Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Dude... Japan attacked us first.
I'd nuke'em too.
Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...
The military attacked us. The government attacked us. The people did not. They had no say in the matter. They had no say at all.
The government attacked a military installation, thereby declaring war on us. Just because the government of Japan committed atrocities does not mean we had to. The first bomb was a hard choice, but most probably the right one. A land war would have caused more death. The second bomb was not quite as necessary, the surrender would probably occurred shortly, we should have waited. Any more would have made us worse than the Japanese military leadership. You speak of ending thousands of lives, and dealing damage and disease to generations to come. It is something that should not be taken lightly.
Yeesh, that got rather dark, didn't it?
Well since 44Ronin cannot really debate and none of us were in the decision process to drop Little Boy and Fat Boy. We can go only with what we know on a possible "why"
Hirohito approved of the plan to attack Pearl Harbor and incite the American’s to join the war. Though the US was aware that an attack was probably coming, they failed to determine when and where. They were caught completely off guard when the Japanese attacked, destroying or disabling 18 ships and killing approximately 2,500 men. Anti-Japanese feelings ran high in the US with most of the public unaware that the goal of Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of War, had been "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."
With war committed to, Hirohito did all he could to boost the militaristic sentiment in Japan and encourage his troops. Any doubts he may have had about beginning the war were behind him as he looked for victory. Soldiers and civilians alike were encouraged to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner by the Allied forces. In July 1944, as the tide of war turned against Japan, over 1,000 civilians threw themselves to their death after Hirohito promised them the same elevated status in the afterlife that was enjoyed by men killed in combat.
As early as February 1945, after the losses in the Leyte Gulf, Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe began to recommend negotiated peace, but the rest of Hirohito’s advisors remained staunchly against surrender. At the very least, they hoped for one more great victory in battle to give Japan a better negotiating position. Unfortunately for the people of Japan, that victory never materialized. Continued division among leadership and indecisiveness on Hirohito’s part allowed the death toll to rise.
When the US dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Hirohito was left with the options of surrendering or seeing his country obliterated. It was a closely kept secret that the US had not manufactured more than the bombs that had already been used. Hirohito said of the use of atomic bombs, "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."
On Aug. 15, 1945, the Emperor’s voice was heard over the radio for the first time as he announced Japan’s unconditional surrender.
So basically we forced them to the table to surrender. We only had two bombs. If Imperial Japan knew that would they still have surrender? We do not know. So two nukes drop and Japan surrender avoiding high casualties on the US side and something borderline to genocide on the Japanese people if we had invaded.
Yes, the hard choice but, in the end, the right one. If Japan wasn't run by a leader with no qualifications and a corrupt and xenophobic military leadership we would not have had to make the decision at all.
But, alas, we can not change the past, only use it's lessons to guide our future.
And that is our burden, to learn from our mistakes, and to leave a better world for future generation.
And on that note, time to design an army list for a war game .
Thinking Imperial Japanese Marines set up. Being I recieved some old and I mean old 1991 SM figures
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Well, to start with, the incineration of 16^2 km of Tokyo in a single B29 raid was far more intimidating to the Japanese than the nukes were.
Let me also remind you a little fact: They were slitting each others throats in the streets of Tokyo over if there would be any surrender at all. You seem to forget that little civil war between the IJA and IJN over that, or the fact that a few hardliners had to be stopped from launching a suicide attack against the surrender signing.
Let me tell you my justification:
It worked.
I'll also add that coming from a people that fought a very, very long and highly successful asymmetrical campaign against the United States, they gave up fighting our armies and instead made war on our women and children.
and it worked.
Phantom Viper brought up 'cultural imperialism' earlier, and how the US tries to supplant other cultures with their own. I spent a bit of today considering the idea and I think that it's a misconception (at least in the case of the Middle East). Cultural cross pollination happens all the time. The issue is that 'American' examples tend to be big and obvious, whereas others are not always so plain, or are confused with 'American' things. Pokemon seems to spring to mind. Several people I know online who (supposedly) live in the middle east thought that was an American thing. It also runs both ways. Recently a shisha den opened a few blocks from where I live. Perhaps my reaction was unusual, but rather than respond with 'DAMN ARABS!' I pondered if it was a good thing or a bad thing for the community.
