Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israeli false flag attacks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cjppjc
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    I would agree on the radiation aspect, but the sheer destruction aspect cannot be said to be different.

    If the world was horrified by indiscriminate bombing of Coventry which killed some 1200 people, how then is a single bomb which killed 90,000 to 166,000 in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 in Nagasaki - the majority, perhaps vast majority of whom were civilians - not more horrific?
    I don't know that that the world was horrified by the bombing of Coventry. It might have depended on where you sided in the war. Who knows? As I said, It's just a possibility mass destruction and civilian casulties were thought of differenty decades ago. Morality is subjective. Especially when you look back at history.

    Leave a comment:


  • c1ue
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Originally posted by cjppc
    There is a possibility that some 70 years ago, An atomic bomb drop was not thought of by many, like many think today. I believe much of the world was different. Coloreds only waterfountains?
    I would agree on the radiation aspect, but the sheer destruction aspect cannot be said to be different.

    If the world was horrified by indiscriminate bombing of Coventry which killed some 1200 people, how then is a single bomb which killed 90,000 to 166,000 in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 in Nagasaki - the majority, perhaps vast majority of whom were civilians - not more horrific?

    Leave a comment:


  • cjppjc
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    There is a possibility that some 70 years ago, An atomic bomb drop was not thought of by many, like many think today. I believe much of the world was different. Coloreds only waterfountains?

    Leave a comment:


  • c1ue
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    I have no qualms about learning from you......but if you're going to treat the forum as a form of intellectual bloodsport....I'm not interested.
    Fair enough

    Originally posted by lakendaemonian
    Life's about people skills.........I don't have to provide a large number of contributing sources to prove it since those who make it to the top of their respective food chain typically possess a high level of people skills.
    Actually, life is not always about people skills. "People skills" as you term it can be as harmless as being polite, and as not harmless as allowing an entire society to morph into the bizarro version of World War II Hitler.

    Equally other examples include the harmless act of opening doors for the elderly, and the not harmless acts of inserting sycophants and politicians into positions of responsibility.

    I prefer fact and objective intellect.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    It is an IMINT photo recce photo I distinctly recall seeing (if memory serves) which displayed youth labor helping construct defensive positions on the Japanese Main Islands that included large numbers of stakes/spears to deter/channel/kill potential invaders.
    Fair enough. I'll still note that a bunch of kids building a defensive position is still a far cry from giving them rifles and asking them to go up against T-34s.

    Not that it couldn't happen, but that the fact of one does not automatically guarantee the fact of the other.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    Sure it's possible....is it REALLY likely?

    From an air war commander's perspective(NOT from the perspective of Manhattan Project costs to deliver each functioning weapon) between continued firebombing and the dropping of 2 nuclear weapons, the firebombing mission sucked up far, far more aircraft, aircrew, support crew, direct combat support, indirect combat support, direct logistical support, and indirect logistical support.

    Dropping two nuclear weapons(while still requiring some outlier and far lower economy of scale combat and logistical support) is a rounding error in terms of cost to men and material for the continued prosecution of the war until the unconditional surrender of Japan.

    On the scale of ultimate futility what's more futile to oppose:

    *a thousand firebombing B29s droppping tens of thousands of incendiaries that burn out a city that you occasionally shoot down?

    *or a single B29 that burns a city to the ground with a single bomb?

    I assume it's clearly not obvious to you, but from my perspective one is a good bit more futile and potentially humane.

    I think of it as not much different than cutting off the head and cutting out the heart of the enemy will to fight with 2 nuclear weapons as opposed to continued death by a thousand burns and slow starvation.
    You are again taking the accepted military point of view.

    The problem with this point of view is:

    1) The point of view above encompasses that the "civilians would have died anyway" - and has already assimilated the lack of distinction between noncombatant and combatant which is the core of the Geneva convention, which was clearly violated by mass fire bombing attacks.

    2) It also encompasses the "servicing targets" aspect of military training - which incidentally is put there specifically to reduce the instances of psychological damage resulting from killing human beings, much like derogatory terms like Nips, Krauts, and so forth.

    3) The point of view above also encompasses only the cost aspect: one bomber with a gigantic bomb is much cheaper than a single bombing run with firebombs, in turn cheaper than hundreds of bombers attacking specific targets. Unfortunately the question here isn't how to minimize the costs to the attacker, the question is a moral one.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    I don't know if I'd agree with desperate, in fact I don't agree with "desperate".
    Perhaps you're referring to something else, but a nation with an infallible god-king which is about to be invaded by stinky roundeye infidels, which is starving, and which has clear proof of military inferiority in the form of losses of historic possessions to invasions as well as regular overhead bombing - it seems quite clear there was desperation in the air.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    Port Calls so far afield from traditional patrol/training areas may not be VERY common, but they've been going on between MANY nations for MANY years.

    Lots of reasons.....diplomatic/cultural/media.....as well as intelligence collection opportunities for both sides.
    Perhaps you can provide some examples of regular docking in the West Coast ports by warships.

    In the 12 years I've been in San Francisco, I can recall all of 2 visits by foreign warships: the Varyag I noted previously and the Prairial, a french ship.

    In Europe, they are far more common mostly because everything is so close together. The same applies to the Middle East. In those regions, you might as well dock because you can barely drive 100 miles in any direction without impinging on someone's territory. Permission to cross navigable waters and permission to dock is likely just about the same amount of trouble.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    I don't know if that's necessarily the case. I've got a good few friends who've served in different navies...including recent service in and around the Arabian Peninsula.....what I do know is that there are some quite surprising bedfellows parked up adjacent to each other performing resups in some really strange places...as well as the odd story of how one nation's ships not quite welcome in a particular port that doesn't seem to make a bit of sense.
    I'm unclear on how this provides a different example than what I said. To reiterate, what I said is that it is not at all unusual for any nation's ships to dock at another nation's port unless there is open and outright confrontation.

    As for specific ports - that is much more likely due to a localized incident. Maybe a sailor raped and murdered a young girl, thus the entire port is actively hostile to other sailors from the same nation. Not a geopolitical issue.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    On a related note....during my absence I spent time with a full Colonel(one of 3) with considerable direct experience in the Gulf training SA's National Guard....he mentioned a story over dinner that was quite relevant....about how during the Iran-Iraq War when the Iranians were making considerable headway in countering the Iraqi invasion and Iraq's military was in jeopardy of a defensive collapse....and the Saudis didn't care about training to protect against an Iranian incursion if Iraq's defenses collapsed.....they were quite open about how diplomatic pressure, money, and foreign talent would be hired to fix things.
    This doesn't in the least bit surprise me. Saudi Arabia was very happy having Iraq and Iran counterbalancing each other. The situation today is quite different.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    While I agree the US is ONE.....is it the ONLY?

    Unless I'm wrong the list includes the Soviet Union, Cuba, South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, India, Turkey, Libya, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Pakistan to name a few off the top of my head.
    Perhaps you can add some detail to this list: the numbers of troops and distances of the conflicts in question from the nations in question.

    Did the Soviet Union send 500,000 soldiers to South America or Africa to "fight capitalism"? Cubans did go far afield, but that was - at least in the instances I know about - because they were mercenaries and not because Cuba was subjugating some other nation for itself.

    Put another way: which nation had more soldiers far away from its own borders, and close to its opponent's borders? Which nation was 'projecting force' more and further?

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    It might be worthwhile to find analysis that separates China's domestic security/paramilitary headcount and spending compared with anything that could reasonably be perceived as international(even just regional) force projection.
    What China is capable of now vs. what China could be capable of in 5 years if it decided to burn off its demographic bulge are very different things.

    Germany in the 1920's and even when Hitler got into power in 1933 wasn't the same military capability as Germany in 1940.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    Not trying to be pedantic......but is it REALLY "literally unable" or would it be culturally unable?

