Russia Honors the Spy Who Stole the A-Bomb

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times reports on the life of George Koval, codenamed Delmar, one of the most important spies to have infiltrated the Manhattan Project, the secret program that created the world's first nuclear weapon. President Putin recently granted Koval a posthumous Hero of the Russian Federation award, the highest honorary title that can be given to a Russian citizen. Koval was born in Iowa, spoke fluent American English, and played baseball. But he was also recruited and trained by the GRU, Russia's largest intelligence agency."

Comments

Re:Pride?

[smittyoneeach]

Motive in the grave,
Keep world balance in place?
Can't his name save.
Treachery on his face.
God have mercy on the knave,
And lather this disgrace:
Burma Shave

You are forgetting something.

[Anonymous Coward]

One man's hero is another man's terrorist.

Re:You are forgetting something.

[Pecisk]

And, most ironic of that, that it fits ohh so perfectly to Cold War, it could be even a tagline for it.

that's awesome

[circletimessquare]

how you can find only one side responsible in a two sided fight

you do realize the japanese were slaughtering millions themselves in the name of imperialism? you do realize that if no A bomb was dropped, that more japanese and americans would have died in a land invasion of japan?

Re:that's awesome

[ushering05401]

I really apologize, but I have to mod you down. Do you even realize that you just tried to use logic on /.?

Re:that's awesome

[PortHaven]

Actually, they weren't ready to capitulate. What you had were two factions. One who were in control wanting to dig-in and die to the last man. (Like they were doing on numerous islands in the Pacific.)

The other faction realized they had lost, and that they could not hope to win. And that if they continued to fight then millions would die on both sides.

The atomic bombs gave them the leverage to displace the controlling faction.

****

Mind you, anyone who thinks that Japan was ready to surrender is easily disproved by history. If that was the case, we would not have to have used "two" bombs.

It's an absolute proof they were not ready to surrender.

Re:that's awesome

[ushering05401]

The Japanese were only ready to give up their arms, not surrender. IIRC they were asking for terms that would have allowed them to retain some level of dignity prior to the first bomb dropping.

Then again, there are some new reading materials that challenge my understanding of the situation... http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HASRAC.html

Who knows what to believe.

Re:that's awesome

[4D6963]

You do realize that if no A bomb was dropped, that more japanese and americans would have died in a land invasion of japan?

True, too many people ignore that, but Japan had never known defeat before, and they were ready to fight it to the death. And actually, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki apparently almost failed at convinced Japanese generals and such to surrender, some believing that they didn't have more than two of such bombs. Besides, the use of incendiary bombs on Tokyo killed a lot more people than both A-bombs, it was just less impressive.

Sure, Truman wanted to drop the bomb no matter what because he was pissed to have failed the opportunity to drop it on Germany, but it doesn't change how helpful the A-bombs have proven to be to quickly end the conflict. I hate to say it but it's just a case of us not understanding the mentality of the Japanese during that period which made them as dreadful as terrorists in that they didn't fear dying (hence kamikazes).

Re:that's awesome

[p0tat03]

The excuse for dropping the bomb was to force Japan's capitulation, in order to avoid a costly land invasion. This, while partially true, is mostly a matter of the victors writing the history books. Many modern historians do not believe in this interpretation, as Japan was already defeated by then. The oil fields of China were retaken, the islands of southeast Asia had been reconquered. Japan was back to its pre-war territorial borders, which contain precious few resources (they couldn't even produce enough high-quality steel to fuel their own war effort, which was the original reason for their invasion of China, to secure the necessary resources ), and certainly at that point wasn't a real danger to anyone.

No, the bombs were dropped for the Russians. The Soviets showed a large interest in taking over the recently-vacated Manchuria, which as an industrial heartland of China the US simply could not allow, not to mention access to an all-year east-Asia port. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were warning shots that began the Cold War, it's just that the Japanese had the unfortunate luck of being the most convenient and justifiable party to nuke, at that moment in time.

Re:that's awesome

[ByOhTek]

They were ready to capitulate after the A-Bomb at Nagasaki I believe. Hiroshima might have been unnecessary, but dissolved any second thoughts.

As the GP said, the A-Bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than they killed (considering the alternative was a land invasion). Of course, the US intent was only the US lives, which it also saved in much greater number.

Re:that's awesome

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Uh, Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th, and Nagasaki was hit on the 9th.

Re:that's awesome

[ByOhTek]

Oh, for some reason I thought it was the other way around. Sorry about that. Nonetheless, I remember reading capitulation was pretty much certain after the first bombing, but a bit shaky. The second more or less sealed the deal and made them think twice before a deciding to seek vengeance.

Re:that's awesome

[Kjella]

you do realize that if no A bomb was dropped, that more japanese and americans would have died in a land invasion of japan? A lot of soldiers would have died, including a lot of US soldiers too. I doubt as many as were killed by the bombs though. In total during WWII, including the whole campaign in Europe the US lost 400,000 and the bombs killed 220,000. In short, they made a choice to nuke civilians rather than sacrifice more soldiers. Soldiers die in war, unpleasant but true. Deliberately targetting civilians? Why, I do know what the US would call that these days. I don't know what kind of moral compass that would possibly make it right to kill a hundred thousand or more women and children. Except "We're americans, they're the enemy so they don't count."

Re:that's awesome

[ushering05401]

Are you sure you checked your sources? I don't want to get too close to home here, but family lore has it that there were only a few sticking points that kept the war going long enough for the bombs to be dropped.

Yes there were factions... but none of them were stupid enough to think that they could continue the fight under existing conditions.

Two bombs were used to prove a point. Point *fucking* proved. There was very little reason to drop the first bomb, there was no reason to drop the second bomb. Read Truman's personal history if you doubt me. He refers to 'Jap pleas' for surrender on several occasions... entries dated several days before the first bomb hit a city 90% composed of civilians.

Re:that's awesome

[darkmeridian]

I am sick and tired of revisionists coming up with this tripe every time the nuclear bombings of Japan are discussed. It might be true that the Japanese were unable to continue their existence. After the war, debriefed Japanese leaders said that the mining of Japanese harbors as part of Operation Starvation was singlehandedly winning the war for the Allies. He said that if the Allies had continued the operation for another few months, the Japanese would had to have surrendered. But how many Japanese civilians would have died before the leadership would quit? The Japanese military leadership wanted to force an invasion that they were going to lose, so they could at least dictate some conditions of peace.

In spite of all this, the Allies were ready to invade Japan. After the nukes were dropped, they revised the plan to include "softening up" the beachheads with nukes three days before GIs would hit the shores. (They didn't know too much about fallout back then.) The plans were for deaths in the hundreds of thousands. The order for Purple Hearts, the military honor for being wounded in combat, in preparation for this invasion was so large that the supplies did not run out until recently in the new Iraq War. Despite what we now may know, Allied leaders were planning on invading Japan, and the nuclear bomb stopped this from happening, and saved many lives on both sides of the table. In the documentary "The War," an American infantryman that was going to be sent to Japan, when asked about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said that he was relieved and glad, and that he knew this was horrible, but that the news meant that he wouldn't have to die. The troops tasked to invade Japan had no illusions of getting out alive; they assumed there were going to die because the Japanese were ruthless soldiers who fought to the death and mistreated the few prisoners they took.

The Japanese were not innocent victims in World War II. They committed all sorts of atrocities such as vivisection, raping and pillaging, and testing biological weapons on civilian populations. Japanese soldiers in the Phillippines were actually cannabalizing American GIs. (Read "Flyboys.") The Japanese still had a dominion over a large civilian population in occupied territories at the time the nuclear bombs were dropped. The civilians there were dying at a very high rate due to Japanese mistreatment. And the Japanese had said they were going to execute all the POWs they held (about a hundred thousand or so) if there was an invasion.

The bombings saved lives. Even if it didn't, the Allied leaders thought that they were saving lives by dropping the bombs. Sixty years later, it's easy for us to sit back and second guess them. But the leaders truly believed Japan had to fall. No one planned for the Japanese to surrender peacefully, even if their situation was screwed. Everything else is revisionist history ignoring who started the war, who committed the true atrocities, and who refused to quit fighting a war they had lost.

Re:that's awesome

[dave420]

Exactly. It was an easy way out, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of civilians to spare US troops (who had volunteered to be used in such a fashion, unlike the civilians who had no such luxury).

I guess the same folks who say it's OK to drop the bomb on Japan (twice) wouldn't mind if the war took a different path and Japan dropped two nukes on the US - after all, it would save lives, wouldn't it?

Re:that's awesome

[dreamchaser]

Up until quite recently in modern terms it was not only acceptible to target civilians, it was part of war doctrine. Civilians are part of the effort in a total war. They man the factories, they pay the taxes and produce the goods that fuel the war effort.

War is ugly on all levels. Killing civilian members of the enemy's society is part of it. Note that I am not excusing it, just pointing it out.

Re:that's awesome

[markass530]

"(they couldn't even produce enough high-quality steel to fuel their own war effort, which was the original reason for their invasion of China, to secure the necessary resources ), and certainly at that point wasn't a real danger to anyone." Ok, if you want resources, you BUY them, not start a god damn war, the reason for an invasion of China is they they assholes (to sum it all up in one word). As far as the A bomb, your just simplying making shit up, every book I have read so far, say's We had bombed the japs back to the stone age, but They refused to surrender, and their corrupted bushido code they were spouting would have had the entire populace armed with pitchforks fighting to the last breath, THEY refused to surrender, and we didn't want to start a land invasion, ergo, the A-Bomb. Did it save lives? That is a debatable point, but most of my reading leads me to believe it did.

Re:that's awesome

[Ubergrendle]

The excuse for dropping the bomb was to force Japan's capitulation, in order to avoid a costly land invasion. This, while partially true, is mostly a matter of the victors writing the history books. Many modern historians do not believe in this interpretation, as Japan was already defeated by then.

I'm calling you out on this -- I want a list credible historical sources who argue this. You hear this nugget of historical interpretation over and over, without anyone of significant merit backing it up.

Given the lessons of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Philipines, and dozens of other islands, the US had no reason to believe that the Japanese were ready to capitulate. Kamikaze as a tactic was shocking to western trained military men, the disregard for human life and fanaticism it invoked. Diplomatic exchanges were minimal even at this time. After the first bomb detonated, the Japanese weren't even able to start a dialogue effectively with the US since there were no mechanisms in place to do so. Bomb 1 was for effect, Bomb 2 was to demonstrate the ongoing consequences of resisting complete surrender. (no one knew the US couldn't keep doing it).

Given the options: a) costly, long drawn out land invasion, b) a blockade that would result in collapse of civil order (making occupation difficult, hello Iraq?) and the deaths of millions of civilians, or c) use of atomic weapons, option C was the most humane and effective way to win the war. No demonstrable evidence to suggest any other consideration than "C" was seriously made.

For the record, I'm not an American apologist either. If you want to point out callous use of military power in the Pacific theater, firebombing cities made mostly of wood who were without major manufacturing capabilities would be on the list. Even McNamara admitted if the US had lost the war they'd be facing warcrimes.

Re:that's awesome

[Marcos Eliziario]

Oh! Finally an article that follows slashdot's standards!
I was getting tired of all that carefully laid-out logical arguments and clear reasoning.
Nothing like reading an insult followed by a highly personal account of the facts that is deemed relevant by the poster because it supports with his/her ideas.

Re:that's awesome

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Japan was back to its pre-war territorial borders, which contain precious few resources (they couldn't even produce enough high-quality steel to fuel their own war effort, which was the original reason for their invasion of China, to secure the necessary resources ), and certainly at that point wasn't a real danger to anyone.

You are overlooking one fact - Japan refused to surrender. There were no peace overtures. The war was still going on. Japan's military had the old samurai attitude of "We know it's hopeless, but rather than surrender we are going to make them fight us to the death. Yes, we will lose for sure, but we will make them pay a high price in blood for their victory". You know how people think that Al Queda members are crazy in how they willingly sacrifice themselves? That's how Japan was. The US military had made full plans to invade Japan. You can get info on it at Wikipedia with maps of proposed invasion routes and estimates of the casualties. Even Nazi Germany's surrender wasn't enough to dissuade the Japanese from continuing the fight. Yes, part of it was to end the war quickly before Russia could steal much Japanese territory (they were able to steal the Kurile Islands before the war ended), but part of it was that Japan just wouldn't give up and they had to be broken so they wouldn't wait a few years and start another war.

Re:that's awesome

[ushering05401]

According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

Go research it. How's that for logic?

Re:that's awesome

[Johnny5000]

"If you want to point out callous use of military power in the Pacific theater, firebombing cities made mostly of wood"

And this likely would have continued without dropping the atomic bombs.
I think that's too often overlooked- if the atomic bombs weren't used, the cities likely would have been destroyed by conventional bombing anyway, with a comparable number of civilians just as dead, but without the scary psychological factor of the one giant bomb.

Re:that's awesome

[Terminaldogma]

Admiral William D. Leahy - "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." said to president Harry S. Truman, after Vannevar Bush explained how the atomic bomb worked. One man's opinion, no matter how high in rank, does not make him right.

Re:that's awesome

[Maxo-Texas]

Thank you.

If that old man makes a gun and hands it to a soldier, he's a military target.
If that woman bakes bread and gives it to a soldier, she's a military target.

If the civilian population is supporting the war effort (when they could engage in civil disobedience to bring it to an end) then they are part of the war effort.

And as long as the civilians are not a target, the consequences of the war are hidden.

Re:that's awesome

[visionsofmcskill]

Should arabs hold you responsible for Bush's bullshit?
yes. And they do. This is why its important for those of us against him and his regime work to oust his administration, and even impeach if appropriate.

Should you be held to task for the civilian deaths in Iraq? yes, see above.

Peaceful Japanese were burned by nuclear fire for no reason at all. How about if this was your family? Peacefull? While certainly civilians, peacefull they were not. You cannot in any way look at japan at that time (and the previous THIRTY+ YEARS) and call their society and structuring there-of peacefull at all. Simply put, japan was THE MOST expansionist authoritarian regime on the planet for nearly the entire first 40 years of the century. Hitler didnt conquer a third of the land or a tenth of the people japan did, japans atrocities during this time are un-comparable... only the russian purges could come close.

I appreciate the opportunities I have in America... But sometimes this is too much. Seriously. I am going to need to stop posting. This touched a too sensitive nerve.

these topics are never easy, but one should never loose site of context when judging previous decisions and times. The nuclear bomb will always be controvserial... however 250k dead (total) comparative to contemporary atrocities and compounded with the likely death-toll were the bomb not dropped given a russian entry into the eastern theater of war, or starvation of the jpanaese populace by blockade, or even the continued existance of a power regime in japan that had ruled out-right and unquestioned for decades and was unquestionably ruthless... is a small number indeed.

Were the blockade to continue and japan surrender without loosing "face", its almost as certain the same amount of japanese would likely have died from A:the blockade, B: war with their formerly conquered lands, and C: the almost inevitable internal purges that follow a authoritarian regime loosing tremendous political face (expecially post-war), where everyone is accusing their neighbors of being a spy or a sabateur, and countless thousands or millions (russia, cambodia, china, germany...) die as the scapegoating runs rampant.

While no-one likes the thought of a nuke, or being the people who actually used one (twice)... we should all gain a little perspective and (ironicly, sadly, remorsefully) be thankfull that the bomb WAS used THEN in its infancy .

Re:that's awesome

[darkmeridian]

Your interpretation of history is heartbreakingly naive and incomplete. You are correct that it is not only the bombs that kill in wartime but also starvation, lack of medication, and disease. Ending the war promptly saved the Japanese civilians and the civilians under Japanese captivity (basically the forced slave laborers) from starving to death and rotting from disease. America could have blockaded Japan for a few years until they starved away but that would have been more disastrous to Japanese civilians (and again, all the civilians under Japanese dominion) than the nukes. Furthermore, Japan would have definitely killed Allied POWs. If there's no food for your citizens, are you really going to feed POWs?

More importantly, you severely underestimate the Japanese will in that period. Japanese CIVILIANS were trained to fight the invasion of their mainland to the last man, woman, and child. Girls were given bamboo sticks to stab invading GIs with; they were taught to aim for the groin and stomach because the Allies were taller. Don't forget that in Okinawa and Tarawa, almost all the Japanese civilians committed suicide, at times throwing their families off the cliffs into the jagged rocks below, rather than fall to the Allies. Hell, the Japanese executed the civilians on those islands who refused to kill themselves. The same fanaticism was still alive in the fall of 1945. The entire country of Japan was willing to fight and die to prevent America from invading. The nuclear bombs, as horrible as it may sound, saved the Japanese from themselves.

The moral compass you desire assumes that everyone is the same. But the Japanese started the war. They surprised-attacked us. They were running around lopping heads off, cannabilizing US troops, testing biological weapons on civilian population, running forced labor camps, and committing all these horrible atrocities. The Japanese people were perfectly fine with this. In short, they were wrong and we were right. Our cause was just. Call it hindsight bias, or winners writing history, but I'm goddamn happy we beat Japan. You disagree with the operating theory that "We're Americans, they're the enemy, so they don't count." I don't see why you would disagree. The Japanese civilians may be innocent, but the American soldiers who were forced to fight after their country was attacked and threatened with invasion were even more innocent. They were not aggressors; they were defending their way of life from Japanese aggression started, continued, and financed by the Japanese civilians.

And make no mistake; the Allies had no better alternatives: it was either take 500K casualties storming the volcanic beaches of southern Japan, starving a fanatical country until they surrendered, or dropping the nuclear bombs. If you can save the lives and livelihoods of five hundred thousand American boys in return for nuking two hundred thousand Japanese civilians, I don't know how you can not pull the trigger. And that's true of all countries. As a military leader, I can't write five hundred thousand "I regret to inform you" letters to save a few hundred thousand civilians of a foreign country that had started the war against us.

Re:that's awesome

[Digitus1337]

They killed civilians to show off their military capabilities. By this time everyone knew that strategic bombing did not work. They did not have, nor did they think they'd have, extra nukes to 'soften up' to beach heads ahead of an assault.

Re:that's awesome

[dreamchaser]

My opinion about war is that if a war is worth fighting then it should be fought all out. No holds barred. End it as quickly as possible. If the cause du jour is not worth doing that then the war shouldn't be fought at all.

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

Everyone knows it was horrible. NO one in their right mind has ever stated that it wasn't.
The only disputable fact is whether it was the lesser of the evils to do so or not.

Yes, Japan had lost the war. Anyone that has done any real research on the subject knows this. But in the same vein, it is also a fact that Japan was NOT going to surrender, despite the fact that they had already lost. We're talking about a country with a mentality that allowed for using it's citizens as suicide bombs. They simply could not surrender. They had to save face. There are interviews out there with Japanese officials that stated that being Nuked was the only way to end the war without mass casualties on both sides. A land invasion of Japan would have been an all out fight for honor, to the death. Period.

Noting is ever Black And White, especially in war. But your argument tries to make it into such a beast. There is little doubt that there was some incentive to beat the Soviets in the nuke arms race. But trying to say that that is WHY those bombs were dropped, well, it's ignorant at best.

Want more proof? What do arguments like yours conveniently overlook? Hint: How many nukes were dropped? If it was as your argument suggests, then why was the 2nd one dropped?

The answer is that the Japanese STILL refused to surrender even after the first one fell. It took TWO for them to finally suck it up and admit defeat, to realize that this was the only easy way out of the war. It's horrible, for sure. But anything less would have required a full on invasion of Japan, and along with it, HUGE casualties well over and above the losses incurred from the two nukes being dropped.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the nukes would have been dropped even if Russia hadn't been working on the bomb as well.

Re:that's awesome

[rjhubs]

One of the main sticking points on why the Japanese wouldn't surrender was the U.S. would not allow them to retain their emperor. While the emperor had no real political power, it was just a huge symbol of Japanese culture and many inside Japan could not stand to lose that.

Re:that's awesome

[Johnny5000]

US troops (who had volunteered to be used in such a fashion, unlike the civilians who had no such luxury).

There was a draft during WWII in the US, so at least a good portion of the combatants weren't volunteers.

Re:that's awesome

[ushering05401]

Heh... shh... real secret thing here... My family was Buddhist.

Yeah, I know... who ever heard of Japs being Buddhists and believing in peace?

Crazy idea, right? Nuke dropped on their head?! They must have been as guilty as poor people in America of dragging their country down.

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

Yes, it really is just that simple, isn't it.

Here's a bit of research for you then: Please look into how many people the Japanese killed in WW2. Further, how they did so. Further, how they treated their POW's. Further, what the mentality of the Japanese civilian was at the time.

Now, do a bit of comparison.

Here's a hint to get you started: War Sucks. On all sides. People die horrible deaths.

Given that, how have you turned this into a black and white 'US Evil, Japan Vilified' situation? Really? Have you ever read up on how Japan came to be in the war in the first place? I strongly suggest you do, it might prove to be very enlightening for you.

Re:that's awesome

[darkmeridian]

In your scenario, where China had a chance to win by dropping the nuclear bomb and spare hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers from dying, as a Chinese general, I don't know how you can't drop the bomb. You represent your people. Sometimes we are willing to die to accomplish a goal but at some point, it is too much and we drop our ideals and go with the practical.

Mike Murphy was recently awarded the Medal of Honor. He was shot in the head in the mountains of Afghanistan after the position of he and his men were discovered. Earlier, three Afghan sheepherders had stumbled upon their position. Knowing that there was a good chance these sheepherders were sympathetic to the Taliban, and would report the presence of American troops in the mountains, Murphy took a vote amongst his men as to whether to kill the herders. Knowing the risks, the soldiers voted not to do so and released the sheepherders. By the end of the day, nineteen American soldiers were dead. But they had done the right thing. This is the American spirit in a microcosm. We worry about these things that other countries would do as a matter of course.

But when the stakes are higher, you abandon your ideals. Would any country in the world sacrifice five hundred thousand of their youngest, fittest men out of idealism? Only in America would anyone even think about this idea seriously. If the roles were reversed, I'd rather not get nuked. I'd surrender. But if America didn't surrender, I'd fully understand if the Chinese nuked us into compliance.

Re:that's awesome

[eln]

I think the proper distinction would be military vs. civilian. A military person, male or female, signed up for the war and knew they could be killed for taking part in it, and were willing to kill in kind. A civilian, on the other hand, is only caught in the crossfire. It is morally justified to kill people who have taken an oath to try and kill you in war, but it's not justified to kill innocent civilians whose only reason to be targeted was that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

People say "woman and children" because people are naturally more sympathetic to those who are considered "innocent" or "helpless", which women and children historically and stereotypically are. Also, up until very recently, women were not involved in the military and could not join or be forced to join the military in any aggressive capacity, so "women and children" is effectively the same thing as "civilians" in a war zone where every able-bodied male was being drafted to fight.

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

Again, you really haven't any clue as to what you are talking about.
I strongly suggest before you post again that you look into what the Japanese did as policy to civilians in the places they invaded. To the POW's they took. Further, look in to how they treated their own civilians, women, children.

You have a lot of enlightenment ahead of you if you'll only look for it.

PS: Please don't mistake this for an argument towards stating that what the US did was Just and Good. War sucks. Many innocents died. But to make it out as black and white as you are trying to do is ignorance at best. Remember, Japan was not invaded. Japan had no reason to enter WW2. No one was attacking them. Now look into what they did and why and see the truth from all sides please.

Re:that's awesome

[SubliminalLove]

Actually, the Japanese were already offering almost unconditional surrender prior to Hiroshima. They only wanted to be able to retain the emperor. Following Hiroshima the evidence very strongly indicates that the Japanese would have surrendered unconditionally -- if I recall correctly, the decision had already been made at that point -- and so there's not a lot of justification for the Nagasaki bomb.

Ultimately, based on expert analysis of Japanese culture (especially by Ruth Benedict, who summed up her findings in the classic "The Chrysanthemum & the Sword"), the decision was made to let the emperor remain, though he was of course stripped of his power and even of his Japanese nationality under the new constitution. So ultimately the bomb was dropped to force a concession that was later decided to be unnecessary. Ironic, no?

