Thoughts on Nuclear Strike Scenario

[Mono1]

conflict will be over shortly because…

Like I said in another thread... I got a Bible and Armageddon Vodka in my Gun safe, so no worries...

 

[CLT65]

Each side has their own propaganda And it's so hard trying to figure out what to believe, unless you've seen it for yourself. Even then…

The best I've learned to do is learn from multiple sources and try to come to my own conclusions, and then accept that I still may very well be misinformed.

 

[Mono1]

This was really informative when I read it many years ago. Essentially there are 3 different aspects of a Nuclear explosion that have to be taken into account / handled separately:

1) The Pressure Wave
2) The EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse)
3) Radioactive fallout

Interestingly, there were people in caves below ground in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived the first two, but unknowingly came out of their holes just a couple days too early and were burned by the Radioactive Fallout.

Amazon.com

 

[Longwalkhome]

Each side has their own propaganda And it's so hard trying to figure out what to believe, unless you've seen it for yourself. Even then…

The best I've learned to do is learn from multiple sources and try to come to my own conclusions, and then accept that I still may very well be misinformed.

Both sides are liars for their own cause, you expect that. A good outside journalist will give a view neither side offers. Oliver Stone made the best view so far but I keep looking for more. It's for thinking people that have good attention spans. Most won't watch it for whatever reason but enough will to start asking questions.

 

[ColeInOregon]

This thread is better while listening to TOOL.

I'll see you down at Arizona bay.

 

[Ferryman]

The advantage being in your 60's is that what ever pops off, I've had my fun. Don't worry about me.

All you young pups, however, need to seriously start getting proactive about the kind of world you want your kids to live in.

I did my part, here's the torch......

 

[Certaindeaf]

The advantage being in your 60's is that what ever pops off, I've had my fun. Don't worry about me.

All you young pups, however, need to seriously start getting proactive about the kind of world you want your kids to live in.

I did my part, here's the torch......

If you've seen one cat playing the piano you've seen them all is my motto.

 

[GWS]

Maybe. Maybe not.

"On 9 August, the Soviets launched a full-scale invasion of Manchuria, which started the Soviet–Japanese War. That was began three days after the United States atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and it included plans to invade South Sakhalin. The main purpose of the invasion was to clear Japanese resistance and to be prepared within 10 to 14 days to to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan's home islands."

Soviet invasion of South Sakhalin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What were they going to invade Hokkaido with? What shipping did they have in the Pacific that would be able mount a large scale invasion? They were panhandling ships from us in WWII and none of what we gave them would rate as attack transports. They were a sideshow, a land grab by Stalin against an already beaten enemy.

 

[Cavedweller]

What were they going to invade Hokkaido with? What shipping did they have in the Pacific that would be able mount a large scale invasion? They were panhandling ships from us in WWII and none of what we gave them would rate as attack transports. They were a sideshow, a land grab by Stalin against an already beaten enemy.

I understand. Doesn't jibe with what you learned in history class. No skin off my nose.

 

[Ops]

well everyone knows western washingtom will be gone, probably the whole west coast even.

we have enough nukes here to vaporize everything.

but just hit hanford that will be the easiest way to destroy the US

 

[sobo]

well everyone knows western washingtom will be gone, probably the whole west coast even.

we have enough nukes here to vaporize everything.

but just hit hanford that will be the easiest way to destroy the US

Being in the Tri-Shhitties, I can concur with that assessment...

 

[GWS]

I understand. Doesn't jibe with what you learned in history class. No skin off my nose.

No, it doesn't jibe with any historian of WW2 that I've read. Historians like SE Morison, John Toland, Ian Toll, or Richard Frank. But, hey You read some internet articles by somebody so you go with what you think is right.
So tell me What was the Soviet's sealift capacity? Tell me how they were going to move armored divisions onto Hokkaido.
They had something like 60 ships total in the Pacific. When they invaded the Kuril Islands (after the surrender) they had to use mine sweepers to bring soldiers to the islands. By comparison, when the US invaded Okinawa we had something on the order of 1600 ships involved.
Japan's hope of Russia's brokering a peace was a sign of their desperation, a hope that had no basis in reality. When Russia dashed that hope, Japan knew what would come. At the hands of the Americans

 

[Cavedweller]

No, it doesn't jibe with any historian of WW2 that I've read. Historians like SE Morison, John Toland, Ian Toll, or Richard Frank. But, hey You read some internet articles by somebody so you go with what you think is right.
So tell me What was the Soviet's sealift capacity? Tell me how they were going to move armored divisions onto Hokkaido.
They had something like 60 ships total in the Pacific. When they invaded the Kuril Islands (after the surrender) they had to use mine sweepers to bring soldiers to the islands. By comparison, when the US invaded Okinawa we had something on the order of 1600 ships involved.

Actually, my study of WW2 history goes somewhat deeper than "some internet articles by somebody." But in this format, in such a short time as discussion typically allows, I try to provide some sources to validate my posts. If that means I am limited to what I can find in an internet search, that's how it is.

The western powers always underestimated Soviet capabilities, and Stalin played them like a violin. Yes, he panhandled. Could he have won without panhandling? Absolutely.

Japan's hope of Russia's brokering a peace was a sign of their desperation, a hope that had no basis in reality. When Russia dashed that hope, Japan knew what would come. At the hands of the Americans

I think you just made my point. It wasn't the bombs. It's not a question of who had the capacity to invade. It's what caused them to surrender.