You haven't seen what America actually does when they actually want to replace your culture with their own. First they bankrupt you, then sell you cheap drugs, and kidnap your children to either brainwash or murder them. Anything less is just a side effect of them being there. Sort of like how south pacific culture went wild in the US for a while after WW2, and to this day people have tiki crap. It wasn't a premeditated act on the part of Samoa, it just sort of happened.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Well, to start with, the incineration of 16^2 km of Tokyo in a single B29 raid was far more intimidating to the Japanese than the nukes were.
Garbage construction of an American guilt avoidance narrative.
Let me also remind you a little fact: They were slitting each others throats in the streets of Tokyo over if there would be any surrender at all.
You confuse victims with others. Get your story straight. You imply the victims deserved it.
Goebbels would love this justification story.
Anyone who attempts to justify what happened is a mentally sick human being. End of.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/25 03:59:56
BaronIveagh wrote: You told me my prediction that the war in Syria would spread to surrounding countries into a larger regional conflict was pretty fanciful too. But we'll see.
You sure that was me?
But,no, not quite the same (though they did that a few times, and it was much more effective than you seem to be giving them credit) no,
It was a counter-productive screw up, turning neutral and friendly parties against the Nazis.
I'm talking more about things like the (near) annihilation of entire cities by the allies. Load up with willie pete and and napalm and just incinerate them. They want to ride to heaven in a pillar of fire we can arrange that.
Yeah, 'them'. Incinerate the great hive mind.
Anyhow, we have debated this before, and I just don't really give a gak. You want to be ridiculous, you go on doing that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?
Actually, the Emperor was politically irrelevant as the country was effectively ruled by the military at that point. But that military committee's power could fall away very quickly in the wake of civilian or military revolt, both of which were quite likely in the event of American invasion, because despite the stereotyping Japan was not actually a hivemind of utterly fanatical lunatics.
But of course, the Americans didn't necessarily know that. We don't even know today what would have happened. But Truman and Joint Chiefs certainly believed the invasion of Japan would be a bloodbath, and ultimately decisions can only be made based on what you know at the time.
It might have been horrific, and it might not. We'll never know. We do know that every month saved in the war probably saved a hundred thousand lives in China, and that's probably enough to justify the a-bomb right there.
If a guy punches you, you don't get to shoot him, then set fire to his house and slaughter whoever comes fleeing out of it.
War, like all things, requires a sense of proportionality - you do what is necessary to get the job done, no more and no less.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/25 05:11:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.
Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?
Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you. It is also worth noting the Japanese were not the only target audience of the strikes, they also were intended to (and did) deliver a message to others.
As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.
If the whole point of the nuclear bombings were to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering it's not exactly "bias" describing them as such. Even if it was arguably the least bloody option, it's still an atrocious one. Might want to take a look at yourself before yelling bias.
If we had landed would you in today's age consider it "bias" for not using the nuclear bomb and majority of the civilian population on main land Japan follow the same steps as the civilian population on Okinawa?
Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?
Absolutely not, hence the part in my post pointing out that it might well have been the least bloody option. Killing 200,000+ civilians is still an act of terror, regardless of whether it's the lesser evil or not.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
If a guy punches you, you don't get to shoot him, then set fire to his house and slaughter whoever comes fleeing out of it.
War, like all things, requires a sense of proportionality - you do what is necessary to get the job done, no more and no less.
Bull.
fething.
gak.
I first came aware of this concept back in the '90s during the Bosian War where the Clinton administration was roundly criticized for using disportionate responses. It's an asinine concept...and still is.
In war, if you have the tools... use it, ruthlessly. Because at the end of the day, the victors makes the rules.
djones520 wrote: Except in our current military doctrine, proportionality IS law.
Whether or not it is right (in the sense of victory, not morality) doesn't really matter.
How so?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept... do you have any resources on that?
I'm not advocating that we'd use an entire armored division, fighter wing, nukes on small scale wars like the War on Terror™. I'm talking about in the case of WW2, we had just cause to drop those bombs on Japan (and I do realize that's another debate in itself).
