Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Manic Moran

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So because Operation Downfall was "tough" they decided to callously murder 140000 civilians with no warning? Civilians who were out in the city partaking in the war effort after the constant firebombing of other cities?

Bombing 2 cities that were curiously not part of the total fire bombing campaign and whose topography lent themselves to magnifying and maximising possible casualties?

I still fail to see how the dropping of the bombs had any justification?

It is not a justification. EVER!

The Americans were more interested in showing off to the Russians and making sure they didn't get any more ideas further south than Sakhalin. That's the real truth.

And then when you accept the true horror of Hiroshima, try to establish some separate dissonance for Nagasaki just 3 days later. It's frankly bananas.

Americans wanted the war over and Japan to surrender. They didn't want to lose any more soldiers than they had to, and the A-bombs seemed likely to do that. Why would their use not make sense? I guess they could just keep strangling the nation with submarines and I'm not sure the citizenry of Japan would be thrilled at their standard of living either, plus it would extend the conflict anyway. The Chinese probably wouldn't be thrilled.

Remember that after the first bomb, there was a coup attempt by military officers to keep fighting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

After nearly four years of total war, the US couldn't give an arse about Japanese civilians. The US obligation was to Americans and their allies. If the tool existed to end the war immediately, was not used, and more Americans died, how would that play at home?

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

After nearly four years of total war, the US couldn't give an arse about Japanese civilians. The US obligation was to Americans and their allies. If the tool existed to end the war immediately, was not used, and more Americans died, how would that play at home?

Further, the Japanese Army on mainland China was very large and they weren't going to go meekly. Yes, the Soviets had started an offensive in Manchuria, but the Japanese were well dug-in. Should the Chinese have continued to suffer the depravities of the Japanese military?

FWIW, Hiroshima was a military target too, housing an Imperial division.

Igotadose

Looks like some of the US troops are in fact going to leave Iraq: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/united-states-military-exit-iraq-parliament-vote_n_5e139219e4b0843d3616faac

This appears to be the joint ISIS fighting task-force, which I think includes the remnants of the troops supporting the Kurds, that were pulled out. I wonder who'll be protecting the oil fields.

Plus I imagine something on twitter about this in the not too distant. "Fake news!"

BonnieSituation

Manic Moran wrote: »

Americans wanted the war over and Japan to surrender. They didn't want to lose any more soldiers than they had to, and the A-bombs seemed likely to do that. Why would their use not make sense? I guess they could just keep strangling the nation with submarines and I'm not sure the citizenry of Japan would be thrilled at their standard of living either, plus it would extend the conflict anyway. The Chinese probably wouldn't be thrilled.

Remember that after the first bomb, there was a coup attempt by military officers to keep fighting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

After nearly four years of total war, the US couldn't give an arse about Japanese civilians. The US obligation was to Americans and their allies. If the tool existed to end the war immediately, was not used, and more Americans died, how would that play at home?

Again, look at it from a humanity point of you. It was scumbaggery of the highest order. That's it.

Of course there is always a sense that there could be military justifications for all sorts, like Dresden, doesn't mean they are the right course of action.

blackcard

I thought this thread was about Trump, not about bombing Japan?

Irish Praetorian

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The US reasons were deeply unpleasant, they wanted a live test of the bombs and they absolutely hated the Japanese. They had zero problem with the possibility of minimal US force losses and didn't care about Japanese losses. They were bluffing about dropping more after Nagasaki, they couldn't produce more for several months. The Japanese didn't know that. The Japanese emperor stepped in to bridge the division between the militarists and those who knew the game is up.

To surrender went against everything the Japanese stood for and only the emperor could have achieved it. It is perhaps the most impressive u turn of the 20th century as to how the Japanese went from never surrender murderous imperialists to embracing a peaceful trading model who abhor nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry but some of these things just completely run up against each other. People in the US did indeed hate the Japanese, if you hadn't noticed they had cut a fairly bloody path through Asia and launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour. Lots of people hated the Japanese, perhaps no less so than the Chinese who found themselves in a desperate struggle long before even the invasion of Poland.

