The other thing worth mentioning is that the Allies had absolutely no human intelligence assets in the Japanese government. Even if the leadership was seriously considering surrender, the US government had no way of knowing. The public rhetoric was still "fight to the last" and that's all Truman had to go on. That and the casualty estimates, which ran from 300k - 2 million on the US side and 1-20 million on the Japanese side. For comparison, the US military took about 500k dead or wounded in the whole of WWII.
"Fun" fact: The US military ordered so many Purple Heart medals in anticipation of the invasion of Japan that there are still about 80,000 of them in stock 70 years and 5 wars later.
Secondly, anyone want to continue to doubt how Trump feels about Authoritarian dictators??
I believe you've called him this before, but Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. He was democratically elected in 2012 (more so than Trump, given he clearly won the popular vote), and had been elected in two prior terms in 2000-2008. He's had high approval ratings throughout his time in high office - democratic as it gets.
Secondly, anyone want to continue to doubt how Trump feels about Authoritarian dictators??
I believe you've called him this before, but Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. He was democratically elected in 2012 (more so than Trump, given he clearly won the popular vote), and had been elected in two prior terms in 2000-2008. He's had high approval ratings throughout his time in high office - democratic as it gets.
Aren't the elections there rigged, like in the US?
Secondly, anyone want to continue to doubt how Trump feels about Authoritarian dictators??
I believe you've called him this before, but Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. He was democratically elected in 2012 (more so than Trump, given he clearly won the popular vote), and had been elected in two prior terms in 2000-2008. He's had high approval ratings throughout his time in high office - democratic as it gets.
Yeah, ok then.....I'm sure the Russian elections are totally on the up and up and he is indeed a paragon of virtue. I mean he's never poisoned political opponents before, or jailed dissenters. That probably has nothing to do with his "approval rating".
In other news, Carl Paladino, the co-chair of Trump's New York campaign, when asked what he'd like to see in 2017, had this to say:
"Michelle Obama. I'd like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla."
In other news, Carl Paladino, the co-chair of Trump's New York campaign, when asked what he'd like to see in 2017, had this to say:
"Michelle Obama. I'd like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla."
That's what he wants to see? Apparently Carl Paladin approves of both gay marriage and bestiality.
Not every criticism of Barack and Michelle Obama is racist, but some of the things people have said about them would NEVER have been said to a white couple. Like comparing them to African apes.
In regards to Putin: dictators can win elections. Putin himself is more of a strongman president than a full-blown dictator in the legal sense, but he has murdered his political enemies. No one who has done that can legitimately claim to have won a fair election.
Park Geun-hye of South Korea has a 4% approval rating (that's not a typo). Shinzo Abe of Japan has a 40% approval rating. Angela Merkel of Germany has a 45% approval rating. Barack Obama of the United States has a 57% approval rating. The Chinese Communist Party of the PRC has an 80% approval rating. Vladimir Putin has an 82% approval rating. Kim Jong-un of North Korea has a 100% approval rating (that's not a typo).
The lowest approval rating belongs to South Korea, a vibrant democratic state where the people have such solid control over their own government that Park is being impeached due to massive protests over her ties to Choi Soon-sil. Park is the daughter of South Korea's former military dictator, Park Chung-hee, and even she is not above the people's will.
The highest approval rating belongs to North Korea, a ruthless totalitarian state that sends political dissidents to Holocaust-grade concentration camps.
Approval ratings are only meaningful in free countries. China, Russia, and North Korea are not.
A terrorist could quite easily kill around 8 million people with a nuclear divice in the centre of a major city.
I doubt anyone wants to meddle with a nuclear weapon, besides, I doubt they have access to such technology.
Sorry, but this is living in la la land. North Korea, Iran, Russia, Saudi, could supply the means, to name but a few. I'm a physicist, making one aint as hard as some make out. With open boarders it would be easy to use a lorry to deliver the device to target. With religious fanaticism finding someone with the will to detonate would also be easy.