PrintEmailShare
By Horst Fischer
The principle of proportionality is embedded in almost every national legal system and underlies the international legal order. Its function in domestic law is to relate means to ends. In armed conflict, the principle is used to judge first, the lawfulness in jus ad bellum of the strategic goals in the use of force for self-defense, and second, the lawfulness in jus in bello of any armed attack that causes civilian casualties. In the Gulf War, allied forces acted in individual and collective self-defense against Iraq under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but they disagreed whether the principle of proportionality permitted them to occupy Iraqi territory or oust Saddam Hussein. Many States felt that only the liberation of Kuwait was a permitted goal.
In the conduct of war, when a party commits a lawful attack against a military objective, the principle of proportionality also comes into play whenever there is collateral damage, that is, civilian casualties or damage to a nonmilitary objective. The U.S. attack on the Amiriyah bunker in Baghdad in 1991, which was aimed to destroy a military target but cost many civilian lives, is a case in point. If it was a military objective in which civilians were sheltering, an attack on the bunker would be lawful, subject to the principle of proportionality.
As formulated in Additional Protocol I of 1977, attacks are prohibited if they cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage of the attack. This creates a permanent obligation for military commanders to consider the results of the attack compared to the advantage anticipated. The target list has to be continuously updated as the conflict develops with special attention given to the safe movement of civilians. The attack on the Amiriyah bunker might have been illegal, if—which has never been proved—the United States did not follow carefully enough the movement of the civilians seeking shelter in Baghdad.
Some states ratifying Protocol I have stated that the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from an attack can only be considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack. Article 85 defines an indiscriminate attack undertaken in the knowledge that it will cause excessive damage to the civilian population is a grave breach and therefore a war crime. The principle is hard to apply in war, still harder after an attack has occurred. But grossly disproportionate results will be seen as criminal by all belligerent parties and the world community.
“Terror attacks” on the civilian population, or area bombardments that by their nature do not distinguish between military objectives and civilian targets, are prohibited, and the principle does not come into play. If deliberate, the bombing of the Sarajevo market square during shopping hours in 1994, which killed thirty-four civilians, would have been a war crime. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court reaffirms this by qualifying in Article 8 as a war crime intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities. The use of indiscriminate weapons such as cluster bombs in populated areas is a war crime as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 14:02:11
djones520 wrote: Except in our current military doctrine, proportionality IS law.
Whether or not it is right (in the sense of victory, not morality) doesn't really matter.
How so?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept... do you have any resources on that?
I'm not advocating that we'd use an entire armored division, fighter wing, nukes on small scale wars like the War on Terror™. I'm talking about in the case of WW2, we had just cause to drop those bombs on Japan (and I do realize that's another debate in itself).
PrintEmailShare
By Horst Fischer
The principle of proportionality is embedded in almost every national legal system and underlies the international legal order. Its function in domestic law is to relate means to ends. In armed conflict, the principle is used to judge first, the lawfulness in jus ad bellum of the strategic goals in the use of force for self-defense, and second, the lawfulness in jus in bello of any armed attack that causes civilian casualties. In the Gulf War, allied forces acted in individual and collective self-defense against Iraq under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but they disagreed whether the principle of proportionality permitted them to occupy Iraqi territory or oust Saddam Hussein. Many States felt that only the liberation of Kuwait was a permitted goal.
In the conduct of war, when a party commits a lawful attack against a military objective, the principle of proportionality also comes into play whenever there is collateral damage, that is, civilian casualties or damage to a nonmilitary objective. The U.S. attack on the Amiriyah bunker in Baghdad in 1991, which was aimed to destroy a military target but cost many civilian lives, is a case in point. If it was a military objective in which civilians were sheltering, an attack on the bunker would be lawful, subject to the principle of proportionality.
As formulated in Additional Protocol I of 1977, attacks are prohibited if they cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage of the attack. This creates a permanent obligation for military commanders to consider the results of the attack compared to the advantage anticipated. The target list has to be continuously updated as the conflict develops with special attention given to the safe movement of civilians. The attack on the Amiriyah bunker might have been illegal, if—which has never been proved—the United States did not follow carefully enough the movement of the civilians seeking shelter in Baghdad.