(IAA Japanologist)

Re:that's awesome

[AVee]

I am sick and tired of revisionists coming up with this tripe every time the nuclear bombings of Japan are discussed. Who are you to decide what is revisionism and what isn't? You where there? You made the decision?

Frankly, a lot of stories about 'the true reason for dropping the bomb' are likely wrong. But I really don't believe there ever was a single reason for this, decisions like that are influenced by a lot of things, some writen down, some unspoken. Of these reasons, some are noble, some are not. But for each of the factors there seems to be a camp thinking that was the one real reason for dropping the bomb, and somehow they all fail to be entirely convincing. Why whould that be? Perhaps because there is no such thing a simple single reason for dropping it.
For example, i'm fairly sure that the fact that this type of bomb had never been used before contributed in the decision to 'try' it, but I would never claim it was droppen just because someone wanted to fined out how it would work out. It's simply one of the factors involved.

Re:that's awesome

[ushering05401]

Bullshit. Your own president admitted that Japan was 'begging' for surrender. Actually study this and you will see. Go to the fucking library. It is in your own president's diary.

This conversation is so stupid that I cannot continue it. What I have said is true and if you cannot go to the library to prove it for yourself you are too stupid to be helped.

Re:that's awesome

[karolgajewski]

in order to avoid a costly land invasion

*grin* of course, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia!"

Re:that's awesome

[bhalter80]

Ummmm those US troops didn't all volunteer there was a pretty sizable draft at the time too.

Re:that's awesome

[AtomicRobotMonster]

The USSR declared war on Japan on August 9th.

Re:that's awesome

[professionalfurryele]

As it turns out supplies of the new purple hearts didn't even run out. They changed the design and produced a new batch. They could still be handing out WWII purple hearts if they wanted to.

Although I agree with the thrust of your argument it is worth keeping in mind that the Japanese were keen to surrender to the Americans than they were to the Soviets, who had just entered the Pacific War. Problem with deciding what the main cause of the Japanese surrender was is that you hear different things from different people.

I tend to view things this way. The reasons that were at the forefront of the mind of those who decided to drop the bomb were reprehensible. Showing the power of the bomb to the Soviets and American willingness to drop it were not good or moral reasons for the bombs use. That doesn't change the fact that the justification for dropping the bomb holds water. Just because many of the leaders of the day viewed the bomb primarily as a tool for diplomacy with the Soviets doesn't mean that the other reasons they had in mind were not justification enough.

Everyone who criticizes the decision to drop the bomb likes to forget that Truman and his advisors were working with incomplete information. The Soviets had essentially black balled the Japanese and refused to pass on their peace offerings in anticipation for the Soviet invasion. What the Americans knew about Japanese desires for peace that had obtained from code cracking efforts. The Japanese leadership was split, and even if the Emperor sided with the peace party a coup was entirely possible (more than this, when the Emperor did side with the peace party there was an attempted coup).

What can we say for sure? The Soviet invasion was more of a fear for the Japanese than the bomb was. The bomb did not cause as many deaths as fire bombing. What was happening in Eastern Europe (especially Poland) was no secret. If the bomb had been dropped a few more times (hard at the time since after Nagasaki there would be no more bombs for a while) then perhaps it would have been a bigger factor. What the bomb offered was an excuse for the Japanese leadership, particularly the Emperor to surrender.

"The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage."

That sounds much better than something like:

"A new power has entered this war who will do untold cruelty to our people"

The first provides an excuse. This weapons is new, it is totally devastating. Surrender may bring dishonor, but we are surrendering because of a new and terrible weapon. The second sounds like the Emperor was prepared to sell out Japan because he could not bring himself to have his subjects do their duty in a conventional fight.

If the Americans had not dropped the bomb (assuming humanity would be alive to debate the issue) can we say for certain the hardliners would no have mounted a successful coup? Would Japan be split in two like Korea? How many more Americans and Japaneses would be dead? I cannot in all honesty answer that question. I don't know if the dropping the bomb saved lives. And I have the benefit of hindsight, something Truman did not have.

Re:that's awesome

[Alioth]

You may be forgetting that Japan had become a total war economy; the civilian population was as much involved in driving the war effort as the soldiers. Britain was also a total war economy, as was Germany. The Germans bombed British cities, and the British bombed German cities. They were valid military targets by the time Germany and Britain both had total war economies.

No, it's not nice - it's deeply unpleasant, in fact. But anything's fair game in a total war economy.

Re:that's awesome

[Courageous]

Exactly. It was an easy way out, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of civilians to spare US troops (who had volunteered to be used in such a fashion, unlike the civilians who had no such luxury).

Your sentiment here is that the civilians in Japan bore no responsibility whatsoever for their leadership. I disagree.

C//

Re:that's awesome

[Tinyn]

This might come as a surprise to you, but the draft was in effect during WW2.

Re:that's awesome

[Elaarni]

Are you perhaps forgetting that the face of war at that time had changed?
Bombing cities was commonplace and necessary as the enemy (in Europe and Japan) had their industry in heavily populated areas. In order to stop or slow down your enemies ability to make war, you need to reduce their industry, this is the point of strategic bombing in that era. There were no Laser guided munitions, there were no GPS devices, bombs were inaccurate, and bombing resulted in many civilian casualties at the time, it wasn't anything new for the new age of war, so to apply the modern day morality to that era is pure hypocritical hindsight.
Additionally, while it is a soldiers job to fight, and die for his country in war, can the person manufacturing the weapons and ammunition really be considered a non-combatant? Germany certainly did not consider the civilian crews of transports bringing supplies from the US and Canada to Britain to be non-combatants, Nor did the US submarine crews in world war II consider the civilian crews on cargo ships taking materials to Japan to be non-combatants either.
Perhaps you were referring to the civilians (Yes, women and shildren) in Japan that were being trained to resist and kill the American troops when they come ashore in an invasion? Guess what, those aren't civilians either, they were training to become combatants in the upcoming invasion.

Re:that's awesome

[vertinox]

I am sick and tired of revisionists coming up with this tripe every time the nuclear bombings of Japan are discussed.

Actually, it wasn't modern people who thought this but actually the leaders in the US military who were actually fighting the war.

[quote]"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[31][32][/quote] - General Dwight D. Eisenhower

[quote]"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."[/quote] -Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

[quote]"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."[/quote] -Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[35]

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

[quote]"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[36][35][/quote]

From the Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[quote]General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. He suggested that the U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but they refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition.[/quote]

So are you telling me that our war time leaders leading the actual war and not some armchair general sitting around today were actual revisionists? I'm not saying it was inherently immoral, but it was unneeded militarily to win the war according to the US military and they could have won with the Terms they had anyway with no more civilian or soliders loss of life if they had decided to go ahead with the single condition of the Emperor.

Re:that's awesome

[aproposofwhat]

I call BS.

The reason you dropped two bombs was that one was a uranium based device, the other a plutonium device of radically different design.

You just had to try both designs out, didn't you?

Re:that's awesome

[ushering05401]

I strongly suggest that before you post again you forget what history books have taught you. It is sad. Really, very sad.

Signed. Buddhist in Vermont.

Re:that's awesome

[miletus]

Interesting that so many prominent American military leaders at the time didn't agree with your views on the atomic bombs:
From http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9443

Many Army leaders had similar views. Author Norman Cousins writes of Gen. Douglas MacArthur:

"[H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."[6]

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, was also against the bomb. Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose writes:

"There was one additional matter on which Eisenhower gave Truman advice that was ignored. It concerned the use of the atomic bomb. Eisenhower first heard of the bomb during the Potsdam Conference; from that moment on, until his death, it occupied, along with the Russians, a central position in his thinking. ...

"When [Secretary of War] Stimson said the United States proposed to use the bomb against Japan, Eisenhower voiced '... grave misgivings....' Three days later, on July 20, Eisenhower flew to Berlin, where he met with Truman and his principal advisors. Again Eisenhower recommended against using the bomb, and again was ignored."[7]

These are a few of the many quotes in Alperovitz from military leaders who thought the bomb's use on Japan unnecessary and/or immoral.

Re:that's awesome

[professionalfurryele]

"A lot of soldiers would have died, including a lot of US soldiers too. I doubt as many as were killed by the bombs though."

You doubt it. Have you researched that assertion?

Estimates at the time put the cost of Conquering Japan at between one and a half to four million Americans and over twice as many Japanese, many of those civilian. This not the Battle of the Ardennes, this is Stalingrad. To suggest that the invasion of Japan would be comparable to defeating Germany after the Russians had ripped the heart out of the Wehrmacht is absurd.

Re:that's awesome

[mzs]

I think you do not understand war. My family is Polish. In WWII my great grandfather, a young farmer, was never heard from again. Simply one day the Gestapo came and rounded-up all the young men that looked German and they were taken away to the German army or worse.

One of my great aunts was raped by Germans and Russians. Another to be spared that fate hid in a closet for the duration of the war. After the war she developed something almost like schizophrenia. Her son became an alcoholic and her husband ended-up killing himself because he could not deal with her. Her husband was a man that survived two German concentration camps, she was mad indeed.

My own grandmother was a young girl at the time. A German soldier decided it would be funny to throw her off a train going over a bridge. My other great grandfather fought off the soldier long enough that when she was finally cast-out the side of the valley was near-by. Weeks later my great grandfather found her. A goat herder had luckily found her before the wolves with many broken bones.

Starvation and living out in the open in the elements were constant worries. One time my family stumbled across a cow that had died as a result of the bombing. As they were preparing it the Germans attacked and they fled. In spite the Germans bombed the carcass. My aunt's father is a cripple thanks to the Russians. As a young boy, he and a friend stumbled across two horses from the Red army and stole them in order to feed their families. The Russians caught them and beat them terribly and left them in the snow to die. His friend died, he survived as a cripple.

A Great uncle of mine was relocated into Russia where he had to work for the Russian chemical and nuclear programs for years until he was able to return. By then all that had taken a toll and he was never the same. Today he is the classical crack-pot scientist.

My uncles' father was French and by happen-stance was in Poland when the war began with his father. They tried to return to France after the war, the father angered the Russians and then were sent to Siberia. There the father died and the son had to prostitute himself in order to survive. Eventually he met my grand mother and then his son tried to get them to France. In the end my uncle spent years in a ward for the insane after he shot a superior officer and jumped from a four story building to try to escape the hospital. Now he resides in France.

My great grand father's glass working business was destroyed by the Germans. After the war he rebuilt it, only to have the Russians take it over. My family that were farmers lost most of their land.

War is hideous. It has consequences that affect people even generations later. War 'crimes' are routine but even if they did not occur starvation and freezing kill many. I think with the A-bomb the US had a choice where there was no good decision that could be made and you accuse the US of making a bad one.

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

That depends on so many things, that's a ludicrous example.
Sure, if the US was the aggressor, wasn't willing to back down, and there was no other choice on China's part, it might be the best option. But again, you're presenting a house of cards here so the point is moot.

Re:that's awesome

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>If it was as your argument suggests, then why was the 2nd one dropped?

the second one was a different design, so it was simply a experiment. if it was a purely military decision, then why give up a proven design in favour of an experimental one?

I've also heard that Japan was actually ready to surrender before the first bomb was dropped.

I'm not completely sure my information is correct but am fairly certain Americans were not the "good guys". it was a war ffs. they were at best "generally less horrific than the other guys". that's how it goes.

Re:that's awesome

[Johnny5000]

Yeah, I know... who ever heard of Japs being Buddhists and believing in peace?

I can't speak for your family's specific beliefs, but the world has seen "peaceful" Christians and "peaceful" Muslims and "peaceful" Hindus, and "peaceful" Buddhists and members of all other religions slaughter each other, either because-of or despite their religious beliefs.

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

The US used the only two bombs they had actually. It was not a case of 'lets try one of these this time'.

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

So what are you saying? Japan was an innocent victim that committed no aggression or atrocities in WW2?

Enlighten me, please do. What is the real history here then? Without additional information, what are we to do but judge based on what we have before us? You say our views are wrong, but provide zero information to show how or why.

I have a very open mind, please put something before it.

Re:that's awesome

[Man On Pink Corner]

there was no reason to drop the second bomb.

Well, duh. If you drop one atomic bomb and they still don't surrender, what else are you supposed to do? You have to convince the Japanese (and, yes, the Soviets) that Hiroshima wasn't just a one-shot parlor trick. The idea of losing one major city wasn't enough to convince everyone in Japan not to fight. The idea of losing one major city every three days, though, was.

It's hard for people like you to realize that nobody considered it that big a deal back then. A-bombs didn't have the totemic power they have today. All they offered at the time was one-stop shopping convenience; you could carry out a Dresden- or Toyko-scale firebombing campaign with a single plane. The idea that atomic explosions represented something radically new, different, and immoral didn't gain widespread traction until they became a hundred times more powerful.

Re:that's awesome

[Loki_1929]

"The reason you dropped two bombs was that one was a uranium based device, the other a plutonium device of radically different design.
You just had to try both designs out, didn't you?"

Prior to being dropped on its target, the Uranium bomb wasn't even tested. The mechanics of it were so simple that it was assumed to be every bit as reliable as a conventional bomb. The Plutonium bomb had been tested previously, so we knew it worked. The physics were solid, but the mechanics of the implosion device were in question until it was tested (at the Trinity test site).

So in one hand you've got a bomb we knew would work, and in the other you've got a bomb we'd tested already. Just had to try out both designs? That's just stupid.

Both were dropped because they didn't surrender immediately. Had they continued their refusal to surrender, we would have kept dropping nuclear weapons until no one was left alive from that country to threaten the world. The United States did not start that war, we ended it. We ended it by hitting two military targets, one of which was chosen because of the military value combined with the fact that the surrounding topography drastically limited the blast radius to minimize civilian casualties. You just can't drop bombs that big without civilian casualties. On the other hand, there was no way to convince Japan that continuing the fight was futile without dropping bombs that big. Until they believed that they would be completely annihilated without even the honor of taking as many of their enemy down with them, they were committed to a land war where every man, woman, and child would fight to the death.

Re:that's awesome

[Elaarni]

Hi, The Trinity test had already been carried out, the second bomb wasn't a test they knew it would work, the test for the implosion bomb had already taken place in what is now White Sands missile range. Thank you, please drive through.

Re:that's awesome

[BagMan2]

It's too bad war is not as sanitary as you want it to be. Millions of non-combatants died during the war simply because the fighting was occurring in civilian areas. This wasn't the 18th century warfare where the two sides would line up facing each other while the citizens sat on the hill watching with picnic baskets. Dropping the bomb saved far more Japanese lives than it cost. The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the A-Bomb and that was a drop in the bucket compared to what would have needed to occur with a land-invasion.

Not targetting civilians is a misnormer of political correct modern warfare too. During WW2 the entire nations infrastructure was part of the apparatus needed to fight the war, and as such was a legitimate target. Hitting the industrial capacity of the country was an important aspect of strategy.

There were also other complex factors at play. We are practically at war with the Soviets before Germany was even defeated. When it became clear that Germany was going to lose, the latter stages of the war were all jockeying for position against hte Soviets in the post-war era. The Soviets were working their way down through Asia and the thought was that we had defeated the Japanese largely on our own and we didn't want to be in a situation where the Russians could claim half of Japan the way they did Germany. The Americans needed a quick end to the war. Without the A-Bomb, parts of Japan could have become like eastern Europe under Soviet control. How would that have been better for the Japanese long term (who btw, seem to have come out pretty rosy under American occupation).

You need to have an appreciation for the way the Japanese fought to understand the mindset of their citizens. The people of Japan would never surrender (even after the bomb) until their Emperor said it was ok. Even then, they wanted the terms of surrender to include nothing happens to our Emperor. It took something as dramatic as an A-Bomb to get them to surrender. If not for that, millions of them would have died in conventional warfare trying to defend their homeland.

Finally, the Japanese started the war. I see no reason to sacrafice more American lives to save the Japanese citizens who were clearly supportive of the war. Bottom line is that dropping the A-Bomb was one of the most humane things the American's did, both in short term and long term perspective.

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

Maybe you need some starting points in your research. Here's a number of links that might be worth contradicting with the 'truth':

Japanese War Crimes
Japanese Unit 731
Japanese human experimentation
Manila Massacre
Nanking Massacre
Bataan Death March

That should get you started :)

Re:that's awesome

[servognome]

Yes there were factions... but none of them were stupid enough to think that they could continue the fight under existing conditions.

Then why was there a coup attempt after the surrender was agreed to.

Re:that's awesome

[evilviper]

the US lost 400,000 and the bombs killed 220,000.

Pure logical fallacy. The winning side (US) lost far less soldiers than the losing side (Japan). This is nothing new or unusual, and you're confusing the two numbers to try and prove a false point.

The facts are, conventional bombing of Japan killed more (Japanese) people than the atomic bomb eventually did. Conventional bombings of Japan, of course, did NOT kill many US soldiers.

Re:that's awesome

[shutdown -p now]

The bombings saved American lives. Even if it didn't, the Allied leaders thought that they were saving American lives by dropping the bombs.

There, fixed that for you. To be honest, in a total war, this actually makes sense, and is not something I'd criticize the USA for. You did what it took to win the war in a most bloodless way possible for you, and that's indeed the goal of any war. Just please, would you Americans please stop spreading this bullshit about the A-bomb being a "more humane solution"?

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

The debate isn't whether it was horrible or not, getting tired of stating that. The debate is whether it was the lesser evil.

Look up Operation Downfall. All estimates are that Japan would have suffered more casualties simply leading UP to an allied invasion than they did in the two bombings. At that time there were more than 200,000 casualties per month in the pacific theatre. Further, the casualty rate for Operation Downfall, once initiated, was at least as high as that of the bombings at best, and that's not including casualties leading up to invasion.

Next, Japan was in a state of Total War. Do you know what that means? It is not clear whatsoever that those killed in the bombings can be considered simply as innocent civilians.

Again, horrific, terrible, nothing good came of any of it. Such as war. But in light of how the Japanese had conducted war up to that point and the atrocities they committed, combined with the prospect of an invasion of Japan, it is certainly not any more horrific or terrible than any other possible outcome. Numerous Japanese leaders from the time have come out and stated that that was the least horrific outcome of the pacific war. Anything else would have been much much worse for all sides.

What would be better than trying to stuff an obviously huge gray mess of a war into nice little black and white boxes would be to simply accept the horror that war is, learn from our mistakes in the past, and ensure that it never happens again.

Re:that's awesome

[shutdown -p now]

It wasn't the US who invented the concept of total war. But they were drawn into it, and had to fight by its rules (or rather, lack thereof), or lose.

Re:that's awesome

[mfrank]

They wanted to keep the emperor, and a couple of other things. No war crimes trials, and no occupation troops. They weren't trying to surrender, they were trying to call "time-out".

Re:that's awesome

[mantito]

Actually, they weren't ready to capitulate. What you had were two factions. One who were in control wanting to dig-in and die to the last man. (Like they were doing on numerous islands in the Pacific.)

The other faction realized they had lost, and that they could not hope to win. And that if they continued to fight then millions would die on both sides.

The atomic bombs gave them the leverage to displace the controlling faction.

****

Mind you, anyone who thinks that Japan was ready to surrender is easily disproved by history. If that was the case, we would not have to have used "two" bombs.

It's an absolute proof they were not ready to surrender.

Some people (who knew better than you) would like to disagree with your opinion (this was mentioned on slashdot before): "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

Re:that's awesome

[mantito]

Mind you, anyone who thinks that Japan was ready to surrender is easily disproved by history. If that was the case, we would not have to have used "two" bombs.

It's an absolute proof they were not ready to surrender.

Or USA wanted to test BOTH bombs, one made of uranium, and one made of plutonium.

Re:that's awesome

[xhrit]

The reasons that were at the forefront of the mind of those who decided to *invade iraq* were reprehensible. Showing the power of the US to the *islamic nations* and American willingness to *retaliate* were not good or moral reasons for the *iraq invasion*. That doesn't change the fact that the justification for *invading iraq* holds water. Just because many of the leaders of the day viewed the *iraq invasion* as a tool for *consolidating political power* doesn't mean that the other reasons they had in mind were not justification enough.

Everyone who criticizes the decision to *invade iraq* likes to forget that *Bush* and his advisors were working with incomplete information...

Re:that's awesome

[mfrank]

About a hundred thousand Japanese died of starvation in late 45 and early 46, and that was with massive food aid from the Allies. Their intra-coastal shipping and railroads were pretty much destroyed by August '45 and they had no way of getting their harvest to the cities. So, not invading was an alternative, and it would have killed at least ten times as many Japanese civilians.

Re:that's awesome

[PitaBred]

The true question is whether or not you're a Sicilian, and if so, is death on the line?

Re:that's awesome

[CaptPungent]

Bull. You need to go find some better reading material, because you sure as hell weren't reading Truman's diaries.

http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

7/25/45 Diary Entry:

"The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo].
...
He [Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement [known as the Potsdam Proclamation] asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful."

[7/26/45: The U.S., Great Britain, and China issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which called for Japan's "unconditional surrender". It made no reference to the future status of the Emperor, Russia's secret agreement to declare war on Japan, or the atomic bomb. It was rejected by Japan's Prime Minister Suzuki.]

Bombs dropped.

[8/10/45: Japan makes surrender offer to Allies.]

[8/10/45: Having received reports and photographs of the effects of the Hiroshima bomb, Truman ordered a halt to further atomic bombings. Sec. of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary on the 10th, "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (John Blum, ed., "The Price of Vision: the Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-1946", pg. 473-474).]

For one, he didn't expect it to kill as many civilians. Second, they offered the Japanese surrender prior to this. The Japanese REFUSED. That was the whole problem, they were defeated yet still refused to end the war, even if they couldn't win. Which just reinforced the prior intel that Japan would fight to the last child before surrendering.

The bomb was necessary. Truman didn't have the results of the first bomb until the 10th, well after the second bomb was dropped. This wasn't an age of the internet where he received information instantly, it took DAYS to get photographs from Japan to the President. The times were different, and you seem to be harboring an overly emotional grudge in the present times over it. You weren't there, and don't have the perspective of the times.

Since you feel "justified" in your anger because your family was involved, perhaps I should be equally angry that you and your ancestors brutally attacked my great-uncle and killed him on Dec 7th, 1941? Would that really be reasonable?

For the record, I've come to love and appreciate the Japanese culture. That still doesn't change that they killed my family, but you guys paid for it in the end. Let it go.

Re:that's awesome

[ushering05401]

The real history is very simple. A bunch of assholes started a war.. and after it was *over* - as in the other (admittedly guilty) side was begging for terms of surrender - the winners dropped A-bombs on innocent people to set up their posture for the next war... the cold war.

There is nothing complex here. The Japs and Germans (and Italians) were wrong - Lots of people died who should not have died - the war ended - then America decided that Japanese who had never joined the army or government should die so that they could intimidate the Russians.

The war was already over. There are people still living with the reality of this horror.

Re:that's awesome

[ushering05401]

Please forgive me, because you have made a very good post... but you are using only excerpts. Stimson was horribly conflicted about the bombing. Truman had serious reservations specifically related to the civilian toll. If you go to the library and find the complete documents this is what you will see.

The Japanese had exactly one stipulation for their surrender (and yes, it was a stupid fucking stipulation). They wanted only for the Emperor to remain. This is apparently the thing that caused the American politicians to refuse. We both know what happened next.

Senseless is the only word for it. Please do not read only excerpts. I have studied this issue and believe that you will find a different reality if you delve deeper.

Sure. The Japanese could have made it easier for the U.S.A. to accept their surrender, but nothing justified what happened next.

Re:that's awesome

[CaptainCarrot]

To take that a bit further, what the US was pressing for was unconditional surrender per the Potsdam declaration. The Japanese were unwilling to offer that, in part because they did not want the position of the Emperor to be compromised. The A-bombs elicited the kind of surrender we were demanding.

