The USA is doing pretty good war wise and internationally with a "surrender and we will aid you" policy.
In fact B.H.L. Hart suggests it as a way of not getting a lot of follow on wars. He put it this way: fight the war with a view to the peace that will follow. He said that Napoleon's failure to do that was his downfall.
And yes. The amount of warfare in the world is declining under US policy.
The Carthage Policy works if you are bloody minded enough. The Germany and Japan policy also works and is more suited to American psychology.
Second Worst President in US History.
Yes I would tend to agree with the "Surrender and we will aid you" policy. I don't think that's compatible with "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes on countries.
If the US truly had the capacity to wage a ground war on Stalinist Russia, occupy it and bring about a more benevolent regime change. Then in those early days before Russia had any Nuclear weapons but the US did, I think I would have supported an invasion. There would have been sufficient pretext and justification to do so what with all the people Stalin killed. Allying with the Chinese Nationalists against Mao's communists before it was too late during the civil war might also have been a good idea in hindsight.
But I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about nuclear war about using nuclear weapons to make up for ground troupes.
If America did not have the will to successfully achieve victory against the North Vietnamese or Koreans, be it because their ground troupes aren't so hot, be it because they are less tolerant to causalties than the other side or be it because the democratic system causes sudden policy reversals which make it hard to carry a war consistently through to the end.
Either way if the US couldn't beat North Vietnam or North Korea on the ground, then it wouldn't stand a chance of occupying Russia. Do you really think a few nuclear weapons would cause Stalin to surrender immediately like the Japanese? The land area of Russia is HUGE much larger than Japan and there are plenty of places to hide. To defeat Russia with nuclear weapons and bring about regime change you would probably have to kill 50-100 million people. And you wouldn't get the popular support of the Russians, not if you initiated nuclear war, if anything Stalin would become more popular as a strong man to cling to in a time of crisis.
Regarding the two cave men if you see one making a sword, then you make a bigger sword and you prepare for an attack. But you don't attack him until he attacks you. The sword after all could be to deter his other enemies.
Disagree with the idea of assigning deaths from a nuclear war to Stalin for building nuclear weapons and "making America do it" that's a bit like a rapist accusing his victim of being responsible for her getting raped by "dressing provocatively". No assign those who died in the gulags to Stalin. But the deaths of pre-emptive nuclear strike fall squarely on the aggressor.
>>Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us what you REALLY think ?
That slaughtering people who haven't actually attacked you sets a dangerous precedent and is corrosive to the morality of the nation.
>>Seriously, nobody likes the idea of killing millions, but it is a reasonable thing to do if it appears they are going to kill you if you let them.
In the case of war yes. Also if another nation has signed a treaty agreeing not to build weapons and have openly flouted it then one could be justified for holding them to their word. Which is what people should have done with Hitler. But you can't just unlawfully attack people on the basis that they "might" attack you in future. That will only cause war after war after war.
>>I'm thinking that you are young and idealistic. Hopefully you will grow out of it with sufficient contact with the Human race and it's history.
I know plenty of old people who think that nuking the world is not a particularly good idea. Its not being young or idealistic. It's just common sense.
If Curtis LeMay waged war against the will of the president and the nation, he would have quickly found himself out of a job.
If the US truly had the capacity to wage a ground war on Stalinist Russia, occupy it and bring about a more benevolent regime change. Then in those early days before Russia had any Nuclear weapons but the US did, I think I would have supported an invasion. There would have been sufficient pretext and justification to do so what with all the people Stalin killed. Allying with the Chinese Nationalists against Mao's communists before it was too late during the civil war might also have been a good idea in hindsight.
But I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about nuclear war about using nuclear weapons to make up for ground troupes.
If America did not have the will to successfully achieve victory against the North Vietnamese or Koreans, be it because their ground troupes aren't so hot, be it because they are less tolerant to causalties than the other side or be it because the democratic system causes sudden policy reversals which make it hard to carry a war consistently through to the end.
