Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Kind of strange to get fixated on civilian deaths from nukes specifically in WWII - incendiaries and manufactured firestorms completely erased whole cities just as readily. The nukes were just more efficient, but we very successfully killed 100,000 and dehomed 1,000,000 in one spring night in Tokyo 1945. Just with HE and incendiary. 

The strategic bombing of Japan was a far greater cruelty than just dropping Fat Man and Little Boy. It took longer than nukes, but it killed civilians dead just the same. 

The great game changer of nukes is that one plane carries the equivalent destructive power of 334. Or more

There is a level of overrating the Nuclear bomb, maybe it was propaganda to excuse so much money spent (afterall the bomb just HAD to be dropped despite objections by the Manhattan project scientists).

A) there weren't that many, only 3 at most for a very long time, and two were used

B) Required air superiority because only bombers could deliver them, and you don't want to risk that if there is air patrols.

C) lastly kilotons are not megatons as mentioned the potential to kill was way lower

That said nukes really became the end of humanity threat during the hottest moment s of the cold war.

A) tens of thousands of nukes

B) ICBMs that could deliver them anywhere in mere minutes

C) Hydrogen bombs in the megaton range.

I am guessing this is where the confusion comes from, conflating one with the other.

Posted

In the last year Chainsaw has decided to expose himself as someone who knows only about half as much as he thinks he does multiple times. But worse, rather than learning and moving on, he doubles down in his wrongness and sticks his fingers in his ears. He's like an alternative reality Ani. 

8ww9jo7xcvu51.thumb.png.e4e9db6b31d59854a7344cc5a9a2d2f8.png

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Because he wanted to kill 200,000 civilians instead of end the war. Right? That's my point. It was completely unnecessary to end the war.

Eh, fuck ‘em.  Don’t start shit, won’t be shit.  The ultimate FAFO.

Posted
12 hours ago, Texas Fight said:

Biggest turning point? It was the B-29. They only dropped two bombs. A little boy and a fat man.

Ending point maybe, but not turning point. The turning point was when the war changed psychologically. The Doolittle raid gave the US the confidence they could win and the Japanese the fear that the US wasn't the easy pushover they originally thought.

The battle of Midway gave the US the strategic advantage.

It could have been much sooner if some idiots at Pearl Harbor hadn't taken the warnings so lightly.

Posted
1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

IMG_9237.jpeg

trump should have told them where HE would be at one o'clock and allowed them to hit that spot.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
13 hours ago, chainsaw said:

You are lending a lot of weight on opinions.  US General Stillwell, who was working with CKS, was concerned with how poorly the Chinese military under CKS performed (and the corruption which siphoned money away from building airbases) so there was no guarantee they defeat Mao.   It was CKS who once stated he would rather kill 1000 innocents than let one communist escape.   Not exactly the statement of someone, who as the head of a fascist party, blamed the poor performance of his military on outsiders and internal rot (sound familiar?) and it is difficult to imagine that this regime was not going to produce further bloodshed no matter if he won or lost.  This guy had to be kidnapped by his own generals and forced to fight against the Japanese during WWII.    

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Captainant said:

Kind of strange to get fixated on civilian deaths from nukes specifically in WWII - incendiaries and manufactured firestorms completely erased whole cities just as readily. The nukes were just more efficient, but we very successfully killed 100,000 and dehomed 1,000,000 in one spring night in Tokyo 1945. Just with HE and incendiary. 

The strategic bombing of Japan was a far greater cruelty than just dropping Fat Man and Little Boy. It took longer than nukes, but it killed civilians dead just the same. 

The great game changer of nukes is that one plane carries the equivalent destructive power of 334. Or more

You're right about this. The consensus among the military brass at that time was Japan was already at the table willing to cede its sovereignty to the US. The reason was our non-nuclear firebombings were already completely effective in getting Japan to bend the knee, and yes people completely overlook how much destruction our non-nuclear strikes were capable of and did inflict in Tokyo. The nukes were completely gratuitous killings, for no reason other than to intimidate the Soviets.

10 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

@chainsaw hey how about you go update the Blake Lively thread for us

haven't seen as much press about it

Posted
9 hours ago, linux said:

But then again they did not surrender before the Soviets declared war in between both bombs.

At the end of the day historical consensus that everything that happened after the surrender of Germany was less the conclusion of WWII, but the beginning of the Cold War.

All of the ramifications

The US dropping nukes literally on the day the Soviets promised to enter the war,

Japan feeling betrayed by the Soviets, led to them siding with the US 100% after Truman allowed Hirohito to stay.

the Soviets invading Manchuria and giving it to Mao as a the springboard to win the Sino civil war

The Soviet capture of pyongyang and US landings at Inchon, dividing Korea.

All of it was Cold War related. That was the calculus.


If only there was a thread ---- or an entire subforum ---- to debate what happened 80 years ago between the U.S. and Japan! 

