Standoff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2017, 08:57 PM
RE: Standoff
(05-09-2017 08:12 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(05-09-2017 02:40 AM)Dworkin Wrote:  That's a good point; I have been reading a detailed history of the period. Yes, the Japs (rightly or wrongly) believed they were trapped by the US economic war on their country, and the US economic support of nationalist China against them.

The Japanese really were squeezed by US economic policies and attacked us as the best strategic way to counter the affects of those policies.

Perhaps...not the best way?

Sincerely,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
05-09-2017, 09:22 PM
RE: Standoff
(05-09-2017 08:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(05-09-2017 08:12 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The Japanese really were squeezed by US economic policies and attacked us as the best strategic way to counter the affects of those policies.

Perhaps...not the best way?

Sincerely,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

That lesson should be at the front of Kim Jon Un's mind if he thinks he could do any better than the Japanese of the mid 20th century could do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
05-09-2017, 09:31 PM
RE: Standoff
(05-09-2017 09:22 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(05-09-2017 08:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  Perhaps...not the best way?

Sincerely,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

That lesson should be at the front of Kim Jon Un's mind if he thinks he could do any better than the Japanese of the mid 20th century could do.

Amen to that brother. And here's hoping we (the US) don't try anything stupid either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post
06-09-2017, 02:18 AM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2017 02:24 AM by Dworkin.)
RE: Standoff
(05-09-2017 09:22 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(05-09-2017 08:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  Perhaps...not the best way?

Sincerely,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

That lesson should be at the front of Kim Jon Un's mind if he thinks he could do any better than the Japanese of the mid 20th century could do.

Folks,

One difference is that the Japanese did not have a deliverable nuclear weapon near the end of WW2. If they had developed such a weapon, would they have made first use of nukes? That's a moral question that we will never be able to answer.

If the North Koreans do have a deliverable hydrogen warhead, this makes any comparison with the Japs in WW2 a moot point. Will the NKs make first use of nukes? That is both a moral and practical question, and may be answered. If the answer is yes, they will not be the first nation on earth to do so.

D.

PS - While this 'stand off' continues, attention has been distracted from other newcomers to the safety of nuclear deterrent. Pakistan is of interest and of course Iran. The Iranians have said that they will begin reprocessing 'within 20 minutes' if Trump goes bad on the Obama deal. Maybe they are familiar with Trump's ghostwritten book on deals.

Interesting times. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dworkin's post
06-09-2017, 03:44 AM
RE: Standoff
(05-09-2017 08:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(05-09-2017 08:12 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The Japanese really were squeezed by US economic policies and attacked us as the best strategic way to counter the affects of those policies.

Perhaps...not the best way?

Sincerely,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

You are arguing from 20/20 hindsight. By 1940/41 the Japanese couldnt possibly know that Hiroshima was even remotely possible. Even the US didnt know.
From the Japanese point of view, based on the information availiable to them in 1941 and considering their current ideology, is was 100% consequent to take military action.

They tried all diplomatic means to make the US accept Japans claim to be an equal power with interestes in the pacific. The US refused and basically tried to economically strangle Japan into submission. It seems to have escaped the american administration that the Japanese spirit in general (derived from bushido and ingrained into society by the ruling military class) would perceive this as particularly humiliating.

Japan (like the western countries too, oh the irony) was racist, they perceived themselves to be *better*, which particularly affects ones assesment of the opponents vs your own military ability (*cough* Germany vs Russisa *cough*).

By 1941 the major western powers who also happened to be the owners of the very colonial areas Japan was interested in were ovcerrun and soundly defeated (Netherlands, France, UK to a certain degree) by a country everybody also thought was never able to do so, Germany.

Japan was in the middle of a major naval arms race, while the US, its main competitor, didnt even start yet. They had built up a sizeable carrier fleet and of course planned to finish the biggest BBs the world has ever seen. If their chances were ever good it was then (although the chances in total were pretty slim, as Yamamoto already knew).

Japan was waging war in China since the mid 30s, its troops were very seasoned, and they knew it.

Quote:One difference is that the Japanese did not have a deliverable nuclear weapon near the end of WW2. If they had developed such a weapon, would they have made first use of nukes? That's a moral question that we will never be able to answer.

I tink there is absolutely no reason to doubt they would have. By mid 1945 they already had sacrificed thousands of pilots in suicide attacks, their last big BBs in a one way attack at Okinawa, and troops on countless islands and atolls to die in hopeless attempts to stop the onslaught of the US. They even tried to prepare the whole of the population to fight to the bitter end at the soon-to-be invasion beeches. They gave any indication that they were serious tor rather have the japansese population go extinct than to suffer defeat. It took Hirohito to finally call for surrender, the military never wanted to!

So, hell yeah, they would have dropped nukes, even if they had to drop them on the heads of their own people at invasion beeches for example. I dont have the slightest doubt.