    I've spent some time in Japan....not much, but enough to find a country as you have described as I perceived it....insular and substantially different....not just linguistically, but culturally...so far as to describe some cultural norms for someone from the west to feel that Japan while a different country, culture, and language...could in some ways best be approached as if from a different planet from a western perspective.
    Japan is completely different. The example I put previously is a good one, because it shows not only how minutely stratified the culture is, but also shows that the many restrictions are internal, not external.

    The US is much more external - people push each other into specific niches of conformity. Japanese do it to themselves in their own heads. Obviously this isn't 100% true for all Japanese everywhere as peer pressure does exist as well, but is far more true than not.

    This is a very important difference, because Japanese are expected to know what to do and not do. This can manifest itself as apparent telepathy in some cases, and can manifest itself as oddness in others.

    Another example: 2 Japanese who are not introduced will bow to each other, but facing the other person as opposed to the normal facing down. They each know what they are, but bows are intended to convey relative status. Thus the facing of each other is to see if the other person slows down as they approach their 'correct' normal position first (i.e. higher status), so that the first person can then continue onwards to their relative position (or not). This also allows both of them to then understand what form of verbal communication to use.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    I would agree.....and that fiduciary responsibility would include maximizing the post war opportunities as well as minimizing ongoing costs in prosecuting the war against Japan. The direct and indirect costs to the US(even though it was unscathed by war on it's homefront) were enormous. The sooner the war ended, the sooner the US war economy could be turned into an unscathed by war, post war economy.
    Fully agree. Note, however, that morality is at best a side issue above.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    how much would every unnecessary and prolonged non-nuclear day still in a war economy cost?
    I would note that having the war run longer isn't in any way all one sided as to negative vs. positive effects. A huge challenge for the US after the war was reintegrating soldiers returning home, converting war production to regular production, employing said soldiers, paying for their GI bills, etc etc.

    Thus the absolute costs of carrying on a bombing campaign or whatever for a few extra months cannot be said to be all negative from a US leadership point of view. Note the high inflation at the end of the war coupled with significant if not severe unrest as demonstrated by national level labor strikes.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    But that's educated speculation....what's interesting is where the discussion went after that....he felt the answer lies in the diplomatic cable/communication archives(US) which would probably include an understanding of the MAGIC take as well as the rest of the intelligence picture on Japan at that time.....much of which probably haven't been gone over properly for public discussion.....he had extensive experience in researching diplomatic cables from that era for his PHD dissertation on another national security topic and held the perspective that a LOT of worthwhile stuff worthy of shaping opinions isn't in the public domain .....but he's cautioned us to be careful....it's his understanding that while the US appeared to have a good understanding of the average caloric intake of the average Japanese citizen on the Home Islands in mid 1945...the US government understanding of Japanese government intentions in the final months of the war may have been more limited that earlier in the war(for the reasons I mentioned and a few others).
    I would agree that the records would be very helpful in shedding light on what the US and Japanese governments (and others) actually were thinking.

    I'd also note the striking juxtaposition of Truman's assumption of the Presidency with the timing of the atomic bombing decision. There are all sorts potential threads there: Truman seeking to end the war quickly to show his worthiness as FDR's successor. Cabinet level officials resurrecting personal agendas in the face of an inexperienced President. Air Force generals pushing to have a stronger relative position in the military allocation after the war. etc etc.

    The Potsdam declaration, for example, was Truman and not FDR.

    Unfortunately the very nature of these types of sub rosa agendas mean they are rarely documented.

    From my personal experience......there is a massive gulf between "Japan COULD be forced to surrender without land invasion" and "Japan WOULD be forced to surrender without land invasion".

    Maybe we're getting into legalese and the importance of specific words.....but depending on context.....COULD sounds like MIGHT and is a long way removed from WILL.

    Plus Air Power alone....no matter HOW dominant in terms of air superiority....simply CANNOT seize and hold ground....
    From my view, it seems quite straightforward: if Japan was thought to be able to be induced to surrender by the atomic bomb, then the identical result could be achieved by conventional bombing. The only difference might be time and cost.

    Thus the 'land invasion' POV is pure positioning.

    As for seizing ground - again unclear why seizure of ground is necessary unless this was the only way to induce Japan to surrender. Which then again brings us full circle to: why is the atomic bomb different?

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    Again...I never said or implied "no other options were available". In fact I stated there was a full spectrum of options.....for the ridiculous to the insane.
    I don't consider a conventional bombing campaign anywhere between or at ridiculous or insane.

    I equally don't consider an attempt to end the war diplomatically either between or at ridiculous or insane.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    See my post above.....and to state for the record for those that have seen war or the effects of it....it's hard to call ANY war moral......maybe some actions are simply less immoral than others.
    There are plenty of circumstances which can define a just war, hence a moral war.

    There are plenty of circumstances even in a just or moral war for immoral actions to occur.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    And here's my most important point(in my opinion). You should care.....otherwise you're only here to win.....not to teach or listen......and IF that's true, then I'm simply not interested.

    Your view of "truth is truth" regardless of the cost MAY be right.....but what have you achieved?
    Getting the truth out is itself a worthy goal.

    Because distaste for the truth has obscured both understanding and justice in far too many occasions.

    Note that I do not say that everyone should do this, but I personally choose to, and I accept the consequences.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    So what are you here for? That doesn't sound like the behavior of someone here to teach.
    Some things can be taught by being nice and reasonable.

    Some things can only be exposed via a hammer of information.

    The reality is that we all have gigantic clots of fiction, assumptions, white lies, and so forth - a significant part of which are core to our being. Very few people are open to accepting contradiction to that which is core to their being.

    Contradictions, even if true, to a person's core will not have impact in a collegial atmosphere.

    The argument you present is very similar to the Catholic Church's demonization of Martin Luther, as opposed to its acceptance of St. Francis of Assisi.

    St. Francis early on advocated that the Catholic Church renounce its worldly wealth and power, much as Martin Luther did.

    St. Francis, however, backed down. The Catholic Church went on the become even more corrupt and temporal culminating in Martin Luther's challenge, the 95 Theses. The Church's unwillingness to reform or even acknowledge his points then led to the split off of Protestantism.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    No offense, but right here at the start displays what I perceive to be your overly clinical/superficial view of the military and it's many roles in shaping/achieving national foreign policy.....the military is responsible for performing far more roles than just winning conflicts...you neglected preventing conflicts...deterring conflicts....as well as the many other roles they perform as an integral pat of national foreign policy.
    I'd say that if you were complaining about literal-ness before, you might re-examine the above statement.

    Sure, Defense is about prevention of invasion. In the context of the United States, invasion has not been a serious possibility for over 150 years.

    Prevention and deterrence of conflict - again I'm sure this is true, but I'd say that this objective has been very, very low on the US military priority list for many decades. Certainly the evidence is profoundly against it: where has the US military's involvement reduced conflict? Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Korea? Kosovo/Yugoslavia? Libya?

    And while the US Marine Corps provides guards for US embassies around the world, I think it is quite safe to say that this isn't anywhere close to the primary function of the Marine Corps, nor where it devotes the majority of its focus and spending.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    Unless I'm interpeting your post inaccurately, I think you are making a mistake with using a one-eyed/one dimensional perception of the military.....as stated before....they are a key part of developing/managing/mitigating national foreign policy.....there's plenty of decent analysis on politics/demographics/human relations/etc as you state.....but where's the decent(or even just mediocre) analysis on national security here? It's as I've stated before....a core and noticeable weakness on this forum....I do not claim it should demand investment in it here....but at least some consideration for seeking outside credible analysis....which I've shard links to here....hell.....EJ thinks there's war clouds on the horizon......why no relevant analysis or at least the sharing of relevant analysis here.....yup...too dark.....but it's a bit like hiding a head in the sand.....granted war brings chaos...and chaos is hard to predict.....but conflict risk is certainly worthy of analysis....and it's a weakness here.
    While I am sure the military provides a useful perspective on events outside direct military purview, and the same time the reality is that the US military is supposed to be subservient to US civilian political control.

