Thoughts on Nuclear Strike Scenario

[gmerkt]

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.

One more thought about this. The northeast Asian land grab by the Soviets was at the time encouraged by the US because the success of the A Bomb wasn't yet assured. The US wanted the Soviet power in the Far East as a back-up plan in case conventional arms were needed to finish the war. Therefore the US wanted the Soviets in the war, even as a Johnny Come Lately. Until they didn't, which was a rapid turn-around once the power of the bomb had been demonstrated.

Of course at the time, encouragement of Soviet occupations here and there were never envisioned to be permanent.

 

[Provincial]

Actually, most modern historians believe the Soviet declaration of war was the decisive factor causing the Japanese to surrender, not the A-bombs. Here's a sample:

"Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive.

The Soviet Union's declaration of war, on the other hand, fundamentally altered the strategic situation. Adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for Japan's leaders. It might be possible to fight against one great power attacking from one direction, but anyone could see that Japan couldn't defend against two great powers attacking from two different directions at once.

The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not."

Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender?

Ward Wilson, senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, explains that the Soviet declaration of war and not the Hiroshima nuclear bombing caused Japan to surrender at the end of World War II.

www.carnegiecouncil.org

ETA: The Soviets already knew about our nuclear weapons program, thanks to their spies. There was no message.

Most modern historians make a living by spouting what those who hold the purse-strings like to hear. This "revisionist" view checks all the boxes to encourage the Powers That Be to sign the paychecks:

Goes against the previously accepted view. Check!

Is dismissive to the concept of American Exceptionalism. Check!

Argues that the use of nuclear weapons by anyone but Russia and China (who would use them only "defensively") is needlessly destructive and a crime against humanity. Check!

Use of the Atomic Bombs was unnecessary, and Japan would have surrendered anyway because of Soviet attack to the mainland occupied territories, thereby promoting the argument that the Soviet Union was responsible for victory for all the Axis powers in WWII. Check!

Matches the history taught in the Soviet Union, and later the Russian Federation. Check!

Paycheck, and even perhaps Tenure, assured. Check!!!!!!!

None of my comments are meant to contradict any arguments posted here, they are only to put the debate in perspective. Other posters have pointed out the places where there is some convergence in analysis of the events, and I believe that an objective study will find value within either perspective.

 

[DunRanull]

Anyone remember that old Seinfeld episode where they mentioned "strangers making out like they were on a doomed airplane going down"?

Govt going to have great difficulty in getting people in line if there's a mushroom cloud.

I'm disgusted to say but believe the current admin would actually let one nuke hit and would take it. Our admin would neglect to give the appropriate consequential reply which was supposed to be the deterrent in the first place.

I gleaned this opinion when Biden instantly replied "no" if people should be worried about a N war. An appropriate reply would have been "I hope not but are ready to make someone pay should they start one"



.

I likewise fear that the biden regime will do nothing if we are hit.. where I live in Colorado is ground zero anyway so... won't be here to talk about it. Anyway.. if it does happen, avenge us!

 

[Longwalkhome]

Swiss have a good system, it's obvious our government doesn't care if the common citizens die.

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[CLT65]

The idea that the millions of tons of Lend-Lease material provided to the Soviet Union was no big deal, and they could have done without it no problem, is classic Soviet propaganda.

I know this is just an internet article and not a serious scholarly work, but it gives a nice short rundown of the subject:

'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany?

Ever since the Cold War, many Soviet and Russian politicians and academics have downplayed the role that U.S.-provided weapons and supplies played in the Red Army's ultimately victorious campaign against Hitler's Germany. But there is substantial evidence that the huge influx of materiel made an...

www.rferl.org

 

[Certaindeaf]

Now the world's lend-lease efforts are directed to Ukraine.
Bye, pootie.

 

[Martini_Up]

I likewise fear that the biden regime will do nothing if we are hit.. where I live in Colorado is ground zero anyway so... won't be here to talk about it. Anyway.. if it does happen, avenge us!

I just watched the St. Paddys parade in CoSprings on Saturday. had breakfast at Urban Egg with some fellas in the 4th who are heading off soon.

Pray not but…. You'll be avenged, brother.

 

[Ferryman]

A few years ago, someone on the radio pointed out that if Kitsap County, WA, was it own country, it would be the third largest nuclear power in the world. Just sayin'

 

[Xmark1]

Who knows...

In the greater Seattle area two likely targets are the Jim Creek Naval Radio Station, and the Bangor sub base.

Jim Creek Naval Radio Station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't think our subs will be sitting at port. And of our many boomers, they carry enough firepower to kill everything on the planet several times over.

 

[Xmark1]

A lot of people think that any nuclear exchange will inevitably be like in the movies- total and world ending.

My understanding is that nukes in general are actually much smaller than they were 50 years ago. Accuracy has improved to where there is no need for the huge megaton city-busters any more.

They are all physically smaller, but very accurate and have much higher yield capability. As well as the option of multiple warheads.

 

[Xmark1]

I don't like bullies. And I don't like Putin.

I hate the endless lies on the news.

 

[Ferryman]

"They are all physically smaller, but very accurate and have much higher yields."

And have multiple warheads.....

 

[CLT65]

They are all physically smaller, but very accurate and have much higher yields.

Much higher compared to the early A-bombs, but much lower compared to the big H-bombs they developed. My understanding was that the massive 10-50 megaton city busters were long gone, replaced by more accurate lower yield weapons.

I realize that it's all academic; whether it's 20 megatons or 1.2 megatons, it's one helluva mess...

 

[gmerkt]

Most modern historians make a living by spouting what those who hold the purse-strings like to hear. This "revisionist" view checks all the boxes to encourage the Powers That Be to sign the paychecks:

Goes against the previously accepted view. Check!