Some states ratifying Protocol I have stated that the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from an attack can only be considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack. Article 85 defines an indiscriminate attack undertaken in the knowledge that it will cause excessive damage to the civilian population is a grave breach and therefore a war crime. The principle is hard to apply in war, still harder after an attack has occurred. But grossly disproportionate results will be seen as criminal by all belligerent parties and the world community.
“Terror attacks” on the civilian population, or area bombardments that by their nature do not distinguish between military objectives and civilian targets, are prohibited, and the principle does not come into play. If deliberate, the bombing of the Sarajevo market square during shopping hours in 1994, which killed thirty-four civilians, would have been a war crime. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court reaffirms this by qualifying in Article 8 as a war crime intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities. The use of indiscriminate weapons such as cluster bombs in populated areas is a war crime as well.
US Law of Armed Conflict.
Proportionality. Proportionality prohibits the use of any kind or degree of force that exceeds that needed to accomplish the military objective. Proportionality compares the military advantage gained to the harm inflicted while gaining this advantage. Proportionality requires a balancing test between the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by attacking a legitimate military target and the expected incidental civilian injury or damage. Under this balancing test, excessive incidental losses are prohibited. Proportionality seeks to prevent an attack in situations where civilian casualties would clearly outweigh military gains. This principle encourages combat forces to minimize collateral damage—the incidental, unintended destruction that occurs as a result of a lawful attack against a legitimate military target.
That is our doctrine. We do not use a MOAB to take out what a Hellfire could.
Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
We didn't have MOAB's early Afghan. They've never been used operationally. You're thinking of Daisy Cutters (BLU-82). And we used them to destroy mountains, basically. We didn't just drop it on some Taliban guard shack.
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
Ah.. makes sense.
I've been looking at videos of the Daisy Cutters... man that's a big fire cracker! o.O
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
Ah.. makes sense.
I've been looking at videos of the Daisy Cutters... man that's a big fire cracker! o.O
Until the MOAB it was the largest conventional bomb we used. The only test of the MOAB that I'm aware of seemed to be a bit of a bust though. We no longer have BLU-82's in our inventory anymore though anyways.
CptJake wrote:Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
djones520 wrote:
CptJake wrote: Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
We didn't have MOAB's early Afghan. They've never been used operationally. You're thinking of Daisy Cutters (BLU-82). And we used them to destroy mountains, basically. We didn't just drop it on some Taliban guard shack.
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
CptJake wrote:Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
Ah.. makes sense.
I've been looking at videos of the Daisy Cutters... man that's a big fire cracker! o.O
Until the MOAB it was the largest conventional bomb we used. The only test of the MOAB that I'm aware of seemed to be a bit of a bust though. We no longer have BLU-82's in our inventory anymore though anyways.
Laser guided bombs at some entrance. Some are C4'ed. Most time a FAE is used.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Nope. ISIS going to run rampant in Iraq. Kurds gets a country out the deal. Feth Iraq. They can keep my blood and sweat I dropped there
Edit
Starting to expand now
Syrian warplane airstrikes on targets inside Western Iraq have left at least 50 people dead and 132 injured, an official and doctor in the region say.
An official in Iraq’s Anbar province and Mohammed Al Qubaisi, a doctor in the area’s main hospital, told The Wall Street Journal that missiles fired from what appeared to be Syrian warplanes hit a market, a bank and a municipal building on Tuesday.
They added that it was the second consecutive day of airstrikes. Syria has joined Iran in helping Iraq’s government fight the Al Qaeda breakaway group known as the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria/Levant, or ISIS, the newspaper reported.
A senior Iraqi military official told The Associated Press that Syrian warplanes bombed militants' positions Tuesday in and near the border crossing in the town of Qaim. He said Iraq's other neighbors — Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — were all bolstering flights just inside their airspace to monitor the situation. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
However, Syrian authorities have not yet confirmed that Syrian warplanes have been traveling through Iraqi airspace.
Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Tuesday that the U.S. was not able to confirm reports of the airstrikes, but added that it “wouldn’t be surprising.”
“The Syrian regime has bombed marketplaces and civilians many, many times," Harf said, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Meanwhile, Syrian government warplanes on Wednesday struck an eastern Syrian city that is the headquarters of ISIS, killing at least 12 people, opposition activists said.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the jets struck targets around the city, including a market, in the provincial capital of Raqqa.