    Thus while the US military is a large part of US federal spending, and has a huge impact on the US economy, and equally no doubt has a strong influence on politics due to the revolving door/military contractors/earmarks and what not, the premise that the US military has a strong and independent impact on US society and government presumes that aforementioned civilian control has failed.

    If this is true, then yes, I agree we should add the US military to the existing bankster Kremlinology.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    guerilla movements have ben eradicated without "depopulation" by which I assume you mean mass genocide.....
    You keep saying this, but have failed to provide examples outside of ethnic minorities with no safe havens.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    On the topic of failure.......how would you define the failure for the US.

    Was it a moral failure?
    Yes, though mitigated by post-war recovery assistance. Mitigation does not erase the initial transgression, however.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    Can nations have morals?
    Yes. They may choose not to follow them, but nations absolutely can have morals.

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian
    I know individuals can....but can nations HAVE morals or act MORALLY?
    Again, yes. A nation has the exact same choices as an individual. It can act morally, or it can choose not to act morally in order to reap some advantage.

    I would note, however, that the United States in particular has always chosen to play the morality card - that of respect for rights, for liberty, etc etc.

    Many other nations both past and present do no such thing. They seek to glorify a race, or their own nation, or an ideal (Communism).

    What then is your response to this?

    Do you then acknowledge that the 'American Ideal' is purely propaganda, because nations cannot have morals?

    And if nations cannot have morals, then the excuse of intervention in various nations for "humanitarian" purposes cannot be moral or justified?

    Therefore the US' actions in intervening in Kosovo, in Croatia, in Chile, in Grenada, in Vietnam, in Korea, in Afghanistan (both times), in Iraq, etc etc have nothing to do with morality but everything to do with the naked exercise of power in order to further US interests?

    Well, then we're in agreement.

    I have no problem with that.

    I have a lot of problems with hypocritical justifications based on 'justice', 'democracy', 'freedom', 'right to protect'.

    Leave a comment:


  • touchring
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    I would have thought that the A-bomb was used so that Russia would not get to Japan before the USA?

    Leave a comment:


  • lakedaemonian
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    So in other words even within the US military command there were open views that a ground invasion was not necessary.

    From my personal experience......there is a massive gulf between "Japan COULD be forced to surrender without land invasion" and "Japan WOULD be forced to surrender without land invasion".

    Maybe we're getting into legalese and the importance of specific words.....but depending on context.....COULD sounds like MIGHT and is a long way removed from WILL.

    Plus Air Power alone....no matter HOW dominant in terms of air superiority....simply CANNOT seize and hold ground....


    This doesn't seem to support your view that no other choices were available, but does point to one or more powerful individuals as "controlling opinion".

    Again...I never said or implied "no other options were available". In fact I stated there was a full spectrum of options.....for the ridiculous to the insane.



    Fair enough, I do retract any implication of your immorality - and it was not nor ever my intention to imply you were immoral.

    Thank you....I've got a family to lead by example and sufficient empathy after seeing my share of 3rd world horrors(including an opportunity, if largely historical, in SEA next week for work). However, I do try to make my posts as clinical as possible...since we attempt to ascertain the perspective of nation states and their foreign policy, I'd go so far as to say morality/immorality are, if not irrelevant in coming up with an accurate perspective, at least farther down the forced ranking food chain.

    However, it does not detract from my statement that indiscriminate bombing of civilians is immoral, and that the firebombing of Germans and Japanese was immoral. Equally so the use of the atomic bombs on cities filled with civilians was not moral.

    To excuse this as some form of morality, that in my view is not moral behavior.

    See my post above.....and to state for the record for those that have seen war or the effects of it....it's hard to call ANY war moral......maybe some actions are simply less immoral than others.


    I've never portrayed you as either a war lover or a person in uniform.

    I don't love war.....but I study it...and hope my children will not run the risk of suffering from it(no matter how unlikely my wishes may be)...and I am a person in uniform.

    What I said specifically is that you have a consistent pattern of agreeing with whatever the military says and does, and did.

    Do you disagree with this?

    Actually I do......just because I'm in uniform(part-time but feels full time at times) doesn't mean I agree with whatever it says/does.....I think if you spent time with folks who do/have served you'll find they disagree with much that it says/does pretty much everywhere.

    Apologist is too strong a term, I apologize. But the statement above stands: that from my perception you have consistently defended whatever has been done by the military as having been the only choice at the time.

    This isn't apologism exactly, but it is unwavering faith in motives and process.

    I neither apologize for nor possess unwavering faith in the motives/processes of the military...being a product of it...if I was I'd probably be accurately categorized as clinically insane.

    My unwavering faith begins and ends with the specific people I have served with on operations and continue to serve with today as well as the people they rate.

    I have little to no time for the idolatry of the military.....serving is a sacrifice at times(as well as a lot of fun or just like other jobs).....no different that serving food in a foodbank, working in a legal aid clinic, or mopping a floor/serving food.....honourable jobs.

    But I also have little tolerance for inaccurate and intentionally unflattering perceptions of those who do serve in the military.

    Just as I wouldn't accept someone here belittling fast food workers.

    What I find frustrating at times is how often inaccurate and over simplistic at times references to any opinions of the military are on this forum.

    I equate it to EJ's frustration with folks continually asking elemental questions about F.I.R.E. and how we got here and what the root causes are.....everyone with a higher level of understanding probably feels a bit embarrassed(it's natural, not necessarily elitest) for people who hold that perspective.

    I guess I feel the same....but the frustration slips through when I see unintentional/intentional inaccuracies regarding the topic of those who serve in the military as well as the security/defense/war subject matter expertise.

    As stated, I claim no SME.......I've only been learning my trade for 10+ years and know I have a lot more to learn than forget....so I've posted where I feel relevant...as well as tried to enlighten folks on a place where genuine SME resides SMJ.

    And I will continue to do so until I see a drop in the ignorance level....just AS EJ and co direct folks with a basic or less than accurate understanding of F.I.R.E. and how we got here to dedicated threads/resources.


    Fortunately for me I don't actually care who I offend.

    From my view, truth is truth.

    If I am being untrue, call me on it and we can go forward from there.

    If, on the other hand, there are views which I don't agree with, I don't let them lie.

    In this I am much different than most of iTulip, whom are mostly seeking to listen.

    So you can try to put social pressure on me all you want, but I don't care about it and never have.

    And here's my most important point(in my opinion). You should care.....otherwise you're only here to win.....not to teach or listen......and IF that's true, then I'm simply not interested.

    Your view of "truth is truth" regardless of the cost MAY be right.....but what have you achieved?

    NOT caring if/who you offend is unacceptable behavior...I don't make the rules....that's just what the rules of society are.

    It's hard enough communicating with people without seeing/hearing them...body language is a BIG part of the communication equation......unable to interpret that body language makes the job of effective communication on this forum even harder.....when you state you don't care who you offend so blatantly it's not open to misinterpretation...it is what it is.

    So what are you here for? That doesn't sound like the behavior of someone here to teach.

    FULL DISCLOSURE: With all the recent adulation and idolatry of Steve Jobs after his many successes, his leadership of Apple, and his death.....I can't help but say I'd probably have responded incredibly poorly if I had to deal with him in an awkward situation......genius doesn't excuse being an @sshole. I'm more of a Wozniak or Bezos kind of guy.




    SME/military is concerned with outright conflict - and is thus a concern of winning outright conflict. Within this specific sphere, the SME/military viewpoint is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

    No offense, but right here at the start displays what I perceive to be your overly clinical/superficial view of the military and it's many roles in shaping/achieving national foreign policy.....the military is responsible for performing far more roles than just winning conflicts...you neglected preventing conflicts...deterring conflicts....as well as the many other roles they perform as an integral pat of national foreign policy.

