line: somehow -but only somehow- I'm much more worried about the
USA than any other country.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vlad ben Avorham" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe ForAtheism |
19 Nov 2005 09:15:50 AM |
|
|
Bob you're asking a blame America first liberal to use logic about an
emotional subject (war) which they know virtually nothing about. Even
the few veterans who fall into this catagory only know it sucked for
them, they dont appreciate the blessings that victory have brought to
them. Logic isnt the strong suit of the liberal mindset in the first
place especially when it comes to war, of course few conservatives
manage to think logically when it comes to personal liberties for those
who want the freedom to do things they personally dont value. I suppose
that is the problem with our nation in a nut shell, one side wants to
run your life one way and the other wants to run it the opposite way.
Neither side is willing to provide you with a place that lets you run
your own life with as little outside interferance as possible.
Vlad
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Maybe i've missed something but as far as I'm concerned, the only
country to have used nuclear bombs against civilians (and twice...) is
the USA. Which, I guess, accroding to your logic, makes the world safe
for corrupted theocracies all over the world...
Civillians of a nation which started the war in the first place.
Consider the alternative: A massive invasion with one million allied
casualties and maybe five to ten million Jap casualties (not that it
upsets me, mind you). The Japs should thank us.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 06:28:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 07:04:54 -0500, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Maybe i've missed something but as far as I'm concerned, the only
country to have used nuclear bombs against civilians (and twice...) is
the USA. Which, I guess, accroding to your logic, makes the world safe
for corrupted theocracies all over the world...
Civillians of a nation which started the war in the first place.
Consider the alternative: A massive invasion with one million allied
casualties and maybe five to ten million Jap casualties (not that it
upsets me, mind you). The Japs should thank us.
Bob Kolker
There is good evidence that the war in the Pacific could have ended
*sooner* if the USA were not intent on demonstrating the atom bomb *to the
Russians*, in anticipation of the Cold War that would start as soon as
Europe was divided up.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 06:46:07 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.04.12.28.24.527778@stopspam.net...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 07:04:54 -0500, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Maybe i've missed something but as far as I'm concerned, the only
country to have used nuclear bombs against civilians (and twice...) is
the USA. Which, I guess, accroding to your logic, makes the world safe
for corrupted theocracies all over the world...
Civillians of a nation which started the war in the first place.
Consider the alternative: A massive invasion with one million allied
casualties and maybe five to ten million Jap casualties (not that it
upsets me, mind you). The Japs should thank us.
Bob Kolker
There is good evidence that the war in the Pacific could have ended
*sooner* if the USA were not intent on demonstrating the atom bomb *to the
Russians*, in anticipation of the Cold War that would start as soon as
Europe was divided up.
Ignore the kook: the argument ended ages ago, and his side had its *****
whipped with the facts. To see a long and informed expanation of why and
how, start at post 17 in the following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.noam-chomsky/browse_frm/thread/f9cbbc93debb15a9/e5a6ff7bfb4807b6?lnk=st&q=toby+donald+james+japanese&rnum=2#e5a6ff7bfb4807b6
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
06 Nov 2005 09:46:09 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.04.12.28.24.527778@stopspam.net...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 07:04:54 -0500, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Maybe i've missed something but as far as I'm concerned, the only
country to have used nuclear bombs against civilians (and twice...) is
the USA. Which, I guess, accroding to your logic, makes the world safe
for corrupted theocracies all over the world...
Civillians of a nation which started the war in the first place.
Consider the alternative: A massive invasion with one million allied
casualties and maybe five to ten million Jap casualties (not that it
upsets me, mind you). The Japs should thank us.
Bob Kolker
There is good evidence that the war in the Pacific could have ended
*sooner* if the USA were not intent on demonstrating the atom bomb *to
the Russians*, in anticipation of the Cold War that would start as soon
as Europe was divided up.
Ignore the kook: the argument ended ages ago, and his side had its *****
whipped with the facts. To see a long and informed expanation of why and
how, start at post 17 in the following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.noam-chomsky/browse_frm/thread/f9cbbc93debb15a9/e5a6ff7bfb4807b6?lnk=st&q=toby+donald+james+japanese&rnum=2#e5a6ff7bfb4807b6
Katt.
Am I the kook, or Kolker? Just curious.
MarkA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe ForAtheism |
06 Nov 2005 10:50:58 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
Am I the kook, or Kolker? Just curious.
You are a revisionist appeaser. In a different era you would have
supported Neville Chamberlain. If we had the means we should have killed
all the Japanese. But we didn't.