Whether it was worth the populations of two cities is a guessing game. Analysis of the situation by the American side is one thing (disturbing as it might be for anyone who thinks dropping the bombs was unquestionably justifiable from our POV; obviously it was not) but the fact of the matter is it's not at all clear whether Japan would have surrendered before a homeland invasion. The wiser heads in the government, the Emperor included, wanted to do exactly that (saving the Emperor's prerogatives) but there was a strong faction that did not. I'm not sure it can be said with all confidence that they would not have prevailed in the face of actual invasion. Even the Emperor privately acknowledged at least one reason why he would choose to continue the war.

I'm trying to think of what Adm. Nimitz might have been thinking of when he said Japan had "sued for peace". I know they'd been trying to get the Soviets to mediate negotiations, but I've never heard of actual terms being offered. As far as I know, we were aware of it through intercepted diplomatic communications, not by actual Soviet mediation.

In the end, it was as much the declaration of war on the part of the Soviets as the A-bomb that pushed the Japanese cabinet into accepting Potsdam, so whatever may have been going on before is irrelevant. Japan was counting on at least neutrality from the Soviets, and they weren't going to get it. At that, surrender was probably certain even without the bombs.

On the other hand, I do have to take into account the recollections of a friend's mother, who was an elementary school student in Japan at the time. The students were receiving combat training in preparation for an Allied invasion, the girls included. Given that, and given the dissension in the Japanese cabinet we now know existed on the issue prior to the bombs, it may be understandable that someone might conclude there was no reasonable alternative. Incorrect, as many said so at the time and obvious in retrospect, but understandable.

Re:that's awesome

[professionalfurryele]

Hardly comparable. You don't get to claim that you are working with incomplete information when you create a culture within the intelligence community that only allows you to receive incomplete information.

Re:that's awesome

[greenbird]

Anyone who has a problem with the above link can go research this at the Library of Congress. There is even more info to be found there. Japan was defeated. Stop all the revisionist bullshit. The bombs were dropped on motherfucking civilians. Your own president was writing in his journal about the injustice of dropping the bomb on civilians

Then please explain why even after both bombs were dropped the Japanese were still demanding conditions before they would surrender. They never did unconditionally surrender which was the very publicly declared Allied war aim. The US folded and granted them the conditions they were demanding even though it went against all the declared war aims. Yet you claim they were utterly defeated and begging to surrender. Let's see now, which is fact and which is fiction. You, sir, need to take your own advice.

Re:that's awesome

[FishWithAHammer]

A plutonium bomb had been tested at what is now White Sands Missile Range, dipshit. We knew that one worked. There was no "testing" involved.

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

Yes, we know what stance you choose to take, but again, you provide zero proof to back it up. None. Nada. I've provided a large amount of information that contradicts your stance, and that's just a tiny bit of the information available.

Believe what you want, but if you have no facts to back it up, good luck convincing others.

Re:that's awesome

[GeckoX]

If you don't care, then why do you care?

I'm not being an apologist of any sort. I'm merely discussing what are known and agreed upon facts. I'm also very open to the idea that a lot of these facts may indeed be wrong and am always interested in information showing different points of view.

Not sure where you're trying to go with that...perhaps you're of the opinion that everyone should have just stopped fighting and gone their separate ways? And ideally, I'd have to agree with that...however, that's not what happened and there is nothing that can change what did happen. All we can do is learn from what did happen and do everything we can to ensure it does not happen again.

Re:that's awesome

[neurovish]

Want more proof? What do arguments like yours conveniently overlook? Hint: How many nukes were dropped? If it was as your argument suggests, then why was the 2nd one dropped? The 2nd one was dropped to show that the first one wasn't a fluke and that we had more. At this time, all the major powers were working on nuclear weapons and noticing the insane resources it was taking to just develop one. It wasn't like that was needed was the secret formula and some machine tooling to setup an assembly line.

Elections is coming...

[Pecisk]

Said already enough. All these actions - playing Antiamerican cards, claiming Russia "best nation in the world", trying to "correct" international thinking about Stalin etc. etc. at absurdum - is to get already tired people from all this bullshit to vote for Putin comrades. Economy is going down (nevermind huge sales of oil and gas), inflation goes trough the roof, common people only see that one type of oligarchs have been replaced by another, more nationalistic/militaristic, but still don't caring much about nation. But Russians dies out as a people, trough heavy drinking/hunger/strong disillusion about the country. They become more dangerous than any radical Islamists, who cause at least could be understood.

Imperialists don't want to admit simply that Russia as "strong arm dictarionship" is dead horse, which will never work in modern time settings. I just hope their last resort won't be trying to play "hard" with the rest of the world. As we easily know how it is to have people who have nothing to loose.

Re:Elections is coming...

[Notquitecajun]

Some of the new bosses in Russia are the EXACT same old bosses - old party members who made good when the Soviet Union fell. Democracy takes time, but Putin is trying to take a twenty-year step back. At first I liked the guy - he's tough, proud of his heritage, hates traitors from both sides of the aisle - but as time went on he kept getting worse and worse on liberties and on trying to maintain his stranglehold on power. It's going to take years - if ever - for the Russians to get out of the mentality that they need a near-dictator in charge.

Re:Elections is coming...

[Pecisk]

As it is not only Russians problem (almost all post-Soviet nations share similar sentiment. I know, as citizen of Latvia), I think problem hides in that people thought democracy is a miracle - it will come and it will work. Wow, corruption. Wow, hunger, lies, rising crime. Ahh, nah, democracy just doesn't work. Let's go back to Soviet times? Damn, USSR is gone? What a shame. Heck, let's have supreme lea...errr, strong president then.

Let's remember how it was in US 100 years _after_ their Constitution was created. KKK, crime by army and police, religious nuts, US Indians issue. Capitalism wasn't rosy game altogether. Even now they still have problems. But heck, they are trying, even if there is some nuts like Bush who trying to undo all achieved.

People simply need to be more patient, and work on democracy to achieve it best. However, people want to have miracle already. Lot of problems, including huge bribery and corruption in post-Soviet countries, are just consequences of so called "fall out generation", which were in their best years when USSR felt. Generation which knew that they won't see fruits of huge work in democracy today, so they want everything NOW.

Just my humble opinion,
Peter.

Re:Elections is coming...

[DigiShaman]

They become more dangerous than any radical Islamists, who cause at least could be understood.

Understood, but not rationalized. Even such, global radical Islam tops my list as those that pose the most threat.

As for the state of Russia, I agree. It's a falling nation with a falling birth rate. Didn't they have something to the effect of "national conception day"? Funniest thing hearing Putin urging people to have more sex. No: if anything, Russia will fade away like some candle running out of wax. I mean, does anyone still view them as a super power anymore? I don't, and that bothers Putin and his comrades. Too bad his people don't give a care anymore.

Soccer anyone? Vodka is on the house!

Re:Elections is coming...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

People simply need to be more patient, and work on democracy to achieve it best.

Which people? The children of their children? The recipe you've just described is for a whole life of misery, pain, destitution for whole generations of people who will never get to see the supposed results of their sacrifices before they die. That is what your version of "patience" means.

I do not blame them in the slightest that upon discovering that the goods they have been sold with great fanfare come with a fine, fine print saying "You the buyer, do not dare to expect results for 100 years after you are dead. We, the sellers, can expect the results immediately. By the way if you are of an older generations, everything you have worked for is now null and void. Have a nice day."

I too would have been somewhat miffed at this attitude. Note that none of this "wait 200 years" bullshit was ever mentioned in the rosy stories by the Voice of America before the Soviet Union fell, was it? Amongst all the song and dance and innuendo about how streets are pretty much paved with gold and rivers run with honey in the Capitalist Paradise, there were strong suggestions that the West is oh-so equitable and that everyone is if not a millionaire, then at least has a mansion and 2 cars, and that you can be that way too if you only got rid of these horrible, unjust Commie bureaucrats who lord over you with their unheard of excesses of having two, count em: Two!, rooms more in their apartament then you. That would have never happened in the Capitalist Paradise! And then of course there was all that unjust political stuff like the horrible, unthinkable demands of these tyrannical Commies to see your papers when you travel to check you against that abomination of "dissident no-travel list" and having your phones bugged, or maybe even to haul you away to a Gulag - plain impossible, we say, impossible in the Glorious Freedom Loving America. Etc and so on.

Having had experience with these types of sales in the West, people have coined a term for them: "bait and switch".

And its a type of a scam.

Re:Elections is coming...

[a_nonamiss]

Peter, great post. You honor all thinking people in the world. As a US citizen, but someone who doesn't agree with many US policies, it's nice to see a critical post that can so succinctly point out some deep flaws in democracy, and indeed in human nature, without resorting to brainless America-bashing. As much as I really don't like Bush and his radical pro-greed, anti-freedom policies, it also infuriates me to see people jumping on the we-hate-america bandwagon. There are a LOT of good people here. Remember, 60% - 65% of Americans disagree with Bush's policies, too. (Depending on which poll you trust) Unfortunately, our political system is set up so we can do very little about it until the next election, and even then, it's very difficult to effect any real change.

So thank you. If you ever want to start a country somewhere, let me know!

Re:Elections is coming...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So thank you. If you ever want to start a country somewhere, let me know!

You might reconsider that after you discover that "Peter's Country" will be a freezing puddle of mud where you get to subsist on tree bark and wear scraps of tires for shoes until you die. After all, "patience" would be required and the results not expected for, oh somewhere around 200 year mark from the date of the glorious foundation of that visionary nation.

Re:Elections is coming...

[Pragmatix]

In my government class at college (long ago) the professor suggested that one of the key ingredients to a successful democratic government was strong 'non-governmental organizations' (NGOs).

One of the reasons why so many democracies had failed (we were studying Africa specifically) was due to a lack of such NGOs.

Re:Elections is coming...

[shutdown -p now]

What a shame. Heck, let's have supreme lea...errr, strong president then.

"Strong president" is so last year. A week ago they've come up with a new title for our beloved President to assume after his retirement as such - "national leader" who will serve as a "check on all three branches of government ... representing the people as a whole". That comes directly from the ruling pro-President "United Russia" party. They've said that, should they win the parliamentary elections, they will call for a referendum to assemble a "Civil Council" that would then draft the so-called "pact of civil unity" that will establish the "national leader" title for Putin, and which is to be signed by all political forces in the country (including all political parties).

More info:

• http://www.edinros.ru/news.html?id=125194 (in Russian)
• http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2007/11/08/011.html
• http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/032b8382-8d6f-11dc-a398-0000779fd2ac.html

Re:Elections is coming...

[shutdown -p now]

The problem is that things were actually getting better by the end of 90s. They certainly weren't getting better as fast as they could, thanks to all the incompetency, bureaucratic overhead, and widespread corruption. But the people who played that card to get themselves into power didn't really combat any of the core issues, and in many cases even aggravated them (e.g. the number of bureaucrats under Putin is higher than it ever was under Yeltsin, and their salaries have grown disproportionally higher than those of the rest of the population).

Re:Elections is coming...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The problem is that things were actually getting better by the end of 90s.

Well, a lage part of the problems occured right at the outset of transition from communism because the most vile of Western charlatans, whose "theories" are widely derided and opposed by most sane people in their own native lands, got to shape the fate of the formerly communist nations, where people greeted them as "experts" and gave them the benefit of the doubt. And the denisens of those places are still paying for that bit of naivette, having only too late discovered that they have invited wolves and foxes into their chickenhouse. Putin and his band of merry authocrats is a response to the wholesale thievery of pretty much an entire nation by Yeltsin's (mostly Israeli) cronies while Geoffrey Sachs' of the world were prescribing "belt tightening" and "starvation shock therapy" for the average Russian. "Things getting better" were a result of a massive pushback by the populace against the "dog-eat-dog", "winner takes all", "steal everything not nailed down" "capitalism" as it was being instituted by these "experts" (although not necessarily against the bureaucrats who were complicit in the whole affair).

But the people who played that card to get themselves into power didn't really combat any of the core issues, and in many cases even aggravated them (e.g. the number of bureaucrats under Putin is higher than it ever was under Yeltsin, and their salaries have grown disproportionally higher than those of the rest of the population).

Well the problem with democracy is that the number of vicious wolves attempting to rip the society apart is no less in it then in any other system. After hundreds of years, the most visible and frequently held up as the gold standard example of Constitutional Democracy in the US is still barely functional, highly corruptible and constantly teetering on the edge of collapse. Just witness the antics of GW Bush and his pals and what they did with the supposedly democratic nation under their control. I think a lot of people in the former Soviet sphere realized, only too late, that the "democracy" and "capitalism" as it was sold to them (and boy was it ever a fevered sales pitch!) were in actuality nowhere near resembling their depictions on the glossy sales brochures, and that their old communist system had some few features they actually liked better. Many are starting to feel cheated and duped. The term for this is "buyer's remorse".

What will come of all of this I do not know, but to blame the denizes of the former USSR for being somehow "impatient" when asking for the promised results to be delivered as promised is the very height of hypocrisy. I fear that their anger will only grow with time as now they are also discovering that their supposed new "friends" are also busy expanding their military presence everywhere around them in an effort to consolidate their de-facto Imperial power and that the old USSR was the only force holding back the expansion of the said Empire. Suspicions of duplicitous intent are only natural in light of such developments.

Re:Elections is coming...

[enmane]

Peter,
  Great post. The one thing that all countries trying to become a democracy need is something like our constitution (even if some are trying to shit all over it these days). Seriously, our forefathers were BRILLIANT. They understood human nature and TRIED (oftentimes successfully) to create rules and laws that would use that human nature for the betterment. Surely, they couldn't forsee the technology and devices that we have today but they did a pretty darned good job for several hundred years. That being said, almost nobody will try to take the constitution head-on. Eventually, they will and I worry when that day arrives as I think our forefathers had more common sense and decency in their pinky then most politicians do today - I would not sleep at night knowing that these guys were writing something so powerful.

In short, for a democracy to succeed, IMHO, it needs something that can't be circumvented (by current and potentially future means) that is written in true democratic fashion and for total equality. If a gov't is trying to just add voting to a current political practice, then I don't believe that it will succeed. Just my opinion.

Re:Elections is coming...

[DesScorp]

"But heck, they are trying, even if there is some nuts like Bush who trying to undo all achieved."

I was with you until that part. Bush isn't real popular with anyone these days....liberals have always hated him, and now conservatives are mad at him over his betrayal with the amnesty for illegal aliens issue...but this notion that Bush is an all-powerful dictator is utter horseshit. The guy was elected twice, whether or not people here at Slashdot want to admit it. He just had one of his vetoes overridden. His party was beaten out of power in 2006 in Congress. Meanwhile, some of his "anti-American" programs have since been approved by the new Democratic overlords in the Congress. And I keep trying to recall a newspaper that he's shut down, or a tv station, or a radio station....none comes to mind. Care to name a protest that he's broken up?

  Even if Bush TRIED to destroy Democracy, he couldn't. Anyone that says differently is a conspiracy nutcase. Democracy in America is doing just fine, thanks. And the dirty little secret of American society to your Europeans is that more Americans are like Bush than are like you. This is a more conservative country than not, and that isn't going to change, regardless of the party in power. Just because our democracy isn't of the flavor that you like doesn't mean that it's not a democracy anymore.

Re:Elections is coming...

[Jon Kay]

IgnoramusMaximus wrote:
I do not blame them in the slightest that upon discovering that the goods they have been sold with great fanfare come with a fine, fine print saying "You the buyer, do not dare to expect results for 100 years after you are dead. We, the sellers, can expect the results immediately. By the way if you are of an older generations, everything you have worked for is now null and void. Have a nice day."

This is a good point - we don't point the hardships out nearly enough. As Churchill said, democracy is terrible; we only do it because the alternatives are even worse.

But the real time needed is actually 50 years. And democratizers often don't see so much benefit beforehand - the new Indian democracy, for example, had terrible relations with most old democracies for decades.

And the generations before that do see improvement as well. They see serious improvements in their lifetimes compared to comparative stasis beforehand. Despite Rumsfeld's inability to understand what the word occupation means, Iraqis mostly have decidedly more freedom of speech, and it doesn't take much Iraqi-blog-reading to see they love it. Among other things, they use it to grumble about the many, many problems Rumsfeld's disinterest in Iraqi ground security has caused.

But the real reason people tough it out, of course, is because they know their kids'll have it much better, and their grandkids will have it good.

Re:Elections is coming...

[Reservoir Penguin]

This is not insightful, I don't know WHAT country he is describing, but it is certainly NOT Russia I live in. Whatever the opposition that has single digit support wants us to believe, every micro and macro economical indicator show that we are doing just fine economically. Either that or I cant just look out of my apartment window in Novosibirsk and see the great progress we have made since Putin came to power.

Re:Elections is coming...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

But the real reason people tough it out, of course, is because they know their kids'll have it much better, and their grandkids will have it good.

If only.

The goings on in the USA demonstrate clearly to anyone who is paying attention that supposedly advanced democracies and reasonably free market systems are extremely fragile and more often then not all the "freedoms" are nothing but a thin veneer covering totalitarian forces, de-facto dynastical aristocracy or skillfully manipulated by demagouges mob rule within. If the recent drastic political changes within the USA and the belligerent behaviour of various supposedly freedom-loving Western governments would have not occured, the chances of convincing people within the former Soviet sphere or in Iraq or Palestine to "tough it out" would have been much greater. As it is, I do not think the words "democracy" or "capitalism" have the purchasing power they used to, not by a long shot. Add to this a long standing, abusive, one-sided and hypocritical attitdue the US had towards the Arab world for the last 50+ years and the USA becomes the very anti-thesis of justice and freedom in the eyes of Arab (and Persian) audiences.

So as a result those people do not see the light at the end of the tunnel, or if they do it is a much much dimmer one. And so they are ready to cut their own paths through the jungle of politics no longer heeding any "advice" from the discredited in their eyes Western pundits. Accusations of being "undemocratic" from those who they now see as duplicitous, hypocritcal and ill meaning only spur them on in the opposite direction.

Re:Elections is coming...

[d_i_r_t_y]

[quote]
Care to name a protest that he's broken up?
[/quote]

Does pre-invasion Iraq count?

Seriously though, the problem with Bush is not on his democratic credentials as it were, it's how fast and loose he is prepared to play with the truth, and trying to shape the beliefs of the American people through sustained FUD instead of representing them.

Looks at the Iraq invasion, look at how widely it was opposed, but they went ahead with it anyway, and now look, there were no WMDs, and it all appears very likely it was all a deliberate & premeditated lie.

Is that really democracy? Or put another way, what is the point of democracy if democratically-elected leaders just go ahead and do what they want anyway?

Re:Elections is coming...

[Jon Kay]

IgnoramusMaximus wrote:
goings on in the USA demonstrate clearly to anyone who is paying attention that supposedly advanced democracies and reasonably free market systems are extremely fragile and more often then not all the "freedoms" are nothing but a thin veneer covering totalitarian forces,

Really? Then why are you still around to be allowed to post? Why is slashdot being allowed to exist? Why were the Democrats allowed to take control of Congress? Did Bush get sick of those Republican faces and want a change? Maybe we still have a right or two left, huh?

the chances of convincing people within the former Soviet sphere or in Iraq or Palestine to "tough it out" would have been much greater.

Now, you're right about Palestine, but the last Iraqi and Afghan opinion polls I saw said they still want this democracy thing. And, when did the mass coups in Eastern Europe happen?

Re:Elections is coming...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Really? Then why are you still around to be allowed to post? Why is slashdot being allowed to exist? Why were the Democrats allowed to take control of Congress? Did Bush get sick of those Republican faces and want a change? Maybe we still have a right or two left, huh?

You are confusing a disfunctional democracy with outright totalitarian state. These things are not a matter of black and white binary conditions, but rather a continuum of possibilities. An institutionalized, ritual "two-party in name, one party of estabilishment in practice" system which the USA has devolved into is a far cry from a vibrant markeptlace of ideas the Founding Fathers envisioned. That does not mean that the USA has descended as far as totalitarianism, although The Police State has arrived and has unpacked his luggage, got his torture rack installed in the basement and now is mounting his pictures on the wall, while listening to your calls on his scanner. When he makes himself really at home, then he is going to call one of his best buddies, The Tyranical Dictatorship or perheaps The Empire. But the landlord might yet come to his senses and kick this new tenant's ass out. Only time will tell.

Note also the disfunctional mass media, the conglomeration of channels of information (with the exception of the Internet) and the consolidation of financial power in fewer and fewer hands. Then also note the increasing disparity of ownership of assets between the majority of Americans and the top 1% elite, now at the levels not seen since 1929.

So please do not dismiss these events by proclaiming that the Brown Shirts are not marching yet, because history never repeats itself precisely the same way. Yet when the modern equivalents of the most prominent excesses of the tyrants past arrive, it will be far too late to complain then.

Now, you're right about Palestine, but the last Iraqi and Afghan opinion polls I saw said they still want this democracy thing.

Please be very careful with data from Afghanistan because while the Western ideals might indeed be somewhat popular in Kabul and posisbly in Khandahar, they are definitely not so in the countryside, where the pollsters dare not go. Afghanistan is a (probably hopelessly for a foreseeable future) tribalized country to the point that every few villages have their own warlord. Allegiances are of the utmost tricky and fickle nature and depend usually on the amount of bribes various sides can offer. All people under the control of the warlord dare not "vote" in any silly elections in any contradictory to his will way. In short, the whole thing is far too medieval for any Enlightenment concept such as "democracy" to take hold outside of the major centers where the "government" is wholly dependent on NATO forces to keep it in power. The situation is actually laughably similar to the state of affairs during the Soviet occupation, except with the Commie Afghan government in the starring role back then who proudly exhibited polls showing that just about everyone in Afghanistan, with the exception of some few religious lunatics called the Taliban, wants Socialism. And we all know how that turned out in the long term.

And, when did the mass coups in Eastern Europe happen?

Mass movements of change always come from within societies when they become ready for them. The West fostered dissent for 40 or so years in the Soviet sphere by incessant propaganda effort via multiple modalities and it finally succeeded ... when the lure of consumer goods and supposed riches to be had by "everybody" became too great. Sad but true. The Gdansk Shipyard strikes which started the whole thing were about money, not "freedom" or "democracy". Carefuly cultivated and encouraged greed finally succeeded where all other means failed. That is why I mentioned jokingly the 2-apartament riches of the Commie bureaucrats, because that was the actual

Re:Elections is coming...

[Jon Kay]

If you insist on being scared and finding excuses to ignore facts on the ground, then go have fun without me. I'm not going to waste time arguing with somebody uninterested in tne facts.

I will warn you that people who pay attention to facts historically do better than people who don't.

Also note that the recent "revolutions" in places like Ukraine are all led by thinly disguised Western plants, complete with massive funding from sources unknown,

This is funny. They're all experienced politicians from each country, openly aided by pro-democratic NGOs. I guess you'll find some reason that couldn't possibly be true, though.

Re:Elections is coming...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

If you insist on being scared and finding excuses to ignore facts on the ground, then go have fun without me. I'm not going to waste time arguing with somebody uninterested in tne facts.

I can assume then that you have no counter arguments to present and are now withdrawing from the debate while attempting to maintan a pretense of aloof "superiority", without actually addressing the ponts presented.

I will warn you that people who pay attention to facts historically do better than people who don't.

And what "facts" would these be? You've presented none.

This is funny.

Not so to the denizens of those countries.

They're all experienced politicians from each country, openly aided by pro-democratic NGOs.

Which, by some cosmic coincidence, also means that they are nearly all exclusively returned expatriates with long-time, deep Western ties, having spent most of their lives, gathering "experience" I presume, in the West, and also, completely accidentally, those NGOs are also all financed from Western sources and likewise run by returned expatriates. A world is full of wacky confluences, no?

I guess you'll find some reason that couldn't possibly be true, though.

Its true all right, except that is only the paint-thin surface appearance of the affairs, one on which some truly naive people are supposed to focus, looking no deeper.

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[4D6963]

This man was a thief, a traitor

No, that's the nuance between a traitor and a spy. From the Russian point of vue, this guy helped shape history in their favour, by tremendously helping them get the tool required to afford to make the USA crap their pants for about 40 years.

So he was the one

[ACK!!]

who set them up the bomb?

But how does this fit into the Rosenberg trial and other people the US executed for passing on state secrets?