    However, in the real world, SME/military is only a one view, one of many including SME/human relations, SME/national interests and SME/ethnic identity, of which SME/politics derives from.

    Unless I'm interpeting your post inaccurately, I think you are making a mistake with using a one-eyed/one dimensional perception of the military.....as stated before....they are a key part of developing/managing/mitigating national foreign policy.....there's plenty of decent analysis on politics/demographics/human relations/etc as you state.....but where's the decent(or even just mediocre) analysis on national security here? It's as I've stated before....a core and noticeable weakness on this forum....I do not claim it should demand investment in it here....but at least some consideration for seeking outside credible analysis....which I've shard links to here....hell.....EJ thinks there's war clouds on the horizon......why no relevant analysis or at least the sharing of relevant analysis here.....yup...too dark.....but it's a bit like hiding a head in the sand.....granted war brings chaos...and chaos is hard to predict.....but conflict risk is certainly worthy of analysis....and it's a weakness here.

    The world for the most part is not about outright conflict. Even during outright conflict, there are degrees.

    And the military(along with defense/security) isn't all about conflict.....but having said that....conflict has been a part of the human condition since day one.

    If aliens invaded Earth with the goal of killing all of humanity so they could colonize, then the unadulterated SME/military doctrines would be perfect.

    Barring that, even in an outright war you cannot do whatever you want, because there are future consequences to same. Even a brief perusal of the European conflicts shows the tit-for-tat nature.

    Equally so you cannot win guerrilla warfare without depopulating - this has been thoroughly and conclusively demonstrated for thousands of years.

    Thus while I think it is great to understand the SME/military viewpoint, at the same time I do not and will not accept that the SME/military viewpoint is in any way effective in the situations around the world today.

    I have yet to see from you even the possibility that SME/military doctrines have failed in Iraq, are failing in Afghanistan, and will continue to fail as SME/military itself is not the way to resolve these situations, rather than SME/military just hasn't been employed right or the latest greatest SME/military will do this or that.

    guerilla movements have ben eradicated without "depopulation" by which I assume you mean mass genocide.....

    And again you see what you want to see. As I noted above, the report clearly shows that the 'no other choices' you keep repeating was anything but.

    Again with putting words in my mouth!

    I clearly stated(being tongue in cheek but still being honest) that a full spectrum of options was available.....from the stupid to the insane.

    I prefer to think of it as the least of all available and likely evils.


    And that the final decision was, like most anything, a product of people not process. I would not doubt for an instant that political posturing within the military had a role.

    Which itself points to yet another issue: unquestioning acceptance of SME/military views automatically ignores the possibility that these views may in fact be the product of something beyond objective analysis.

    You are seriously confusing me......I stated this forum is weak on defense/security/military analysis(ONLY where relevant to the main focus of this forum) and now it's mutating into something about political posturing within the military.....I really don't understand where you're going with this......it's not my perspective or anything I've pushed or posted on.


    What you've said specifically is that there was no other course of action available at the time, therefore any mistakes made were unavoidable.

    I've already shown that there were in fact options available even at the highest levels of military and civilian command.

    Of course there's options......everything from just going home and waiting for a reasonably likely negative response in the future, up thru and including liquidating every single living thing in Japan....neither option I would condone.


    As I noted above, the main question is whether Stalin communicated Japan's attempt to use Russia as an intermediary in surrender negotiations to Truman.

    There is no question whatsoever that Japan was interested in surrender.

    There is equally no question that the US did not make any unilateral attempts to negotiate, and equally that the US was not under any obligation to do so.

    It is very likely, from my view of both cultures, that this situation was entirely a failure of cultural understanding.

    If so, this would be a failure from both sides.
    As I stated in either this post or another....meeting a few relevant folks with some professional and educational experience near this topic was enlightening....I've always liked the Library of Congress.....I'd love to find the time someday to do an intellectual Indiana Jones and find some unearthed treasure on this topic.

    On the topic of failure.......how would you define the failure for the US.

    Was it a moral failure?

    Can nations have morals?

    I know individuals can....but can nations HAVE morals or act MORALLY?

    Only nations can declare War...individuals can't....those who do get sent to jail.

    Nations can(and do) have interests.

    Did US national interests benefit from the dropping of the bombs in Japan on a number of levels?

    I'd say yes....so from a clinical perspective......I don't see a US failure.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakedaemonian
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    Fair enough. I will note, however, that Russia and China are both very, very far from the US. Russian ships have to go 5000 miles from Vladivostok to San Francisco, and there simply is no reason whatsoever for them to go there. There isn't significant Russian trade with the US via Vladivostok, there aren't open Russian allies on the west coast of the Americas, etc etc.

    Equally Chinese warships have to go over 6000 miles. There is much more trade, but equally little reason for them to be wandering this far afield.

    Port Calls so far afield from traditional patrol/training areas may not be VERY common, but they've been going on between MANY nations for MANY years.

    Lots of reasons.....diplomatic/cultural/media.....as well as intelligence collection opportunities for both sides.


    The Iranian ships had to travel all of probably 300 miles from their home port to Jeddah. For that matter, the distance from Riyadh to Jerusalem is all of 750 miles.

    To deny docking rights to someone literally next door - that would indeed be an indication of open confrontation.

    I don't know if that's necessarily the case. I've got a good few friends who've served in different navies...including recent service in and around the Arabian Peninsula.....what I do know is that there are some quite surprising bedfellows parked up adjacent to each other performing resups in some really strange places...as well as the odd story of how one nation's ships not quite welcome in a particular port that doesn't seem to make a bit of sense.

    Again, while I'm sure all of the above is true, at the same time I wonder how much is Saudi Arabia vs. how much is the United States. I've not seen any evidence, for example, that Iran had funnelled arms and/or money into Bahrain.

    I wouldn't be surprised on the money part, at least some, but then again the insurrectionists and Iran are co-religionists. Even if the government of Iran doesn't want to, I'm sure relatives and/or religious radicals would.

    From my view, it is unclear that Saudi Arabia believes it can achieve leadership of the Arab/Muslim world by openly attacking other Muslim nations. I think we can all agree that Saudi Arabia wouldn't cry if Iran met with serious misfortune, but this is a far cry from being in an cage match.

    I'd encourage a wander over to Small Wars Journal Forum.....they've got a few folks with considerable experience in this sphere over yonder.

    On a related note....during my absence I spent time with a full Colonel(one of 3) with considerable direct experience in the Gulf training SA's National Guard....he mentioned a story over dinner that was quite relevant....about how during the Iran-Iraq War when the Iranians were making considerable headway in countering the Iraqi invasion and Iraq's military was in jeopardy of a defensive collapse....and the Saudis didn't care about training to protect against an Iranian incursion if Iraq's defenses collapsed.....they were quite open about how diplomatic pressure, money, and foreign talent would be hired to fix things.


    I can certainly agree with this.

    However, I will note that in the last generation (35 years), there has only been one nation which has consistently gone far beyond its borders in active military pursuit of its objectives. And it ain't China.

    While I agree the US is ONE.....is it the ONLY?

    Unless I'm wrong the list includes the Soviet Union, Cuba, South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, India, Turkey, Libya, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Pakistan to name a few off the top of my head.


    While I do view the increase of military strength in China with alarm, particularly because of its huge demographic bulge of young males, at the same time it is extremely hard to fault it given the massive military spending and high military activity levels of the United States.

    It might be worthwhile to find analysis that separates China's domestic security/paramilitary headcount and spending compared with anything that could reasonably be perceived as international(even just regional) force projection.


    Were there members of the pro-continuation of resistance among the Japanese cabinet? Yes

    However, a Japanese committee whether cabinet or otherwise is fundamentally different than an American one.