If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off, ***** down his
neck, kill his wives and children and despoil his property. It is better
to be feared than loved.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
06 Nov 2005 01:27:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:50:58 -0500, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
MarkA wrote:
Am I the kook, or Kolker? Just curious.
You are a revisionist appeaser. In a different era you would have
supported Neville Chamberlain. If we had the means we should have killed
all the Japanese. But we didn't.
If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off, ***** down his
neck, kill his wives and children and despoil his property. It is better
to be feared than loved.
Bob Kolker
When I was growing up, in the 60's, I believed all the ***** they shoveled
onto us in grade school: The Commies are evil, they use "propaganda" (we
don't), the A-bomb was necessary to end the war in the Pacific, the USA is
a paragon of virtue, that would never hurt a fly except as a last resort
to defend against an evil aggressor.
As I grew up, I came to realize that politics and human affairs are not so
simple, and every story has two sides. If the Bush administration hasn't
convinced you that the US government can use propaganda on its own
citizens as shamelessly as the Russians did on theirs, I don't know what
will.
And yes, I probably would have supported Chamberlain. As it turned out,
it would have been wrong to do so, but sometimes it is better to be wrong
for the right reasons than to be right for the wrong ones. The world is
getting too small, and our weapons too effective, to continue a "kill 'em
all, and let God sort 'em out." mentality.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe ForAtheism |
04 Nov 2005 07:08:46 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
There is good evidence that the war in the Pacific could have ended
*sooner* if the USA were not intent on demonstrating the atom bomb *to the
Russians*, in anticipation of the Cold War that would start as soon as
Europe was divided up.
Produce that "good evidence" please.
The fighting on Okinowa indicated strongly that the Japs were fanatic
and would not have surrendered. Without the nukes an invasion would have
been necessary.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
06 Nov 2005 09:44:42 AM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
MarkA wrote:
There is good evidence that the war in the Pacific could have ended
*sooner* if the USA were not intent on demonstrating the atom bomb *to
the Russians*, in anticipation of the Cold War that would start as soon
as Europe was divided up.
Produce that "good evidence" please.
The fighting on Okinowa indicated strongly that the Japs were fanatic
and would not have surrendered. Without the nukes an invasion would have
been necessary.
Bob Kolker
It took me all of 5 seconds to do a Google search on the term "Hiroshima".
It came up with multiple references to political leaders, historians,
military commanders, etc, documenting their belief that use of the A-bomb
was unnecessary, and that the war could have been ended months sooner if
the USA had not insisted on unconditional surrender.
BTW, Eisenhower is one of the generals who believes the A-bomb was
unnecessary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
06 Nov 2005 09:54:25 AM |
|
|
MarkA <nobiz@ofyours.com> wrote in
news:67874$436e24ef$944005e7$4389@STARBAND.NET:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
MarkA wrote:
There is good evidence that the war in the Pacific could have ended
*sooner* if the USA were not intent on demonstrating the atom bomb
*to the Russians*, in anticipation of the Cold War that would start
as soon as Europe was divided up.
Produce that "good evidence" please.
The fighting on Okinowa indicated strongly that the Japs were fanatic
and would not have surrendered. Without the nukes an invasion would
have been necessary.
Bob Kolker
It took me all of 5 seconds to do a Google search on the term
"Hiroshima". It came up with multiple references to political leaders,
historians, military commanders, etc, documenting their belief that
use of the A-bomb was unnecessary, and that the war could have been
ended months sooner if the USA had not insisted on unconditional
surrender.
BTW, Eisenhower is one of the generals who believes the A-bomb was
unnecessary.
Ah, but the A-bomb was not aimed just at the Japanese, but at the Soviets
as well. It was a clear warning to Stalin that we had it, and that we
damn well would use it.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
06 Nov 2005 01:00:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:54:25 +0000, Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
MarkA <nobiz@ofyours.com> wrote in
news:67874$436e24ef$944005e7$4389@STARBAND.NET:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
MarkA wrote:
There is good evidence that the war in the Pacific could have ended
*sooner* if the USA were not intent on demonstrating the atom bomb *to
the Russians*, in anticipation of the Cold War that would start as
soon as Europe was divided up.
Produce that "good evidence" please.
The fighting on Okinowa indicated strongly that the Japs were fanatic
and would not have surrendered. Without the nukes an invasion would
have been necessary.
Bob Kolker
It took me all of 5 seconds to do a Google search on the term
"Hiroshima". It came up with multiple references to political leaders,
historians, military commanders, etc, documenting their belief that use
of the A-bomb was unnecessary, and that the war could have been ended
months sooner if the USA had not insisted on unconditional surrender.