Either way if the US couldn't beat North Vietnam or North Korea on the ground, then it wouldn't stand a chance of occupying Russia. Do you really think a few nuclear weapons would cause Stalin to surrender immediately like the Japanese? The land area of Russia is HUGE much larger than Japan and there are plenty of places to hide. To defeat Russia with nuclear weapons and bring about regime change you would probably have to kill 50-100 million people. And you wouldn't get the popular support of the Russians, not if you initiated nuclear war, if anything Stalin would become more popular as a strong man to cling to in a time of crisis.
Regarding the two cave men if you see one making a sword, then you make a bigger sword and you prepare for an attack. But you don't attack him until he attacks you. The sword after all could be to deter his other enemies.
Disagree with the idea of assigning deaths from a nuclear war to Stalin for building nuclear weapons and "making America do it" that's a bit like a rapist accusing his victim of being responsible for her getting raped by "dressing provocatively". No assign those who died in the gulags to Stalin. But the deaths of pre-emptive nuclear strike fall squarely on the aggressor.
>>Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us what you REALLY think ?
That slaughtering people who haven't actually attacked you sets a dangerous precedent and is corrosive to the morality of the nation.
>>Seriously, nobody likes the idea of killing millions, but it is a reasonable thing to do if it appears they are going to kill you if you let them.
In the case of war yes. Also if another nation has signed a treaty agreeing not to build weapons and have openly flouted it then one could be justified for holding them to their word. Which is what people should have done with Hitler. But you can't just unlawfully attack people on the basis that they "might" attack you in future. That will only cause war after war after war.
>>I'm thinking that you are young and idealistic. Hopefully you will grow out of it with sufficient contact with the Human race and it's history.
I know plenty of old people who think that nuking the world is not a particularly good idea. Its not being young or idealistic. It's just common sense.
If Curtis LeMay waged war against the will of the president and the nation, he would have quickly found himself out of a job.
-
ravingdave
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am
jmc wrote:Yes I would tend to agree with the "Surrender and we will aid you" policy. I don't think that's compatible with "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes on countries.
If the US truly had the capacity to wage a ground war on Stalinist Russia, occupy it and bring about a more benevolent regime change. Then in those early days before Russia had any Nuclear weapons but the US did, I think I would have supported an invasion. There would have been sufficient pretext and justification to do so what with all the people Stalin killed. Allying with the Chinese Nationalists against Mao's communists before it was too late during the civil war might also have been a good idea in hindsight.
But I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about nuclear war about using nuclear weapons to make up for ground troupes.
You are no doubt obviously more qualified and experienced in the art of war than a man like Curtis LeMay, who was, let's face it, an ignoramus about such things. It's a shame we trusted the man with the bombing campaign against the Japanese, The running of the Berlin Airlift, and the command of All U.S. Nuclear bomb assets from 1950 into the 60s. Obviously your methods would have worked better, and it's a shame we had to suffer through the bungling of Curtis LeMay.
The Chinese entered into the war on the side of the North Koreans, which apparently caught the DEMOCRAT President by surprise. The Allies couldn't possibly match the Chinese manpower on the ground and were pushed back into south Korea. McArthur was asking to use atomic bombs to clear out all of the Chinese troops, and it is my understanding that bombs were actually sent to the front, but the Chinese (who we made sure were informed about our nuclear intentions) decided to Back up, and an armistice was later declared.jmc wrote: If America did not have the will to successfully achieve victory against the North Vietnamese or Koreans, be it because their ground troupes aren't so hot, be it because they are less tolerant to causalties than the other side or be it because the democratic system causes sudden policy reversals which make it hard to carry a war consistently through to the end.