    An American committee with dissenting members has an official stance on any given public decision, but its members will continue to publicly lobby as well as express their dissenting opinions.

    A similar Japanese committee will have a similar official stance for public decisions, but will not see even a tiny fraction of the public dissent. This type of unharmonious behavior is not acceptable; only in cases where the concensus is balanced on the knife's edge would both 'sides' be heard.

    Thus simply having the presence of fanatics is irrelevant. The public leadership of Japan's cabinet in spring 1945 was unquestionably no longer that of the 'war' party.



    Again the cultural disconnect.

    First you have to keep in mind that suicide - whether literal or figurative - is not in any way an unacceptable action which it is in the Western world.

    Secondly 'face', which is a much more uncompromising variant of 'honor', is necessary in all actions in Japan.

    Yes, from the Western viewpoint, the Japanese government should have tried harder to make its intentions clear.

    However, even despite nearly 70 years of pro-American propaganda and Western presence, most Japanese today still don't understand foreigners. Japanese culture is even more rigid than most outsiders think, but what most don't realize is that this rigidity is internalized. And as rigid as it is today, I can only imagine it was even more so back then.

    In a real sense, all Japanese interaction with foreigners is a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

    I'll give you one example which is incredibly funny, but equally indicative.

    There are many foreigners in Japan who speak Japanese fluently - at least in the sense of grammer, vocabulary, etc. The majority of these are men, simply because there are far more foreign men in Japan than women.

    However, what most of these don't realize is that they talk like girls. The reason? Teaching Japanese to foreigners is as low a status (face again) occupation as you can possibly find. As a result, 95% of teachers of Japanese are women.

    In Japanese, the word choice as well as a general tone is different when a man speaks to a woman vs. the opposite. Equally different are parent/child, employer/employee, elder/youth, etc etc.

    For literally generations foreign men have been traipsing around Japan thinking they are fluent, when every Japanese they speak to is at least to some extent giggling behind their facade, because this foreign guy talks like a girl.

    And this is a totally conscious reaction. I have a Japanese family as friends in the Bay Area. Due to the relative absence of Japanese in daily life, the man of the house generally leaves his son (the youngest) at home with his mother and sister. When I had asked him about the above - this was some time ago - he said that my observation was true and that he was worried because his son was starting to talk like a girl.
    '
    Circling back to the point - the Japanese government very likely was literally unable to act in the way you surmise.

    Not trying to be pedantic......but is it REALLY "literally unable" or would it be culturally unable?

    I've spent some time in Japan....not much, but enough to find a country as you have described as I perceived it....insular and substantially different....not just linguistically, but culturally...so far as to describe some cultural norms for someone from the west to feel that Japan while a different country, culture, and language...could in some ways best be approached as if from a different planet from a western perspective.


    I'd also note that while the US was in no way obligated to unilaterally negotiate, at the same time the US leadership had a very real fiscal as well as fiduciary responsibility.

    I would agree.....and that fiduciary responsibility would include maximizing the post war opportunities as well as minimizing ongoing costs in prosecuting the war against Japan. The direct and indirect costs to the US(even though it was unscathed by war on it's homefront) were enormous. The sooner the war ended, the sooner the US war economy could be turned into an unscathed by war, post war economy.

    The problem with arguments about land invasion casualties, or cost of the ongoing war, or to date all of the reasons used to justify the atomic bombs except for the warning to the Soviets, is that a serious attempt to negotiate a Japanese surrender would be just as effective, and was never attempted.

    Does anyone seriously think that the US was in any danger of losing the War in the Pacific in 1945? The Japanese fleet was largely nullified, Japanese conquests as well as traditional Japanese territory had been conquered, and all that was left was mopping up and beating the Russians to post-war positioning.

    Many folks who discuss conflict with direct knowledge(as a combatant, as a victim, as a descendant of combatant/victim) share a lot in common, but in my experience......beyond the personal loss.....when it extends to the collective national loss....the US was clearly the "lucky country" of the day......relatively low casualties(per capita) compared with Commonwealth Allies and nothing compared to the Russians slaughtered.....and the home economy was set to win the post war with it's unscathed massive production capacity in everything and it's resources...while even it's allies were bombed into a guaranteed long-term post war malaise.

    The war is almost over....you can smell it, you can feel it....while it might be a bit embarrassing at some level in regards to relative national sacrifice to prosecute the war compared to some allies.....as you stated it's not vengeance like the Soviets sacking Berlin and raping everything that moved in Eastern Europe that smelled of third reich.....vengeance costs heaps......and I agree the US didn't "suffer enough" to see illogical vengeance guiding national direction......but time costs money too.....and how much would every unnecessary and prolonged non-nuclear day still in a war economy cost?


    I'll conclude with this note: even today there are nut-bags in Japan decrying the presence of US troops on sacred Japanese soil. Blaming the foreigners for all ills. etc etc.

    During World War II, the industrialists, nationalists, and these nut bags more or less had the same position. Is it so surprising that after the industrialists changed their mind and nationalists were acknowledging their plan had failed, that the nut-bags still tried to go on?
    During my recent absence I ran into a bunch of US Army Colonels and Lt Colonels.....some pretty world weary fellas with some significant professional and educational experience behind them.

    I had a discussion with one about this very topic/thread.

    He seemed to take a perspective that dropping nuclear weapons on Japan was like a bit of multi tasking.....it helped speed up the war's end by helping the Japanese government see the futility of further war.....since Japan's ability to defend against single ship flights armed with nuclear weapons was about as easy for them to stop than the planet earth defending against an alien enemy dropping asteroids on us from 10 light years away.

    That....and the fact that it also acted as a signal to the Soviets......win/win......finish the war sooner....signal to the Soviets.

    We also discussed intelligence collection during the period beyond MAGIC.....he also questioned the ability of the US/Allies to collect on Japanese government communications when confined to the Home Islands compared with outlying conquered territory with Japanese government and military outposts....it probably made SIGINT and developing an accurate intelligence picture harder, not easier.

    But that's educated speculation....what's interesting is where the discussion went after that....he felt the answer lies in the diplomatic cable/communication archives(US) which would probably include an understanding of the MAGIC take as well as the rest of the intelligence picture on Japan at that time.....much of which probably haven't been gone over properly for public discussion.....he had extensive experience in researching diplomatic cables from that era for his PHD dissertation on another national security topic and held the perspective that a LOT of worthwhile stuff worthy of shaping opinions isn't in the public domain .....but he's cautioned us to be careful....it's his understanding that while the US appeared to have a good understanding of the average caloric intake of the average Japanese citizen on the Home Islands in mid 1945...the US government understanding of Japanese government intentions in the final months of the war may have been more limited that earlier in the war(for the reasons I mentioned and a few others).

    Leave a comment:


  • lakedaemonian
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post

    I conclude by noting that your 'Japanese schoolchildren being turned into combatants' implies a far higher degree of intelligence on the ground in Japan. How exactly was the US able to determine this, but was not able to understand the ramifications of several top level Cabinet changes?



    I am finding difficulty in finding substantiating evidence on Japanese children and elderly being turned into combatants.

    I've had to resort to the wayback machine:

    http://web.archive.org/web/200803090...ay/mission.asp

    I don't know what your level of familiarity is with different forms of intelligence collected both during the WWII period as well as today.

    HUMINT: Human Intelligence sources the US possesses during WWII in the Japanese Home Islands(as opposed to Vietnam/Philippines for example) was exceptionally limited and poor for diplomatic, cultural, geographic, etc reasons.

    SIGINT: Signals Intelligence was an area of significant success for the US against Japan in having cracked the Japanese MAGIC codes and other lesser known successes. But it needs to be stressed that while the intelligence take from say Philippines to Japan would be of great value are you aware of Japanese TTPs(Tactics, Techniques, Procedures) for intergovernmental and internal military communication within the Japanese Home Islands?