In general i think the comparison of NK to WWII Japan is a very bad one (and i think i already told so) because, although both are racist and perceive themselves as a superior race, NK hast demonstrated and intent to expand past beyond its current boarders. This is possibly, and probably, because they know how hopeless their situation would currently be, especially given the current global political situation where comminism and its alliances have very much suffered, but the fact remains that NK is not going to attack anybody, only in perceived self defense. If someone is stupid enough to poke Kim the exactly wrong way, Kim may finds himself pushed into doing something even more stupid, just to save his face, because one thing is clear: he wont step back because Trump does this or that, NK is alrey a iniverse in and of itself, it has already lost aconnection to the *real* world. Opposition? In NK? I seriously doubt that, at least i dont have the slightest information to indicate such a possibility. Maybe someone is better informed about this however.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
06-09-2017, 04:46 AM
RE: Standoff
I think NK developed the nukes purely as a deterrent to preserve their regime. They would be stupid to use them since they would instantly be wiped from existence.

Everything else is just meaningless hype.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DeepThought's post
06-09-2017, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2017 06:03 AM by BikerDude.)
RE: Standoff
(06-09-2017 04:46 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  I think NK developed the nukes purely as a deterrent to preserve their regime. They would be stupid to use them since they would instantly be wiped from existence.

Everything else is just meaningless hype.

Exactly.
The thing to watch out for in all of this is the role that Putin plays.
He is already leveraging his potential role as a pretext for lifting sanctions against Russia. For Putin North Korea is nothing but a bargaining chip.
He will use it to try and get the sanctions imposed at the start of the Ukraine invasion lifted and frozen funds released.
All this stirring of the pot and fear mongering plays right into his advantage.
Putin is still playing the cold war chess and Donald Trump is trying to build hotels and make oil deals.

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BikerDude's post
06-09-2017, 06:46 AM
RE: Standoff
Larry Wilkerson: North Korea is Not an Existential Threat - But Many People Benefit by Saying It Is




[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BikerDude's post
06-09-2017, 08:58 AM
RE: Standoff
(06-09-2017 03:44 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(05-09-2017 08:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  Perhaps...not the best way?

Sincerely,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

You are arguing from 20/20 hindsight. By 1940/41 the Japanese couldnt possibly know that Hiroshima was even remotely possible. Even the US didnt know.
From the Japanese point of view, based on the information availiable to them in 1941 and considering their current ideology, is was 100% consequent to take military action.

They tried all diplomatic means to make the US accept Japans claim to be an equal power with interestes in the pacific. The US refused and basically tried to economically strangle Japan into submission. It seems to have escaped the american administration that the Japanese spirit in general (derived from bushido and ingrained into society by the ruling military class) would perceive this as particularly humiliating.

Japan (like the western countries too, oh the irony) was racist, they perceived themselves to be *better*, which particularly affects ones assesment of the opponents vs your own military ability (*cough* Germany vs Russisa *cough*).

By 1941 the major western powers who also happened to be the owners of the very colonial areas Japan was interested in were ovcerrun and soundly defeated (Netherlands, France, UK to a certain degree) by a country everybody also thought was never able to do so, Germany.

Japan was in the middle of a major naval arms race, while the US, its main competitor, didnt even start yet. They had built up a sizeable carrier fleet and of course planned to finish the biggest BBs the world has ever seen. If their chances were ever good it was then (although the chances in total were pretty slim, as Yamamoto already knew).

Japan was waging war in China since the mid 30s, its troops were very seasoned, and they knew it.

Quote:One difference is that the Japanese did not have a deliverable nuclear weapon near the end of WW2. If they had developed such a weapon, would they have made first use of nukes? That's a moral question that we will never be able to answer.

I tink there is absolutely no reason to doubt they would have. By mid 1945 they already had sacrificed thousands of pilots in suicide attacks, their last big BBs in a one way attack at Okinawa, and troops on countless islands and atolls to die in hopeless attempts to stop the onslaught of the US. They even tried to prepare the whole of the population to fight to the bitter end at the soon-to-be invasion beeches. They gave any indication that they were serious tor rather have the japansese population go extinct than to suffer defeat. It took Hirohito to finally call for surrender, the military never wanted to!

So, hell yeah, they would have dropped nukes, even if they had to drop them on the heads of their own people at invasion beeches for example. I dont have the slightest doubt.