I know that post cold war pretty convincing evidence has come out saying they did perform spying for the Soviet Russian state.

But how does this all fit together?

Re:So he was the one

[SargentDU]

Wasn't Roseenberg the H-bomb secret? The one in story is A-bomb, the first nuclear weapon.

Re:So he was the one

[Fezmid]

> who set them up the bomb?

You have no chance to survive, make your time.

Boom zig, boom zig.

Re:Pride?

[ed.mps]

Without the A-Bomb, Russia wouldn't have much economic/political power today, even if it's only a part of the power it had in the past. ps: I did notice that parent read and interpreted this story from an "American Victm" perspective.

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[name*censored*]

The GERMANS started it (believe it or not the US wasn't the only country fighting), the only thing the Japanese did was force the US's involvement (which is ironic, when your ilk attack France for not getting involved in a war that didn't involve them, when you wouldn't have "saved their asses in dubya dubya two" if the Japs hadn't attacked). Also, I wasn't expressing an opinion on whether dropping The Bomb was the right move, I was merely pointing out the irrational bias in overly-patriotic morons; thank you for so eloquently proving my point.

Re:Pride?

[aadvancedGIR]

I could name countless other Russians that deserve this kind of recognition more than a cold war spy.

Are you refering to the one who stole that specially tuned pipeline control program (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=829)?

And of course, I suppose you take great pride in the apolo missions but conviniently forget that fromer nazi war criminals took an important part in post WWII US space superiority.

As a western european, I don't like the idea that Russia has a lot of nukes, but I can't see why we should deny Putin to acknoledge the work that this guy has done FOR RUSSIA.

Re:Pride?

[djupedal]

Spoils of war, by any other name...

Remember, some days you eat the Bear and some days the Bear eats you. No precedent in this case...by far.

Re:Pride?

[sinclair44]

If you're feeling like a jerk
'cuz your A-Bomb just won't work
Go ahead and steal the thing
Then you'll finally have the US's bling.
BURMA SHAVE

Not very prideful

[sapphire wyvern]

From the article: "Historians say Mr. Putin may have cited Dr. Koval's accomplishments as a way to rekindle Russian pride."

Huh. Well, I'd be the last to say that Russia has nothing to be proud of. There's a long history of great achievements there (as well as some horrific crimes).

But, rekindling Russian pride by honoring the guy who... um... helped them leach from American R&D and achievement?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be that proud of it!

I guess Putin, given his own unsavoury background, probably has different ideas about counts as a "great achievement".

eh hem....

[djupedal]

'he was also recruited and trained by the GRU, Russia's largest intelligence agency'

When you're an English-speaking, baseball-playing, corn-on-the cab chewing, native-Iowan, those young Prussian female recruiting babes, I mean 'agents', are pretty hard to resist.

They should be the ones getting the honors, actually...

Re:eh hem....

[mabinogi]

those young Prussian female recruiting babes, I mean 'agents', are pretty hard to resist.. Are you sure you meant Prussian?

Prussia, even at the height of its Empire when it covered most of modern Germany and Poland, still didn't include modern Russia.

In Soviet Russia...

[SyscRAsH]

Putin honors YOU!

Re:Pride?

[baldass_newbie]

I did notice that parent read and interpreted this story from an "American Victm" perspective.

Are you saying if I take your car you would not be the victim?
Something was stolen from someone. How are they not a victim of the theft? Or is that not a crime in your world?

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[ByOhTek]

OUCH.

Wow, get a history lesson.

The Germans started the European stage. The Japanese started the Pacific stage. About the only thing they had going on between the two was

1) Agreements not to attack eachother (both planned to drop this as soon as convinient)
2) Slight sharing of tech and resources.

World War II was really two separate wars. The Japanese war against the US and mainland Asia, and the German/Italian war against Europe/Africa/Russia.

surely a hero to the whole World

[BoxRec]

The man is possibly one of the greatest heroes of all time, he equalised the power balance and prevented the Americans from bombing whoever they wished.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[Ash Vince]

The man is possibly one of the greatest heroes of all time, he equalised the power balance and prevented the Americans from bombing whoever they wished. I wish I had mod points for this but I don't so I will have to just repost it with a higher score (until some pro-us looneys mod this down as a troll or whatever).

The one thing that history has taught us is that power corrupts. If we in the west had the ability to make communism go away with one button and no chance of any reprisals we may have done it (or our policians may have done it for us without asking).

Also note that the Russia had a policy of never striking first with Nuclear weapons unless we deployed them first, we (NATO) had no such policy. We held on to Nukes as way to discourage a conventional invasion so we had a policy that allowed us to strike first with WMD's, otherwise this policy would not have been effective.

The rulers of the west had one thing in common with Hitler, they both despised the idea of Socialism in the form adopted by Russia. The fact is that in the cold war we came very close to a nuclear exchange anyway, and this was when we knew the opposing side could match us.

If we knew they had no chance of retaliating except with a conventional attack I could see us in the west having taken things a lot further. I also believe that Russia would probably have not stopped the tanks when they did, if not for us demonstrating our nuclear ability against Japan.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[xcaverx]

The USSR had a policy of no first use because it served their propaganda purposes and convinced western stooges that the Soviets were morally superior to us, this after exterminating 20+ million of their own people. No first use cost them nothing, gained the admiration of weak-minded individuals, and, most importantly, could be discarded any time they saw fit to attack.

The level of historical and political sophistication on /. is appalling. I expect and excuse this stuff from high school freshmen, not from educated adults.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[Steauengeglase]

Yep, nuclear prolifiration, thats really something to be proud of.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[denzacar]

Communist apologists are morally equivalent to Nazi apologists as the two ideologies in practice are genocidal, despotic and enslaving. Hmm... American Indians, Vietnam... oh yeah... those civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Well... we could probably dig up more, but I guess Doubya should be enough for count two.
And count three... well... them darkies sure know how to pick that cotton, and build them railroads don't they?

And all that by the THE democratic government? Wow! Mind boggling.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[JavaLord]

I wish I had mod points for this but I don't so I will have to just repost it with a higher score (until some pro-us looneys mod this down as a troll or whatever). The one thing that history has taught us is that power corrupts. If we in the west had the ability to make communism go away with one button and no chance of any reprisals we may have done it (or our policians may have done it for us without asking).

Nonsense. The US foreign policy up until and in WW2 was for the most part isolationist when it came to Europe. The idea that the US would nuke Russia "just to get rid of them" is absurd. If we knew they had no chance of retaliating except with a conventional attack I could see us in the west having taken things a lot further.

There is nothing in our history, long ago, or recent that suggests that.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[demonlapin]

The level of historical and political sophistication on /. is appalling. I expect and excuse this stuff from high school freshmen, not from educated adults.

Whose comments, exactly, did you think you were reading?

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[Seraphim_72]

I also believe that Russia would probably have not stopped the tanks when they did, if not for us demonstrating our nuclear ability against Japan.

And General Patton would have loved to see them try that too. The perfect quote for this was Patton to the Under Sect. of War: "I would have you tell the Red Army where their border is, and give them a limited time to get back across. Warn them that if they fail to do so, we will push them back across it." It would have been bloody, but in the end we still had more fight left in us than the Soviets did, and they were using our equipment and money to run their war machine, call Tehran and ask how finding fighter parts is treating them these days. And given the chance Patton would have put the Germans back in uniform for the fight.

No quite frankly we could have taken the soviets at the time and won, though at a terrible cost, which is part of the reason we didn't. Even for years after we could have fought and won a war - yet we didn't. At the time we had no desire for Empire and in fact had to be dragged (some even say tricked) kicking and screaming into the war. Creating MAD was by no means a great thing, a sole nuclear America on the world stage with a 'mind your own business, each of you' might have been a good thing. And certainly many US wars - Korea, Vietnam and other smaller ones around the globe might have been prevented. Not to mention the millions of Russians killed by Stalin.

Would I want Shrub and his ilk in the position that would create? Hell no, but at the same time half the reason for what they are doing now is to create that very thing. Without the reason to create it, would he and his type even exist? Do not confuse all American presidents and presidential hopefuls with Bush, great things *could* have been done. Like it or not there is One Government in the earths future. I would rather it had been started by men that had just gone through the greatest war in history, rather then the type we now have.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[808140]

The US was isolationist? Yeah, for a few years between the wars, maybe. But don't think that those America First nutjobs represented the whole country, even then. During the great depression we perhaps lacked the will or desire to involve ourselves in another war; but lest you forget, we had been engaged in a major European conflict just 25 years before. No "isolationist" country would have gotten involved in something as bloody and horrible as World War I when they lived on the other side of the world and had no reason whatsoever to do so.

And before that, the US was constantly involved in warfare, often on its own soil. The Mexican American war, for example (you know much of the southwestern US, including California, was Mexico in the 19th century, right?) During the Civil War, both the CSA and the USA actively courted European military support for their side, again, not an isolationist strategy.

The US has historically been a militaristic expansionist power on the North American continent, and has acted as such for most of its history. Furthermore, it has been intimately involved with the European powers since its inception. England and France both courted supporting the CSA during the Civil War because they felt that a divided US would be better for them — not a concern one would have about a truly isolationist power (and indeed, it was only the Emancipation Proclamation that prevented them from doing so — Lincoln only freed the slaves to prevent the world powers of the day from coming in on the side of the rebels, because once the Civil War seemed to be about slaves and not about state's rights, the anti-Slavery European powers could not in good faith support the south).

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[denzacar]

And judging from the way you associate in your post - you are a pooh-pooh head necrophiliac.

There... now that we got the pleasantries out of the way, let me just point out that by dumping communist and nazis into a same basket you are implying that it is only by chance that USA fought AGAINST Hitler in WWII and not ALONG SIDE him against those red bastards.

Say Pearl Harbor never happened.
Why not invade Britain and then help Hitler subdue those commie Russians. Japs will take care of Chinese, and the rest can be divided later.
Americas and Britain to the USA, Europe and Russia to Germany, and Japs can have the Asia.
Keep Africa under mutual control - one has to get their cheap labor from somewhere, right?
All those non-white and non-arian people will not last forever.

You'd better get to Pearl Harbor and spill some sake on the Arizona for those brave Japanese pilots that enabled you to be the self-righteous prick that you are today.
Imagine commies being wiped out, and nazis being your best pals. Who would you hate then?

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[evilviper]

Also note that the Russia had a policy of never striking first with Nuclear weapons unless we deployed them first, we (NATO) had no such policy.

The Soviets had the common decency to lie, while NATO did not. Treaties don't mean a damn, and everyone knows it.

Many, many, MANY other similar examples throughout the cold war. For a start, see the chemical/biological weapons treaties.

The rulers of the west had one thing in common with Hitler, they both despised the idea of Socialism in the form adopted by Russia.

And? Even Socialist China despised the Socialist USSR. Some countries hate other countries.

If we knew they had no chance of retaliating except with a conventional attack I could see us in the west having taken things a lot further.

The USA had that opportunity for several years, and did nothing. In fact, when the USSR performed their first atomic test, that would have been the ideal time to wipe them off the face of the earth, before they could retaliate, realizing that wouldn't be the situation for much longer... Yet, it didn't happen.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[dcam]

At the time we had no desire for Empire and in fact had to be dragged (some even say tricked) kicking and screaming into the war.

America has *always* been interested in empire, right throughout the 20th century. From right after the 2nd world war the US was meddling in Europe and South America, expanding control.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[anaesthetica]

The rulers of the west had one thing in common with Hitler, they both despised the idea of Socialism in the form adopted by Russia.

What an amazing piece of propaganda. Yes, the "rulers" (by which I assume you mean the democratically elected presidents/prime ministers, as opposed to Soviet dictators) of the West despised Soviet communism. But they did tolerate Eurosocialism. Moreover, the West did not hate socialism so much that that it would ally with Hitler (which is what Hitler wanted). They allied with Stalin against Hitler. Your attempt to draw some kind of moral equivalence between the West and Hitler, simply because neither liked Stalinist Bolshevism, is rather pathetic.

Moreover, the justification for U.S. Cold War grand strategy, contained in George Kennan's "X" article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct", does not locate the threat from the Soviet Union in its ideology. In fact, he believes that ideology is the critical weakness of the USSR that will allow the U.S. to triumph over the Soviet Union without need for war. The threat was simply traditional Russian territorial expansionism, which would require political, economic, and military containment (not rollback or liberation or anything aggressive).

Spread propaganda elsewhere.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[Ash Vince]

The Soviet battle plan was for a conventional invasion for permanent conquest so of course they would not precede that with a nuclear strike. The NATO battle plan was designed around a defense in depth. Acknowledging that would require you to be something other than a troll. In the final sentence of my original post I did say that I thought the US deploying nuclear weapons against Japan and hence demonstrating they had them was the main reason that the Russian advance stopped in Berlin at the end of the war. I probably should have put it more clearly but my lunch hour was nearly over.

The rulers of the west had one thing in common with Stalin, they both despised the idea of Socialism in the form adopted by Germany. Germany did not adopt any form of socialism. Hitler used the name "National Socialism" as a smokescreen but he did not adopt any socialist policies. He did re-nationalise a number of businesses but only if they were owned by Jews, Gypsies or Foreigners. In terms of private ownership Hitler was all for it providing it was German private ownership. One of the cornerstones of true Socialism is the idea of state ownership.

The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was cart all the Socialists off to the gas chambers. He actually killed the Jews last, before then he had killed Jehovas Witnesses, Socialists, Gypsies, Homosexuals and various other groups he viewed as inferior. Killing every Jew in Europe was certainly his most ambitious project but the numbers he had already killed were pretty scary.

The fact is though that America was quite happy sit back and watch, only joining the second world war when Japan attacked them. Until then America stayed out of the war in Europe.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[Ash Vince]

All I was trying to imply with the quote you mention above was that we in the west did not like the system of communism adopted by Russia. If you quoted the second sentence of that paragraph as well that would have been more clear.

I am aware that our rulers did not hate socialism enough to ally ourselves with Hitler. I was also not trying to spread propaganda. Why would I spread propaganda for a long dead system? All I was trying to suggest was that when both sides developed Nuclear weapons a balance ensued that actually brought about stability and that without that balance the same thing MAY not have happened. You seem to have jumped on one line of my post without reading the rest.

Not sure what you refer to when you talk about George Kennan's "X" article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" but I will throw it into google when I have more time.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[sanman2]

The Russians aren't the Soviets. Let's also not forget that it was Western European powers who backed the Bolshevik revolution through which the communists took over Russia and enslaved them. Stalin was a Georgian, not a Russian.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[Watson Ladd]

Salvador Allende never killed anyone. I haven't heard of genocides in Cuba either, or East Germany. The Western Powers were never under threat from Hitler the way Russia was. Hitler wanted to *exterminate* the Russians. He wanted the British to take their place as the master race. Russia and China took 90% of the allied casualties in WWII. The west never sent troops into Germany to oppose Hitler, but 18 foreign armies fought in the Russian Civil War. The US supported Franco during the entire life of his regime, and Franco was a fascist. Their opposition to Hitler was due to Pearl Harbor and Hitler's choice of allies.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[turing_m]

"Like it or not there is One Government in the earths future."

I don't like it. We may already have it. How long it will last is another question.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[Britz]

Your moral compass seems to be way off. Maybe because of the current dumb pres.

But back then it was democracy vs. evil.

Remeber Stalin? He killed more ppl than Hitler. Maybe if the US would have stayed the only one eastern Europe wouldn't have had to endure 40 years of iron Soviet rule. They even tried uprising, but were crushed. Maybe the majority of UN members wouldn't be crocked dictatorships. Maybe! Because thx to the spy we never found out.

Re:surely a hero to the whole World

[yanagasawa]

This notion is so silly that if I can't really find words to describe it. The fact that so many of my fellow Americans still cling to this notion today is surely a testament to either willful ignorance or blatant propaganda. The Soviet army had a roughly five to one advantage in numbers of troops and tanks over the US/British in the European theater at the end of the war. The Soviet equipment was roughly equivalent to the US and they had no lack of fuel. Their troops were battle tested and their general staffs had learned how to lead under the most difficult of circumstances. I'm afraid that the US was in no position to make any demands that it could have backed up on the battlefield at that time.

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[drgonzo59]

That's alright, as long as all spies are thieves and traitors regardless of the government they are working for. Or let me guess, the American spies are heroes and anti-American spies are traitors and thieves? Of course, because we are "God's" country and we are special. Our killings are always "fights for freedom" and "wars on terror".

What's the news for nerds angle here?

That Russia Honors the Spy Who Stole the A-Bomb . Duh...

Yeah, some nerds like to take a break from playing D&D and are actually interested in what's happening in the real world.

Nice trolling

[SmallFurryCreature]

Millions of japanese? 140.000 at Horishima 80.000 at Nagasaki, several thousand afterwards. That is a quarter million from the results of the way. The cities in question would have had to been wiped out from fallout and after effects SEVERAL times to even reach one million.

So where do you get your millions from? The total death toll of WW2 is estimated around 50 million, the americans accounted for a small fraction of that. Major culprits where the germans, the russians and the japanese. It is often forgotten but they had a regime as brutal as the holocaust.

The A-bombs are noteworthy because they killed a lot of people with just one device. Before that you needed large bomber formations or massive organisation to achieve the same amount of killing, but compare it to the slaughter on the eastern front, the japanese death camps, the german concentration camps or even carpet bombing, and they were just a small note on that huge ledger of lost lives that we call WW2.

Millions of japanese lives, geez. Grow up and read a book.

Re:Nice trolling

[gerilart]

Poland had highest causalities as percentage of population. Japan is not even in the same league http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-DeathsByCountry-Barchart.png

Re:Nice trolling

[slashdime]

While I agree the original author should have taken 30 seconds to look up figures on Wikipedia, does it really matter? There's quite a difference between a quarter million and millions when you're talking about dollars, but human civilian lives?

Prussian?

[Nursie]

I suppose they could have used east germans, but I think for something that impoatant they would have used their own people.

Re:Prussian?

[anaesthetica]

At the time, East Prussia was not German territory, it was directly incorporated into the Soviet Union. It was actually (and remains today) an exclave of the Russian SFR. What was once East Prussia (about 300 years ago) is now Kaliningrad. The state of Prussia proper (of Frederick the Great and Otto von Bismarck fame) is divided up between Kaliningrad, Poland, and Germany now.

hmmmm

[thatskinnyguy]

Koval was born in Iowa... And this guy wasn't kidnapped by the CIA and hung for treason back in the 50's why?

Re:hmmmm

[Archon-X]

Noone was ever 'hung' for anything. Lots of people, however, were hanged.

Re:hmmmm

[jdunn14]

I wouldn't want to be born there either, but don't you think the death penalty is a bit harsh for being an Iowa native?

Re:hmmmm

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

things will change once europe starts to unite properly;
Careful what you wish for my friend, or should I say tovarish, looking at the demographics by the time Europe unites it will be as a caliphate not a commonwealth of democratic nations.

Re:hmmmm

[Dr. Cody]

Don't look forward to any pleasant answers to that question...

Re:hmmmm

[Jedi Alec]

Some folks however, are hung like another thing.

An American traitor is just as bad as a

[lena_10326]

....Russian traitor, imo. Assuming your home country isn't nazi Germany or the equivalent.

Re:An American traitor is just as bad as a

[TheGreatHegemon]

Well, a traitor is only bad if they betrayed you or your ally's country. Hence why this is technically an issue for us. However, from a personal perspective I feel this is a continued trend for Russia focusing on it's national, communist era pride again. As much as the United States has fallen in recent years, Russia is far ahead when it comes to marginalizing free speech and brainwashing the youth (with suppression of information).

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that US nuked civilians while there were tons of actual military targets. That's called state terrorism. Don't be too proud of yourself.

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[Pecisk]

As I dislike arm race of Cold war, we must admit that US started it, because they hated Commies so much. If Russia won't have nuclear arsenal, I think it would be matter of time before US would try to sweep them out. And then lot of people would be dead for sure.

So this man somehow bring balance (yes, rather unpleasant, but still) in the world again. USSR having nukes stopped any other nuclear attacks just because US didn't want to risk with it.

I don't admire or celebrate what he did, but definitely it wasn't easy time for anyone, because both countries were at constant readiness to blow each other in pieces.

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[opencity]

> I see nothing in this story that could be considered geeky

Trinity was the biggest physics experiment ever until George. Your definition of 'geeky' must be very sectarian.

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[PortHaven]

I think the aspect of irrationality is that you are unable to understand the aspect of "betrayal". Because of that, you scare people.

But I'd wager you'd betray this nation in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself. Sure this nation has a long list of wrongs. But compared to most countries that wielded as much power as America has (or even a lot less) their atrocities far outweigh America's.

Remember, before America started winning wars, the victors made the losing nation(s) pay for the war costs. Instead, America said...it's peace, now let's rebuild and helped it's enemies rebuild. (That's part of the problem in Iraq, we balked on rebuilding them and investing as much as we did in the past. And it's cost us dearly.)

But let's look at other powers of the world:

- Russia/Soviet Union (estimates of at least 20 million killed by the regime)

- Great Britain (very harsh reputation during the time of her empire, was brutal against her colonists)

- Germans/Nazi (no point even going there)

- Japan (was exceedingly brutal throughout Asia in it's conquest)

You can trace the brutality of empires back through time. You'll be hard pressed to find an empire that was as merciful as the United States has been. Even if you list Vietnam & Iraq. The total loss of life is very low in comparison.

So, you know...

[orionop]

watch out for people. Keep an eye on your fellow Americans and do your duty to the Government. Do not trust anyone, not even your loved ones! In fact, the terrorists will probably dress up like someone you love, just to make it worse when they kill you. They are everywhere, they even play baseball. Do your part and report non-baseball activities to your local authorities right away.

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[4D6963]

World War II was really two separate wars.

Yes and no. He's right in that the USA had to wait for Japan to attack them to enter the war in Europe. Basically, Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, as back then they were providing stuff to both sides, the problem was the public opinion was against way. FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor would occur (only they didn't expect how big it would be) and let it happen to change people's mind about the way and enter a full-blown war against the Axis both in Europe and in the Pacific. In a way that's another connection between the "two wars".

Re:Pride?

[richie2000]

Something was stolen from someone. I do believe the US still had the A-bomb after this so-called "theft".

Well, not so much

[Ancient_Hacker]

Er, um, we don't really know what this guy found out, do we?

Chances are, given the considerable security, he did not learn a whole lot.

Even the top designers of the Oak Ridge gas separation plant did not know exactly what they were doing. What are the chances this guy got the goods?

And half of what they did at Oak Ridge was electromagnetic separation, which turned out to be way too inefficient. If he gave the Soviets that info, he did us a huge favor.

The Polonium separation that went on at a scientist's mother's house in Dayton was straightforward chemistry, nothing particularly novel or secret.

No James Bond here.

Re:Well, not so much

[Tablizer]

Er, um, we don't really know what this guy found out, do we?
Chances are, given the considerable security, he did not learn a whole lot.

He was one of the cheif designers IIRC. Some of the key innovations were his.

Re:Well, not so much

[shutdown -p now]

What precious thing he did buy was time. Yes, the USSR would certainly manage to build the bomb on their own - they had their share of brilliant scientists, too. But just 3-5 years later could already be too late - if the Cold War had properly began when the USSR didn't have the bomb yet, it would have probably not been "cold". Merely passing on the information on failed experiments probably helped a lot.

Re:Well, not so much

[KZigurs]

heh, somehow I suddenly recall Feynman and his safe locking skills... (read 'surely you must be joking, Mr Feynman' sometime)

Re:Well, not so much

[Ancient_Hacker]

>The type, nature and ratios of chemicals that were produced at Oak Ridge and sent to Los Alamos would, alone, be enough to suggest the chemical cocktail necessary to produce an atomic bomb.

Not not. In the end the Soviets did not use anything from Oak Ridge. They made their bomb out of plutonium, which was strictly a Hanford operation.

Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what a sucky article. After logging in (cheers bugmenot), the article is on multiple pages. Well, here's all of TFA. Please mod this post up if you can.... it might make some slashdotters RTFA ;)

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

November 12, 2007
A Spy's Path: Iowa to A-Bomb to Kremlin Honor
By WILLIAM J. BROAD

He had all-American cover: born in Iowa, college in Manhattan, Army buddies with whom he played baseball.

George Koval also had a secret. During World War II, he was a top Soviet spy, code named Delmar and trained by Stalin's ruthless bureau of military intelligence.

Atomic spies are old stuff. But historians say Dr. Koval, who died in his 90s last year in Moscow and whose name is just coming to light publicly, was probably one of the most important spies of the 20th century.

On Nov. 2, the Kremlin startled Western scholars by announcing that President Vladimir V. Putin had posthumously given the highest Russian award to a Soviet agent who penetrated the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb.

The announcement hailed Dr. Koval as "the only Soviet intelligence officer" to infiltrate the project's secret plants, saying his work "helped speed up considerably the time it took for the Soviet Union to develop an atomic bomb of its own."

Since then, historians, scientists, federal officials and old friends have raced to tell Dr. Koval's story -- the athlete, the guy everyone liked, the genius at technical studies. American intelligence agencies have known of his betrayal at least since the early 1950s, when investigators interviewed his fellow scientists and swore them to secrecy.

The spy's success hinged on an unusual family history of migration from Russia to Iowa and back. That gave him a strong commitment to Communism, a relaxed familiarity with American mores and no foreign accent.

"He was very friendly, compassionate and very smart," said Arnold Kramish, a retired physicist who studied with Dr. Koval at City College and later worked with him on the bomb project. "He never did homework."

Stewart D. Bloom, a senior physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, who also studied with Dr. Koval, called him a regular guy.

"He played baseball and played it well," usually as shortstop, Dr. Bloom recalled. "He didn't have a Russian accent. He spoke fluent English, American English. His credentials were perfect."

Once, Dr. Bloom added, "I saw him staring off in the distance and thinking about something else. Now I think I know what it was."

Over the years, scholars and federal agents have identified a half-dozen individuals who spied on the bomb project for the Soviets, especially at Los Alamos in New Mexico. All were "walk ins," spies by impulse and sympathetic leaning rather than rigorous training.

By contrast, Dr. Koval was a mole groomed in the Soviet Union by the feared G.R.U., the military intelligence agency. Moreover, he gained wide access to America's atomic plants, a feat unknown for any other Soviet spy. Nuclear experts say the secrets of bomb manufacturing can be more important than those of design.

Los Alamos devised the bomb, while its parts and fuel were made at secret plants in such places as Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Dayton, Ohio -- sites Dr. Koval not only penetrated, but also assessed as an Army sergeant with wide responsibilities and authority.

"He had access to everything," said Dr. Kramish, who worked with Dr. Koval at Oak Ridge and now lives in Reston, Va. "He had his own Jeep. Very few of us had our own Jeeps. He was clever. He was a trained G.R.U. spy." That status, he added, made Dr. Koval unique in the history of atomic espionage, a judgment historians echo.

Washington has known about Dr. Koval's spying since he fled the United States shortly after the war but kept it secret.

"It would have been highly embarrassing for the U.S. government to have had this divulged," said Robert S. Norris, au

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[morgan_greywolf]

which is ironic, when your ilk attack France for not getting involved in a war that didn't involve them Um, what? Yes, Iraq directly involved France. France was making tons of money pumping oil out of Iraq and selling it to their people and to their allies. A good chunk of the oil lines that were taken over by U.S. forces weren't Iraqi oil lines, they were French oil lines. That's why the French didn't get involved.

No, you can't blame them, but you're defending France for entirely the wrong reasons.

Now that's out of the way, my point:

The GERMANS started it Yes, the Germans started WWII, but they weren't the ones that got the Japanese involved. The Japanese got involved in war before the Germans did because they saw an opportunity to attack other countries like China and also to take over islands that didn't belong to them. It was mostly due to a lack of resources. We didn't like what they were doing, so while attacking China, they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Re:Pride?

[drgonzo59]

Imagine that he would have been a Russian scientist who knew that Russia was building a doomsday device and started spying for U.S. Eventually U.S. would have been able to build that device as well and a strategic equilibrium would be reached quickly.

Let me guess, that guy would have been a hero, right? Why? Because he was working for "God's" country and not for the "evil" Soviets.

Wake up! US is not the only country in the world and it doesn't have any sort of moral high ground. It might have had it before 2003, but it doesn't have it now after Iraq and Guantanamo and sending innocent people people to Egypt to be tortured ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition ).

Yeah, all the spies are thieves and the best ones are traitors. Someone's hero is another one's villain...

East Germans?

[djupedal]

It was WWII, and Germany hadn't been split up yet - all the 18 yr. old English-speaking strutters came out of East Prussia - the Russian talent was busy building horse-drawn mortars.

And when they recruited the guy, they had no idea what he would bring in.

Re:Pride?

[ValiSystem]

individuals != countries

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[4D6963]

we must admit that US started it, because they hated Commies so much

Not really. Americans started to hate communists as a result of the Cold War, not the other way around. Conflicts of this importance don't start off an ideological different. And as you seem to think that USSR was just being bullied around, it's necessary for me to recall you that the leader of USSR was Joseph Stalin, the most proficient genocidaire ever.

Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a traitor

[SmallFurryCreature]

Although lots of people seem to think him a traitor, he really wasn't (although it depends heavily on how your read the history). His father at one point emigrated to the US, then moved back to russia, taking his american born son with him. So while the guy was american born, when he became an agent he was a soviet citizen.

Using people as agents who have lived in the country they are supposed to work in is nothing new. But he worked as an agent for the country of which he was a citizen. He entered the US as a spy and as such did NOT commit treason.

That is an important difference to make.

Odd by the way that a lot of americans seem to condemn hailing this guy as a hero, when their own space program was built upon a nazi war criminal. Russian spy vs nazi, oh yeah the ruskies are the baddies alright. Working people to their death vs taking a dangerous mission to protect your home country.

For those of us with a mind (american, Idol is on) this guy and others helped created the policy of mutually assured destruction. While nukes are scary, they ain't half as scary as they would have been if only one side had them. Would you have trusted the US as the only country with nuclear weapons?

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[arivanov]

Let's balance things a bit, shall we?

If he did not steal it USSR would have had no bomb for 3-4 more years until the early 50-es. USA may have probably stated WW3 by that time. Just around the time the bomb was ready. I would rather not guess the location for "testing" the prototype under those circumstances.

It is the same as with Beria. Regardless of what do I think about him and regardless of the fact that he sentenced to death many millions he has to be given the credit for "Stalin passing away in his sleep from a stroke". If that did not happen Koba would have started WW3 around 54.

So morals aside as a result of such happy or less happy circumstances we are not all glowing in the dark. Let's drink to that.

Politkovskaya

[matsuva]

What they should be doing is restoring democracy and remembering those who died for it instead of bringing toasts to thieves.
Putin and his clique have caused the death of Anna Politkovskaya and many other journalists, that's what the FSB is up to now, i doubt those killers will be celebrated in 50 years.

Anticommunist sentiment in the US goes back to...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

at least 1917, well before the "Cold War".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Communism

A lot of bias

[houghi]

Koval was born in Iowa, spoke fluent American English

So why is it importand to mention that he, as a born American, spoke American Enlish? It would be more surprising would he have talked with a russian dialect.

Re:A lot of bias

[Falladir]

it could just be sloppy writing...

Re:A lot of bias

[mqduck]

So why is it importand to mention that he, as a born American, spoke American Enlish? NY Times:
"The spy's success hinged on an unusual family history of migration from
Russia to Iowa and back. That gave him a strong commitment to Communism,
a relaxed familiarity with American mores and no foreign accent."

Re:A lot of bias

[alan_dershowitz]

He was born of recent emigres in a large immigrant community. He obviously kept strong cultural ties back to the Soviet Union, considering he spied for them. the reason it was brought up was because it distinguished him as having potential to be an excellent spy.

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[4D6963]

A spy works works for their government, their country, and works to benefit their country by being engaging in authorized missions. A traitor betrays their country, by selling their own people out for financial gain, ideological drive or whatever.

Well in this case, it all depends on which country we consider was that man's.

Don't forget it wasn't just the Americans that were "crapping their pants" during the Cold War.

Thanks I know but it's irrelevant. My point was that thanks to his work, USSR could enter the pissing contest against the USA and thus scare them, despite their might. I wasn't trying to establish an exhaustive list of countries who were scared of USSR.

No you are WRONG.

Thanks for rubbing that undoubtful fact in my face.

so you yourself admit

[circletimessquare]

to a range of reasons, but the most cynical reason is the one you will consider to be the deciding factor

which only means you are a cynic, not a historian

You Failed!

[Ninden]

The enemy has captured our intelligence.

Re:The US did it so they won the war

[falcon5768]

Nice revisionist history there, but Russia was doing everything it could to stay OUT of the pacific war feeling it was a American conflict (and if the Americans lost, they could swoop in and take them as well)

The seeds of the Cold War had been planted long before the end of WWII. The Russians where letting everyone else beat each other up, hence the non-aggression pack with Germany. Its just Hitler got very very greedy and assaulted Russia as well. Had Hitler not done that, we likely would be under Soviet rule.

But in short, Russia had every intention NOT to get involved. England though, they DID have intentions to send off ships and troops to Japan, but that gets right back to the point of had a land battle been forced (which even after the bombs, it was still very likely as a attempted coup almost stopped the cease fire broadcast and placed their Emperor under house arrest) it would have cost million of lives.

i find that hard to believe

[circletimessquare]

the japanese were pretty hardcore on defense

the japanese, in their actions throughout southeast asia and the island hopping campaign, made it abundantly clear time and again that they were not going to give up one inch of land without fierce resistance to the death, even when that meant suicide by the thousands of personnel, down to the individual decisions of individual japanese soldiers

consider japanese actions on iwo jima, saipan, etc, by the truckload of examples. now ask yourself at the time what any level headed allied personnel would have prudently gauged the japanese attitude to be like in reaction to a land invasion of their mainland

and now you're going to tell me that there was some mysterious watershed change in their attitude?

Re:Pride?

[dave420]

The US prides its space program, which was created by Nazi war criminals using stolen Nazi technology (stolen from its allies).

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[presarioD]

The total loss of life is very low in comparison.

Yes, I totally see your point. Ask the Vietnamese, they can vouch for the humanism and compassion in napalm form they received by your country! What you are comparing is apples and oranges because it suits you, and your nationalistic "morality" (brings back Emma Goldman's statement about patriotism but I'll leave it out).

What happened over the years is not US becoming a benevolent hegemon (only american citizens believe that, I wonder why?) but the public opinion becoming less and less tolerant over aggression and war as an idea and as a solution. So when some Blackwater thugs murder in cold blood some innocent passersby in Iraq, that makes big news all over the world and generates horrible publicity for US that forces your country to either control the attrocity information tighter or cut down on attrocities. In the time of WWI or II an incident like that wouldn't even make it to the back pages of newspapers.

In other words, don't attempt to take credit for what you are not entitled to. It is not your country that is a more moral empire, it is the rest of the world that has developed higher standards of morality to keep it sane...

Who's Next

[domatic]

ARTIST: Tom Lehrer
TITLE: Who's Next

First we got the bomb, and that was good
'Cause we love peace and motherhood
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way
Who's next

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve
'Cause they're on our side, I believe
China got the bomb, but have no fears
They can't wipe us out for at least five years
Who's next

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day
South Africa wants two, that's right
One for the black and one for the white
Who's next

Egypt's gonna get one too
Just to use on you know who
So Israel's getting tense
Wants one in self defense
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm
But just in case, we better get a bomb
Who's next

Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb
Who's next, who's next, who's next, who's next

Re:Who's Next

[ptbarnett]

The lyrics alone aren't nearly as funny as the actual performance:

Tom Lehrer - Who's next

you're not a historian, you're an anti-american

[circletimessquare]

which is fine, go ahead, hate america. but hate america for genuine bad american intentions, not propagandistic misreadings of intentions

the japanese, in their actions throughout southeast asia and the island hopping campaign, made it abundantly clear time and again that they were not going to give up one inch of land without fierce resistance to the death, even when that meant suicide by the thousands of personnel, down to the individual decisions of individual japanese soldiers

consider japanese actions on iwo jima, saipan, etc, by the truckload of examples. now ask yourself at the time what any level headed allied personnel would have prudently gauged the japanese attitude to be like in reaction to a land invasion of their mainland

now ask yourself, when faced with the decision to drop this bomb, compared with the number of certain deaths, of americans AND japanese, in a mainland invasion, what YOU would have decided (as opposed to what a "typical american" would have decided)

and now you want to say that some future cold war, that no one knew was coming, that geopolitical posturing, was going to be more prevalent in the minds of allied personnel in making that decision than simply considering the number of lives lost in a mainland invasion?

that's called a hindsight bias

what nationality are you? because i want to call you a "typical {}ian" for your idiotic propagandized thinking

which would of course be a grave insult to your fellow countrymen, who are most probably a lot less propagandized and jingoistic than you are. but it would be fitting to hurl that insult at you anyways, to make you aware of how stupid and unfair your propaganda is

Re:you're not a historian, you're an anti-american

[db32]

Oh hush. These type of people have no concept of cultural differences and are just as ignorant and arrogant as the people they pretend to oppose. Seriously... Oh no it's just the evil conniving Americans! Yeah... well those evil conniving Americans weren't teaching 12 yr olds how to operate artillery instead of sending them to recess at school. The Japanese culture was entirely different, shame is worse than death, and completely alien to American thinking. Americans were horrified by this, because to an American shame is not worse than death. There is a HUGE cultural significance in bringing baseball to Japan. We were giving them sports heroes to follow instead of warrior heroes to emulate.

Go ask Korea or some of the other surrounding neighbors about how vicious Japan was to fight against. The Japanese believed they were doing you a favor by killing you instead of letting you return home shamed. They didn't understand how Americans could surrender. To them surrendering made you a non person.

I swear...I am pretty pissed about a lot of things that America has done over the years, but this is one of those areas that people need to wake up, read their history, and attempt to understand the cultural differences that lead to that horrific event. "America is eeevil" card gets so overplayed, now that we actually need it to fix things no one takes it seriously. Catapult the propoganda and all... But hey, good luck explaining that to the folks you are chastising for believing the anti-American propoganda. That's kinda the point of propoganda. :)

Re:you're not a historian, you're an anti-american

[ushering05401]

oddly enough... oh.. never mind!

Re:you're not a historian, you're an anti-american

[heinzkunz]

now ask yourself, when faced with the decision to drop this bomb, compared with the number of certain deaths, of americans AND japanese, in a mainland invasion, what YOU would have decided[...]

I would have dropped the bomb on a open land or a military base. Anything but a city with civilians and families.

Re:you're not a historian, you're an anti-american

[Dasher42]

Now, normally I would go down the road with you about how the CIA knew the Japanese were trying to surrender, etc., which by now is familiar to people on either side of the argument and you clearly have a preference.

Here's something not so well known: Iwo Jima, Saipan, all those island hopping battles were not any indication of how an invasion of the main Japanese islands would go. The CIA wasn't kidding about the intent to surrender. While the outer islands and their inhabitants were dispensable human shields, because they were a different ethnicity and the mainland Japanese had racist attitudes towards them, Japan proper was not. They told the remote islanders horror stories about the Allies and to commit mass suicide if taken, whereas they would have done no such thing if the main islands had been invaded.

But this really backs up the fact that the CIA had good information on the Japanese intent to surrender, and that the bomb was dropped as a demonstration of military might, especially to the Soviets.

Re:you're not a historian, you're an anti-american

[name*censored*]

What nationality am I? I'm AUSTRALIAN, ie, the country who were most threatened by the Japanese in 1945 (we're small enough to be taken over, and they were island hopping straight to our front door). Dropping the A-bomb on civilian cities (with military installations, but almost every big city did in WWII) was not the only option, so don't try and play the "we had no choice" card. Although, I like how you suggest that nearly every country is against the A-bomb except the US, and the immediately accuse all these countries of having "idiotic propogandized thinking" (yup, it's all a massive conspiracy against the US, it's not like the US could be wrong - that'd be silly!)

You're right, the Japanese were completely ruthless, I won't argue that - just that you should at least be sorry for your war crimes, just as they are for theirs (they have actually formally apologised). Also, (re: title) I wasn't aware that I had to have a formal degree in a subject to talk about it; looks like the department of meteorology is about to get a lot more members!

You do realise that the conversation has gone "It's funny how citizens of different countries are more willing to justify their own countries' atrocities than other countries crimes" "STFU SMELLY HIPPY!!!" "No, I'm just pointing out the bias" "UMG U HATE THE US"? I think you can GUESS the argument I'll be using here, which is "YOU ARE MORE WILLING TO JUSTIFY ATROCITIES FROM YOUR OWN SIDE" (not "omgz teh americins suxx", I don't think that aamof). Given that I was not initially offering an opinion on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, just on bias, don't sidestep the main argument in favour of some sub-argument.

Does that even make sense

[Nursie]

If it was WWII then germany and russia were enemies... surely?

So if a prussian (ie german, possibly polish) did it, then surely the results would have gone to the reich?

Perhaps I'd better actually RTFA!

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[hasbeard]

Yes, let's remember the Marshall Plan in Europe. Not too many countries have helped rebuild countries that that they have had to fight.

Re:The US did it so they won the war

[LordZardoz]

Russia had a non aggression pact with Japan. The only reason for this was because Stalin knew he would be getting into something with Germany, and did not want to try to fight on 2 fronts. He was pretty quick to drop that treaty once Germany had been taken out of it.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[ByOhTek]

Actually both were very much military targets - Nagasaki was a major Naval base/HQ, and Hiroshima was Army. There just happened to be civilians within range of the bomb.

That doesn't make it right, but considering the density of Japan, there aren't a whole lot of options. Cosider what would have happened if they had gone for Tokyo and Kyoto instead?

Because this is a "progressive" site

[Loundry]

What's the news for nerds angle here?

This is a "progressive" site. This means that showcasing the haters of America (namely, China and the USSR/Russia) and their accomplishments is red meat. Call me "jingoistic" all you want, but there is no doubt that feeling some degree of negative feeling, from simple skepticism to full-blown hatred, toward America and/or capitalism is a very "progressive" thing to do.

And that's why you'll see articles like this posted on this site. Articles which extol the glory of China or the USSR are what "progressives" like to read, and there are lots of "progressives" here. Yes, it's not necessarily "news for nerds". It's red meat, and that's never a bad thing for keeping your site active and popular.

The responses to this post will probably attempt to appease chronic Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm going to get called a "Bush lover" and they'll bring up the war in Iraq and all that. Or I'll just get modded a "troll" for answering your question in the entirely accurate and truthful way.

Re:Because this is a "progressive" site

[Loundry]

Ironic that you're doing the same thing here that you accuse someone else of doing in this post [slashdot.org] (spotted while flicking through your history).

That's creepy. Don't you have better things to do?

Namely redefining words on your own terms. In this case, "progressive" as "commie America hater" (or whatever).

I never said that "progressives" were defined as "commie America haters". Rather, I stated (and maintain) that it is "progressive" to have some degree of negative feeling toward American and/or capitalism, ranging from mere skepticism to outright hatred. I'm describing, not defining. I don't know what the real definition of a "progressive" is anymore, especially after "progressives" started sucking up to fundamentalist Islam.

Not that criticism of the US here in general is undeserved

Very "progressive" of you.

Re:Because this is a "progressive" site

[Loundry]

Well, if that's how you define "liking America" ...then it would be a very easy strawman for you to knock over!

singing patriotic songs and sitting around talking about military victories

Speaking of which, do you know any "progressives" who feel genuinely moved and sentimental when singing a patriotic song? I'm curious.

then you're even more of a moron than I originally thought.

Very "progressive" of you! I'm so inspired by your intelligent (not to mention manly) attitude that I think I'm going to convert to your way of thinking.

Re:Because this is a "progressive" site

[jahudabudy]

Wishing murder, rape, and torture on other people is evil, and I'm not backing down on that one bit. Whether or not such expressions are A) commonplace, and B) tolerated in "progressive" circles is the pertinent question. I think it's valid to ask that question.

Except you didn't ask that question. You stated that it is "progressive" to question/hate America/capitalism. By the way, I like the way you lump questioning (displaying skepticism) into the same category as hating. Very "conservative" of you. As is the subtle assertion that "progressives" wish murder, rape and torture on people. Pretty ironic, since apparently the mark of a "progressive" is such acts as questioning whether or not "America" is torturing and murdering our enemies in the name of freedom.

Man, I miss the days when one could dismiss such ridiculous drivel as an obvious troll. Unfortunately, I believe you actually believe this point of view is a) internally consistent and b) reasonable.

Re:Because this is a "progressive" site

[Jorgandar]

Because this is a "progressive" site (Score:1, Troll)
by Loundry (4143) on Tuesday November 13, @09:36AM (#21335711)

  I'm going to get called a "Bush lover" and they'll bring up the war in Iraq and all that. Or I'll just get modded a "troll" for answering your question in the entirely accurate and truthful way.
---------------

Ha ha!
-Nelson

Careful there

[WindBourne]

Think in terms of American Revolution. We were ALL British citizens. But a minority revolted and we broke away from Britain. Today, We proudly claim British traitors as our pride and they rightly deserve.

From Russia's POV, Koval deserved to be honored. He almost single handedly was able to put USSR on the same footing as America. That is fine. One day, we may be doing something similar with an ex-Chinese ( or an Ex-Russian).

ok

[circletimessquare]

are you willing to talk about what the japanese did to chinese, filipino, korean, etc. civilians? how about the germans? how about the russians? how about everyone who fought in the war? no, but you are willing to talk about the americans doing terrible things, and find them guilty of various crimes. but no one else

i always wondered what the point was with people who are willing to try americans and find them guilty for crimes every single nation that has ever existed and ever will exist are guilty of. on the flipside, it would be of course equally stupid for a jingoistic american to forgive the usa it's crimes. blindly loving your country is no replacement for a valid human conscience

so because some stupid jingoistic americans are propagandized, you are going to be stupid and propagandized too? loving the usa is stupid. hating it is equally stupid. especially when your reasons for hating it are no worse than what any other country has done. do you hate the chinese? the russians? the germans? well, based on your rationale for hating the usa, you should

no: the allies looked at the costs involved in a mainland attack, and decided the bomb cost less lives. please feel free to spin that anyway you like to hate the usa. feel free to ignore the crimes of everyone else in that war. it's ok to hate the usa, go ahead, be my guest

but it would be more valid if you hated the usa for real and genuine bad american intentions in the world. there are many to choose from throughout history, especially recent history

spinning wwii history into propagandistic misreadings doesn't make the usa look bad. it only makes you look desperate and braindead

Re:ok

[Bert64]

The difference is that Germany and Japan were defeated, and forced to answer for their crimes...
The USSR were long considered the enemy and so information about their crimes were widely publicised in the west... The collapse of the USSR just served to bring more crimes to light.
The US and UK however, also committed a lot of heinous crimes during the war, but being the victors were never brought to justice for it. And being still stable powers, are still able to cover up their crimes.

Like they say, history is written by the victors. The US and UK are the victorious parties who are still around in the same form.

Re:Pride?

[CrankyFool]

Yeah. It was copyright infringement, not theft. As noted in RIAA-related threads, no theft occurred.

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[ByOhTek]

Not at all alike actually. Very bad analogy.

Both cities had relatively small populations in comparison to other locations in Japan with major military installations. They probably could have made a good case for a military installation in Tokyo, but they didn't. They could have gone for minor installations, but that would have been ineffective.

Sometimes you can't avoid colatteral damage, but you can minimize it, and this does appear to be the case.

actually, yes, agreed 100%

[circletimessquare]

agreed

if the war was progressing where japan was confronted with stopping an imperialistic and rabidly nationalistic usa that promised rabid defense of the mainland, and that had invaded mexico and canada and were killing and torturing millions of civilians in those countries, then yes, dropping the a bomb on san francisco and los angeles would have been prudent

Re:actually, yes, agreed 100%

[dave420]

prudent != correct :)

Re:actually, yes, agreed 100%

[cptnapalm]

Actually, dropping a nuke on those two cities might not make as many Americans mad as you might suppose... ;)

america committed worse crimes than the japanese?