BTW, Eisenhower is one of the generals who believes the A-bomb was
unnecessary.
Ah, but the A-bomb was not aimed just at the Japanese, but at the Soviets
as well. It was a clear warning to Stalin that we had it, and that we
damn well would use it.
That appears to be the MAIN reason we used it. And just as well, too,
since the Soviets declared war on Japan just a few days before, so that
they could have claim to some of the spoils in the Pacific Theater as well.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe ForAtheism |
06 Nov 2005 10:48:35 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
It took me all of 5 seconds to do a Google search on the term "Hiroshima".
It came up with multiple references to political leaders, historians,
military commanders, etc, documenting their belief that use of the A-bomb
was unnecessary, and that the war could have been ended months sooner if
the USA had not insisted on unconditional surrender.
Since the Japs attacked us first, their asses belonged to us. Why should
we have had compromised with those who committed a crime against us?
BTW, Eisenhower is one of the generals who believes the A-bomb was
unnecessary.
Ike also let the Commies get to Berlin first.
Here are the -facts-. We nuked the Jap bastards and within two weeks
they folded, thus saving many lives, particularly Allied lives. There is
the -result- of the nuke attack. Firebombing their cities did not budge
them but mushroom clouds convinced them. Whatever works, works. We did
the right thing.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
06 Nov 2005 01:16:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:48:35 -0500, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
MarkA wrote:
It took me all of 5 seconds to do a Google search on the term
"Hiroshima". It came up with multiple references to political leaders,
historians, military commanders, etc, documenting their belief that use
of the A-bomb was unnecessary, and that the war could have been ended
months sooner if the USA had not insisted on unconditional surrender.
Since the Japs attacked us first, their asses belonged to us. Why should
we have had compromised with those who committed a crime against us?
In fact, we DID compromise with them, even though we didn't have to. As
was the case with the Marshall Plan in Europe, and the Reconstruction of
the South after the Civil War, helping a country rebuild itself after the
war is what is most important thing in the long run.
BTW, I notice that you have nothing to support your original claim that
dropping the Abomb was necessary.
BTW, Eisenhower is one of the generals who believes the A-bomb was
unnecessary.
Ike also let the Commies get to Berlin first.
He also successfully engineered the largest amphibious assault in history.
His opinions on military issues have considerable weight.
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit
them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
Here are the -facts-. We nuked the Jap bastards and within two weeks
they folded, thus saving many lives, particularly Allied lives. There is
the -result- of the nuke attack. Firebombing their cities did not budge
them but mushroom clouds convinced them. Whatever works, works. We did
the right thing.
There's no question that the Japanese were forced to surrender once we
started dropping nuclear bombs on them. The question is whether they
would have surrendered even sooner if we had allowed them to. Believe
what you like, but, as I said earlier, there is credible evidence that the
USA prolonged the war in the Pacific so that we could use the A-bomb
against the Japanese in order to improve our status relative to the
Russians in the politics of post-war Europe.
Bob Kolker
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe ForAtheism |
04 Nov 2005 07:20:33 AM |
|
|
Parsifal wrote:
Maybe i've missed something but as far as I'm concerned, the only
country to have used nuclear bombs against civilians (and twice...) is
the USA. Which, I guess, accroding to your logic, makes the world safe
for corrupted theocracies all over the world...
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com>:
Civillians of a nation which started the war in the first place.
The point is, history contradicts the title. The only
nation to have actually carried out a nuclear first strike
was the U.S., not the Soviet Union. The U.S. is also the
only nation I know of whose government openly states that
it feels free to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in
future conflicts (not that one can't think of another
government or two that would probably do so).
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 07:30:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 13:20:33 +0000 (UTC), (G*rd*n) wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Maybe i've missed something but as far as I'm concerned, the only
country to have used nuclear bombs against civilians (and twice...) is
the USA. Which, I guess, accroding to your logic, makes the world safe
for corrupted theocracies all over the world...
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com>:
Civillians of a nation which started the war in the first place.
The point is, history contradicts the title. The only
nation to have actually carried out a nuclear first strike
was the U.S., not the Soviet Union. The U.S. is also the
only nation I know of whose government openly states that
it feels free to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in
future conflicts (not that one can't think of another
government or two that would probably do so).
Britain was prepared to, in the Falklands war, if they lost the
aircraft carrier or Prince Andrew.
After the war in an unwise answer to a parliamentary question, it was
revealed that several C-class and one R-class nuclear subroutines were
operating in the area.