    IMINT: Imagery Intelligence was an area of strength for the US/Allies during WWII, particularly the later stages where both tactical and strategic air superiority combined with improvements in photo recce R&D provided a more accurate visual picture of the enemy and his capabilities/intentions if properly analysed.

    It is an IMINT photo recce photo I distinctly recall seeing (if memory serves) which displayed youth labor helping construct defensive positions on the Japanese Main Islands that included large numbers of stakes/spears to deter/channel/kill potential invaders.

    But until I can find the photo, I assume you will take it with a grain of salt.


    If, according to your view, Japan was so fanatical that it would order its troops to fight to the last man and its children to sacrifice themselves defending the motherland, and death before dishonor, and subhuman atrocity committers, and so forth, why exactly would the death of a couple small cities matter? The damages from the 2 atomic bombs were nowhere near what was done to Tokyo, Osaka, and other major cities in the prior firebombing campaigns.

    Why is it not equally possible that the yet again ratcheting up of civilian casualties would only harden Japan's leadership's resolve?

    Sure it's possible....is it REALLY likely?

    From an air war commander's perspective(NOT from the perspective of Manhattan Project costs to deliver each functioning weapon) between continued firebombing and the dropping of 2 nuclear weapons, the firebombing mission sucked up far, far more aircraft, aircrew, support crew, direct combat support, indirect combat support, direct logistical support, and indirect logistical support.

    Dropping two nuclear weapons(while still requiring some outlier and far lower economy of scale combat and logistical support) is a rounding error in terms of cost to men and material for the continued prosecution of the war until the unconditional surrender of Japan.

    On the scale of ultimate futility what's more futile to oppose:

    *a thousand firebombing B29s droppping tens of thousands of incendiaries that burn out a city that you occasionally shoot down?

    *or a single B29 that burns a city to the ground with a single bomb?

    I assume it's clearly not obvious to you, but from my perspective one is a good bit more futile and potentially humane.

    I think of it as not much different than cutting off the head and cutting out the heart of the enemy will to fight with 2 nuclear weapons as opposed to continued death by a thousand burns and slow starvation.


    Funny again how this type of detailed intelligence was available, but nothing about Japan's political situation. It is also amusing how this is somehow unusual - it happens every time any nation gets desperate.
    I don't know if I'd agree with desperate, in fact I don't agree with "desperate".

    But I take onboard your point.....which I assume may relate to recent attempts to portray North Korean nuclear tests as "joint" tests conducted with Iran.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakedaemonian
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    Once again unclear what exactly you're referring to. And once again you seem to equate my not meekly accepting your view as some type of intellectual competition, which you equally don't seem to like.
    Firstly, my apologies for my delayed absence.

    While I've been able to access the forum from my tablet, writing a novel sized post isn't convenient from overseas airport transit lounges.

    What I'm again referring to C1ue is your seeming desire to engage in intellectual duel.....with clear winners and losers....an intellectual pack mentality with you seeking the alpha male dominant position.

    My perception of your posts is that you are quite precise in your choice of words most of the time.

    I do not think I am anywhere near in being alone in perceiving you as I've stated above....here to pursue some sort of personal intellectual dominance over the discourse.

    I am here to learn....and I'd like to think some of my personal/professional experiences can provide some value to a few members on occasion.

    I don't think you're here to learn....I think you're here to teach and/or here to achieve some sort of personal satisfaction in dominating the discourse.

    If you're here to teach, have you ever considered how you are perceived by those you are attempting to educate?

    Don't you think there's value in trying to find a more diplomatic and less adversarial means of conveying your opinions?

    I'll be the first to admit I've been called out both online and in person for taking an overly assertive position on a topic......I try my best to eliminate that when it's brought to my attention.

    I'm bringing it to your attention(again), I hope you take it onboard.

    I have no qualms about learning from you......but if you're going to treat the forum as a form of intellectual bloodsport....I'm not interested.

    Life's about people skills.........I don't have to provide a large number of contributing sources to prove it since those who make it to the top of their respective food chain typically possess a high level of people skills.

    So are you here to learn, to teach, and/or to win?

    I don't see too many other options.

    I sincerely hope you take this onboard....my intent is not malignant or negative.

    I do value your contributions to this forum......but if it's going to come in such an abrasive and adversarial wrapper.....then the value is lost on me.

    Which is unfortunate for the both of us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Thanks for the interesting discussion. I appreciate your perspective.

    Leave a comment:


  • c1ue
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Originally posted by Prazak
    I didn't say it never happened, I said it was unusual -- as do the articles you've linked to. Here's the lead from the first: "The first Russian surface warship to visit San Francisco in 147 years is docked on the Embarcadero this week on a visit that combines friendship, history and a display of military power." And this from the second: "The destroyer and two other Chinese warships made a historical visit to San Diego, CA on 21 March 1997 in the first-ever visit by People's Republic of China Navy ships to the mainland US."

    So yes, this sort of thing strikes me not only as unusual, but as extraordinary -- at times even historic. I can't imagine the Nimitz docking in Shanghai after it steamed through the Taiwan Straits a couple decades ago, for example, or that U.S. warship in the Black Sea last summer pulling into Sebastapol for R&R.
    Fair enough. I will note, however, that Russia and China are both very, very far from the US. Russian ships have to go 5000 miles from Vladivostok to San Francisco, and there simply is no reason whatsoever for them to go there. There isn't significant Russian trade with the US via Vladivostok, there aren't open Russian allies on the west coast of the Americas, etc etc.

    Equally Chinese warships have to go over 6000 miles. There is much more trade, but equally little reason for them to be wandering this far afield.

    The Iranian ships had to travel all of probably 300 miles from their home port to Jeddah. For that matter, the distance from Riyadh to Jerusalem is all of 750 miles.

    To deny docking rights to someone literally next door - that would indeed be an indication of open confrontation.

    Originally posted by Prazak
    What is happening now between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems to me much closer to active confrontation than to normalcy, and not at all imagined. Iran is pushing to master the weaponization of nuclear power; Saudi Arabia declares that it will immediately obtain a nuclear weapon if Iran develops one; Saudi Arabia privately urges the U.S. to attack Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power; a leader from Iran's ruling circle threaten Saudi Arabia with armed reprisal; the two countries wage proxy warfare in places like Bahrain and Syria; Iran allegedly attempts to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.; and on it goes.
    Again, while I'm sure all of the above is true, at the same time I wonder how much is Saudi Arabia vs. how much is the United States. I've not seen any evidence, for example, that Iran had funnelled arms and/or money into Bahrain.

    I wouldn't be surprised on the money part, at least some, but then again the insurrectionists and Iran are co-religionists. Even if the government of Iran doesn't want to, I'm sure relatives and/or religious radicals would.

    From my view, it is unclear that Saudi Arabia believes it can achieve leadership of the Arab/Muslim world by openly attacking other Muslim nations. I think we can all agree that Saudi Arabia wouldn't cry if Iran met with serious misfortune, but this is a far cry from being in an cage match.

    Originally posted by Prazak
    There are some similar dynamics in the U.S.-Sino relationship, are there not? Yes, there is massive mutual trade (the friendliness of which cannot be assumed). But there is also a political, economic, and military competition that I would not characterize as friendly -- and at times would characterize as unfriendly. The uniformed military leadership on both sides certainly regard the other as a principal threat, game out various scenarios for military conflict, and produce armaments aimed specifically at the other. Not necessarily unfriendly, but certainly not friendly.
    I can certainly agree with this.

    However, I will note that in the last generation (35 years), there has only been one nation which has consistently gone far beyond its borders in active military pursuit of its objectives. And it ain't China.

    While I do view the increase of military strength in China with alarm, particularly because of its huge demographic bulge of young males, at the same time it is extremely hard to fault it given the massive military spending and high military activity levels of the United States.