In Vietnam we had DEMOCRAT Presidents screwing things up, and finally under the REPUBLICAN President Nixon, the NVA was pushed out of South Vietnam and another armistice was signed. Then after the DEMOCRAT Congress tried to impeach Nixon, the North Vietnamese launched an attack at south Vietnam, and the DEMOCRAT congress refused to authorize any more spending on the War, therefore allowing South Vietnam to fall.
jmc wrote: Either way if the US couldn't beat North Vietnam or North Korea on the ground, then it wouldn't stand a chance of occupying Russia. Do you really think a few nuclear weapons would cause Stalin to surrender immediately like the Japanese? The land area of Russia is HUGE much larger than Japan and there are plenty of places to hide. To defeat Russia with nuclear weapons and bring about regime change you would probably have to kill 50-100 million people. And you wouldn't get the popular support of the Russians, not if you initiated nuclear war, if anything Stalin would become more popular as a strong man to cling to in a time of crisis.
Again, you demonstrate such clear understanding of tactics and strategy. It's a shame Curtis LeMay wasn't as knowledgeable and sensible as you are. Obviously Curtis LeMay had no idea how big Japan was (though he bombed it to splinters) and likewise no idea how big Russia was, (though he mapped and radar mapped every inch of it.) So it's a good thing we never implemented his hasty and poorly thought out plan of DeFanging the Russian nuclear menace.
jmc wrote: Regarding the two cave men if you see one making a sword, then you make a bigger sword and you prepare for an attack. But you don't attack him until he attacks you. The sword after all could be to deter his other enemies.
Dude, the Analogy is between USA (us) and the Russians. (the OTHER Cave man. ) WHAT OTHER ENEMIES ?
Everyone else were midgets running around on the ground.
jmc wrote: Disagree with the idea of assigning deaths from a nuclear war to Stalin for building nuclear weapons and "making America do it" that's a bit like a rapist accusing his victim of being responsible for her getting raped by "dressing provocatively". No assign those who died in the gulags to Stalin. But the deaths of pre-emptive nuclear strike fall squarely on the aggressor.
Or, it could be an analogy of someone throwing a rock at a hornets nest, then blaming the hornets for stinging them. (D@MN those HORNETS!)
jmc wrote: >>Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us what you REALLY think ?
That slaughtering people who haven't actually attacked you sets a dangerous precedent and is corrosive to the morality of the nation.
>>Seriously, nobody likes the idea of killing millions, but it is a reasonable thing to do if it appears they are going to kill you if you let them.
In the case of war yes. Also if another nation has signed a treaty agreeing not to build weapons and have openly flouted it then one could be justified for holding them to their word. Which is what people should have done with Hitler. But you can't just unlawfully attack people on the basis that they "might" attack you in future. That will only cause war after war after war.
So you are saying the "strategy" would have beens sound if it had been applied to Hitler, but it would not have been sound if applied to Stalin?
I don't know anyone who thinks nuking the "World" is a good idea, but a lot of people think it would have been a good idea to "Nuke" the Russian Atomic Bomb making facilities. Including the Russians who were making them. (They couldn't BELIEVE we were letting them work on Atomic weapons.)jmc wrote: >>I'm thinking that you are young and idealistic. Hopefully you will grow out of it with sufficient contact with the Human race and it's history.
I know plenty of old people who think that nuking the world is not a particularly good idea. Its not being young or idealistic. It's just common sense.
jmc wrote: If Curtis LeMay waged war against the will of the president and the nation, he would have quickly found himself out of a job.
You ARE naive. If Curtis LeMay had started an Atomic Attack on Russia, he would have informed the President that it was a result of Russia massing it's bombers. and surveillance aircraft observed them loading nuke bombs. He would have then been congratulated and thanked repeatedly for saving everyone from the threat. The Official report would have reflected the fact that he was a hero, and he would have been regarded as a Hero by everyone in the US and possibly the world as well. And then he would have been President in the Next subsequent election.
Or he could have told the truth. Obviously a guy willing to nuke millions of people wouldn't tell a lie.