C-class are hunter/killers. R-Class were nuclear missile platforms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JimboCat" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
10 Nov 2005 03:09:47 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Britain was prepared to, in the Falklands war, if they lost the
aircraft carrier or Prince Andrew.
After the war in an unwise answer to a parliamentary question, it was
revealed that several C-class and one R-class nuclear subroutines were
operating in the area.
I wrote a subroutine like that once. Barely managed to duck when my
monitor exploded, and I was weeks picking bits of CPU out of my a**.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
Pronouns, unite!
Remember our 12 step program:
1. The plural of it's its.
2. It's not a contraction.
3. It's is a contraction.
4. A contraction isn't it.
5. Its contraction's it's.
6. It's isn't its contraction.
7. His and hers aren't together because his's on the floor.
8. If your last contraction was two steps ago, you're in labor.
9. If you're in labor, the fault's his.
10. A-r-r-gh! (It's talk like a pirate day).
11. Data doesn't want to be plural anymore; he told me so.
12. A pronoun'll never be picked out of a lineup without a tattoo.
- Josie Margolis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 03:07:59 AM |
|
|
One of the main lessons to be drawn is that one has to assume, or at
least be prepared for the possibility, that the other side is
delusional, rather than rational. The Iranian government seems to be a
good current example of a delusional government.
Most people seem to be somewhat delusional in fact, outside their areas
of expertise or experience, where long experience has corrected their
mistaken views, or at least resulted in a worldview more or less
consistent with being able to solve the practical problems they face.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 07:45:58 AM |
|
|
"Akorps@aol.com" <Akorps@aol.com> wrote in news:1131095279.029361.50400
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
One of the main lessons to be drawn is that one has to assume, or at
least be prepared for the possibility, that the other side is
delusional, rather than rational. The Iranian government seems to be a
good current example of a delusional government.
Do you mean that there are actually some "rational" governments around?
Most people seem to be somewhat delusional in fact, outside their areas
of expertise or experience, where long experience has corrected their
mistaken views, or at least resulted in a worldview more or less
consistent with being able to solve the practical problems they face.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 08:34:28 AM |
|
|
wrote:
One of the main lessons to be drawn is that one has to assume, or at
least be prepared for the possibility, that the other side is
delusional, rather than rational. The Iranian government seems to be a
good current example of a delusional government.
Most people seem to be somewhat delusional in fact, outside their areas
of expertise or experience, where long experience has corrected their
mistaken views, or at least resulted in a worldview more or less
consistent with being able to solve the practical problems they face.
The Iranian government is confronted by an enemy which has shown it
is willing to strike militarily without provocation and war against and
occupy a country which did not threaten it. Furthermore, that same
country is the only one in the world which has used nuclear weapons
and states openly that it feels free to do so again regardless of
whether the other side uses or even has such weapons. This same
country routinely employs lies, terror and torture as political means.
What would rational behavior rather than delusional behavior mean
for the governments and peoples who confronted such an enemy?
I would say the most rational plan would be to try to acquire nuclear
weapons, but as quietly as possible, in the hope that the enemy
was not totally delusional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 11:49:05 AM |
|
|
<animaminima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131114868.021133.11790@g43g2000cwa.
The Iranian government is confronted by an enemy which has shown it
is willing to strike militarily without provocation and war against and
occupy a country which did not threaten it. Furthermore, that same
country is the only one in the world which has used nuclear weapons
and states openly that it feels free to do so again regardless of
whether the other side uses or even has such weapons. This same
country routinely employs lies, terror and torture as political means.
.... And also has a long track record of openly as well as secretly arming
and aiding Iran's aggressor neighbour Iraq through all the years of its
aggression.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hieron" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe ForAtheism |
04 Nov 2005 04:54:13 AM |
|
|
Thank God the Russians were defeated!
--
Hieron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shark school missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
04 Nov 2005 11:06:50 AM |
|
|
Hieron <george@msn.de> suddenly spluttered:
Thank God the Russians were defeated!
Were they? When?
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hieron" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe ForAtheism |
06 Nov 2005 01:11:28 AM |
|
|
Shark school missionaries wrote:
Hieron <george@msn.de> suddenly spluttered:
Thank God the Russians were defeated!
Were they? When?
When they had to dismantle their empire. They lost the whole of Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union also fell apart. They didn't lose because of
their direct military conflict against the West. But they lost because
of their war in Afganistan broke them financially. And the US supported
the Muslim militants that fought against them (Bin Laden, anyone?).
--
Hieron
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike To Make The World Safe For Atheism |
06 Nov 2005 01:44:37 PM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
<snip>
Oh man, is it a little sick that I can pick out the words of truth
posts just from the subject lines?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