Add to that the possibility of an attack on a nuclear powerstation. You could do a lot of damage with hydro-electric too. Or a bio-attack. Or a cyber-attack crippling air traffic control.
It's not a matter of if, but when a terrorist attack kills millions, most likely on continental Europe.
I don't think continental Europe is the most likely to suffer a terrorist attack like that. Historically, terrorist attacks occur in the Middle East, and the primary enemies for Islamic terrorists, besides other Muslims, are Israel and the United States, according to their standard rhetoric. If terrorists got a hold of a nuclear weapon, I'd predict they'd use it in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, New York, Washington D.C., or the capital of a Muslim country, depending on the terrorist group in question.
China and Russia are also starting to see problems with Islamic radicalism.
The situation in the world has changed. We have seen a large increase in attacks in France, Belgium and Germany. Largely because they are much easier targets to hit. You could drive a nuclear-equipped truck from Turkey to Paris with minimal chance of detection. It would be significantly harder to get to London or Israel, never mind the US.
In other news, Carl Paladino, the co-chair of Trump's New York campaign, when asked what he'd like to see in 2017, had this to say:
"Michelle Obama. I'd like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla."
That's what he wants to see? Apparently Carl Paladin approves of both gay marriage and bestiality.
Not every criticism of Barack and Michelle Obama is racist, but some of the things people have said about them would NEVER have been said to a white couple. Like comparing them to African apes.
Being as there are only 50 states, is it really that much to ask of a Presidential candidate that they find a state campaign chair that isn't a virulent racist?? And even if you can't even hit that ridiculously low bar, shouldn't it be possible to at least find a virulent racist who doesn't feel compelled to speak this way publicly??
A terrorist could quite easily kill around 8 million people with a nuclear divice in the centre of a major city.
I doubt anyone wants to meddle with a nuclear weapon, besides, I doubt they have access to such technology.
Sorry, but this is living in la la land. North Korea, Iran, Russia, Saudi, could supply the means, to name but a few. I'm a physicist, making one aint as hard as some make out. With open boarders it would be easy to use a lorry to deliver the device to target. With religious fanaticism finding someone with the will to detonate would also be easy.
Add to that the possibility of an attack on a nuclear powerstation. You could do a lot of damage with hydro-electric too. Or a bio-attack. Or a cyber-attack crippling air traffic control.
It's not a matter of if, but when a terrorist attack kills millions, most likely on continental Europe.
Attack on a nuclear powerstation, well I get it, that'd be devastating.
Well, considering you'll need the support of a gubernamental establishment and the possibility to adquire uranium or plutonium I'd say it still makes no sense.
Also, given the case they posses such a weapon, using it would be a bigger threat for them as well. Next day half of the world would be inhabitable, and one day after that we'll be either mutants or dust on a wall.
I think the terrorist's weapon of choice would be a tactical nuke rather than a strategic one. Designed for use on the battlefield with a mobile delivery system the collateral damage would be 'minimal' compared to a ballistic missile.
Security around such weapons is, thankfully, incredibly tight. Many years ago I had reason to visit the South African nuclear weapons facility outside a place called Pelindaba (no, you can't see the facility on Google Earth and yes, the nukes were de-commissioned after 1994) and I had to go through a huge number of security levels just for a brief visit.
A terrorist could quite easily kill around 8 million people with a nuclear divice in the centre of a major city.
I doubt anyone wants to meddle with a nuclear weapon, besides, I doubt they have access to such technology.
Sorry, but this is living in la la land. North Korea, Iran, Russia, Saudi, could supply the means, to name but a few. I'm a physicist, making one aint as hard as some make out. With open boarders it would be easy to use a lorry to deliver the device to target. With religious fanaticism finding someone with the will to detonate would also be easy.
Add to that the possibility of an attack on a nuclear powerstation. You could do a lot of damage with hydro-electric too. Or a bio-attack. Or a cyber-attack crippling air traffic control.