Another activist group, the Syria-based Local Coordination Committees, also reported the strikes, saying that five people were killed in a single strike that targeted the Islamic State building.
An opposition activist in Raqqa reported seven airstrikes on Raqqa Wednesday. The activist, who goes by the name of Abu Noor, said in an interview over Skype that 13 bodies of civilians have been identified. He said the death toll will likely rise due to a large number of wounded in various attacks around the city.
The activists said only one of the airstrikes struck the Islamic State headquarters in the city, while others targeted other areas, including a market.
The Islamic State, along with other rebel groups fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad, captured Raqqa in March 2013. Recently, the group has become a major fighting force in Iraq, capturing in recent days major cities and towns in northern Iraq from the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
Also Wednesday, Syrian aircraft also carried out a series of airstrikes in the eastern Deir el-Zour province near the border with Iraq, the Observatory said. Islamic state fighters have been battling rival jihadi rebel groups for months in the oil-rich province. There were no immediate reports of casualties.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 19:34:48
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Garbage construction of an American guilt avoidance narrative.
Operation Meetinghouse killed more people than any other bombing raid in history. It almost killed more people than both nukes combined and created a firestorm that would have been visible from space. And unlike like Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was right on the Japanese government's doorstep.
And you're claiming my assertion that it wasn't more intimidating that the nukes is 'guilt avoidance'?
You confuse victims with others. Get your story straight. You imply the victims deserved it.
From the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters:
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."
Which, broadly speaking, is a pretty good description of Operation Ketsugo, the planned defense of Japan from allied invasion. Their only remaining plan was to expend their civilian populace in suicide attacks to try and drive the cost of an invasion too high. Meetinghouse and the Nuclear bombings proved that strategy would simply not work.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Iran, Iraq, and Israel all on the same side, now there's a first.
I cannot for the life of me think of a coalition of nations to top that
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
The Kurdish President made a lot of comments about seizing the moment, and having the Kurdish people decide their future.
Spoiler:
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – The president of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan Region signaled Monday that the country’s Kurds are ready to seek independence, as Sunni insurgents gained greater ground and Iraq slid toward civil war.
“It is the time now for the Kurdistan people to determine their future, and the decision of the people is what we are going to uphold,” Massoud Barzani said in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, the strongest statements he has made regarding independence.
“During the last 10 years we did everything in our ability, we made every effort and we showed political stability in order to build a new democratic Iraq, but unfortunately the experience has not been successful they way that it should have,” he said.
“That’s why I believe that after the recent events in Iraq it has been proven that the Kurdish people should seize the opportunity now,” he pointed out.
Iraq’s northern Kurdistan Region, comprising the three Kurdish provinces of Erbil, Sulaimani and Duhok, has been autonomous for more than 20 years. It has an estimated population of five million, and its own government, parliament, constitution and army.
Independence has been a perennial Kurdish aspiration.
In less than a fortnight when they began their blitz, insurgents that include the radical Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have captured several key cities and are closing in on Baghdad, where they want to topple the Shiite-led government.
The rebel blitzkrieg began with the capture of Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, by the rebels. Its collapse started a dominoes-fall of cities and territory that has the rebels in control of Iraq’s vast central Sunni territories, from the Syrian border to Jordan.
Iraq’s army largely collapsed when the rebels began their onslaught on Mosul.
The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), which has had serious issues with the Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, moved in its Peshmerga forces into Kurdish territories outside its official borders that were abandoned by Iraqi forces.
The Peshmerga have been in control of just about all of the Kurdish territories that they claim, including Kirkuk, the prize oil city that the Kurds see as the capital of their future state.
The Kurds are seriously ramping up oil production now they hold Kirkut, and Israel has started buying it. Israel likes the thought of a friendly Kurdistan in the region.
Spoiler:
Iraq's Kurds Sell Oil To Israel, Move Closer To Independence
Comment Now Follow Comments
Kurdish forces warned Baghdad about the impending assault on Mosul. Since ISIS swept into Iraq, the Kurds’ peshmerga forces havce been serving as a bulwark against them, even exchanging artillery fire in recent days.
Over the weekend, Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani called for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to step down. While Kurd President Massoud Barzani separately declared that “the time is here for the Kurdistan people to determine their future.”