 

[Longwalkhome]

No, it doesn't jibe with any historian of WW2 that I've read. Historians like SE Morison, John Toland, Ian Toll, or Richard Frank. But, hey You read some internet articles by somebody so you go with what you think is right.
So tell me What was the Soviet's sealift capacity? Tell me how they were going to move armored divisions onto Hokkaido.
They had something like 60 ships total in the Pacific. When they invaded the Kuril Islands (after the surrender) they had to use mine sweepers to bring soldiers to the islands. By comparison, when the US invaded Okinawa we had something on the order of 1600 ships involved.
Japan's hope of Russia's brokering a peace was a sign of their desperation, a hope that had no basis in reality. When Russia dashed that hope, Japan knew what would come. At the hands of the Americans

At the time Russia was our ally and certainly we would have given them landing craft and moved their war materials for them. We gave Russia billions in material assistance to fight Germany.

It would have been risky because Russia would not leave after Japan's defeat but we were looking at how many Americans were going to die. The bomb ended the war in Japan so no need bringing in our ally.

Just a thought and ymmv.

 

[GWS]

I think you just made my point. It wasn't the bombs. It's not a question of who had the capacity to invade. It's what caused them to surrender.

I suspect we might both be right
i.e. Japan surrendered when they realized Russia would not broker a peace AND if they were no longer able to get favorable terms, unconditional surrender was better than a future of annihilation at our hands, proving Halsey's great line "Before we're through with 'em, the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell"
But I do believe that if the Soviets had kept stringing the Japanese along and we kept pounding them, they would have ultimately surrendered unconditionally. Fortunately, for everyone they surrendered and countless lives were spared.

At the time Russia was our ally and certainly we would have given them landing craft and moved their war materials for them. We gave Russia billions in material assistance to fight Germany.

It would have been risky because Russia would not leave after Japan's defeat but we were looking at how many Americans were going to die. The bomb ended the war in Japan so no need bringing in our ally.

Perhaps, but I wonder if we might have just said "Thanks, but we've got this." to the Russians. By that point we knew how Stalin repaid Russia's debts and a Soviet foothold in Japan would be too high a price for his help.

 

[Longwalkhome]

I suspect we might both be right
i.e. Japan surrendered when they realized Russia would not broker a peace AND if they were no longer able to get favorable terms, unconditional surrender was better than a future of annihilation at our hands, proving Halsey's great line "Before we're through with 'em, the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell"
But I do believe that if the Soviets had kept stringing the Japanese along and we kept pounding them, they would have ultimately surrendered unconditionally. Fortunately, for everyone they surrendered and countless lives were spared.

Perhaps, but I wonder if we might have just said "Thanks, but we've got this." to the Russians. By that point we knew how Stalin repaid Russia's debts and a Soviet foothold in Japan would be too high a price for his help.

Just saying we did have that option to get Russia onto the jap mainland but you never hear it mentioned in the history books. The bomb had to be justified that it saved American lives in the history books and its true. However if the bomb didn't work we would still do whatever it took to save American lives. Russia was an option.

 

[Cavedweller]

I suspect we might both be right

But I do believe that if the Soviets had kept stringing the Japanese along and we kept pounding them, they would have ultimately surrendered unconditionally.

Eventually, for sure. But that might have cost more American lives.

Perhaps, but I wonder if we might have just said "Thanks, but we've got this." to the Russians. By that point we knew how Stalin repaid Russia's debts and a Soviet foothold in Japan would be too high a price for his help.

Roosevelt and Churchill were putty in Stalin's hands. He got what he wanted, always.

 

[gmerkt]

Do you mean kilotons not megatons?

Yes, my mistake, Kilotons it is. 750 megatons might crack the planet in half.

 

[sobo]

Yes, my mistake, Kilotons it is. 750 megatons might crack the planet in half.

Welp, on the bright side, ol' Horseface John Kerry wouldn't hafta worry about that pesky climate change no more...

 

[gmerkt]

At the time Russia was our ally and certainly we would have given them landing craft and moved their war materials for them. We gave Russia billions in material assistance to fight Germany.

The 4th Lend Lease protocol ended May 12, 1945 and shipments were curtailed abruptly. Political objections caused it to be reinstated until Sep 2, 1945 and all shipments were terminated on Sep 20, 1945. The Soviets knew about the US atom bomb, even about the Trinity test detonation. But they weren't in the Pacific War with Japan. For a number of reasons, they knew the Japanese were almost ready to capitulate. The first A bomb was dropped on Aug 6, and the Soviets declared war on Japan on Aug 8, 1945 and invaded Manchuria the following day. This timeline, along with what the Soviets knew seems to suggest that they figured an invasion of Hokkaido wouldn't be necessary.

Of course the Soviets could've just sat back and let the US finish off Japan. But they couldn't resist the last minute east Asian land grab. Which they'd been building up to prior to the actual declaration of war on Aug 8, 45. After the Japanese surrender, the Soviets may have expected an occupation zone in the home islands of Japan as they'd gotten in Germany. But dividing up the home islands of Japan between the Allied powers hadn't been agreed to; all those Big Three, etc., summits of the war years didn't include discussions about Japan (insofar as the Soviets might've been concerned) because the Soviets weren't yet at war with Japan. The Western Allies had previously decided that Japan would be occupied under control of a Supreme Commander of Allied Powers, which turned out to be MacArthur. Who certainly didn't want the Soviets there. The other Western Allies didn't get a cut either, but there were some British empire troops there to lend a hand for a while, under direction of the US, without a "zone."

It may be true, or it may be aphocryphal, but I've read that the head Soviet liaison officer to MacArthur met with the latter and asked where the Soviet zone of occupation in Japan was to be. MacArthur supposedly said, "There isn't one."

The Soviets continued to fight the Japanese beyond the surrender date of Sep 2, 1945 in order to consolidate the northeast Asian land grab.