It's not a matter of if, but when a terrorist attack kills millions, most likely on continental Europe.
Attack on a nuclear powerstation, well I get it, that'd be devastating.
Well, considering you'll need the support of a gubernamental establishment and the possibility to adquire uranium or plutonium I'd say it still makes no sense.
Also, given the case they posses such a weapon, using it would be a bigger threat for them as well. Next day half of the world would be inhabitable, and one day after that we'll be either mutants or dust on a wall.
I don't see an isolated detonation triggering MAD.
In other news, Carl Paladino, the co-chair of Trump's New York campaign, when asked what he'd like to see in 2017, had this to say:
"Michelle Obama. I'd like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla."
That's what he wants to see? Apparently Carl Paladin approves of both gay marriage and bestiality.
Not every criticism of Barack and Michelle Obama is racist, but some of the things people have said about them would NEVER have been said to a white couple. Like comparing them to African apes.
Being as there are only 50 states, is it really that much to ask of a Presidential candidate that they find a state campaign chair that isn't a virulent racist?? And even if you can't even hit that ridiculously low bar, shouldn't it be possible to at least find a virulent racist who doesn't feel compelled to speak this way publicly??
A terrorist could quite easily kill around 8 million people with a nuclear divice in the centre of a major city.
I doubt anyone wants to meddle with a nuclear weapon, besides, I doubt they have access to such technology.
Sorry, but this is living in la la land. North Korea, Iran, Russia, Saudi, could supply the means, to name but a few. I'm a physicist, making one aint as hard as some make out. With open boarders it would be easy to use a lorry to deliver the device to target. With religious fanaticism finding someone with the will to detonate would also be easy.
Add to that the possibility of an attack on a nuclear powerstation. You could do a lot of damage with hydro-electric too. Or a bio-attack. Or a cyber-attack crippling air traffic control.
It's not a matter of if, but when a terrorist attack kills millions, most likely on continental Europe.
Attack on a nuclear powerstation, well I get it, that'd be devastating.
Well, considering you'll need the support of a gubernamental establishment and the possibility to adquire uranium or plutonium I'd say it still makes no sense.
Also, given the case they posses such a weapon, using it would be a bigger threat for them as well. Next day half of the world would be inhabitable, and one day after that we'll be either mutants or dust on a wall.
That's a nonsense as well. Even if you where able to determine that a certain state had supplied nuclear materials to terrortists you can't retaliate with nuclear weapons. I don't think a western government would get much backing for killing another couple of million innocent civilians in retaliation, whilst those actually responsible are in some hidden bunker well out of harm's way.
Terrorists are pretty much the only people who CAN use nuclear weapons.
That's a nonsense as well. Even if you where able to determine that a certain state had supplied nuclear materials to terrortists you can't retaliate with nuclear weapons. I don't think a western government would get much backing for killing another couple of million innocent civilians in retaliation, whilst those actually responsible are in some hidden bunker well out of harm's way.
Terrorists are pretty much the only people who CAN use nuclear weapons.
The POTUS has authority to launch a nuclear strike without approval from Congress at any time. The two-man rule says the Secretary of Defense must also authorize the strike, but any old, white zealot Trump has in that role will undoubtedly concur. Truly terrifying.
But I'm not talking about the USA. European countries don't have psychotic idiots as heads of state (yet). Merkel wouldn't order a retaliatorty nuclear attack if Berlin where destroyed, and I doubt Trump would do it on her behalf.
All the conversation was nonsense, anyway. I highly doubt someone decides to use nuclear weapons on a terrorist attack, only because of their limited access to such technology. If someone provided terrorists with such a thing, let's say Iran does, won't the US bomb the afterwards? I doubt the americans could ever hold themselves back from a war.
I don't see an isolated detonation triggering MAD.