The projections of casualties for the invasion of Japan on both sides vastly outstripped the casualties suffered in the bombings and this is before we consider the cost of continued Japanese operations on the Asian mainland.

That imperial mediation you speak of, was actually a coup attempt by several army officers to stop the emperors proclamation of surrender being delivered.

Lastly, Japan has indeed had a massive turnaround since the 1940s, it's a turnaround that still has a few skeletons in it's closet but its still a good development. Perhaps you might be tempted to pay small tribute to the role of the US in that around, for not visiting on Japan the kind of violent and brutal occupation that Japan had visited on so many of its neighbours.

Midlife

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Again, look at it from a humanity point of you. It was scumbaggery of the highest order. That's it.

Of course there is always a sense that there could be military justifications for all sorts, like Dresden, doesn't mean they are the right course of action.

How can one justify mass murder of civilians?

Isn't that basically 9-11 on the other side?

Irish Praetorian

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Again, look at it from a humanity point of you. It was scumbaggery of the highest order. That's it.

Of course there is always a sense that there could be military justifications for all sorts, like Dresden, doesn't mean they are the right course of action.

What was the right course of action? Would it have been morally superior had the US and Japan suffered casualties in the millions instead of the hundreds of thousands, provided they were suffered in conventional warfare and bombing? Why is incineration from incendiary weapons morally superior to incineration from gamma rays?

Nody

Brian? wrote: »

That’s not true at all. The Japanese aren’t close to an unconditional surrender. They were negotiating peace based on keeping territory in China and Korea, as well as keeping their armed forces, government and imperial structure in place. There was zero chance of the allies agreeing to it.

Even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese still tried to negotiate reduced surrender terms. It was only when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that they surrendered unconditionally and gave orders for their troops in China to stop fighting. Because Truman told Japan a H bomb would be dropped every 3 days until they surrendered.

Dropping the H bombs was a horrendous thing to do. But it actually made sense.

Funny that that both the top military leaders of the time AND the Japanese leaders of the time disagrees with you on the topic.

As the National Museum of the U.S. Navy makes clear, the atomic bombs had little to do with the end of the war. The museum's display on the bombings unambiguously states that the atomic bombings "made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria … changed their minds." As shocking as this may be to Americans today, it was well known to military leaders at the time. In fact, seven of America's eight five-star officers in 1945 said that the bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible or both.

General Dwight Eisenhower voiced his opposition at Potsdam. "The Japanese were already defeated," he told Secretary of War Henry Stimson, "and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Admiral William Leahy, President Harry Truman's chief of staff, said that the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." General Douglas MacArthur said that the Japanese would have gladly surrendered as early as May if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor. Similar views were voiced by Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey, and General Henry Arnold.

U.S. and British intelligence officials, having broken Japanese codes early in the war, were well aware of Japanese desperation and the effect that Soviet intervention would have. On April 11, the Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs predicted, "If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable." Japan's Supreme War Council confirmed that conclusion, declaring in May, "At the present moment, when Japan is waging a life-or-death struggle against the U.S. and Britain, Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire."

As for their army? Nope, the issue was the Emperor.

Retention of the emperor, as MacArthur noted, was the main stumbling block to surrender. Truman was well aware of the situation. He referred to the intercepted July 18 cable as the "telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace." His close advisors concurred. They also knew that the Soviet invasion would spell Japan's doom.

As for the Japanese side of things:

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria and other Japanese colonies began at midnight on August 8, sandwiched between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it was, indeed, the death blow U.S. officials knew it would be. When asked, on August 10, why Japan had to surrender so quickly, Prime Minister Suzuki explained, Japan must surrender immediately or "the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea, Karafuto, but also Hokkaido. This would destroy the foundation of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the United States."