So it appears that soon, out of the disintegration of Iraq, will appear a new independent Kurdish state.
Furthermore, with their initial sale last week of a tanker full of oil, to Israel no less, the Kurds have shown that they are willing not just to cleave themselves from Baghdad but to stand as a magnanimous force for stability in the region.
According to numerous reports by Reuters, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, the tanker SCF Altai transferred a cargo of Kurdish oil from another tanker United Emblem, which had been plying the Mediterranean for two weeks after loading at the Turkish port of Ceyhan. The SCF Altai then docked at the Israeli city of Ashkelon and off-loaded its crude.
The trade naturally triggered outrage from Baghdad, which considers illegal any export of Kurdish oil not made under the auspices of the federal oil ministry. A U.S. State Department official told the Wall Street Journal that the deal opens up the buyer to “potentially serious legal risks.”
But there’s also potentially serious upside in such a transaction. Though the Kurds have for years been selling tanker trucks full of oil into Turkey, the ability to market large volumes on a regular basis should enable them to dramatically ramp up the cash flow needed to equip their peshmerga forces. Today, Turkey’s state-run Halk Bank, reportedly confirmed that $93 million in oil revenues had been depositied in Kurdish Regional Government accounts.
The political significance is enormous. The Kurds have in recent years made peace with Turkey, a reversal of decades of mistrust. As detailed in a New York Times op-ed today (“Turkey’s Best Ally: The Kurds”), Turkey now has a 50-year deal to send Kurdish oil by pipeline to Ceyhan, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has voiced support for the Kurds’ right to self determination. Simply put, Ankara doesn’t much care whether Iraq holds together or falls apart (as long as a future independent Kurdish state doesn’t attempt to annex Kurdish regions within Turkey).
Now add Israel to the mix. After having their oil floating around the Med for a couple weeks, the Kurds were getting desperate to find a buyer. They have previously sold smaller amounts of oil to Austria’s OMV as well as to a refinery co-owned by BP and Russia’s Rosneft . But the fact that the Kurds were willing to deal with Israel implies that they intend to pursue a more magnanimous foreign policy than their Arab neighbors, which maintain a boycott of crude sales to Israel.
Baghdad resents any unilateral exports by the Kurds. Islamic fundamentalists may abhor any sale of oil to archenemy Israel. But as history has shown, the oil trade makes odd bedfellows. It was legendary trader Marc Rich who shepherded deals in the late 1970s to sell Iranian oil to Israel via secret pipeline. The trade continued unabated despite the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the American hostage crisis.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Iraq will be buying armaments from Russia from now on.
Spoiler:
Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC that he hopes jets from Russia and Belarus will turn the tide against rebels in the coming days.
"God willing within one week this force will be effective and will destroy the terrorists' dens," he said.
He said that the process of buying US jets had been "long-winded" and that the militants' advance could have been avoided if air cover had been in place.
Isis and its Sunni Muslim allies seized large parts of Iraq this month.
Mr Maliki was speaking to the BBC's Arabic service in his first interview for an international broadcaster since Isis - the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant - began its major offensive.
"I'll be frank and say that we were deluded when we signed the contract [with the US]," Mr Maliki said.
"We should have sought to buy other jet fighters like British, French and Russian to secure the air cover for our forces; if we had air cover we would have averted what had happened," he went on.
He said Iraq was acquiring second-hand jet fighters from Russia and Belarus "that should arrive in Iraq in two or three days".
The government has struggled to hold back the militants' advance from the north and west.
The US, which backs the Iraqi government, has stressed that the militants can only be defeated by Iraq's own forces.
Iraq has also been receiving support from Iran, with whom its Shia Muslim leaders have close links.
Mr Maliki also confirmed that Syrian forces had carried out air strikes against Islamist militants at a border crossing between Iraq and Syria.
He said Iraq had not requested the strikes but that it "welcomed" them.
"They carry out their strikes and we carry out ours and the final winners are our two countries," he said.
Military and rebel sources say the strike took place inside Iraq, at the Qaim crossing, although Mr Maliki said it was carried out on the Syrian side.
Militant sources have been reporting for two days that Syrian jets hit the Iraqi side of Qaim, and also Rutba which is further inside Iraq.