Who would be alive to contradict his version of events ?
David
If America started using nukes here there and everywhere, everyone would be trying to build a credible nuclear deterent as quickly as possible including Western Europe.
Western Europe would have successfully built up a nuclear arsenal (Britain and France aren't midgets) and you would have been left with two nuclear powers. Since America foreign policy revolves around "the other" (after the cold war ended in the 1990s there was a brief phase where people in the US even started churning out hate propaganda about Japan of all countries before Islam filled in the gap) and since there would be noone else left to fight in this nuke-happy world, you would have ended up with an inevitable nuclear exchange between Western Europe and America.
Best to keep your enemies alive and in one piece, it saves the hassle of having to invent new ones.
Your Democrat-Republican narrative of the Vietnam war reinforces the fact that although America has the technological ability to invade and occupy any country in the world, it does not possess that capacity at an organisational or administrative level. And any Democrat-Republican trouble with an invasion of Korea or Vietnam would be magnified a hundred fold with Russia.
I doubt one or two nuclear attacks would have finished the Russian Nuclear Programme. If the outpost in the middle of nowhere got destroyed they'd have simply built new ones next to cities or underground, or built 10 decoy nuclear weapons facuilities for every real one. Either way you could have just nuked the problem away, not without killing 100 million innocents, which wouldn't have been worth it, not by a long short.
Hornets aren't very nice insects, do you really want to become hornets?
Regarding Hitler and Stalin:
A) Germany is smaller and so easier to occupy. It had been succesfully occupied because of no small effort on the part of Russia.
B) Germany signed a Treaty agreeing not to rearm and then broke it. That gives at least some moral pretext to invade.
Regarding LeMay, he probably would have lied but you're naive if you don't think history and journalism wouldn't uncover the truth.
Western Europe would have successfully built up a nuclear arsenal (Britain and France aren't midgets) and you would have been left with two nuclear powers. Since America foreign policy revolves around "the other" (after the cold war ended in the 1990s there was a brief phase where people in the US even started churning out hate propaganda about Japan of all countries before Islam filled in the gap) and since there would be noone else left to fight in this nuke-happy world, you would have ended up with an inevitable nuclear exchange between Western Europe and America.
Best to keep your enemies alive and in one piece, it saves the hassle of having to invent new ones.
Your Democrat-Republican narrative of the Vietnam war reinforces the fact that although America has the technological ability to invade and occupy any country in the world, it does not possess that capacity at an organisational or administrative level. And any Democrat-Republican trouble with an invasion of Korea or Vietnam would be magnified a hundred fold with Russia.
I doubt one or two nuclear attacks would have finished the Russian Nuclear Programme. If the outpost in the middle of nowhere got destroyed they'd have simply built new ones next to cities or underground, or built 10 decoy nuclear weapons facuilities for every real one. Either way you could have just nuked the problem away, not without killing 100 million innocents, which wouldn't have been worth it, not by a long short.
Hornets aren't very nice insects, do you really want to become hornets?
Regarding Hitler and Stalin:
A) Germany is smaller and so easier to occupy. It had been succesfully occupied because of no small effort on the part of Russia.
B) Germany signed a Treaty agreeing not to rearm and then broke it. That gives at least some moral pretext to invade.
Regarding LeMay, he probably would have lied but you're naive if you don't think history and journalism wouldn't uncover the truth.
Dave,
You are losing credibility with this one:
We put a lot of economic and military pressure on them (thanks Ronnie) until they decided that holding on to a lot of their enemies wasn't worth it. But still. to say the Russians didn't have an enemy besides the USA is absurd.
Our policy of exploiting America for the sake of our friends is a LOT better than their policy of exploiting their "friends" for the sake of Russia.
You are losing credibility with this one:
Russia had plenty of enemies. The Eastern Block. Chechnya. China. In fact Russia has for a very long time going back to the Czars made enemies.Dude, the Analogy is between USA (us) and the Russians. (the OTHER Cave man. ) WHAT OTHER ENEMIES ?