As postwar U.S. intelligence reports made clear, the atomic bombs had little impact on the Japanese decision. The U.S. had been firebombing and wiping out Japanese cities since early March. Destruction reached 99.5 percent in the city of Toyama. Japanese leaders accepted that the U.S. could and would wipe out Japan's cities. It didn't make a big difference whether this was one plane and one bomb or hundreds of planes and thousands of bombs

But sure, the A-bombs was what made the difference, because anything else would actually show the truth that USA simply wanted to show off what they could do through war crimes. The A-bombs never were required; nor did they do anything to end the war early because what actually ended the war was the Soviet declaration of war and the USA leadership of the time knew it as well; but you can't bomb a few hundred thousand civilians just for fun so let's claim we needed it for the war effort (even if the military leadership disagreed and the post mortem conclusions disagreed as well).

Full link to article is here.

Water John

You have Netanyahu and Stoltenberg stepping away and saying it was US acting on its own. That really tells you what an overstep this has been by Trump.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/LizSly/status/1214297805659017222?s=19

JFC - talk about amateur hour.

No one has a f**king clue what is going on. The whole administration hasn't a clue. If they can't even organize a letter, the idea that they can navigate the intricacies of the middle east is utterly laughable.

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LizSly/status/1214297805659017222?s=19

JFC - talk about amateur hour.

No one has a f**king clue what is going on. The whole administration hasn't a clue. If they can't even organize a letter, the idea that they can navigate the intricacies of the middle east is utterly laughable.

I'd use the phrase "keystone cops" but that would be an insult to the lads. They are hopeless at even being on the same page. The fact that the letter was sent to the Iraqi military says it all. Nobody sends a draft to someone it's always the final approved wording. So this whole it's a draft rubbish is them covering for the mess they've made. IMO anyway.

BonnieSituation

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

What was the right course of action? Would it have been morally superior had the US and Japan suffered casualties in the millions instead of the hundreds of thousands, provided they were suffered in conventional warfare and bombing? Why is incineration from incendiary weapons morally superior to incineration from gamma rays?

Where in the hell have I said that "incineration from incendiary weapons morally superior to incineration from gamma rays"?

You can dance on the pin about the "potential for millions" of casualties, but there was no way that that was gonna happen. The Japanese where screwed and were ready to surrender.

It was all for show to the Russians. That's it.

---

Anyway, back to Trump and his stupidity...

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

You have Netanyahu and Stoltenberg stepping away and saying it was US acting on its own. That really tells you what an overstep this has been by Trump.

So even Netanyahu is doing a disco stu on it and saying "back away not today" ? Cowboys Ted, cowboys.

Itssoeasy

Also the US should look at what is happening in Iran. The supreme leader was crying at the funeral of the general. How many times has that happened in 40 years ? Not often I'd bet.

Midlife

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LizSly/status/1214297805659017222?s=19

JFC - talk about amateur hour.

No one has a f**king clue what is going on. The whole administration hasn't a clue. If they can't even organize a letter, the idea that they can navigate the intricacies of the middle east is utterly laughable.

It was fine till Don saw the headlines and realised that it made him look weak. So another 180 on international military/political decisions.

Amazing really. 'What makes me look good' is official foreign policy strategy.

Interesting that people have flagged Suleimani as EVIL in this thread. I find that a rather strange concept.

Expending lives for personal image? Where does that fall in the good vrs evil spectrum I wonder.

Are there any western leaders who get to be evil or are they just misguided and foolish!?

Manic Moran

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Where in the hell have I said that "incineration from incendiary weapons morally superior to incineration from gamma rays"?

You can dance on the pin about the "potential for millions" of casualties, but there was no way that that was gonna happen. The Japanese where screwed and were ready to surrender.

It was all for show to the Russians. That's it.

---

Well, no, it's not. The two bombing missions were conducted before the Japanese even knew they were at war with the Soviets.

You have to distinguish two factors. One is what the Japanese thought, and the other is what the Americans thought.