The militants say 70 people were killed in the first attack and 20 in the second.
Fighting has been reported on Thursday, with Iraqi special forces flying into the university in the city of Tikrit and clashes ensuing.
This is all very interesting. I think we can begin to predict how this will develop now. To re-iterate the facts of the conflict thus far:-
America and Europe are no longer disputing Russian armaments shipments to Syria. Assad of Syria has started launching air strikes on the Iraqi side of the border. Iran and Iraq, both being Shia powers are drawing closer together. Maliki of Iraq has indicated in no uncertain terms that he is not interested in playing nice with the US anymore, and will not step down as the US are currently pressuring him to do.
Iraq ran out of Hellfire missiles four days ago and the US seem to be using resupply as a bargaining chip to try and pressure Maliki into stepping down. Maliki has instead announced that he's not interested in those arms contracts with America that he signed since he has no weapons when he needs them, and will be buying elsewhere (specifically, Russia as of right now). The Kurdish President has indicated an independent Kurdistan is about to be born, and the Turks and the Israelis are totally on board with that.
The Sunni militias seem to have re-mobilised in Iraq, and whilst not yet allied to ISIL, are more than happy to sit back and watch ISIL fight it out with Iraq for control of key refineries/strategic locations. The Saudi Arabians seem to be starting to pump funding into those Sunni militias (and a small amount through to ISIL) whilst the Jordanians have locked down their border.
The conclusion?
America is pulling out of Iraq. Kerry flew over there in a last ditch attempt to push Maliki into line with American policy, and Maliki refused. That gives America the ability to wash their hands of the affair. Kurdistan will most likely be born, and the Americans will doubtless start pushing funding in that direction. Iraq will lose control of the Sunni/Kurdish sides of their country (about half to two thirds of the country), but what's left will be a Shia dominated area. It will be supplied by the Russians, and along with Syria/Iran, will fall be subject to Russian influence rather than American.
The future?
It depends. If Maliki and Assad come to an accord, and get enough equipment from the Russians, we may see them push in over the next two years, and completely squash ISIL from both sides. Alternatively, an independent Sunni regime could kick out ISIL and establish its own borders once the militia get bored of ISIS and its outlived its usefulness. Or, a third option would be that the Saudis pile on pressure from one side and the Iranians from another, and the whole area will be bandit country for the next decade. Hard to say which way it'll go at this stage.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/26 18:33:34
Iraq ran out of Hellfire missiles four days ago and the US seem to be using resupply as a bargaining chip to try and pressure Maliki into stepping down. Maliki has instead announced that he's not interested in those arms contracts with America that he signed since he has no weapons when he needs them, and will be buying elsewhere (specifically, Russia as of right now). The Kurdish President has indicated an independent Kurdistan is about to be born, and the Turks and the Israelis are totally on board with that.
I am actually looking forward to seeing this happen
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Iraq ran out of Hellfire missiles four days ago and the US seem to be using resupply as a bargaining chip to try and pressure Maliki into stepping down. Maliki has instead announced that he's not interested in those arms contracts with America that he signed since he has no weapons when he needs them, and will be buying elsewhere (specifically, Russia as of right now). The Kurdish President has indicated an independent Kurdistan is about to be born, and the Turks and the Israelis are totally on board with that.
I am actually looking forward to seeing this happen
I'm surprised that the Turks are OK with an independant Kurdish country on their border, but I think it's past time something like that happened. The Kurds have been getting it right since the First Gulf War; they deserve their independence.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Iran, Iraq, and Israel all on the same side, now there's a first.
I cannot for the life of me think of a coalition of nations to top that
It's the real-world equivalent of Chaos, the IoM, both flavors of Eldar and the Orks all agreeding that that Hive Fleet over there really needs to be kicked in the teeth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/26 18:39:32
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
I'm surprised that the Turks are OK with an independant Kurdish country on their border, but I think it's past time something like that happened. The Kurds have been getting it right since the First Gulf War; they deserve their independence.
I think that the Turkish calculation is that they can charge the Kurds a premium rate on any oil shipped through the country, and if there's a Kurdish homeland, their own Kurdish problem will go away, as all the Kurdish 'patriots' will move abroad.
That and the fact it doesn't concern any of Turkey soil on development
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
.
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)