[circletimessquare]

you're going to have to justify that

your swimming strongly against historical fact now, friend

peaceful japanese huh

[circletimessquare]

i think that if the american tanks in a land invasion were rolling towards nagasaki and hiroshima (after many times more japanese soldiers and civilians and american soldiers were dead in the mainland invasion than the nuclear bombs), the local militia there in defense of the japanese homeland would have to disagree with you

the japanese were hardcore nationalists in wwii. they fought tooth and nail, down to the individual decision making, regardless of what the japanese generals ordered

Re:peaceful japanese huh

[ushering05401]

Nothing you have said even begins to address the fact that there were peaceful people decimated by the indiscriminate bombs of the U.S.

I don't understand. It is like you are trying to blame all Japanese for the wrongs of the ruling coalition. If you seriously believe this BS... I don't even know.

From your posts, though, I do know that your family is either stationed at Clark or Subic... So... which is it?

If you don't know what I am talking about then you should rethink your tag that associates you with an ethnic group. There are many many people out here who care deeply about both WWII and what has followed.

if the japanese were starving

[circletimessquare]

and all of the top generals had ordered a surrender, japanese civilians themselves would have mounted fierce resistance to the death, on an individual by individual basis

you forget how propagandized and rabidly nationalistic people were in those days

Re:if the japanese were starving

[Johnny5000]

and all of the top generals had ordered a surrender, japanese civilians themselves would have mounted fierce resistance to the death, on an individual by individual basis

They eventually did order a surrender. Did the civilians end up resisting the occupation that followed?

'p'russian - not pgerman...think about it

[djupedal]

"then surely the results would have gone to the reich?

I'm certain they were talented girls and ready to go either way :)

Probably saved us from being bigger A's

[Maxo-Texas]

Seriously... as bad as the cold war was- I shudder to think how being the only holder of that kind of power might have corrupted america. It's bad enough as it is.

Re:Probably saved us from being bigger A's

[DesScorp]

" I shudder to think how being the only holder of that kind of power might have corrupted america. It's bad enough as it is."

If you're an American, Delta's ready when you are, asshole.

If you're not, well, fuck you too.

Re:Probably saved us from being bigger A's

[Maxo-Texas]

I really think you need to reread books like the biography of washington and the autobiography of ben franklin and get a clue about what america is supposed to be like.

Your nationalism could be transplanted to any country you happened to grow up in.

The american ideal was something unique in history.

We lose more of it every day.

you mean for the americans?

[circletimessquare]

ok, let's say you convinced the americans to hold off on a mainland invasion and not drop the a bomb

now convince the russians not to invade

now convince the chinese not to

no convince the koreans, filipinos, etc.

good luck

where's your anger at stalin, at hitler

[circletimessquare]

or at churchill: consider the firebombing of dresden, for example. fire bombing dresden was worse than a bombing hiroshima and nagasaki, but it used ocnventional bombs

or is your high holy righteous outrage only pointed at the usa? even when others do worse or no better?

why is that?

how can you consider yourself angry in the name of justice when you yourself do not apply it fairly?

yes, prudent!=correct

[circletimessquare]

as if that discrimination decides this matter, or even intelligently comments on it

Re:yes, prudent!=correct

[dave420]

Well, it does. It made sense for the US to drop nukes on Japan - that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Unless it's OK to sacrifice civilians of another country to save your own soldiers, that is. Just as it makes sense to steal things as opposed to paying for them.

Re:yes, prudent!=correct

[bentcd]

Unless it's OK to sacrifice civilians of another country to save your own soldiers, that is. It's not as if a land invasion of Japan would have been free of "collateral" damage. Chances are that such an invasion would have cost considerably more than 200,000 civilian lives. The bombs therefore sacrificed enemy civilians in order to save allied soldiers /and/ enemy civilians.

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[Blahgerton]

Basically, Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, as back then they were providing stuff to both sides, the problem was the public opinion was against war. The Germans did start it. Hitler calculated that Japan would move against the USSR from its positions in Manchuria if Germany declared war on the US. FDR had no avenue into the war in Europe without Germany's declaration, regardless of the situation in the Pacific.

Allies

[CalicoDreams]

Quick post, I am not sure that many of you realise that the Americans and Russians were allies at the end of the 2nd world war. With the cold war not beginning because of Russia possessing nuclear arms (or because of the theft of that information), but instead being due to them being communists and not fascists. The USA and most of the European nations hated communism with a passion unparalleled to their apparent hate of Hitler and his is mass genocide of the Jewish population. Mod me -1 flamebait/troll because you learnt your history from a cereal box.

Re:Allies

[dwye]

Quick post, I am not sure that many of you realise that the Americans and Russians were allies at the end of the 2nd world war.

Co-belligerents, at best. Stalin promised to intern any B-17s that had to land in the Soviet Union after bombing German's in HIS theater (eg, after a proposal to help the Polish Revolt which occured just before the Russian would have retaken the main Polish cities).

The USA and most of the European nations hated communism with a passion unparalleled to their apparent hate of Hitler

Which is why they rearmed the Wehrmacht and SS and had them reattack the Soviet Armies, as Patton suggested. I wondered why that happened. Oh, wait, it didn't.

You have to be kidding me.

[WindBourne]

You do not think that is honorable to be a spy? We have our fair share of spies spread out everywhere. Are you trying to say that those who work for the CIA or NSA have no honor? I have no issue with spying for YOUR country. Where I have issues is when you turn over YOUR countries secrets for money. That is not honorable.

But the man WAS a Russian and always saw himself as such. We did not have a decent enough anti-spying system set-up on one of our most important programs. That was a HUGE mistake on our part. Do not get me wrong. I wish that we had caught the man and put him in a prison (for life). But we did not. Even now, we are catching Chinese spies amongst us, and I am guessing that we are catching just a fraction. We should be looking very carefully at ALL ppl who work for the DOD, esp. when they are not native born or have spent time elsewhere.

As I said in the earlier posting, we HONOR those that were considered traitors to what was then our king. We also honor those who spied for us, when they did it for the right reason.

i know you're joking, but that comment is evil

[circletimessquare]

because there are americans in the heartland who actually believe 9/11 on new york city is valid punishment for wickedness and decadence

which only proves that social conservatives are willing to repay mild sins with grave sins in their mind, and think that that somehow puts them on the side of justice or puts them in the good graces of God(tm) and his teachings

likewise, those who hate the usa: that 9/11 is somehow a valid resposne for american cold war crimes

if you believe any of these things about 9/11, you yourself are worse than all of the cold war american crimes/ decadence that you dislike when you look at the usa/ new york city

you don't beat someone by sinking to their level. plenty of people understand this when considering rendition, torture, guantanamo, the giving up of liberties and rights in the name of the war on terror, abu ghraib, etc. but plenty of those same people, in a blink of an eye, are also willing to rationalize 9/11 as somehow just deserves for cold war american crimes. which is, of course, sinking to the level of your enemy. which is, of course, something they are willing to howl about when talking about water boarding. which means such people's human conscience is SECONDARY to their hatred of the usa. which is more important? the search for justice? or hating the usa? get it right, then open your mouth.

america haters are sad and pathetic. america lovers are no better. but, you do not make yourself better than a blind lover and apologist of the usa by committing the same propagandistic crimes they do in reverse

that was incoherent

[circletimessquare]

is rewriting world war ii history in the name of anti-american propaganda something you condone or deplore? i don't understand your attitude on the subject matter

Re:that was incoherent

[db32]

I think all propoganda is deplorable as it rarely has any kind of objective truth to it. Herman Goering was on the money in his quote about the common people do not want war. Propoganda's only purpose is to drive the fear and nationalistic behavior of people into justifying war. It also serves an outstanding purpose in keeping people from learning about what really happened or how we got there.

Do I believe the bomb was bad? Absolutely. Do I believe dropping it on civilians was bad? Absolutely. Do I believe that the first one probably had to happen? Probably. Do I believe the 2nd one was a horrific mistake? Most likely. Do I belive nuclear disarmament is a silly and pointless venture? Absolutely a moronic, pitiful, and ultimately futile attempt at closing Pandora's Box.

Cat is out of the bag folks. Humans do bad things to eachother and frequently only cease doing bad things to eachother when the cost of getting caught or retaliation is to high. Welcome to reality...we can't all hold hands and sing kumbaya. What we can do is attempt to minimize the damages by squelching silly propoganda crap and understanding that bad shit happens, violence is unfortunately sometimes necessary, and we need to work to prevent it from happening again rather than pointing fingers and beating the drums of war. I'm sure Stalin, or Hitler, or everyones favorite 'wronry' Kim Jong Il would have stopped murdering and oppressing people if we just asked nicely, threw some flowers, and sang on their doorsteps... To unilaterly point the finger at one side for war is stupid, ignorant, and is only self serving rhetoric used to fire up the people to start the war machine up again.

Re:that was incoherent

[db32]

I also apologize for forgetting sarcasm tags. I agree with you, but my point is there is no sense in wagging your finger or explaining to the propogandists the reality of the situation. Propoganda operates on emotional beliefs not rational beliefs. No amount of logic, explaining, or wiki links will change their emotional investment in their belief.

Re:that was incoherent

[ushering05401]

I have no defense for what the assholes who thought the emperor was god did... but I know that Japan was trying desperately to negotiate surrender when Hiroshima was bombed. Your history book may not teach it, but it is true. There was no reason for what happened there, or at Nagasaki. Those bombings were among the greatest outrages of the modern age. Yes. The American crime was worse than the Japanese crimes. The war was over - as in *motherfucking* over. And then they dropped the bombs. Go read Truman's diary. It was made public years ago. The following words appear days before the first bombing: "Jap plea for surrender." As in they were begging. Read it for yourself.

Re:america committed worse crimes than the japanes

[ushering05401]

I really don't know why we are against each other...

Or maybe you did not have family who was involved with what happened?

I don't know, but to hear a Philippine against a Japanese when I am saying that the the whole end to the WWII was senseless is absolutley insane./..?..

The whole beginning was senseless. You will please notice that I capitalized your country name.

Koval did a good thing

[harshmanrob]

If it wasn't for Koval, the US probably would have destroyed every country in the world by now several times over. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) turned out to be a good policy after all...we are still here because MAD is still working.

Re:Koval did a good thing

[cdrguru]

Well, maybe.

MAD presumes that the structure of a nation-state is "government by the people, for the people". MAD falls apart completely when you have a government which is "by the dictator, for the oligarchy" sort of place. Iraq was clearly unintimidated - Saddam was fully prepared to let the US or any other country bomb his people while he stayed safely out of harm's way. Iran is similarly unfazed by threats against their population. No amount of sanctions or diplomatic action will have any affect on the leaders of Iran no matter what it does to the population living there.

North Korea also wouldn't seem to care what the state of the population living there is. Sanctions? People starving? Not the leaders. Not the government elite. Why are they apparently agreeing to disarm for some fuel and food? I don't think anybody knows.

Re:The US did it so they won the war

[falcon5768]

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a title used herein as named for its negotiators, the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, refers to the officially-titled Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signed in Moscow in the early hours of August 24, 1939, dated August 23.

Wikipedia is your friend... maybe you should use it.

Mod parent down, he is lying

[nunyadambinness]

(who had volunteered to be used in such a fashion, unlike the civilians who had no such luxury).

They did not volunteer, they were drafted.

If you're going to comment on something like this as though your opinion should be considered, you'd better make sure you don't make an obvious and glaring mistake like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#World_War_I_and_World_War_II

"Conscription was next used after the United States entered World War I in 1917. The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Service Act of 1940, which established the Selective Service System as an independent agency. The duration of service was originally twelve months. It was expanded to eighteen months in 1941. When the United States entered World War II, service was required until six months after the end of the war."

Learn about the subject before you pretend to knowledge you obviously don't have.

Re:Mod parent down, he is lying

[dave420]

OK, so the US volunteered them on their behalf. Either way, someone chose to make them legitimate targets for agression.

Re:Mod parent down, he is lying

[nunyadambinness]

Either way, someone chose to make them legitimate targets for agression.

You're right, the Japanese did that when they attacked unprovoked.

Save the revisionism, you've already demonstrated that your opinion isn't informed enough to matter.

Re:Mod parent down, he is lying

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

They did not volunteer, they were drafted.
That's all well and good, but you still have to voluntarily go. No matter the laws, you don't HAVE to go to war if you're drafted in the United States. Of course, you'll probably go to prison for a good while, but you certainly have that choice. Given the choice, it's the one I would make, simply because I'd personally prefer not to take an active role in killing people I've never even met.

On the other hand, you don't really have a voluntary choice to LIVE, even if you do have a choice to live somewhere. Before that first bomb was dropped, do you really think those who died had any real choice in whether they lived or died? Absolutely not.

Re:Mod parent down, he is lying

[nunyadambinness]

Sorry, but you're trying to hard and your post reflects it. Going to prison makes the draft decidedly involuntary by every definition except the most contrived.

Before that first bomb was dropped, do you really think those who died had any real choice in whether they lived or died?

Absolutely, they could have overthrown their government and surrendered but chose not to.

Really, stop trying so hard.

Re:Mod parent down, he is lying

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

Bull, that's awful. Why should you have to revolt to ensure your safety? Imagine that you disagree with the Iraq war. Does the fact that you're a US citizen mean that it would suddenly be OK for an Iraqi nuke to wipe you off the planet? Is it your ethical duty to overthrow the US government to prevent such an occurrence? Don't be ridiculous.

As for it being "involuntary" -- absolutely not. We're talking about a pretty serious ethical decision here, one that I'm sure you've never actually been in a position to consider. We're talking about ending another person's (or persons') life. If you had a choice, would you rather shoot your neighbor or go to prison for 5 years? What's the realistic, ethical difference between your relationship with your neighbor and a random civilian in, say, WWII-era Japan? Is your personal ethic really that wrapped up in your tertiary relation to some external power, such as a government? Is theirs?

If you're religious, this question (in my opinion) becomes even more meaningful. What is the ethical implication of killing someone who you probably have no real quarrel with, especially in a situation where that person will never really be in a position to harm you? I think there may be a couple religions that disavow such actions...

You can say it's involuntary as much as you want, but it's not too hard to see that going to prison for a relatively short period of time would be preferable to wanton killing of someone I don't even know anything about. Yes, people do it, and it's the way the world works -- I have a realist's understanding of the world, but that doesn't mean I want to participate in its barbarism.

Cheers.

PS -- that would be "too."

Re:Anticommunist sentiment in the US goes back to.

[thebonafortuna]

I would argue the "Cold War" started with the Bolshevik revolution itself. However, the person above us who argued the "fact" the United States started the Cold War is confused. Deeply confused.

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[Alex Pennace]

Actually, nothing got the United States more focused than the Soviet bomb. I submit that the United States would not have "started World War III" under those circumstances.

like i said, that's not intelligent commentary

[circletimessquare]

if you ask someone to choose from a range bad choices and ask them to pick the least bad choice, you cannot hold that person guilty for choosing a bad choice. they are all bad. you are saying that the usa made the prudent choice, but not the correct one. huh?

i'm going to put aside the obvious argument i could have with you about your depiction of the difference between prudent and correct. instead i'm going to say: how is your observation supposed to matter meaningfully in any way whatsoever to the reality of the situation?

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[dfenstrate]

While nukes are scary, they ain't half as scary as they would have been if only one side had them. Would you have trusted the US as the only country with nuclear weapons?

It's worth noting that it would be far worse if the USSR was the sole nuclear power in the world. Any rational evaluation of the mass starvations and outright idealistic purges that mark communism can only conclude that it's wrong and evil.

Even today, 20 years after the fall of the wall, Ex-soviet bloc countries continue to pay the price of a soviet legacy.

"The United States is the source of all evil" passes for 'enlightenment' and 'educated' these days, but such a shallow stance doesn't hold up to any serious scrutiny.

"Wrong" exists. "Evil" exists. Both exist outside of and regardless of the United States. It's not nuanced, it's not sophisticated, but when you take a look at Pol Pot's killing fields, Mao's mass starvation or soviet gulags there is no other conclusion.

There is a tendancy in these comments to paint the Soviet Union as a cuddly, legitimate alternative to the 'nasty US capitilistic-imperialistic hegemon of doom.' Such a stance is utterly naive and either blind to history or indifferent to communism's millions of internal victims.

Re:Pride?

[olehenning]

Great point. But I'd rather say that it is equally unfortunate that the US ever got the bomb as it is that the USSR stole it.

Don't know...

[denzacar]

That guy may be singlehandedly responsible for the cold war being exactly that - cold.

Cause... come on... why not drop a couple of them on those communist bastards. It isn't like they are people. I heard they don't even believe in god.
And that Stalin fellow... a brutal dictator if I ever saw one. Just look at that mustache. Do you know that in the beginning of the WWII he was palls with Hitler?
I say lets nuke 'em. We can't just sit around while Russian people suffer under the iron heel of communism. Let's bring them the gift of freedom.

Only we gotta be quick... before they build some of their own... They might even give some of them to Chinese.
And we KNOW that they are just NOT like us. Can you even tell them apart from those Japanese? I sure can't.

Re:Don't know...

[dillon_rinker]

For thirty years after the fall of the czar, we let the Russian people suffer under the iron heel of communism. When the Nazis invaded, we sent the Russians tanks and trucks, even though they'd helped start the war in Europe by partitioning Poland with the Nazis. During the years after WWII when the USA had nukes and the USSR didn't, the USA didn't drop any nukes on the USSR.

that was incoherent

[circletimessquare]

you are saying american crimes were worse than japanese crimes in world war ii

justify that comment, or apologize and say you are wrong

Re:Pride?

[elrous0]

I would remind you that George Tenant was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And he wasn't even a GOOD spy!

Remember "Hunt for the Red October"?

[denzacar]

Remember the Connery's character? Captain Marko Ramius?

Would you call him a hero and his act (though imaginary) a great achievement?
Stealing an undetectable (super-silent nuclear sub) first strike weapon and running away with it to the enemy?

Or does the analogy only work if you steal from Russians?

Re:Remember "Hunt for the Red October"?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Would you call him a hero and his act (though imaginary) a great achievement?

I found it "great" in the terms of scope. I found Ramius's strength of will impressive, and nobility in his trying to avenge his wife's death. However, mostly, I found him to be a more sympathetic and successful version of Ahab.

Would I call him a hero if I worked for the CIA and needed to make him feel better about himself? Absolutely. Otherwise? Absolutely not.

Re:Remember "Hunt for the Red October"?

[dwye]

> Stealing an undetectable (super-silent nuclear sub) first strike weapon and running away with it to the enemy?

How is any sub a first strike weapon? That is what you use the bigger, more accurate, land-based weapons for. Which the Soviets specialised in.

I suggest that you read the book, not watch the movie. And, of course, remember that it is all fiction.

Hitler was working on the bomb too

[MichaelCrawford]

But there was no way the Nazis could get enough electricity to refine Uranium with Calutrons as the US did (they are large mass spectrometers), so they were trying to build a reactor to synthesize plutonium.

One can fuel a reactor with unrefined uranium if one uses heavy water as a moderator, but they were unable to get enough heavy water because some commandos blew up the Norsk Hydro heavy water plant in Norway, then when they were trying to ship their existing inventory to Germany, the commandos sunk the ship it was on. Their heroics were portrayed in the movie The Heroes of Telemark.

After the war, the Allies found a sub-critical heavy water reactor in Germany.

Saddam Hussein really was trying to build a bomb before the first Gulf War - arms inspectors found calutrons, as well as buried power cables going from power plants to the calutrons (they require prodigous amounts of electricity to power their electromagnets).

The arms inspectors also found copies of World War II-era US patents on improvements to Calutron technology. They had been declassified, you see.

I discuss these and other fun facts in my essay Kiss Your Sorry Ass Goodbye, The Atom Bomb Is Gonna Fly.

Re:Hitler was working on the bomb too

[Stormie]

Are you still "as certain as you can be" that "Judgement Day" will come before the end of 2006? [1] [2]

you can go further than that

[circletimessquare]

one of the reasons the usa and the uk were victorious in wwii is that they had liberalized notions of how society should function as opposed to the autocratic ones in germany, japan, and the ussr (which eventually collapsed). that is, imperial japan, nazi germany, and communist russia were inherently weaker societies due to oppression and autocracy

what i am saying is the usa and the uk won not because of random luck, but because of their governmental structures and values, which were superior to their enemies

for example, you just said the usa and the uk did crimes in wwii, and they don't have to answer for it

and in fact, anyone in the usa and the uk can publicize and illustrate those crimes, and do so without fear of governmental punishment

you yourself feel comfortable criticizing the usa and the uk without fear of retribution

that means something

you would not feel comfortable right now criticizing the ussr/ germany/ japan if they had won wwii. because you would be punished by those autocratic regimes

and, in no small part, that difference is one of the reasons why the usa and the uk won the war: stronger, more stable societies

the usa and uk, unlike the ussr, germany, and japan allowed (and still allow, in spite of all the propaganda to the contrary) dissent

Re:you can go further than that

[Bert64]

Only they didn't...
The USSR won the war in Europe, Britain would eventually have lost to Germany.. Germany was severely out-manned and outgunned, being attacked from both sides by Britain and the USSR.
Similarly, Japan was outgunned by a combination of the USA and China.

It has more to do with resources than governments, in fact the most effective government was Germany. Hitler was able to take a struggling country and turn it into a world superpower, capable of easily defeating France and several smaller weaker countries, and able to take on the British empire, also a major power in those days.

Re:you can go further than that

[Johnny5000]

It has more to do with resources than governments, in fact the most effective government was Germany. Hitler was able to take a struggling country and turn it into a world superpower, capable of easily defeating France and several smaller weaker countries, and able to take on the British empire, also a major power in those days.

And then Hitler managed to do one stupid thing after another, and turn his world superpower into a defeated country again.
If Germany had any sort of checks on Hitler's power (i.e. a different type of government) then it's possible the outcome would have been different.

i am emotionally invested in the truth

[circletimessquare]

so forgive me

i don't know how to not be angry at propaganda and not speak out at it. i envy your reticence on the question, you have a more placid life. but at the same time, i don't think i could live with myself with your attitude

Re:i am emotionally invested in the truth

[db32]

I would hardly say placid. I am a very angry, opinionated, and outspoken person on this kind of topic. The key difference is I have learned to sort out which groups of cattle will mindlessly follow the herd and engage in dicussion about as meaningful as a parrot. They are the group that believe "flip-flop" is universal weakness, rather than changing of belief through introduction of new information. They cling desparately to emotional responses of "us vs them" or only one team gets to be considered the bad guy. They can't seem to accept that war and other ugliness is generally caused by both sides doing bad things. I will put the fire to people who go on with their Islamofacists are out to get us, flag waving, we're #1 clowns just as fast as I will to people who cling to the deranged idea that we are living in some kind of facist hell of oppression. Freedom isn't free (costs a $1.05), and it takes alot of angry patriotic people to make sure that 1. No outside force can harm us (strong military) and 2. No inside force can cause us to implode (educated and active populace). Guess which one we are missing :) Unfortunately, once the people become too dependent on the government, the angry patriotic people trying to address #2 are ignored or imprisoned. Thankfully we still seem to have some time before the imprisoned part kicks up here...but time is certainly running down.

Why steal what you can buy? Cheap.

[denzacar]

Heh.. maybe we should start stealing some of that archaic Chinese diesel-electric technology. I am guessing Chinese or some of the European allies would be glad to sell it.
Only problem is... small, cheap subs are not big enough to land with an jet on and declare "Mission Accomplished".

They are kind of... smallish... and... cheapish. Who is going to make money making those for the military?

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[JavaLord]

USA may have probably stated WW3 by that time.

Very unlikely, since the citizens were pretty anti-war back then. You might have noticed how long it took us to get into WW2, and what circumstance it took?