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 2
Posted
2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

IMG_9237.jpeg

The only think that separates this from Iranian State TV propaganda is anti-regime press is allowed in. For now. They're trying to get rid of that too. 

American people are so blind and lost. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
3 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Hahahahahaha

I read several stories about that topic in MSM sources. They were quite interesting. Those pilots are bad asses. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

The Iran forewarning story is pretty spot on with Esper’s account of how Iran handled the 2020 rebuttal to our bombings then. 

Posted

I am personally glad that these assholes are not getting the benefit o the doubt, in the old days military action got a rally around the flag effect, but these punks lost in the polls.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

To Chainsaw's point, it was my understanding that these early 1945 peace overtures were unofficial communications by Japanese government backbenchers. They were initiated through the Soviet Union and were not sanctioned official Japanese government offers.  And that's if they even happened at all because other than Trohan's memo, there is zero historical record of these attempts.  

If you go back and look at the disorganization and chaos in their government after Hiroshima was nuked, the Japanese still had a hard-core contingent on the Supreme War Council that wanted to continue fighting.   

Here's an interesting counterpoint to what Chainsaw has been trying to sell.  

https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2022/05/06/did-the-japanese-offer-to-surrender-before-hiroshima-part-2/

It's a fairly long read but well worth it for WWII nerds.  

The author of this article seems to think that the Trohan memorandum was a far-right, pro-MacArthur attempt to lionize Dugout Doug, blame FDR for prolonging the war to let the Soviets join and, ultimately,  the "loss" of China in 1949 to the communists.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

most complex and secretive in history

i saw d-day mentioned

barbarossa

westfeldzug

pearl harbor

the ardennes

taranto

st. nazaire

japanese eastern operation (midway)

desert storm

troy

rome

trenton

6-day war

yom kippur war

and last but not least and in a category by itself: 9/11

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

If that was the most complex military operation in history, I’m concerned about our military’s capabilities.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

I think it was Dan Carlin’s podcast where I learned that Japanese culture at the time made surrender unthinkable. The alternative was firebombing Tokyo which would have killed a lot more people including American soldiers. The Emperor’s perceived divinity was a major issue and some within the Japanese military didn’t believe word of the surrender or disagreed with it and tried to keep fighting even after the second bomb. He even described finding Japanese soldiers in Southeast Asia decades later hiding in jungles who had no opponents to fight but they were ready. It was a lot I didn’t know or hadn’t really thought about. I don’t think it’s possible to form a real opinion on the morality of using the bombs to end that war.

Back on topic, our leaders are fucking toddlers. It’s fucking fine to acknowledge that “complete obliteration” wasn’t necessary and wasn’t the goal. There are still strategic wins to be claimed. But nope gotta be like a 4 year old promising he drank all his milk and didn’t feed it to the cat. Super duper promise I’m not lying! And now it was the biggest most strategic thing evar! Fucking pathetic beta shit.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
23 minutes ago, immamac said:

pretty much every mission every single day during any of the campaigns in Europe were more complex. 

And mostly executed with a paper map, compass, and a hand wound watch. 

Posted
47 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

To Chainsaw's point, it was my understanding that these early 1945 peace overtures were unofficial communications by Japanese government backbenchers. They were initiated through the Soviet Union and were not sanctioned official Japanese government offers.  And that's if they even happened at all because other than Trohan's memo, there is zero historical record of these attempts.  

If you go back and look at the disorganization and chaos in their government after Hiroshima was nuked, the Japanese still had a hard-core contingent on the Supreme War Council that wanted to continue fighting.   

Here's an interesting counterpoint to what Chainsaw has been trying to sell.  

https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2022/05/06/did-the-japanese-offer-to-surrender-before-hiroshima-part-2/

It's a fairly long read but well worth it for WWII nerds.  

The author of this article seems to think that the Trohan memorandum was a far-right, pro-MacArthur attempt to lionize Dugout Doug, blame FDR for prolonging the war to let the Soviets join and, ultimately,  the "loss" of China in 1949 to the communists.  

I completely understand the skepticism surrounding the MacArthur memo and Japan's willingness to accept virtually the same terms of surrender that eventually were imposed after Hiroshima, but the more important point that's still relevant today is that it was well understood by all sides that Japan had lost the war long, long before Hiroshima. There was no strategic justification for the civilian atrocities we inflicted and we're teaching a whitewashed version of history when we allow people to believe that the war was going to rage on without the atomic bombs. We are proud of it when we should be ashamed.

Posted
15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think it was Dan Carlin’s podcast where I learned that Japanese culture at the time made surrender unthinkable. The alternative was firebombing Tokyo which would have killed a lot more people including American soldiers. The Emperor’s perceived divinity was a major issue and some within the Japanese military didn’t believe word of the surrender or disagreed with it and tried to keep fighting even after the second bomb. He even described finding Japanese soldiers in Southeast Asia decades later hiding in jungles who had no opponents to fight but they were ready. It was a lot I didn’t know or hadn’t really thought about. I don’t think it’s possible to form a real opinion on the morality of using the bombs to end that war.