The Americans were aware from at least June due to MAGIC intercepts that there was what has now become known as "the Peace party" who were interested in ending the war. They also concluded (correctly, at the time) that they were in the minority, and that (also correctly) the Peace Party were not willing to surrender unconditionally. Indeed, the Japanese had sent delegations to Moscow starting late June, but they were not strongly supported. Further, though the Japanese ambassadors by mid July, reported that Moscow were not budging and that Japan ought to accept the Potsdam declaration, Tokyo as late as 02 August said 'no'.

The Japanese Army had estimated, that Summer, that it was likely that the Soviets would eventually invade, though they had figured on Feb 1946 as the kick-off point. That was the amount of time they thought they had. In reality, the Soviets were planning to invade Hokkaido on 25 August.

August 6, with no sign of the Japanese accepting the Potsdam declaration, the first bomb is dropped on Hiroshima. City number 68 to receive the fiery attentions of the US Army Air Force.

August 7th, a rather frantic Tokyo sends a message to ambassador Sato in Moscow saying "the situation is desperate, and we must know the Soviet attitude immediately". Tokyo is still looking for conditional surrender, acceptance of Potsdam is not under consideration. After all, they'd suffered major city destruction before, but on the other hand, the bombing of 06 August was different, hence the 'desperate' comment. In Moscow, Stalin gets concerned that the A-bombs will bring the war to an end before he gets a foothold in Japan for the post-war settlements, and he orders that the invasion date be advanced to as soon as possible.

August 8, Sato is summoned to meet Molotov. Instead of being permitted to make his next presentation for a peace proposal, he is read the Soviet declaration of war. Soviets start their invasion in Manchuria a few hours later. Sato attempts to transmit to Tokyo, the message does not get through.

By the time the Japanese cabinet even hears about the Soviet invasion on the morning of the 9th because a local radio station caught a Soviet news broadcast and relayed it (And I'm not sure the Americans knew about it either), the next bomber is already in the air. Initially the "War Party" still wants to fight on, but during the ongoing discussion, they learn of the Nagasaki bombing. City number 69. At this point the War Party starts to wilt under the pressure of the Peace Party and is willing to consider surrender with four conditions (As opposed to the Peace Party, which is just holding out for one)

Finally they meet with Koichi Kido to put the question to the Emperor, who doesn't explain much but just says "I agree with the Foreign minister". Peace it would be. Subject to a coup attempt by some members of the War Party.

Of the various contemporary sources, three (Konoe on Aug.9th, Suzuki's statements to his doctor on Aug. 13th, and Hirohito's Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Officers on Aug. 17th) only mention the Soviets, two of them (Hirohito's broadcast of 15 August and Suzuki's statements at the cabinet meeting of Aug. 13th) speak exclusively about the bombs, and 7 speak of both. After the war, Hirohito would mention the bombs but not the Soviets.

It would be denying reality to say that the Soviets had no impact on the Japanese decision to surrender, or at least, the decision to ask the Emperor for guidance. It would also, however, be denying reality to say that the Americans had any inclination that the Japanese were about to surrender, or that the a-bomb wasn't a factor in Japanese thought either. It would finally also be denying reality that the US wasn't paying some consideration to Russia at the same time.

In other words, the whole thing is intermixed, and you have to look at things from the position of what each side knew (or thought they knew) at the time.

ancapailldorcha

Ok, take the World War II stuff to the History & Heritage forum please.

aloyisious

The US does not seem to have gained any advantage from the killing. The Admin hasn't revealed whatever the estimated credible threat the General was to the US that lead Don to give the OK for the drone strike at Baghdad airport and that failure is casting reasonable doubt on the killings justification. The credibility doubt is down to Don and Mike Pompeo wasting time getting the threat info out there, making it seem there may have been none at all. Soleimani has been replaced in his job. Anything he had planned can still be put into operation by his successor.

The backlash effect on the US non-regional military allies has ruined co-operation trust between them and the US, as they see the turmoil in the US Admin. I don't see the Iraqi admin telling the US to get out as that would be disastrous for them. The other non-regional military would have to pack up and leave as well.