I don't know, I feel like they're gonna blew everything up if they start bombing with nuclear weapons... Just my feeling, since many countries have those, and I doubt they comprehend the destructive power it has (it doesn't just blow things up and kill people, it destroys the land, contaminates the air and spreads radioactive particles all around). Also, imagine cities like New York or Berlin, destroyed in a second... We'd go back to living in fear like if it was the Cold War, against enemies far more concealed... It'll drive everyone crazy.
@Fardragon I don't think Germany has nuclear weapons.
True, but France does, and Hollande wouldn't authorise a retaliatory nuclear stike in the event of an attack on Paris either. Not even La Penn would, should she win next year.
In regards to Putin: dictators can win elections. Putin himself is more of a strongman president than a full-blown dictator in the legal sense, but he has murdered his political enemies. No one who has done that can legitimately claim to have won a fair election.
Then, in that case, Barack Obama has never won a fair election, and is a dictator (he's also killed his political enemies' children!).
Putin is not a nice guy, but words mean things. He won elections by normal amounts against actual (unmurdered) opposition, which were not marred by more than the usual amount of corruption and shenanigans. Nobody seriously doubts that he would have won completely fair elections; it is not seriously doubted that he enjoys robust support from the Russian populace (and for normal political reasons - the post-Soviet decline in the Russian economy was almost completely reversed during his first two terms in office).
He obeyed the constitutional rule and did not run for a third consecutive term for the presidency (and instead served as Prime Minister, a position he had held before). While he did retain a lot of influence over the government, Medvedev was not demonstrably just his puppet (he reversed several Putin-era decisions, for instance), and in any case if we are to complain that people no longer in the highest office are exerting influence, then the Clintons were also dictatorial (as will be Obama, again, since he has been openly trying to and to an extent succeeding at influencing Trump).
Calling Putin an authoritarian strongman who is probably responsible for ordering the deaths of several dissidents and journalists is fair. But he is an elected authoritarian strongman, and no consistent reading of facts makes him a dictator beyond "America doesn't like him". There is no reason to assume he would not step down from power if public opinion swung strongly against him and he lost an election - and as long as that remains true, calling him a "dictator" is twisting the common meaning of the word.
I dunno. I feel like Trump would jump at the chance to honor his NATO obligations if it meant he could nuke somebody.
Trump's actually pretty consistently been against the usage of nuclear weapons in his public statements and writings for decades. He absorbed the Cold War horror of a devastated planet pretty thoroughly.
It's probably also worth noting that he is a teetotaler, unlike many other Presidents who used alcohol excessively (notably Nixon).
So, while he could definitely nuke somebody, I'd actually say he's less likely to than several of his predecessors.
Sorry, but this is living in la la land. North Korea, Iran, Russia, Saudi, could supply the means, to name but a few. I'm a physicist, making one aint as hard as some make out. With open boarders it would be easy to use a lorry to deliver the device to target. With religious fanaticism finding someone with the will to detonate would also be easy.
Add to that the possibility of an attack on a nuclear powerstation. You could do a lot of damage with hydro-electric too. Or a bio-attack. Or a cyber-attack crippling air traffic control.
It's not a matter of if, but when a terrorist attack kills millions, most likely on continental Europe.
Iran does not have the capability to make nuclear weapons. Nor does Saudi Arabia. North Korea can barely make their own, and they're a) huge and b) not very good. Russia has absolutely nothing to gain. If a rogue nuclear device comes from anywhere, it is likely (for a given value of "likely") to be Pakistan.
That being said, if it's so easy, why has it never, ever happened? Terrorism and nuclear weapons have coexisted since 1945 and not a single time has any would-be nuclear bomber pulled it off. I can't even recall anytime one got close (defining "close", for the sake of argument, as "at any point did a terrorist or terrorist organisation have a functional nuclear device").
Also, it's even less a matter of "when" since for all we know, in 20 years geopolitics will have realigned and terrorist attacks will no longer be a significant security threat to Europe (or elsewhere).