=

Sped up the process by perhaps one year or two

[gelfling]

The Soviets understood what to do - they were missing the engineering of how to do it. Similarly while the Rosenbergs go down in history as the greatest traitors, even the Soviets admit that their information sped up the development of the H Bomb by less than 2 years. Sakharov came at the problem from a completely different direction than Teller-Ulam and essentially invented a brand new branch of nuclear physics on his own.

in the immortal words of that turkish guy

[circletimessquare]

i kiss you!

well said, you win this thread

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[dillon_rinker]

"Would you have trusted the US as the only country with nuclear weapons?"

For several years, the United States WAS the only country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The United States under had the means to directly dominate the entire world. It refrained from doing so.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[mdielmann]

"Wrong" exists. "Evil" exists. Both exist outside of and regardless of the United States. It's not nuanced, it's not sophisticated, but when you take a look at Pol Pot's killing fields, Mao's mass starvation or soviet gulags there is no other conclusion. And yet I'm still comfortable saying that America is engaging in evil now, has before, and will again, all the while acknowledging that they aren't the sole source of this. I'm aware of the problems of my own country, too. But saying "we're the nicest country around when it comes to committing atrocities" still seems like a weak defense to me.

dude, they lost

[circletimessquare]

you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of defending your point of view with a hypothetical, contrary to what actually happened

another example: the ussr lost the cold war, for the same reasons i elucidated above

you believe "might makes right"

which is an empty, hollow, kneejerk way to view history

i ask you consider the contrary: "right makes might"

that is, a liberal society is intrinsically stronger than an illiberal one, and is better equipped to win wars

Re:dude, they lost

[Bert64]

I never said that might makes right...
Might allows you to dictate what people perceive as being the truth.
The USSR did not lose WW2, they won it. They lost the cold war, but that was an entirely different "conflict".
Countries have risen and fallen throughout history, the USSR didn't fall in battle, they collapsed due to their own mismanagement, as have many other countries.

Re:america committed worse crimes than the japanes

[JavaLord]

I am saying that the the whole end to the WWII was senseless is absolutley insane./..?..

Here's a hint, don't attack American first and stuff like that won't happen.

It is very dark here.

[SanityInAnarchy]

You may be eaten by a GRU.

(Seriously, did no one else think that?)

Re:It is very dark here.

[Phrogman]

Oh extremely clever line. Someone mod that up it deserves a reward :P

Obviously few people have heard of the GRU Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije - ie Russian Military Intelligence. I will assume that most slashdotters are familiar with the monster by the same name :P

As for the original article, the spy in question did his country at the time a major service. I see no reason why he shouldn't have been honoured. I am sure some comparable US spy has received similiar recognition at some point - if not then something is in order.

On a more geeky note: anyone know why Firefox refused to give me the pulldown to select "HTML Formatted" on this page? I even closed the browser and loaded the page again to repost, same result. HTML Looked correct at first glance. Had to post this from Safari...

Re:It is very dark here.

[DeusExCalamus]

I'll never look at Russian intelligence agencies the same way. Thakns :D

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[dillon_rinker]

Not rocket scientists - I'm pretty sure the USA bagged all of them before the USSR could.

consider 3 points of view:

[circletimessquare]

a pro-american viewpoint on wwii: wrong (btw, that's not me)

an anti-american viewpoint on wwii: wrong

a neutral viewpoint on wwii: my opinion

sometimes, this viewpoint agrees with what the usa did. sometimes, it does not. during the times in which a neutral point of view winds up agreeing with an american point of view, why do you think therefore that the neutral point of view is no different than a jingoistic pro-american's point of view?

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[Courageous]

There's a nuance? He was a US citizen, wasn't he? Traitor.

C//

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[khallow]

And yet I'm still comfortable saying that America is engaging in evil now, has before, and will again, all the while acknowledging that they aren't the sole source of this. I'm aware of the problems of my own country, too. But saying "we're the nicest country around when it comes to committing atrocities" still seems like a weak defense to me.

Then there must be something wrong. Truth isn't comfortable. Frankly, the "weak defense" sounds adequate to me. Both the UK and France had nuclear weapons, so there was a counterbalance.

Wait I'm confused

[hudsonhawk]

Something was stolen from someone. How are they not a victim of the theft? Or is that not a crime in your world?

He took intellectual property. I thought on Slashdot that wasn't considered theft?

social liberals are idiots

[circletimessquare]

but social conservatives are evil

given the choice, i'd rather be stupid than evil

Re:Pride?

[Kythe]

A pity we didn't have our current copyright laws back then. I have no doubt the punishment for having been caught would have been even more severe :)

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[Thyamine]

I'm glad someone else mentioned this. Some people seem to think that all we (nerds, geeks, whatever you call yourself) can possibly be interested in is science news. This is news for nerds, not science news for nerds, not space news for nerds, but all news. Certainly science and related fields are what we primarily expect to see, but I get tired of the !news tags accompanying all sorts of stories just because someone wasn't interested in it. I agree that some are very fluff-a-licious or are more advertising than news, but just like most news outlets have fluff pieces to break up the monotony, I don't mind a change of pace.

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[penix1]

You forgot a couple of major points namely the movement of the Pacific Fleet to Pearl and the blockade the US put on Japan after they invaded Manchuria. The movement of the fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor was seen as a threat to Japan (which it was since that was the reason to move it) and the blockade further cut off their natural resources. The US would have done the same thing to any country moving its arms within striking distance as witnessed in the 60s with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

easy answer

[circletimessquare]

you are commanding the allied forces as you approach the japanese mainland, worrying about the human costs of the invasion. someone alerts you to the potential of the atomic bomb

what do you decide?

your decision may be in line with what the americans did. maybe it isn't but agreeing with the americans in this particular instance is possible as a nonamerican, is possible from a neutral point of view

another scenario: you command the usa in 2003. you dislike saddam hussein. do you invade iraq?

if you arrive at a decision not to invade, consider your neutral point of view to be different than an american point of view in this instance

this little mental exercise of course starts with the assumption that you yourself are not a mindless propagandized anti-american to begin with

the whole point is, sometimes the americans do right, sometimes the americans do wrong. a neutral point of view understands this

a propagandized anti-american always says the americans did wrong, even when they did something right

a propagandized pro-american always says the americans did right, even when they did something wrong

the whole point is, just because you happen to agree with what the americans did in wwii in regards to japan, does not mean you are automaticlaly a pro-american brainwashed idiot

get it?

Re:First Post?

[superwiz]

what, what, what, whaaat???? The country that started the US-Japan theater was responsible for the deaths' of Japanese civilians. That would be Japan. I can't believe I have to put it this way, but remember Pearl Harbor?

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>Actually both were very much military targets - Nagasaki was a major Naval base/HQ, and Hiroshima was Army.

the targets were (also) chosen as they had not been attacked so far by conventional bombs. they were therefore ideal candidates to show the power of a single bomb.

not that I think the aim was to kill civilians, just to make the clearest message.

Re:Pride?

[Penguinisto]

Wake up! US is not the only country in the world and it doesn't have any sort of moral high ground.

No one said the US did... you're punching a strawman there.

Meanwhile, the USSR at that time, home to Stalin and his (by then ongoing for decades) Gulag Archipelago, is the absolute last government you would turn to and point at as any paragon of equivalent moral virtue, you know?

Seriously - you take one pure infant fact (that no nation has a monopoly on moral high ground) and you promptly drown it in a vat of viscous ideological ignorance. Stop that.

/P

Awesome.

[Penguinisto]

Seriously - it's posts like this that make me wish the mod system would occasionally go to 6 and above for actual insight.

Thank you, Sir.

/P

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[Jedi Alec]

Any rational evaluation of the mass starvations and outright idealistic purges that mark communism can only conclude that it's wrong and evil.

So the only possible explanation for these atrocities is the political-economic system in use at the time, and has nothing to do with other factors, such as the people actually in charge of said system? Sounds really rational to me.

Wrong exists. Evil exists. Both existed and still exist outside and regardless of the then Soviet Union.

Why do you feel it necessary to somehow compare the US and the SU, instead of, rationally as you claim, consider each as a separate entity under different circumstances?

hello???

[circletimessquare]

"I never said that might makes right...
Might allows you to dictate what people perceive as being the truth."

uh, what?

you just contradicted yourself directly in two sentences

the whole point of socially liberal societies is that YOU decide what the truth is, and are free to say whatever you want on the issue. not simply the military organization that wins all the battles

meanwhile, when you say the victor decides the truth after a war, you ARE saying might makes right. EXACTLY THE SAME THING

Re:hello???

[Bert64]

You are not differentiating between what is "right" and what people "believe to be right".

A liberal society gives people the impression they know what's going on, based on the information given to them. Even in the most authoritarian of regimes people will still believe what they want to, based on the information they have.

That in a sufficiently liberal regime people can freely open their mouths is largely irrelevant, if the vast majority of the people believe the information that the government allows to flow to them.
Sure there's a few who won't in any regime, and the only difference between current "liberal" and totalitarian regimes is how these people are dealt with. Under a totalitarian regime such people are locked up or killed. Under a "liberal" regime, such people are simply branded as insane conspiracy theorists. The end result is the same, people don't believe their stories and thus don't propagate them to others.

The fact is Britain and the US have done many many questionable things, but their respective governments are still powerful enough to say otherwise, and have enough influence that anyone coming along with an opposing voice can be made to appear far less credible, and thus has to work much harder to gain the kind of support required to make their voice heard.
By contrast, Nazi Germany, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Imperial Japan and the USSR have also done many questionable things, but they no longer have sufficient influence to make people believe their versions of events. If anything, subsequent governments want to distance themselves from the former regimes and also use them as blame-sinks.

So you see, in our supposedly liberal societies you may well be free to say what you want, and you may even be right, but that doesn't mean anyone will believe you so long as someone else (that military organisation you talk about) has a louder voice than you. They may even lock you up, just like a totalitarian regime would. But they will say it's "for your own good" because you are "insane" or "a danger".

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[Alomex]

It had very few, not out of principle, but for the simple reason that the USA took most of them.

Eum...

[anss123]

I'm not from America and I agree with the grandparent. So your "only american citizens believe that, I wonder why" straw man fails HA! :p

US Spies and Brits (re: pride)

[Tablizer]

Honoring someone who's greatest feat in life is stealing another country's technology and betraying the people he lived with, served, played ball with & studied with? That is one strange concept of 'pride.'

Our own history textbooks seem to honor (or at least mention without condemnation) US industrial spies who stole manufacturing secrets from the British early in our nation's history, sparking our industrial revolution.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[dfenstrate]

So the only possible explanation for these atrocities is the political-economic system in use at the time, and has nothing to do with other factors, such as the people actually in charge of said system? Sounds really rational to me.

Show me the national implementation of communism that hasn't involved the deaths of millions.

"The right people haven't been in charge yet." is the oldest excuse out there. How many more millions have to be murdered or starved to find the right people?

The communist philosophy is inherently flawed. This is demonstrated by the mass murder that accompanies every attempt to implement it.

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[GeckoX]

And how is it that the rest of the world came around to these higher standards?
The US of today is not the same US of the 1940's. Nobody's trying to say 'What the US did then was good, and thus everything they do now is golden'. The world has changed.

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[oliderid]

Precisly.

I'm belgian and my mother (born in 1941) always reminded me that the first orange she tasted came from US aid.

A lot of people over here are still extremely grateful for US behaviours after the war. She always reminded quite clearly some memories such as rains of chocolate bars each time she saw GIs.

The Marshall plan how all these little things are totally unique in history. At least it was the unique for Belgians who had their share of invasions...

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[dfenstrate]

But saying "we're the nicest country around when it comes to committing atrocities" still seems like a weak defense to me.

I made no such statement on purpose. I spoke not of the actual goodness or evilness of the United States.

My aim was and is to remind people that the communist expirement is evil and wrong. These comments are dripping with moral relativism, multicultural mush, the abandonment of rational judgement and ignorance of communist attrocities.

All of these factors typically come with reflexive anti-americanism, so the USA must be mentioned in passing- but it is hardly my focus.

Re:Pride?

[planetralph]

Remember its 2007, Russia supposedly has a democratic government and has broken with its Stalinist, undemocratic past. By honoring a Stalin era spy, Putin is honoring service to Stalin's government and system as something authentically and honorably Russian. That is why this honor is troubling. It's one thing to honor the masses of soldiers who died in WWII defending their country from German invasion while it happened to be governed by a dictator. It is another thing to honor someone who spied against an ally for the secret service organization that served the dictator. Especially when the secret service organization often acted against the interests people of Russia and the peoples of the former Soviet Empire. Ralph

so in your mind

[circletimessquare]

neutrality doesn't consider the philosophical and political attitude and agendas of various organizations?

so neutrality has no judgment on a japanese regime that was outwardly imperialistic, ultranationalist and racist?

it's all the same to the american regime- whatever the americna regime stood for?

so you think neutrality is morally inert?

Re:so in your mind

[PitaBred]

Because the US wasn't seizing territory from other sovereign nations, even after the war ended and they theoretically would be allowed to, under the rules of war.

Feynman Cleared of Treason

[dwye]

The articles clear Richard Feynman of guilt about his driving Dr. Klaus Fuchs (the highest previously known spy) into Albuquerque, whenever he (Feynman) was visiting his (eventually late) wife in the hospital, there. Koval (somehow) had his OWN jeep, and must have used that to contact his handlers. If they were not separate from the known networks, his name would have come out before this.

Of course, there is always the question of whether Koval, a Communist, would have spied for Russia, vs. the Soviet Union, but that is Putin's to handle.

One perspective on the Vietnam War.

[Lethyos]

Ask the Vietnamese, they can vouch for the humanism and compassion in napalm form they received by your country!

Let me first say that I am not disagreeing with you, but I want to offer a surprising observation I have made in the past few years.

My wife is Vietnamese and I interact with some people from Viet Nam regularly. The most astonishing thing I have ever learned about the “American War” is the near absence of animosity that is today held by the Vietnamese towards the United States for our military action there. This is in stark contrast to my own discontent with US behavior and involvement. To paraphrase my wife: people there simply recognize that brutality is inescapable in armed conflict.

This is in no way meant to justify or belittle the grotesque violence that ensues from war. Like any sane person, I hate war and firmly oppose it unless it is brought to us and we have no other choice. In addition, if we are to engage in armed conflict, I hold my country to the highest of all standards in its conduct, and remain disgusted by the use of napalm or other weaponized horrors. That being said, my point is simply that the typical Vietnamese does not single us out as an egregious violator of humanism and compassion. And after decades of occupation by foreign powers, our brief participation marked the beginning of their independence.

Re:One perspective on the Vietnam War.

[Gospodin]

My wife is Vietnamese and I interact with some people from Viet Nam regularly. The most astonishing thing I have ever learned about the "American War" is the near absence of animosity that is today held by the Vietnamese towards the United States for our military action there. This is in stark contrast to my own discontent with US behavior and involvement. To paraphrase my wife: people there simply recognize that brutality is inescapable in armed conflict.

Not to speak for your wife, but the reason might also have something to do with the fact that the North Vietnamese were far more brutal towards their own people than the Americans ever were.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[mdielmann]

Well then I take back any disparaging remarks directed at you, and we'll skip the discussion on the differences between communism and Marxist dictatorships, and economics vs. politics. It just gets uglier when that stuff starts.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[mdielmann]

So long as you're comfortable with your country committing atrocities because they could be worse. Yet another reason why I laugh when the US decides to play police officer of the world. And yes, that's a nervous laugh, because I don't know what idiotic thing they're going to do to follow up when they actually do something right.

Re:Pride?

[ytm]

Spying and betrayal is not as black or white case as most readers here would want. Consider two biographies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard_Kuklinski

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Zacharski

How do you think? Which one was a hero and which one was a traitor. Both of them? Neither?

Re:Pride?

[MozeeToby]

No, just... No. Seriously, you can take the whole pirate philosophy only so far. What he stole wasn't so much the a-bomb as it was America's weapons superiority. So by that measure, yes America did lose out on something.

sheesh!

[yoprst]

He's a spy (and a miserable one), what do you expect from him?

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[808140]

Yeah! And then, how long it took us to get involved in Korea! ... oh, wait.

i stopped reading right here

[circletimessquare]

"A liberal society gives people the impression they know what's going on"

if you honestly believe that, you are low iq, a paranoid schizophrenic, or some combination of the two

adios moron

Re:i stopped reading right here

[Bert64]

No, you simply prove my point, that anyone not towing the most widely publicised line will be branded as insane.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the governments of the US and UK haven't done unpleasant things and then covered them up? They've even been caught out a few times, how many more cases are there which haven't been exposed, or where the exposing was simply branded as insanity?

Speaking of airports - whoosh

[djupedal]

...flew right over your head, I guess :)

Let me s'plain...

It may sound like 'cob' (as in 'cost') to you when you or your Iowan native family/friends say it, but to West-coasters like me, it sounds like 'cab' (as in 'cat') :)

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[Anonymous Coward]

For several years, the United States WAS the only country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The United States under had the means to directly dominate the entire world. It refrained from doing so.

"Several" meaning "four" (1945 to 1949). "It" meaning "Harry".

The four years were entirely within the administration of one president. Also, four years during which America was not yet at war again -- it would be another year after the Russians tested Joe-1 that Americans and Soviets were facing off in Korea.

So maybe a better question to ask would be:

"Would you have trusted the US as the only country with nuclear weapons during the Korean and Vietnam Wars?"

If wars were fought with nails...

[denzacar]

Would you call a hammer a first strike weapon?

Is a rifle a first strike weapon? Mind you, it will be used to shoot you, not club you on the head.

A silent, quick, undetectable launch platform that can be deployed inside enemies coastal area without him detecting it?
SLBMs sure as hell are not for "home protection". Its a "get them before they get you and still have a reserve"-weapon.

And FYI I did read the book. Found it boring as hell, but made through it somehow.
And while HfRO is fiction, USA, UK and France all have pump-jet driven submarines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrojet
And all of them can carry and fire nukes.

Russians may not have pump-jet subs, but they sure do have subs equipped with SLBMs.

Re:If wars were fought with nails...

[dwye]

> Is a rifle a first strike weapon?

Of course, especially if fitted with a good scope. An unrifled musket is not, though.

> SLBMs sure as hell are not for "home protection". Its a
> "get them before they get you and still have a reserve"-weapon.

No, it is a "Kill them after I am dead" (aka, 2nd or 3rd strike) weapon, able to take out cities or contaminate the farm belts of the enemy, but not terminate precise targets. Unless your goal in the first strike is to induce a full spasm response, of course.

And I think that the wiki article is wrong, and that the book used MHD also. After all, we used pump-driven propulsion in the Vietnam-era river boats, so a sub with one would not be interesting, or particularly quiet.

Re:If wars were fought with nails...

[denzacar]

but not terminate precise targets. On what are you basing this "imprecision"? And what exactly do you consider precise when tossing around nuclear weapons?

How is a submarine docked in front of New York, capable of frying the entire east coast before anyone knows its there, AND retreating into depths of the ocean before the first SLBMs drop... how is that not a first strike weapon?

What IS a first strike weapon in your opinion? A silo filled with ICBMs somewhere in Siberia? That is only "You shoot, we shoot too", MAD leverage.
You don't need the IC part of the ICBM when you are so close to the said continent that you can toss a rock at it.

Sure... subs are "Kill them after I am dead"-weapon, but that is not the part everyone fears. Who cares about that 500th nuke. Its those first two that count.
And you are not going to get them there in time if they have to go over the North Pole, or with a bomber.
Unless Russians had plans to dig a tunnel under USA http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061387/ - there is no faster delivery then by a sub.

As for MHD... well... the book DID use the MHD... only problem is that it does not exist (at least not in the way it does in the book or the movie - particularly not on a submarine) - while pump-jet submarines do.
Which is exactly what I have said.

Re:If wars were fought with nails...

[dwye]

And what exactly do you consider precise when tossing around nuclear weapons?

Precise enough to take out enemy silos before they can launch.

How is a submarine docked in front of New York, capable of frying the entire east coast before anyone knows its there, AND retreating into depths of the ocean before the first SLBMs drop... how is that not a first strike weapon?

(Putting you as the aggressor, to better personalize things)

Because our second strike takes out your cities and contaminates your farmland. Result is, you are dead. Granted, dead too, but still dead.

If, OTOH our precise missiles can take out your forces before they launch, odds are that we only take out 10-30% of your population as collateral damage. We then get on the hotline, and suggest that you reconsider (whatever the casus belli was). You can retaliate with WHAT? You might have enough missiles left to take out a few cities, if you can find and maybe retarget them (except that we destroyed your command-and-control, also), then suffer the full wrath of our response (exterminating the survivors). Or, you submit, and go on with 60-90% of your population still alive, but harmless.

THAT is a proper first strike.

The only way that a sub can be a first strike weapon (short of massive improvements in missile guidance and accuracy) is to fake a third party launching, and let the victim and the innocent (well, not guilty) bystander duke it out.

As for MHD... well... the book DID use the MHD

Aha. Well the referenced Wikipedia entry had it wrong, then. A pump-jet would not be particularly quiet, but a breakthrough seawater MHD (Hall Effect, actually, iirc) sub could be (probably would be, but we cannot tell until there is a working prototype).

Re:If wars were fought with nails...

[denzacar]

You still keep tagging SLBMs as "imprecise".

Aiming for a large, stationary target you don't need nothing more than a calculator and launch and land coordinates.
Again... how are SLBMs imprecise?

And even if they were colossal fuckups (SLBMs) - you just launch redundant missiles with overlapping strike areas.

Now... the other thing. A calculated "bomb, and then negotiate" nuclear war is not an option.
Its either A strikes B first and kills it fast before A retaliates (a decapitating + disarming first strike), A and B empty the silos at each other (first strike==last strike), or A or B goes for winner takes all (erase other side and any bystanders, Earth is ours).

And A and B would not be countries. One would be the country that shot first, the other would be everyone else with a nuclear arsenal.

Calculating for 10,30, 60 or any other percent of collateral damage is illusionary.
If nukes are used as a weapon of war (and not some kind of a lone-gunmen terrorist attack) the best that can be hoped for (in human population) is as much as can fit into nuclear shelters.

So, any nation that would consider nuclear weapons as anything else other than a MAD deterrent, would first have to dig deep and hard, burry as much as it can as deep as it can in people and supplies, and then go for gold.
Nuke them all, and inherit the earth. Also, reduce your own population to a "manageable level".

Nuclear wars don't end in negotiations. Its one side wins, and/or everyone loses.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[shutdown -p now]

For several years, the United States WAS the only country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

Yes, and it's also the only country so far that has actually used them in a war against the enemy, exactly in that period.

Re:Pride?

[dueyfinster]

Yes quite obviously the OP meant IP theft.......

Re:Anticommunist sentiment in the US goes back to.

[shutdown -p now]

You forgot the most important one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[Britz]

I agree

These days, after Vietnam and Iraq the US is seen in an entire different light. Probabely for good reason.

But back then, the world was different. Except for the Philippines and maybe some Mexican stuff the US had a clean slate. And they had just helped free the world from the Japanese and German armies. Stalin OTOH is now seen being about on par with Hitler when it comes to "evilness".

You have to see things in a historical perspective. And in this light he looks like a spy for the evil empire. But then again you also have to take into account that there was no free press in Russia and no Internet. Maybe he believed the FUD they fed him. I wouldn't judge him so quickly. But I also wouldn't call him a hero.

Re:Allies (in name only)

[slew]

After it was clear that the Americans tilted the tide of the war, basically, the Americans and Russians were allied in name only. Prior to Germany attacking Russia, if you recall, Russia signed a non-agression pact with GERMANY in which they agreed to split up poland and the baltics. Of course that all fell apart when Germany finally turned and attacked Russia. If you look at the politics on the division of Berlin at the end of the War in Europe it's pretty clear nobody in the Allied front trusted Russia very much.

If you look at the Pacific Theater, you can see this mistrust in Russia in how quickly America tried to end the war with Japan with the A-bomb before Russia could come in and "help" and thus claim their occupied territory after the war.