Ref Iranian response to the killing, nations in that region believe in blood-revenge. I have no doubt that Iran will exact its revenge in some manner, probably in a way that Don can't respond to without been seen as an utterly irresponsible thug.

Irish Praetorian

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Where in the hell have I said that "incineration from incendiary weapons morally superior to incineration from gamma rays"?

You can dance on the pin about the "potential for millions" of casualties, but there was no way that that was gonna happen. The Japanese where screwed and were ready to surrender.

It was all for show to the Russians. That's it.

---

Anyway, back to Trump and his stupidity...

I might be inclined to disagree further but yes we can do it elsewhere.

Still, whatever our difference we might still conclude Trump's actions in the past week seem to be quite ill-conceived.

Itssoeasy

I know this might not be on the top of the list of priorities for trump but for all Irans issues it is an history rich country with one of the oldest civilisations in the world with loads of unesco world heritage sites within its borders. I know trump was talking anout cultural targets which I took to mean those world heritage sites.

droidus

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref Iranian response to the killing, nations in that region believe in blood-revenge. I have no doubt that Iran will exact its revenge in some manner, probably in a way that Don can't respond to without been seen as an utterly irresponsible thug.

Trump is perhaps unique as a US president in having a ridiculous number of potential vulnerabilities. Every Trump property, resort, business and associate is now a real target, and many of these are scattered around the globe far from the reach of the US security services.

Probably not a good time to plan a trip to Doonbeg.

mickdoocey

hard to know how this will turn out. it has potential to really blow up in trumps face but if he seen to force Iran to back down he will be a shoe in for November regardless of what happens the rest of the year.

what do iran do now, if they hit back even through a proxy Trump could attack them by air.
he might be crazy enough to do it, and Iran have to be wary it could end very badly for them.

If it was my decision Iran should keep the powder dry until November, trump could lose and then they could request his arrest for war crimes. The democrats are that zany they would hand him over .

BonnieSituation

Esper has just announced that the US WILL NOT strike cultural sites.

Manic Moran

It's unfortunate that Trump has led it to the point that the DoD has to state the blindingly obvious.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's unfortunate that Trump has led it to the point that the DoD has to state the blindingly obvious.

What's truly so unfortunate is that it has taken so many people so long to see what was so blindingly obvious from the get go -

that Trump is a snakeoil salesman who is so far out of his depth it is frightening, and will scorch the earth to save his own skin.

seamus

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Esper has just announced that the US WILL NOT strike cultural sites.

Mark Esper will be next for the chop so. You don't contradict Trump, even when he's been meddling in your department. Sounds like the DoD is in disarray after Esper left his senior team out of the loop on the Soleimani killing; perhaps at Trump's demand.

kilns

droidus wrote: »

Trump is perhaps unique as a US president in having a ridiculous number of potential vulnerabilities. Every Trump property, resort, business and associate is now a real target, and many of these are scattered around the globe far from the reach of the US security services.

Probably not a good time to plan a trip to Doonbeg.

Trump would probably love if thez destroyed his buildings, he would love the insurance pay outs

Igotadose

seamus wrote: »

Mark Esper will be next for the chop so. You don't contradict Trump, even when he's been meddling in your department. Sounds like the DoD is in disarray after Esper left his senior team out of the loop on the Soleimani killing; perhaps at Trump's demand.

Seems likely, especially since his chief of staff just resigned, to be replaced by some GOP functionary with defense experience. This administration is like watching a blender on high speed with the lid removed stuff flys out so fast you can't keep track.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/defense-secretary-chief-of-staff-094717

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

Seems likely, especially since his chief of staff just resigned, to be replaced by some GOP functionary with defense experience. This administration is like watching a blender on high speed with the lid removed stuff flys out so fast you can't keep track.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/defense-secretary-chief-of-staff-094717

This so soon after losing his Sec of Navy, not good. I think Mike Pompeo is starting to backtrack from the position of total support for Don when it comes to what the US might do if and when Iran reacts to the killing. He can't do a denial of Don yet and still hold his job.