We put a lot of economic and military pressure on them (thanks Ronnie) until they decided that holding on to a lot of their enemies wasn't worth it. But still. to say the Russians didn't have an enemy besides the USA is absurd.
Our policy of exploiting America for the sake of our friends is a LOT better than their policy of exploiting their "friends" for the sake of Russia.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
ravingdave
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am
MSimon wrote:Dave,
You are losing credibility with this one:
Russia had plenty of enemies. The Eastern Block. Chechnya. China. In fact Russia has for a very long time going back to the Czars made enemies.Dude, the Analogy is between USA (us) and the Russians. (the OTHER Cave man. ) WHAT OTHER ENEMIES ?
We put a lot of economic and military pressure on them (thanks Ronnie) until they decided that holding on to a lot of their enemies wasn't worth it. But still. to say the Russians didn't have an enemy besides the USA is absurd.
Our policy of exploiting America for the sake of our friends is a LOT better than their policy of exploiting their "friends" for the sake of Russia.
I hope you're pretending to be obtuse. The two cave men represented the USA and RUSSIA. The SWORDS represented Nuclear Weapons. The time period in discussion was 1950.
The "What other enemies ? " Comment is perfectly reasonable in context.
What other countries in the 1950s were a credible threat to the USA ?
What other country did NOT constitute a swordless (lacking nuclear weapons) midget ?
England was probably the only other country in the world that MIGHT produce Nuke weapons in the early 50s, and they were in no shape to take us on even if they wanted to.
I'm thinking I didn't say it plainly enough, or you just didn't understand me correctly.
David
I think if America eliminated Russia in a nuclear genocide, then the only other nuclear powers would be Britain and France (I'm pretty sure they would have developed their own weapons), the honeymoon period between Britain and America would have lasted long enough for the US not to object to Britain and France developing them. I doubt the British empire or the French colonies would have crumbled with America tearing around the world nuking everyone. The other countries would be too scared to fight for independence. Maybe even some countries would actual try and join for protection.
For a while (20 to 30 years) there would have been an increasingly uneasy peace between Britain, France and America. But during the period the world would slowly but surely carve itself up into 3 zones of influence. I think at this point there would be no longer any taboo against using nuclear missiles and when the eventual conflict arose, there would have been a nuclear exchange between these powers.
Don't underestimate the role that NATO played in developing Anglo-American relations and without a nuclear communist Russia NATO would not have existed.
For a while (20 to 30 years) there would have been an increasingly uneasy peace between Britain, France and America. But during the period the world would slowly but surely carve itself up into 3 zones of influence. I think at this point there would be no longer any taboo against using nuclear missiles and when the eventual conflict arose, there would have been a nuclear exchange between these powers.
Don't underestimate the role that NATO played in developing Anglo-American relations and without a nuclear communist Russia NATO would not have existed.
-
ravingdave
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am
Getting back on topic, The secret service HATED Jimmy Carter. Read why.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/carter ... 44734.html
David
Agents told Kessler that Jimmy Carter treated them and others who served him with utter disdain.
"Inside the White House, Carter treated with contempt the little people who helped and protected him," and told agents not to look at him or speak to him — even to say hello — when he went to the Oval Office, Kessler disclosed.
"For three and a half years, agent John Piasecky was on Carter's detail — including seven months of driving him in the presidential limousine — and Carter never spoke to him, he says.
"At the same time, Carter tried to project an image of himself as man of the people by carrying his own luggage when traveling. But that was often for show. When he was a candidate in 1976, Carter would carry his own bags when the press was around but ask the Secret Service to carry them the rest of the time."
On one occasion, disgruntled agents deliberately left Carter's luggage in the trunk of his car at an airport, and Carter "was without clothes for two days."
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/carter ... 44734.html
David
-
ravingdave
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am