    Much as the US with, via its ever increasingly odious hoops for foreigners to visit, has instituted a tit-for-tat visa cost escalation, so in turn is at least some of other nation's military escalation a response to US spending and actions.

    Originally posted by Prazak
    I'm sorry to keep posting on this from memory, but my recollection on this point was always that Japan was very much divided on whether to surrender and on the terms of surrender, right up until Hiroshima was incinerated, and even immediately after. It's easy to find that narrative in unreliable internet sources, but I'm certain that there are abundant citations on that point by serious historians (although I'm too lazy to go digging . . .).
    Moreover, wasn't the Japanese cabinet divided even after Hiroshima on whether to surrender and if so on what terms? And in the meantime wasn't the official line domestically still to proclaim their intention to continue fighting and to speculate openly that the U.S. could not produce a second nuclear bomb? Again, not the message to send in the face of an enemy wielding such destructive power. The U.S. promptly incinerated Nagasaki.
    I think again there is a cultural misunderstanding occurring.

    Were there members of the pro-continuation of resistance among the Japanese cabinet? Yes

    However, a Japanese committee whether cabinet or otherwise is fundamentally different than an American one.

    An American committee with dissenting members has an official stance on any given public decision, but its members will continue to publicly lobby as well as express their dissenting opinions.

    A similar Japanese committee will have a similar official stance for public decisions, but will not see even a tiny fraction of the public dissent. This type of unharmonious behavior is not acceptable; only in cases where the concensus is balanced on the knife's edge would both 'sides' be heard.

    Thus simply having the presence of fanatics is irrelevant. The public leadership of Japan's cabinet in spring 1945 was unquestionably no longer that of the 'war' party.

    Originally posted by Prazak
    That much is certainly true. And I think I recall you saying you've lived in Japan, so no doubt you have insight on this point.

    ...

    Given Japan's sheer vulnerability to aerial destruction, however, wasn't it vastly more incumbent on the Japanese government to dispel the fog of cultural misunderstanding than it was on the Americans? Instead of clearly responding to the Potsdam Declaration, Japan inquired to the Soviets to clarify the scope of the declaration while remaining silent officially, followed by Japanese newspapers reporting (correctly or not) that the declaration had been formally rejected. The result of this decidedly ambiguous response was that Hiroshima was incinerated by an impatient United States.

    Wouldn't Japan's most responsible course of action after Hiroshima have been to immediately and unambiguously surrender unconditionally? This Japan failed utterly to do. We can't blame Stalin for that, and cultural misunderstanding only goes so far when the stakes are that high.
    Again the cultural disconnect.

    First you have to keep in mind that suicide - whether literal or figurative - is not in any way an unacceptable action which it is in the Western world.

    Secondly 'face', which is a much more uncompromising variant of 'honor', is necessary in all actions in Japan.

    Yes, from the Western viewpoint, the Japanese government should have tried harder to make its intentions clear.

    However, even despite nearly 70 years of pro-American propaganda and Western presence, most Japanese today still don't understand foreigners. Japanese culture is even more rigid than most outsiders think, but what most don't realize is that this rigidity is internalized. And as rigid as it is today, I can only imagine it was even more so back then.

    In a real sense, all Japanese interaction with foreigners is a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

    I'll give you one example which is incredibly funny, but equally indicative.

    There are many foreigners in Japan who speak Japanese fluently - at least in the sense of grammer, vocabulary, etc. The majority of these are men, simply because there are far more foreign men in Japan than women.

    However, what most of these don't realize is that they talk like girls. The reason? Teaching Japanese to foreigners is as low a status (face again) occupation as you can possibly find. As a result, 95% of teachers of Japanese are women.

    In Japanese, the word choice as well as a general tone is different when a man speaks to a woman vs. the opposite. Equally different are parent/child, employer/employee, elder/youth, etc etc.

    For literally generations foreign men have been traipsing around Japan thinking they are fluent, when every Japanese they speak to is at least to some extent giggling behind their facade, because this foreign guy talks like a girl.

    And this is a totally conscious reaction. I have a Japanese family as friends in the Bay Area. Due to the relative absence of Japanese in daily life, the man of the house generally leaves his son (the youngest) at home with his mother and sister. When I had asked him about the above - this was some time ago - he said that my observation was true and that he was worried because his son was starting to talk like a girl.
    '
    Circling back to the point - the Japanese government very likely was literally unable to act in the way you surmise.

    I'd also note that while the US was in no way obligated to unilaterally negotiate, at the same time the US leadership had a very real fiscal as well as fiduciary responsibility. The problem with arguments about land invasion casualties, or cost of the ongoing war, or to date all of the reasons used to justify the atomic bombs except for the warning to the Soviets, is that a serious attempt to negotiate a Japanese surrender would be just as effective, and was never attempted.

    Does anyone seriously think that the US was in any danger of losing the War in the Pacific in 1945? The Japanese fleet was largely nullified, Japanese conquests as well as traditional Japanese territory had been conquered, and all that was left was mopping up and beating the Russians to post-war positioning.

    I'll conclude with this note: even today there are nut-bags in Japan decrying the presence of US troops on sacred Japanese soil. Blaming the foreigners for all ills. etc etc.

    And they aren't ensconced in out of the way places like Idaho, they run around Tokyo with megaphones. Japan, whether because of its high social pressure culture, or xenophobia, or more likely a combination of everything, has a lot more extremists than the United States or Europe.

    Yet at the same time these loudmouths aren't represented in any way in Japanese foreign or domestic policies today.

    During World War II, the industrialists, nationalists, and these nut bags more or less had the same position. Is it so surprising that after the industrialists changed their mind and nationalists were acknowledging their plan had failed, that the nut-bags still tried to go on?
    Last edited by c1ue; 02-21-12, 11:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shakespear
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Not sure you guys are aware of this book, so here it is

    The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable
    http://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-M.../dp/1597970425

    Despite the history of war, the idea that Roosevelt withheld warnings from Kimmel and Short for the purpose of getting the United States openly into a European war is still unthinkable to many people, but to fewer and fewer as the years past. As has happened over time with other unthinkable acts, the repugnance aroused by the idea of using the Pacific Fleet as a lure will probably continue to fade.
    I have no problem believing this as well as the "underwear bomber" kabuki theater. It is always "Gosh had we gotten those files organized we would have understood everything." Always some BS to ram through what the "Public Opinion" does not support.

    I watched this but to be honest could not bring myself to watch it to the end. Perhaps it will be useful to you guys

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xlb6_0OEs

    Leave a comment:


  • Southernguy
    replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    I could not have imagined that a simple mention to US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would generate such an interesting discussion.
    "1. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly."
    The first definition of the word "massacre" that appears as the first google search result is cited above.
    It is not possible to discuss, then, that such bombings were "massacres".
    So, why did I introduce the first and fortunately, till now, only nuclear bombings of cities in history in a discussion about attacks on Israelīs diplomats being "false flag attacks"?
    My logic was that the underlying history is the possibility of Iran working to get nuclear armament.
    That is by no means a proven fact.
    And I wont go into detail as to the number of occidental high ranked military and intelligence officers who say that.
    But, of course, there is a real possibility that Iran is really trying to attain a nuclear military capability.
    So what?
    The US (the only nuclar armed power so far having used atomic bombs on innocent civilians), Rusia, Ukraine, China, the UK, France, have atomic bombs. Somehow, the have them "legally".
    And then, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and of course, Israel have atomic bombs. They do so "ilegally", that is, they didnīt sign or did not respect the non proliferation treaty.
    As to what can be seen for their behavior in international affairs so far, none of them are "peaceful nations".
    The most aggresive of them is, without any doubt, Israel.
    Maybe Iīm mistaken, but no nation on earth is, for decades violating several UN resolutions every single day. General Assembly resolutions, as well as Security Council resolutions.
    And it is a nuclear, illegal, power.
    So, why wouldnīt Iran have the right to become also a nuclear, illegal, power?
    As to my knowledge Iranīs regime has not, so far, invaded any forign nation. The only war in which they were involved was a defensive one against Irak. Irak attacked Iran with Western support. It was supposed at the time that a mostly secularist regime was a good alternative to a Theocratic islamist one.
    We all know how history developed.
    Then, Iran is "accused" of supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. And both are named as "terrorist" organizations.
    Well, they are not. They are both mass organizations devoted to the development to their respective populations in occupied Palestine and Lebanon.
    And of course, they have no alternative but to resort tu armed struggle against an aggresive power such as Israel.
    That can hardly qualify as "terrorism".
    It is just assimetric warfare, the same the North American colonies developed against England, about 300 years ago.
    Or the French, Poles, Soviets in occupied URSS, Chekz, etc against the Nazis.
    Whatīs the logic of saying, as a given truth, that "once Iran has the bomb it shall use it against Israel"?
    There is none.
    Why donīt the Pakistanis throw atomic bombs on the Indians?
    Or the other way round?
    Itīs simple, atomic weapons are not to be used. But, as recent history states, those who donīt have them are under serious threat of "regime change" by Western powers.
    Thatīs what happened in Lybia. And thatīs what can happen in Syria. And thatīs what it is not going to happen in North Korea.
    Once you get atomic weapons you get an insurance policy. You shall not be militarily attacked by Western powers or their proxies.
    Nuclear proliferation does not make me happy, at all.
    But I think that, given recent lessones derived from history, Iran has the same right as Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea AND the US, UK, etc to have atomic bombs.
    So, were the attacks on Israli diplomats false flag attacks?
    I donīt know.
    But every piece of supposed evidence about Iran being behind them must be taken with extreme caution.
    Iran, so far, has demonstrated a very careful approach to diplomatic and military matters.
    Yes, they are showing their (real or not, who knows) military might.
    Thatīs quite understandable in the present situation.
    But so far their actions and words have been only defensive.
    My only hope is that a war, a very cruel and utterly unnecesary one, does not happen.
    And I ask everybody, from high ranked officers to simple world citizens not to call to "trash" anything.
    I have some experience about "trashing" (being within the victims, of course) and nobody deserves it. Except, of course, a small number of sycopaths who at times get to the higher offices in powerful countries.
    Give peace a chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    There is no question whatsoever that Japan was interested in surrender.
    I'm sorry to keep posting on this from memory, but my recollection on this point was always that Japan was very much divided on whether to surrender and on the terms of surrender, right up until Hiroshima was incinerated, and even immediately after. It's easy to find that narrative in unreliable internet sources, but I'm certain that there are abundant citations on that point by serious historians (although I'm too lazy to go digging . . .).

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    There is equally no question that the US did not make any unilateral attempts to negotiate, and equally that the US was not under any obligation to do so.
    That is correct, the U.S. was in no mood to negotiate, full stop. It issued a declaration of terms following Potsdam (although ultimately the U.S. did bend on the issue of maintaining the role of the Emperor).

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    It is very likely, from my view of both cultures, that this situation was entirely a failure of cultural understanding.

    If so, this would be a failure from both sides.
    That much is certainly true. And I think I recall you saying you've lived in Japan, so no doubt you have insight on this point.

    Given Japan's sheer vulnerability to aerial destruction, however, wasn't it vastly more incumbent on the Japanese government to dispel the fog of cultural misunderstanding than it was on the Americans? Instead of clearly responding to the Potsdam Declaration, Japan inquired to the Soviets to clarify the scope of the declaration while remaining silent officially, followed by Japanese newspapers reporting (correctly or not) that the declaration had been formally rejected. The result of this decidedly ambiguous response was that Hiroshima was incinerated by an impatient United States.

    Moreover, wasn't the Japanese cabinet divided even after Hiroshima on whether to surrender and if so on what terms? And in the meantime wasn't the official line domestically still to proclaim their intention to continue fighting and to speculate openly that the U.S. could not produce a second nuclear bomb? Again, not the message to send in the face of an enemy wielding such destructive power. The U.S. promptly incinerated Nagasaki.

    Wouldn't Japan's most responsible course of action after Hiroshima have been to immediately and unambiguously surrender unconditionally? This Japan failed utterly to do. We can't blame Stalin for that, and cultural misunderstanding only goes so far when the stakes are that high.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Israeli false flag attacks

    I didn't say it never happened, I said it was unusual -- as do the articles you've linked to. Here's the lead from the first: "The first Russian surface warship to visit San Francisco in 147 years is docked on the Embarcadero this week on a visit that combines friendship, history and a display of military power." And this from the second: "The destroyer and two other Chinese warships made a historical visit to San Diego, CA on 21 March 1997 in the first-ever visit by People's Republic of China Navy ships to the mainland US."

    So yes, this sort of thing strikes me not only as unusual, but as extraordinary -- at times even historic. I can't imagine the Nimitz docking in Shanghai after it steamed through the Taiwan Straits a couple decades ago, for example, or that U.S. warship in the Black Sea last summer pulling into Sebastapol for R&R.

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    There's a huge difference between active confrontation and normalcy. While certainly Saudi Arabia and Iran have many differences including religion and a real or imagined contest over leadership of the Muslim/Arab world, I've never seen any indications of outright confrontation directly between the two.
    There is indeed a huge difference. And much in between. What is happening now between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems to me much closer to active confrontation than to normalcy, and not at all imagined. Iran is pushing to master the weaponization of nuclear power; Saudi Arabia declares that it will immediately obtain a nuclear weapon if Iran develops one; Saudi Arabia privately urges the U.S. to attack Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power; a leader from Iran's ruling circle threaten Saudi Arabia with armed reprisal; the two countries wage proxy warfare in places like Bahrain and Syria; Iran allegedly attempts to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.; and on it goes.

    So yes, given the degree of conflict between the two states it did strike me as unusual that Iranian warships would be docked in a Saudi port -- although perhaps it is explained, as I think you noted, by the mission at hand: sending warships to off Israel's shores on the Mediterranean.

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    Equally so I'm curious what your definition of 'unfriendly' is. Is China an 'unfriend' despite having a massive mutual trade?
    I don't think I have a definition of "unfriendly". I'd like to say it's like that famous Supreme Court dictum regarding the definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." But truth be told, it's difficult to "know it when I see it".

    Trade relations are one thing. Robust trade between the U.K. and Germany on the eve of The Great War did not preclude an underlying political, economic, and military (especially naval) competition for supremacy, and did not prevent them from waging war on each other. Did those bilateral trade relations make the two nations "friendly" or "unfriendly"? For awhile both, I suppose, until it turned decidedly unfriendly.

    There are some similar dynamics in the U.S.-Sino relationship, are there not? Yes, there is massive mutual trade (the friendliness of which cannot be assumed). But there is also a political, economic, and military competition that I would not characterize as friendly -- and at times would characterize as unfriendly. The uniformed military leadership on both sides certainly regard the other as a principal threat, game out various scenarios for military conflict, and produce armaments aimed specifically at the other. Not necessarily unfriendly, but certainly not friendly.

    I would say current relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran are unfriendly. So the notion of Iranian warships docking in a Saudi port struck me as unusual, just as it would strike me as unusual to see the the U.S.S. Independence stop through Shanghai on the way to its new base in Singapore.

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    If on the other hand 'unfriends' are any nation which doesn't meekly accept US hegemoney worldwide, I'd say that the vast majority of the other nations would then be classified as 'unfriendly'.
    Well, no, of course, I didn't and don't define "unfriends" as such. And yes, I'd say that the vast majority of other nations do not meekly accept U.S. hegemony worldwide.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X