Is dismissive to the concept of American Exceptionalism. Check!

Argues that the use of nuclear weapons by anyone but Russia and China (who would use them only "defensively") is needlessly destructive and a crime against humanity. Check!

Use of the Atomic Bombs was unnecessary, and Japan would have surrendered anyway because of Soviet attack to the mainland occupied territories, thereby promoting the argument that the Soviet Union was responsible for victory for all the Axis powers in WWII. Check!

Matches the history taught in the Soviet Union, and later the Russian Federation. Check!

Paycheck, and even perhaps Tenure, assured. Check!!!!!!!

None of my comments are meant to contradict any arguments posted here, they are only to put the debate in perspective. Other posters have pointed out the places where there is some convergence in analysis of the events, and I believe that an objective study will find value within either perspective.

I cannot find any point above to disagree with.

The internet is a wonderful thing in many respects. But it isn't without fault. The concept of a useful tool for education has suffered some degredation over the years since it became widely used. As a result, it's not uncommon to find errors of fact, or worse, disinformation. This is why it's unwise to ignore previously published information originally made available in hard copy. Simply put, books. Credible published scholarly works are always subject to a great deal of editing and vetting. The good ones have footnotes with references. Which can be checked. Which are not always present in online sources such as Wikipedia (as an example). Where I've found more errors just to my own personal knowledge than I care to count.

Clarity is to be found about Soviet plans for invasion of the Japanese Home Islands in an essay by Colonel David M. Glantz entitled, "The Soviet Invasion of Japan." At the Potsdam Conference, it was agreed that the line of demarcation for Soviet occupation of Japanese territory was along a line north of Hokkaido. Which allowed for them to take the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin Island. But not any territory in the Home Islands. The Soviets had plans to invade Hokkaido anyway and made some initial preparations for it, in spite of what had been agreed to at Potsdam.

As we certainly know, the Soviet invasion of Hokkaido never happened. Col. Glantz puts forth three reasons, which I will quote:

"...it was probably a combination if intense Allied pressure, the impending and by now certain Japanese surrender, and operational difficulties on Sakhalin Island and with transport."

I will mention one online reference about the end of the war with Japan concerning potential Soviet occupation. The idea was put forward that the reason the Soviets didn't occupy Japan was because Stalin didn't want his forces under the command of the Americans. Which I've never previously read in any print publication. And which I doubt thoroughly. Soviet plans for invading Hokkaido would have put forces ashore prior to other Allied presence. IIRC, Col. Glantz's work states that the Soviet invasion plan was for Aug 19, 45. Had this transpired, no Soviet forces would have been under US command, and probably wouldn't have tolerated US presence on Hokkaido but that's only a guess. Had the Soviets occupied Hokkaido, the situation would have been similar to the long, divisive contention that followed victory and occupation in Germany. Which would have altered the future of Japan for decades, for which the US has never received recognition.

Use of the Atomic Bombs was unnecessary, and Japan would have surrendered anyway because of Soviet attack to the mainland occupied territories,

Contemporary Japanese revisionist history. Very easy to say now, "But we were about to surrender, you didn't need to use the A-Bomb." The Japanese civil government was very slow to settle on the idea of surrender. One big reason Stalin knew the Japanese were just about done-for was the peace overtures made to him by the Japanese. They were stalling for a better deal. They naively thought Stalin might influence his Western Allies to grant them easier surrender terms. Even after the civil government in Japan had decided on surrender, there was a last minute, unsuccessful attempted coup by the military to continue the war.

Accurate historical analysis should involve due consideration to context. Which in this case was this. The US was involved in a lengthy and costly war with the Japanese. It was the desire of President Truman and his administration to end the war with the greatest possible dispatch. Since the Japanese wouldn't come to the table yet, it was decided that using the A-Bomb was appropriate. How long was the US to wait without having an agreement from the Japanese to surrender? And by that time included The Bomb. Arguments that portray US use of The Bomb as unnecessary don't take into account the unknowns of August, 1945.

 

[Provincial]

Not to mention the tremendous loss of life by all sides if the Home Islands had to be invaded!

 

[CLT65]

Personally I'm just not that concerned about The Bomb. Necessary or not, the absolute horrors of its use were demonstrated in Japan, and so far it's never been used again.

I remember being told that there was one major reason that there's never been another major conflict between superpowers since WWII: The Bomb and MAD. As horrible as nukes are, they have been a deterrent. No sane person EVER wants that. I doubt that Putin is that crazy, and even if he is, surely there are others in the chain of command of their arsenal with some sanity.

No use in worrying about it, either way

 

[Mono1]

I doubt that Putin is that crazy,

Yeah I agree, but when you think about Putin and then Brandon's brain fog it gives one cause for pause.

 

[gmerkt]

I remember being told that there was one major reason that there's never been another major conflict between superpowers since WWII: The Bomb and MAD. As horrible as nukes are, they have been a deterrent. No sane person EVER wants that. I doubt that Putin is that crazy, and even if he is, surely there are others in the chain of command of their arsenal with some sanity.

This is the big dilemma of the moment. Those old men who used to inhabit the Kremlin were basically conservative in thinking. For them, MAD was a real thing. It appears that Putin may view nuclear weapons are no longer constrained by the concept of MAD. He may view them as a legitimate war fighting tool.

 

[Xmark1]

Putin IS insane. Just to bring up the threat!

 

[Rkangel]

Of course, we are all assuming that nukes are the most fearful and destructive weapon in the arsenal. They are probably the most fearful and destructive "publicized" weapon in the arsenal, but there are likely worse weapons that have been developed that neither government will admit exist.