It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by fritz
So my friend, I do know my subject although for the life of me I do admit in failling to understand how biological and chemical agents which can kill at best, only a few hundred people, can be classed as WMDs when in fact
they are not.
I reiterate what I have said before:
Chemical weapons are an ideal first strike weapon when mixed with tubed or rocket artillery strikes during an initial bombardment of enemy positions and are thus deemed to be battlefield weapons;
Biological weapons on the other hand are better suited to infecting the civil and military population behind the forward staging areas, thus hindering the resupply of enemy forces, clogging roads and overwhelming the local medical services.
Biological agents do not have to kill in order to achieve the strategic aims of the country using them but they are a double edged weapon and their use must be carefully considered.
Originally posted by fritz
On a side note, have you read about one of our 'foes', that acursed man, Retseh?
Originally posted by spiritualzombie
As a Republican I'm all for nukes, as long as its us nuking them. We bombed Japan to end a war which saved countless lives... however, if Hitler had dropped 2 atomic bombs on L.A. and New York to end a war with the U.S., that would have been a cowardly mass murder of countless civilians... an atrocity even.
As a Republican I'm all for torture as long as its us torturing them. If they torture us, that's breaking geneva convention rules which would be cowardly and dishonorable and definitely a war crime.
As a Republican I'm all for invading countries because if we don't fight them over there, then we will have to fight them here. But when other countries do that, like Hitler using the same justifications, I condemn those actions... such cowards picking on small countries...
Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Question for Daedalus3,
Do you think that only America would have used the bomb?
Do you think the Soviets would have hesitated to use it, or the Germans or the Japanese had they obtained it first?
58 percent of the deaths in WW II were Allied civilians, while Axis civilians accounted for 4 percent of the casualties.
American male population of all ages in 1940 was 66 million by 1945 America had 16 million men in the services which was virtually every man of fighting age, America was at the end of its manpower and most allied countries were in the same shape.
I think the Cold war and Arms race were on no matter which nation Soviets or Americans got the bomb.
I actually believe that if the Soviets had of gotten the bomb first they would have used it on Germany and Finland then used it on whatever Allied forces were on the European continent.
Stalin like Hitler had no boundaries. I could very easily see the Soviets becoming allies with the Japanese and then using the bomb against Allied forces in Asia.
Originally posted by fritz
I seriously doubt that as mad as Stalin was, he would not have used an atomic bomb against Germany. What would have been the point?
Originally posted by fooks
the japanese military blew off the first explosion. hiroshima.
the emperor was appalled.
when nagasaki happened he gave the order to surrender.
so it worked, 1 week they surrendered.
Originally posted by StellarX
Hi Fooks,
Originally posted by fooks
the japanese military blew off the first explosion. hiroshima.
The Japanese military did not 'blow off' the first explosion and it in fact too a while to assess what had actually happened. Whatever the case may be in how long that assessment took fact is that destroying defenseless cities that has practically zero military/strategic value ( other than the fact that it's destroyed) is no way to convince dictatorial states to give up their power. In the same way that the strategic bombing campaign drove Germans closer to Hitler so nuclear weapons would just prove to the Japanese civilians that they were fighting a enemy that had little respect for human life. Since few Japanese would have had an idea of what were being done by the army in China or other colonies they lacked the knowledge required to know that they were just getting back what was being done in their name.
the emperor was appalled.
The emperor's opinion mattered but only in so far as it agreed with the IJA.
when nagasaki happened he gave the order to surrender.
By which time it was fast becoming clear that they had in a few days lost a substantial portion of their million man army in China and that they would lose it ALL long before nuclear they could run out of cities for the Americans to nuke into oblivion. In fact losing that army in so short a space of time opened up a relatively short term threat of Soviet Invasion long before the Americans could redeploy their forces from the ETO for a sustained and well supplied invasion of the Japanese home Islands. Essentially the Japanese chose surrendering to the USA rather than invasion and occupation by the SU; arguably the most intelligent thing they managed to do since attacking Pearly harbor.
so it worked, 1 week they surrendered.
As with most things in life history tends to seem simplistic when you know practically nothing of it.
Cheers.
Stellar
Originally posted by fooks
great retorte to my simplistic post. i really did sum that up in a nut shell. wasn't it 3 days between bombs? aug, 12, was when hirohito decided to surrender to the us. they were not going to surrender the homeland in a conventional war. i think it's horrible but i think it was the best way to end an ugly time. imagine if russia was in on an invasion? japan made it out of that pretty good. still a nutshell. sorry!
At least get your historical dates right if you're going to correct somebody yourself. According to Boeing (they know) the B29 Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb on Aug 6, 1945. Bockscar delivered the second bomb on Aug 9, 1945. Here's the link: www.boeing.com...
Tinman 67, as for your assertion that Russia was in possession of B29s, I think you'll find that far from giving the Russians B29s on Lease/Lend, the Russians were able to back engineer the aircraft from the 3 aircraft that made forced landings in Russia during late 1944, going as far as stripping one a/c down to individual nuts and bolts!
Indeed, according to Tupolev who carried out the work, the resulting Tu-4 did not fly until 19 May 1947, two years after Nazi Germany had surrendered.
For more detailed information about the design and development of the Tu-4, may I suggest you read the following book: Kerber, Leonid. "Tu-4 bomber epic". militera.lib.ru: a compilation of articles published in 1988 & 1990 (in Russian). Retrieved: 29 December 2009.