In regards to Putin: dictators can win elections. Putin himself is more of a strongman president than a full-blown dictator in the legal sense, but he has murdered his political enemies. No one who has done that can legitimately claim to have won a fair election.
Then, in that case, Barack Obama has never won a fair election, and is a dictator (he's also killed his political enemies' children!).
Putin is not a nice guy, but words mean things. He won elections by normal amounts against actual (unmurdered) opposition, which were not marred by more than the usual amount of corruption and shenanigans. Nobody seriously doubts that he would have won completely fair elections; it is not seriously doubted that he enjoys robust support from the Russian populace (and for normal political reasons - the post-Soviet decline in the Russian economy was almost completely reversed during his first two terms in office).
He obeyed the constitutional rule and did not run for a third consecutive term for the presidency (and instead served as Prime Minister, a position he had held before). While he did retain a lot of influence over the government, Medvedev was not demonstrably just his puppet (he reversed several Putin-era decisions, for instance), and in any case if we are to complain that people no longer in the highest office are exerting influence, then the Clintons were also dictatorial (as will be Obama, again, since he has been openly trying to and to an extent succeeding at influencing Trump).
Calling Putin an authoritarian strongman who is probably responsible for ordering the deaths of several dissidents and journalists is fair. But he is an elected authoritarian strongman, and no consistent reading of facts makes him a dictator beyond "America doesn't like him". There is no reason to assume he would not step down from power if public opinion swung strongly against him and he lost an election - and as long as that remains true, calling him a "dictator" is twisting the common meaning of the word.
Putin may well have won free and fair elections, he has widespread support after all, we'll know if they ever occur. He may even get to beat genuine opposition this time around if he decides to allow Navalny to run. He seems to be getting bored of the job judging from his recent demeanour during the yearly q & a though.
Trump's team is finding it practically impossible to find anyone of note to perform at the inauguration. This isn't just because they aren't inclined to support him politically, or that artists are always among the first to be targeted under an authoritarian government. They view him as completely toxic to their careers. Any association with him will hit their bottom-line heavily. Musicians are reportedly turning down six-figure paydays and telling them to get lost.
I've been watching Oliver Stone's 12-part "Untold History of the United States" this wknd, and it makes everything being argued about here seem almost quaint. The fact is, for the last 115 years, the military and imperialist actions of America, Europe and Russia have been decimating and exploiting the poorest sections of the Earth for land, resources, and money. There really are no good guys. It's an absolute wonder that we haven't destroyed ourselves completely.
There really are no good guys. It's an absolute wonder that we haven't destroyed ourselves completely.
Well, if Socrates talked about this, more than two thousand years ago, and we haven't changed our ways yet, it won't surprise me we didn't in the last hundred years.
For all the exploitation that supposedly built the United States, the wealthiest nations in the world are those that have the closest relationship with America, and use systems similar to ours. America's most profound impact is on the nations we've worked with most closely, and they are doing far better than their neighbors. The poorest nations, without fail, are the ones we have had the least contact with: distant countries in Africa most of all, but also the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. The richest nations, without fail, are the ones we and our allies have worked with most closely: democratic states in Europe and East Asia most of all, but also diverse places like China, Israel, South Africa, and Australia.
America's wealth comes from high-tech trade with advanced economies like Japan and Germany, not stealing bananas from poor folks in the jungles of Latin America.
Comments
"Fun" fact: The US military ordered so many Purple Heart medals in anticipation of the invasion of Japan that there are still about 80,000 of them in stock 70 years and 5 wars later.
In other news, Carl Paladino, the co-chair of Trump's New York campaign, when asked what he'd like to see in 2017, had this to say:
"Michelle Obama. I'd like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla."
Nice guy.
Not every criticism of Barack and Michelle Obama is racist, but some of the things people have said about them would NEVER have been said to a white couple. Like comparing them to African apes.
Park Geun-hye of South Korea has a 4% approval rating (that's not a typo).