It's pretty clear that the last few years of WWII were really just a prelude to the cold war and blind hate of communism isn't really the whole story (although it was no doubt some part of it). The Russia was dealing from both sides of the deck and got burned. Was america supposed to trust them?

Even the Communists in Russia took great issue with the anti-aggression pact with Germany. Communism is really just a convenient simplification that some cereal box readers make.

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[tenchiken]

Please do yourself a favor, and go read even a basic history of the start of the cold war and World War II. I recommend "The Making of the hydrogen Bomb" and "Dark Sun". Among other things you will find out:

• That Stalin had started a nuclear program well before the end of World War II.
  
• That American fear of Stalin was very well justified.
  
• That there was not just one or two, but more spies then you could shake a stick at in the Manhatten Project.
  
• That this was not just a fortunate occurrence for the USSR.
  

This kind of mindless rhetorical "The US hated the USSR, so the cold war was justified" crap is tragic in the extreme. We had a 4 year window to get rid of nuclear weapons. That window closed when the USSR blockaded Berlin, and refused International control... and the rest of mankind has suffered ever since.

Putin

[TyTheBold]

Someone mod Putin -1 for flaming.

Re:Pride?

[porpnorber]

I agree: patriotism should be punished, not rewarded. Betraying the people you live with for the sake of a political abstraction is mindbogglingly uncool, no matter whose abstraction it may be.

Hate to burst your bubble...

[Ga_101]

But you have to remember something. The way the US treated the political class of both Britain and France after world war two, your two best buddies in the whole wide world at the time, directly resulted in them developing independent nuclear deterrents.

Even you have to admit that insulting the British foreign minister to the point where a generally anti-nuclear democratic socialist cabinet will spend a significant portion of a wreaked economy by going for the bomb takes some doing.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[KZigurs]

ok, a homework for you.

You are a reasonably ordinary country enjoying an interestingly efficient industrial revolution in a quite remote spot of the world with none directly worth invading. And you have an A-Bomb that has not been tested, demonstrated or exactly understood in the world at the time. How can you, exactly, 'directly' dominate the world?

Oh, and actually USA did not refrained from anything - remember that little Japanese incident? That about represent the max use that bomb could have had then - and conveniently set up the world to realize what exactly it is. A demonstration. Apart from that - there were no means, no troops, no way to actually dominate the world. Just look at the past USA attempts at 'dominating' something (fyi: track record is not in favor of USA and just about to become even worse)

Re:sputnik?

[DJCacophony]

you mean the rocket and missile technology they stole from the germans?
Yeah, okay.
By the way, Mikoyan Gurevich and Sukhoi are companies, not technologies.

Polonium Brothers

[Doc Ruby]

Nah, Putin just gave the award as a way of glorifying the political uses of Polonium 210:

In June 1945, Dr. Koval's duties expanded to include top-secret plants near Dayton, said John C. Shewairy, an Oak Ridge spokesman. The factories refined polonium 210, a highly radioactive material used in initiators to help start the bomb's chain reaction.

Re:Pride?

[shutdown -p now]

Anti-Communist and pro-Western as I am, as a Russian, given the choice, I'd still prefer my country to be ruled by an extremely oppressive regime, than for Moscow and a few other major cities to be a giant crater of melted glass. Sorry.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[vux984]

It refrained from doing so.

So what? One or two presidents were either smart enough or lacked the motivation to use them or both. How long do you really think that would have kept up? How long before we had a dim bulb in power with an enemy to provoke him? We'd have never lasted until now, without using them.

Remember, the US was involved in several wars after WW2, and one the the big reasons it refrained from using nukes, or even fully committing to those wars for that matter was the threat of nuclear retaliation from the USSR if they pushed too hard.

Beginning of this thread is gone?

[opencity]

There were posts above the 'first post?' modded troll(?)
Now they are gone.
Engage tinfoil hat. Set post to flame.

Partial retraction.

[Lethyos]

It seems my understanding was skewed. Unfortunately, I hit the submit button before getting proper vetting on that comment. My wife weighed in with these comments after the fact: “I'd agree with ‘most people just treat it as the past’, not that ‘understand that both sides suffer casualties in war’. This was a war imposed upon us; we didn't look for it or ask for it. We will never forget or forgive I think, but we understand there's no point to play the blame game here.”

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[dadragon]

For several years, the United States WAS the only country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The United States under had the means to directly dominate the entire world. It refrained from doing so.

According to the Quebec Agreement, the USA was bound to not use them without the consent of Canada and the United Kingdom.

That also means that Canada and the UK were just as guilty as the USA for the bombing of Japan.

Land invasion

[Chris Burke]

As the GP said, the A-Bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than they killed (considering the alternative was a land invasion).

Although there was a plan for an invasion, the fact is that it was not the only alternative, and in fact was not the most seriously considered alternatives. The choices on the table were:

1) Drop atom bombs on targets on the Japanese mainland.
2) Detonate atom bombs off the shore as a demonstration of the bomb's power.
3) Accept a conditional surrender offered by the Japanese.
4) Wait for Russia to enter the war against Japan, which it was strongly believed would compel Japan to surrender.
5) Land invasion by Allied forces.

1 is what we actually did.

2 has the most obvious practical/tactical problems. While you can show someone a blast like they or precious few others have ever seen, and tell them that this can level a city, they might not really believe it and then there aren't any bombs left to carry out the threat. Actually annihilate a city, and you've made your point in an undeniable fashion. Plus it makes no sense to waste such an expensive weapon.

3 is very interesting. There was actually a point not long before the bombing where the Japanese did offer a conditional surrender. While there was little in the way of engagement from our side to determine exactly what that meant, their primary request appeared to be to maintain a role for their emperor. Now we were against conditional surrender for a variety of reasons, such as it not seeming an appropriate end to the war they started, and we certainly didn't want the emperor to maintain power and be able to continue the imperialistic tradition. What it seems they really wanted, though, was more of a face-saving gesture for the nation in the form of maintaining the Emperor as a symbolic and ceremonial leader. What I find especially interesting about this option is that, ultimately, this is what General McArthur gave them.

The problem from 4 from the position of Truman's cabinet had nothing to do with Japan who they were sure would surrender as soon as the Russian army was fully brought to bear in addition to the other Allies. The problem was that this would necessarily entail Japan surrendering in part to Russia, and we didn't want Russia to have any say in the matter. Already we were maneuvering against our so-called Ally. The Cold War began before WWII ended.

5, the land invasion, was actually considered behind these other options for the very reason that it was going to be so costly and do little more than leave the nation of Japan in ruins. There was of course a plan established just like there is for any military eventuality, but Truman strongly disfavored this over every other choice.

There are some really good links out there that I should dredge up that includes statements from Truman and his cabinet members regarding these things; it's really fascinating.

Also let me point out that it is not my belief that the choice to use the bomb was "wrong". For one I would not ever want to put myself in Truman's shoes, and for two what we did had some strategic advantages, including one they probably never considered which is that we now live in a world in which the actual use of nukes against cities is not just a theory but actual history, so we're all much more aware of the real consequences of using nukes than we would have been otherwise.

The only thing I really object to is the way the decision is sold by saying "our only other option was a land invasion that would have killed so many more!". This allows us to apply a simple moral calculus to the decision and assure ourselves that we were morally correct when the situation and the decision were much more complex than that.

Funny that...

[DeusExCalamus]

I seem to have forgotten what this discussion was about...

US citizens score again

[Michael O'Neill]

It just demonstrates that US citizens make better quality Russians that Russia does...go figure.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[dcam]

That isn't correct. The US bagged the best of them but both programs were based on German scientists. The Russian approach was different: they split up the scientists, got them working with groups of Russian scientists to pick their brains. Once they knew all they needed to know, the dropped with the Germans.

Tragedy: A Tale of Two Russians

[reporter]

Contrast the response of Vladimir Putin (and the rest of the Kremlin) to the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and his response to the death of George Koval.

Politkovskaya had spent most of her career in helping the victims of horrific human-rights abuses. She was their only voice in an icy land of indifference. Commenting on the murder of Politkovskaya, Putin insulted her, "The level of her influence on political life in Russia was utterly insignificant."

By contrast, Koval helped the Soviet Union to develop weapons of mass destruction. They included nuclear weapons that can incinerate millions of victims within seconds. Commenting on his death, Putin heaps lavish praise and posthumously gives him the "Hero of Russia" medal, the highest Russian award.

I am almost at a loss for words to describe my utter disgust at the Kremlin.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[xhrit]

Show me the national implementation of capitalism that hasn't involved the deaths of millions. The capitalist philosophy is inherently flawed. This is demonstrated by the mass murder that accompanies every attempt to implement it.

Tens of thousands died in Dresden alone

[snowwrestler]

Hundreds of thousands of German civilians died in other carpet-bombing attacks. Overall if you add up the deaths due to "strategic bombing" during the two theatres of WWII, the estimate ranges come out fairly similar--in the range of 300,000 to 600,000 deaths per theatre. That includes the two atomic bombs in Japan. Yet, the firebombing of Germany does not draw nearly the focus of attention that the nuclear bombs due. I believe that is a form of hindsight bias--nuclear weapons went on to define fear for the next 60 years, while firebombs did not.

In comparison, the Holocaust alone resulted in the deaths of 5 million non-combatant citizens, an order of magnitude greater than the deaths due to strategic bombing. In the Pacific theatre the deaths of Chinese citizens alone numbered into the millions, although I don't have the estimates off hand.

The number that always stuck with me was that Russia is estimated to have sustained about 25 million (!) deaths during WWII.

The nuclear attacks were horrible and I hope such a thing never happens again. As an American I will do my part to ensure that is true. But they are only one of many aspects of mass killing during WWII, that we should all hope to prevent in the future.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[mfrank]

Marxism: The opiate of the intelligentsia.

Care to back up your outrageous claims?

[spun]

Please, do point out where anyone claiming to be progressive advocates rape, murder, and torture. This is classic psychological projection.

Re:america committed worse crimes than the japanes

[ushering05401]

Killing civilians indiscriminately will never be right. Never.

Re:Calling you a jackass would be an insult...

[ushering05401]

The funniest thing is that you just challenged a professed pacifist.

I'm just saying.

That's funny.

Challenging a guy who is pissed about civilian casualties... civilians who didn't want to fight.

That's just... uh... funny.

Re:Pride?

[Penguinisto]

That's the thing - I sincerely doubt that anyone in the US Government would have bothered, even if we were still the only ones with The Bomb.

Up until WW2, and for a long time thereafter (at least until Vietnam*), the United States was nice and isolationist - we simply didn't want to have anything to do with affairs outside of the North/South American continent. We were more or less dragged into WW1, WW2 by world events, and into Korea by a combination of treaties and the UN.

Having more than one superpower with nuclear capabilities, coupled with expansion by Stalin and Khruschev into the Eastern European Bloc, was part of what brought on the full-on Cold War. It just got uglier from there (and IMHO, if Stalin nor Khruschev had atomic/nuclear weaponry, neither would have even tried to assert such actions as they had).

/P

Klaus Fuchs

[mahesh_gharat]

I awlays thought Dr.Klaus Fuchs was the main spy who did it.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[dfenstrate]

It's telling your response is to deflect the coversation away from communism. Scientoligists do the same thing when their religion is under attack, and now that I'm attacking your religion, you do the same.

Pathetic.

6 of 1...

[djupedal]

"Are you sure you meant Prussian?

Again, specifically 'Eastern' Prussia [details above]... when I think of 'prussian', I tend to think back to 'eastern prussian', sorry to confuse you :)

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[onefriedrice]

> So what?

Hmm. You probably miss the point. It means that the spy in question is not some kind of savior of the world how some slashdotters are suggesting since he didn't even prevent the U.S. from being the sole steward of atomic bombs. The fact that we did not continue this dominance is irrelevant since at that time we had the power to assert that we would be the only ones with this power, but we chose not to. That's the point.

> How long do you really think that would have kept up?

It wouldn't (or more accurately didn't) hold up at all because we chose not to enforce U.S. dominance using atomic weapons, the cost of which would have meant much bloodshed.

> Remember, the US was involved in several wars after WW2, and one the the big reasons it
> refrained from using nukes, or even fully committing to those wars for that matter was
> the threat of nuclear retaliation from the USSR if they pushed too hard.

Again, this is a power the USSR had only because the U.S. let atomic bombs exist in other countries rather than blowing them up and preserving U.S. dominance; it has much less to do with Soviet spies. The point is, we had atomic dominance for years and _chose_ not to use these weapons to retain that dominance. It's interesting that many people will not enjoy considering this since liberal education in most of our public schools has ironically become predominantly anti-American, but it's true..

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[khallow]

So long as you're comfortable with your country committing atrocities because they could be worse. Yet another reason why I laugh when the US decides to play police officer of the world. And yes, that's a nervous laugh, because I don't know what idiotic thing they're going to do to follow up when they actually do something right. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the role that the US plays in the world. There's too much temptation for evil and to abandon the principles that the US was based on. But as long as there's no real police officer of the world (and yes, it looks to me like we need one), the US will continue to take up that role.

Re:Joe Stalin

[4D6963]

Genocide : The deliberate and systematic destruction of an entire people who belong to one racial, political, cultural or religious group.

Therefore I'm right, Stalin was a genocidaire. Boy do I love proving wrong pedants who try to prove me wrong!

Re:youre a dirty damn hippy

[PortHaven]

Actually, they can't...

Because hundreds of thousands who would tell you how we were stopping them from being slaughtered are now dead.

Re:Pride?

[Capsaicin]

That's the thing - I sincerely doubt that anyone in the US Government would have bothered, even if we were still the only ones with The Bomb.

You said it dude! I mean that Russian guy is just being paranoid isn't he? I for one just can't imagine a nation as benign as the US ever using a weapon as terrible as the A-bomb against enemy cities. I mean think of all the innocent civilians who would have been killed (or had their kimono patterns burnt into their skin) ... Americans simply don't tolerate that kind of behavior from their government.

Re:Pride?

[Capsaicin]

The US prides its space program, which was created by Nazi war criminals using stolen Nazi technology (stolen from its allies).

You have a point, but you overplay you hand in calling German rocket scientists "Nazi war criminals." People like Werner von Braun were never convicted of war crimes (and falsely to call them criminals is a long established species of slander). Moreover designing weapons systems for their country involved no greater moral turpitude (arguably less) than that of the scientists (or "war criminals" as you would have it) involved in the Manhattan Project, the British "Dam Busters" &c.. About the greatest accusation that can be leveled against him is that Jewish slave labour was being used at the plant which constructed the weapons he designed, and that he visited said plant, none of which involved any choices von Braun was empowered to make.

Try to maintain objectivity and cut the invective down a bit and you will become more pursuasive. You might also avoid being as blinkered as those who cannot see past the US perspective to recognise that from the Russian perspective (and indeed that of the world in general) Koval is indeed a great hero.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[vux984]

Again, this is a power the USSR had only because the U.S. let atomic bombs exist in other countries rather than blowing them up and preserving U.S. dominance; it has much less to do with Soviet spies. The point is, we had atomic dominance for years and _chose_ not to use these weapons to retain that dominance.

No, I understand that, but it only "chose" not to use those weapons and allow the the weapons to spread for a short while. After that it was too late. And whether or not you give credit to a russian spy or the first couple post WW2 US presidents makes no difference to me.

The important thing is that the weapons spread, because there is no way the US would have continued to -choose- not to use them indefinately. Sooner or later we'd have elected an aggressive war mongering president, and ... kaboom. With M-A-D all but the a complete lunatic would be held in check.

It's interesting that many people will not enjoy considering this since liberal education in most of our public schools has ironically become predominantly anti-American, but it's true..

If Russian wants to celebrate the spy who brought them nuclear weapons. Why not? So its a half truth or less at best.

America celebrates the first "discovery" by a white guy on behalf of a european superpower, despite America being visited by Asians, Vikings, and even Portuguese fishermen prior to Columbus' discovery of the bahamas. Never mind that columbus was an immoral greedy racist mass murdering rapist who used torture routinely. Even by the standards of the day he was pretty vile.

But history loves heroes. America is full of them, and most of them don't deserve the accolades heaped upon them. From Columbus onwards.

It doesn't matter who we celebrate for spreading nukes, what matters is that they got spread.

Re:Pride?

[richie2000]

What he stole wasn't so much the a-bomb as it was America's weapons superiority. So, by that logic, when the US developed and tested the A-bomb, they stole the military superiority from the Soviets? And when the Soviets then developed and tested the H-bomb, they stole the weapons equilibrium from... Someone? Bueller? Bueller?

Re:america committed worse crimes than the japanes

[FishWithAHammer]

You continually gloss over events like Unit 731, but harp on America's ills.

I hate to pull the redneck card, but GTFO.

Re:sputnik?

[Shakrai]

you mean the rocket and missile technology they stole from the germans?

Uhh, yeah, you realize that we did the same thing, right?

Don't underestimate Russian technology or engineering. It's easy to make light of it (vacuum tubes in their fighters, Chernobyl, In Soviet Russia.... jokes, etc, etc) but in so doing you miss some of their real accomplishments.

Russian rocket/missile technology is every bit as advanced (in some cases more so) as Western technology. There is no Western version of this for example. Their ICBM technology was sufficiently advanced to scare the hell out of NATO and encourage arms-reduction treaties and talks.

And while Russian engineering practices may leave a little bit to be desired, it was those same engineering practices that produced this and defeated Nazi Germany.

People underestimate Russia at their own peril.

Re:News for Nerds How?!!!!

[Shakrai]

As I dislike arm race of Cold war, we must admit that US started it, because they hated Commies so much

You got a +5, insightful for this rubbish? WTF are the mods smoking and can I have some?

The US started the cold war? That's funny. I always thought Stalin started it when he refused to honor the agreements he made at Yalta and Tehran and effectively annexed Eastern Europe. Go read about the Berlin blockade. Or the Soviet pause during the Warsaw Uprising. In fact, go ask somebody from Poland (or Eastern Europe as a whole) who they think started the Cold War. Or maybe somebody from South Korea, because it was Stalin that gave Kim Il Sung the green-light for the invasion of the South.

Both sides share measure of blame for the distrust that followed WW2. This distrust set the stage for the Cold War. But you can't deny the fact that if Stalin had allowed the people of Eastern Europe to pick their own destiny (as he promised at Yalta and the other conferences) the Cold War probably doesn't happen.

Soviet A-bomb project?

[seven of five]

The Germans had an A-bomb project, and I think the Japanese had one... Didn't the Russians have their own, or were they waiting for the spies to report back...?

One people's hero is another people's villian

[kbahey]

This happens all the time. One side will see the person/group as traitors, spies, terrorists, ...etc. The other side will see you as a hero, role model, ...etc.

The same happened in the Lavon Affair, where bombings were conducted in Cairo by Egyptian Jews at the instigation of the government of Israel to destabilize Nasser's hard line regime. One surgeon, Moshe Marzouk was found to be a spy and a terrorist, and was executed by hanging. After half a century of denial, Israel honored the perpetrators as heroes.

The affair left a lasting legacy of conspiracy theories as a precedent ...

Compare and contrast with other cases in other places, and more recent times.

Re:Mixed up story, I don't recall him being a trai

[smithmc]

  Odd by the way that a lot of americans seem to condemn hailing this guy as a hero, when their own space program was built upon a nazi war criminal. Russian spy vs nazi, oh yeah the ruskies are the baddies alright. Working people to their death vs taking a dangerous mission to protect your home country.
 

Um, the Soviets worked people to death, too.

Re:Tragedy: A Tale of Two Russians

[smittyoneeach]

Concur. Go, Garry Kasparov!

Re:Pride?

[Penguinisto]

I mean that Russian guy is just being paranoid isn't he?

No, he's viewing it from his perspective, which likely includes more than just a little proselytizing from his own government when he was younger, and further from having popped into it (most likely) during the middle of the Cold War.

You've never studied history, have you? Because there's a great big ocean of isolationism among the US populace (and even its government) that takes up the majority of the 20th century. It would have likely settled back to that if not for the whole series of events that followed the first Soviet A-Bomb.

/P

Heh. Touche. But like all good doomsday prophets

[MichaelCrawford]

... I'll just push back judgement day a little.

Re:Pride?

[Capsaicin]

You've never studied history, have you?

On the contrary, I have a degree with a double History major. I was one of the top students in my year at perhaps the most prestigious college in Australia (Melb Uni folk would disagree :) ), shared (1/2 way) the final year history essay prize and was also awarded a prize by a scholarly society external to the university. I'd tell you my average mark, but I think I've bragged enough already. At one time I was even toying with the idea of writing a thesis about the connection of Rambo movies and the shift in US foreign policy duing the Reagan adminstration ... In your favour it might be said that if you are wrong, at least you are consistenly so.

In any case, I would dispute the relevance of History (which is, after all, about the analysis of texts) to a debate about what-ifs such as this.

Because there's a great big ocean of isolationism among the US populace (and even its government) that takes up the majority of the 20th century.

Which is, of course, why the US refused to participate in both world wars, didn't get involved in the Russian Civil War, never got entagled in Vietnam, took absolutely no interest at any time in the 20th Century (either before, during or after the cold war) in the constitution of governments in central and south America (or elsewhere in the world), did not in the early C21st thrust itself in an unprovked war in the middle east (and that by an ostensibly isolationist administration) &c. &c &c. But perhaps you live in one of Everett's alternative universes, one where an isolationist US existed throughout the C20th? Or maybe the stories a people (or a government) enjoys to telling about itself do not always reflect the reality of that people (or government)? Just a thought.

Sure the involvment in WWII followed an irresitable provocation, as arguably did the invovlement in WWI. But what would could have been considered provocation sufficient to attack the Soviet Union? And remember we are dealing with a nation where even relatively intelligent people can construe their role in the C20th as oceanically isolationist. I've even seen Americans argue that invasion of Iraq was a result of provocation!?

I don't blame you for taking this jaundiced view, after all, this is not any nation we are talking about, it is your nation. But you must understand that the experience of the US adminstration outside your borders is primarily an experience of intervention. Not an invariably unfavourable experience, I hasten to add (as a German (though not exclusively so) I would like to thank your country for liberating mine from the NS regime!), but nonetheless an experience of intervention. You don't get to be the world's most powerful empire without breaking a few eggs. But of course, you are not an empire ...

It would have likely settled back to [isolationism] if not for the whole series of events that followed the first Soviet A-Bomb.

Now we really would need to slip into an alternative universe to answer this, but I disagree vigourously! Again I would ask you for a moment to forget that this is your nation we are talking about and attempt to look at the facts with a measure of objectivty. We are dealing instead with Nation X. A nation with a history of international intervention, and specifically armed intervention against the USSR. Nation X, which is the only nation ever to use WMDs in anger. Nation X, where the thinking is so insular that the population (aided no doubt by the administration) can be convinced to construe unrelated events (such as terrorist attacks) as a direct (and threatening) provocation. Now you are expecting me to entertain the notion that Nation X, with no threat of retaliation, would indefinitely restrain itself from using the weapons it has used in the past against a nation it has (without provocation) attacked in the past?! Surely this isn't credible!

Lo

Re:Pride?

[shutdown -p now]

No, he's viewing it from his perspective, which likely includes more than just a little proselytizing from his own government when he was younger, and further from having popped into it (most likely) during the middle of the Cold War.

I'm not. I'm too young to get any serious "proselytizing" - I've only seen Gorbachev's times in the USSR, my school years were early 90s, when everything related to communists was officially evil, and by the time the tide began to turn back (2000 and beyond), I was already (and remain now) a diehard democrat, liberal, and Westernophile.

Even so, I think that in the existence of nuclear weapons in possession of at least one of the openly hostile parties (which the USA and the USSR were shortly after WW2 - one just needs to remember the Berlin Blockade of 1948-49), MAD is the only working way to preserve peace, and that requires both sides to have nukes. If the Western Allies used the moment and pushed the conventional warfare from Europe further onwards to the East, liberating Russia and other countries constituting the USSR, things could've been different. But by the time the nuke was stolen, it was already too late for that.

Re:Pride?

[RespekMyAthorati]

I do believe the US still had the A-bomb after this so-called "theft". When will you people learn?
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement!

Unless you believe the AWAA.