Back on topic, our leaders are fucking toddlers. It’s fucking fine to acknowledge that “complete obliteration” wasn’t necessary and wasn’t the goal. There are still strategic wins to be claimed. But nope gotta be like a 4 year old promising he drank all his milk and didn’t feed it to the cat. Super duper promise I’m not lying! And now it was the biggest most strategic thing evar! Fucking pathetic beta shit.

He has no credibility on the world stage and I think the fracture in his base is still there. Disastrous consequences

Posted
the fucking hyperbole with these cretins. best evar! perfect call! gaslighting the entire world. fucking madness

A poorly attended inauguration has to be called the most attended ever.

Maybe I’m giving myself too much credit, but I’d like to think that if my boss asked me to go on tv and tell a bunch of obvious lies for no reason at all… I probably would lose all respect for that person and quit.

Like if CDC made Sark go on tv and claim that actually we won the last three national championships in football. And if you disagree then you’re an idiot who just hates Texas. But this isn’t something silly like college athletics. It’s the most powerful person in the world.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Hahahahahaha

As a retired military officer, I'd much rather leave the enemy with a sense of dread and a question of "how the fuck did they do that?" than get praise in the papers.  

When the press asked FDR where the bombers in Doolittle raid launched from, he simply said "our new base in Shangri-La." 

OPSEC continues even after the mission is complete, meathead (Hegseth).

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)

It’s simple, they’re trying to tie any questioning or criticism of the regime as unpatriotic and treasonous. It’s always an attack on the troops and pilots if there are questions 

Edited by SubliminalHorn
Posted

1) is it difficult to fly that plane?

2) the bulk of the 36 hours is it in some sort of autopilot setting just level flying, way above any other air traffic, right?

3) is there more than one pilot aboard these bombers that can rotate watch/active flying?

What makes the mission difficult?  What makes it complicated?  A to B, pull lever to drop 2 bombs, B to A.  For 6 or 7 planes. Midair refueling in between that I would assume gets trained on constantly.  Fuel planes from whatever bases are nearby the refueling area go up on time and loiter. 
 

 

Posted
38 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I completely understand the skepticism surrounding the MacArthur memo and Japan's willingness to accept virtually the same terms of surrender that eventually were imposed after Hiroshima, but the more important point that's still relevant today is that it was well understood by all sides that Japan had lost the war long, long before Hiroshima. There was no strategic justification for the civilian atrocities we inflicted and we're teaching a whitewashed version of history when we allow people to believe that the war was going to rage on without the atomic bombs. We are proud of it when we should be ashamed.

dude

japan lost the war at midway but it still had to be prosecuted

no one is proud of tokyo, or dresden, or hiroshima, or nagasaki

please drop the early surrender thing - i spent 5 minutes investigating it last night - before you write anything else about it - go find the alleged macarthur memo to fdr and start a new thread with it and we'll continue there

Posted
9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

1) is it difficult to fly that plane?

2) the bulk of the 36 hours is it in some sort of autopilot setting just level flying, way above any other air traffic, right?

3) is there more than one pilot aboard these bombers that can rotate watch/active flying?

What makes the mission difficult?  What makes it complicated?  A to B, pull lever to drop 2 bombs, B to A.  For 6 or 7 planes. Midair refueling in between that I would assume gets trained on constantly.  Fuel planes from whatever bases are nearby the refueling area go up on time and loiter. 
 

 

You’ve outed yourself as a communist, lunatic, liberal, Muslim, transsexual, kitty litter using, migrant loving, troop hating anti-American. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

You’ve outed yourself as a communist, lunatic, liberal, Muslim, transsexual, kitty litter using, migrant loving, troop hating anti-American. 

sounds fun, where do I sign up?

Posted
25 minutes ago, speed817 said:

 

 

it's my FAVORITE when people get butthurt and cry foul on politics whenever you dare to point out the context of trump creating this problem in the first place through tearing up the JCPOA

Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

He even described finding Japanese soldiers in Southeast Asia decades later hiding in jungles who had no opponents to fight but they were ready

And on islands in the Pacific 

 

image.thumb.jpeg.c55ab0640ce413f1973b9c7474318b12.jpeg

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

it was well understood by all sides that Japan had lost the war long, long before Hiroshima. 

 

You're not understanding what the Japanese mindset was.

 

Through a non-Japanese lens if you see you've lost you cut your losses and surrender.  Through the Japanese lens if you've lost the fight you don't surrender, you keep fighting until you die. What's more they don't even define winning and losing the same way everyone else does - they might lose the fight but if they die honorably it's a victory.  It's the bushido way. 

 

They were never going to let the Emperor, a living god, be toppled.  The Emperor was never going to surrender because he saw they had lost the fight.  He, and the Japanese people, needed something extraordinary to change their minds about 1.) what losing IS and 2.) what reaction they should have to it.



×
×
  • Create New...