Shinzo Abe of Japan has a 40% approval rating.
Angela Merkel of Germany has a 45% approval rating.
Barack Obama of the United States has a 57% approval rating.
The Chinese Communist Party of the PRC has an 80% approval rating.
Vladimir Putin has an 82% approval rating.
Kim Jong-un of North Korea has a 100% approval rating (that's not a typo).
The lowest approval rating belongs to South Korea, a vibrant democratic state where the people have such solid control over their own government that Park is being impeached due to massive protests over her ties to Choi Soon-sil. Park is the daughter of South Korea's former military dictator, Park Chung-hee, and even she is not above the people's will.
The highest approval rating belongs to North Korea, a ruthless totalitarian state that sends political dissidents to Holocaust-grade concentration camps.
Approval ratings are only meaningful in free countries. China, Russia, and North Korea are not.
Add to that the possibility of an attack on a nuclear powerstation. You could do a lot of damage with hydro-electric too. Or a bio-attack. Or a cyber-attack crippling air traffic control.
It's not a matter of if, but when a terrorist attack kills millions, most likely on continental Europe.
China and Russia are also starting to see problems with Islamic radicalism.
Well, considering you'll need the support of a gubernamental establishment and the possibility to adquire uranium or plutonium I'd say it still makes no sense.
Also, given the case they posses such a weapon, using it would be a bigger threat for them as well. Next day half of the world would be inhabitable, and one day after that we'll be either mutants or dust on a wall.
Security around such weapons is, thankfully, incredibly tight. Many years ago I had reason to visit the South African nuclear weapons facility outside a place called Pelindaba (no, you can't see the facility on Google Earth and yes, the nukes were de-commissioned after 1994) and I had to go through a huge number of security levels just for a brief visit.
Terrorists are pretty much the only people who CAN use nuclear weapons.
Putin is not a nice guy, but words mean things. He won elections by normal amounts against actual (unmurdered) opposition, which were not marred by more than the usual amount of corruption and shenanigans. Nobody seriously doubts that he would have won completely fair elections; it is not seriously doubted that he enjoys robust support from the Russian populace (and for normal political reasons - the post-Soviet decline in the Russian economy was almost completely reversed during his first two terms in office).
He obeyed the constitutional rule and did not run for a third consecutive term for the presidency (and instead served as Prime Minister, a position he had held before). While he did retain a lot of influence over the government, Medvedev was not demonstrably just his puppet (he reversed several Putin-era decisions, for instance), and in any case if we are to complain that people no longer in the highest office are exerting influence, then the Clintons were also dictatorial (as will be Obama, again, since he has been openly trying to and to an extent succeeding at influencing Trump).
Calling Putin an authoritarian strongman who is probably responsible for ordering the deaths of several dissidents and journalists is fair. But he is an elected authoritarian strongman, and no consistent reading of facts makes him a dictator beyond "America doesn't like him". There is no reason to assume he would not step down from power if public opinion swung strongly against him and he lost an election - and as long as that remains true, calling him a "dictator" is twisting the common meaning of the word.
It's probably also worth noting that he is a teetotaler, unlike many other Presidents who used alcohol excessively (notably Nixon).
So, while he could definitely nuke somebody, I'd actually say he's less likely to than several of his predecessors.
That being said, if it's so easy, why has it never, ever happened? Terrorism and nuclear weapons have coexisted since 1945 and not a single time has any would-be nuclear bomber pulled it off. I can't even recall anytime one got close (defining "close", for the sake of argument, as "at any point did a terrorist or terrorist organisation have a functional nuclear device").
Also, it's even less a matter of "when" since for all we know, in 20 years geopolitics will have realigned and terrorist attacks will no longer be a significant security threat to Europe (or elsewhere).
America's wealth comes from high-tech trade with advanced economies like Japan and Germany, not stealing bananas from poor folks in the jungles of Latin America.