In general i think the comparison of NK to WWII Japan is a very bad one (and i think i already told so) because, although both are racist and perceive themselves as a superior race, NK hast demonstrated and intent to expand past beyond its current boarders. This is possibly, and probably, because they know how hopeless their situation would currently be, especially given the current global political situation where comminism and its alliances have very much suffered, but the fact remains that NK is not going to attack anybody, only in perceived self defense. If someone is stupid enough to poke Kim the exactly wrong way, Kim may finds himself pushed into doing something even more stupid, just to save his face, because one thing is clear: he wont step back because Trump does this or that, NK is alrey a iniverse in and of itself, it has already lost aconnection to the *real* world. Opposition? In NK? I seriously doubt that, at least i dont have the slightest information to indicate such a possibility. Maybe someone is better informed about this however.
But all the ravages of the firing bombings done on to them reminiscent of the German bombings in the west were a potential known and the damage to Tokyo was quite as extreme and deadly to many innocent people but gets overshadowed by the bomb.

And if not for the atomic bombs more cities and raiding into the country from US and Russia was gonna be devastating to them from their choices.

They could of also lessened the expansion into the Pacific and China to ease off the tension too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
06-09-2017, 11:03 AM
RE: Standoff
(06-09-2017 03:44 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(05-09-2017 08:57 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  Perhaps...not the best way?

Sincerely,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

You are arguing from 20/20 hindsight. By 1940/41 the Japanese couldnt possibly know that Hiroshima was even remotely possible. Even the US didnt know.
From the Japanese point of view, based on the information availiable to them in 1941 and considering their current ideology, is was 100% consequent to take military action.

I was being hyperbolic, I mean "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as shorthand for "The crystal ball says you may be in for a real ass-kicking” if not from nukes from other sources, submarine strangulation, firebombing from above, etc.

I agree, the atomic bomb stuff was unpredictable and unexpected, even by the US. But it was not unforseeable that to enter a war with the US in 1941, especially in the manner in which it was entered, would not come to a happy end. It was a plan built on faulty assumptions and there in fact WAS information available to them that could have made the Japanese choose to not go to war.

I believe even the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, Yamamoto, predicted even with a successful strike at Pearl it would only delay an inevitable Japanese defeat, not from atomic bombs but because he firsthand knew of, and warned of, an American industrial base that when cranked up would eventually bury Japan, from land, air, and sea.

Quote:...and considering their current ideology, is was 100% consequent to take military action.

There's the interesting part. Could, given their goals and ambitions and ideology at that time, have done otherwise than what they did? I think I agree with it, yet our understanding of why they did it does not mean that it can't be judged to have been foolish. Again, not just in hindsight- the Japanese at the time could have conceded to a realistic view of their chances of ultimate victory, but they instead did what most participants in wars do (the US does it three times before lunch every day), they engaged in wishful thinking and gross underestimation of the enemy.

Quote:They tried all diplomatic means to make the US accept Japans claim to be an equal power with interestes in the pacific. The US refused and basically tried to economically strangle Japan into submission. It seems to have escaped the american administration that the Japanese spirit in general (derived from bushido and ingrained into society by the ruling military class) would perceive this as particularly humiliating.

Cry havok! And let slip the dogs of economic sanctions.

The US is a sovereign country, we don't have to sell oil and steel and raw materials to anybody we don't want to for whatever reason we choose. It wasn't our job to make sure Japan wasn't humiliated. Just because they wanted to be and claimed to be an equal power doesn't mean the US had to help them become one.

The overlooked option for Japan at this time was: fucking back down. Back down. It would have been humiliating, etc., but perhaps sitting back and allowing the rest of the world to burn would have been a slightly better strategy than attacking the US leading to near-inevitable ruin? Hell, by sitting tight Japan could have watched in real time the tsunami like growth of American military output, and maybe gotten to witness a few atomic bombs dropped from a less intimate perspective.

Quote:Japan (like the western countries too, oh the irony) was racist, they perceived themselves to be *better*, which particularly affects ones assesment of the opponents vs your own military ability (*cough* Germany vs Russisa *cough*).

By 1941 the major western powers who also happened to be the owners of the very colonial areas Japan was interested in were ovcerrun and soundly defeated (Netherlands, France, UK to a certain degree) by a country everybody also thought was never able to do so, Germany.

Japan was in the middle of a major naval arms race, while the US, its main competitor, didnt even start yet. They had built up a sizeable carrier fleet and of course planned to finish the biggest BBs the world has ever seen. If their chances were ever good it was then (although the chances in total were pretty slim, as Yamamoto already knew).

Japan was waging war in China since the mid 30s, its troops were very seasoned, and they knew it.

All totally good points. There was nothing inevitable about American victory, I'm not going that far, history takes odd twists and turns, but I think it was close to inevitable and that could and should have been clear at the time. Here's what wasn't going to happen: 1)Japan wasn't going invade and conquer America. 2) America wasn't going to stop punching back after a sneak attack. So whether the war was two, five, or fifty years long it was going to end (again I will say almost inevitably) in Japanese defeat. You describe very well why many in Japan thought their plan would work. But there was a lot of hand-wringing among Japanese military leadership and many knew this thing was a roll of the dice- you just described their chances in total as “pretty slim.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: