Russia mobilises - consequences and reactions

[Rob Ray]

By whom?

The Nagasaki atomic bombing - why the rush? - Institute for Energy and Environmental Research is a useful overview.

 

[Spymaster]

Google it. I'm on the shitter.

It's an area of history that interests me greatly so my request was genuine. There are many views on the rights and wrongs of the bombings so just wondered whose you were referring to. Probably better for another thread though.

 

[Spymaster]

The Nagasaki atomic bombing - why the rush? - Institute for Energy and Environmental Research is a useful overview.

That's not someone "admitting it", it Arjun Makhijini, an anti-nuclear campaigner, saying it. Many others do too but there are plenty of differing views.

 

[seventh bullet]

Off the top of my head, even Curtis LeMay said they served no purpose in ending the war with Japan.

 

[Rob Ray]

That's not someone "admitting it", it Arjun Makhijini, an anti-nuclear campaigner, saying it. Many others do too but there are plenty of differing views.

That's why I said it was an overview.

 

[Spymaster]

Off the top of my head, even Curtis LeMay said they served no purpose in ending the war with Japan.

In what context did he say that? At the time they were dropped Japan was militarily defeated but unsurrendered. Possible options could have been to invade conventionally or simply lay siege to the country and starve everyone. If unconditional surrender was the goal, then dropping the bombs was instrumental in achieving that. If you want to argue that demanding unconditional surrender was unnecessary and therefore dropping the bombs was excessive, I'd probably agree with you.

 

[Cid]

In what context did he say that? At the time they were dropped Japan was militarily defeated but unsurrendered. Possible options could have been to invade conventionally or simply lay siege to the country and starve everyone. If unconditional surrender was the goal, then dropping the bombs was instrumental in achieving that. If you want to argue that demanding unconditional surrender was unnecessary and therefore dropping the bombs was excessive, I'd probably agree with you.

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria kicks off just after Hiroshima; Japan was already bricking it around their impending involvement, and the subsequent comprehensive defeat of the Kwantong army would likely have sealed their need to surrender on its own. At least that's the argument as I understand it.

e2a: Er... but yeah, we're going to wander down the garden path on this one too.

 

[RD2003]

They are (potentially) now, but you were referrring to negotiating with them far earlier in the conflict, after they'd shown themselves to be utterly capricious and untrustworthy.

Nobody in their right mind would have thought negotiation would have taken place in good faith.

As I said, good faith or not, being tied up in negotiation for as long as possible would have been better than war. And you never know-the more talking that takes place and all that...

Or is it a case of get the bloodhsed and carnage over with?

 

[RD2003]

There was nothing to prolong. He attacked Ukraine having sworn blind he wouldn't. It's not possible to prolong anything when action is being taken regardless of what you happen to say.

Nothing to prolong because Zelensky, elected on a platform including continued negotiations, was pressured out of it by nationalist hardliners (and their western string-pullers no doubt.) A indication of a willingness to to resume negotaitions could have been made any time.

 

[RD2003]

don't worry this thread really all about you and nothing else..

You seem to be the one obsessed by bringing me into it all the time.

 

[RD2003]

The day after the deal was signed the Russians bombed Odessa port facilities and shortly after that they killed the principle guy who ran the grain business in Ukraine. Putin wouldn't know good faith if it shat on his face. This is a man who routinely has his own people who have fallen out of favour killed with lame excuses such as 'fallen out of a window', 'fallen down stairs' etc. Get a fucking grip.

As if tyrants have never been negotiated with.

 

[Cid]

Nothing to prolong because Zelensky, elected on a platform including continued negotiations, was pressured out of it by nationalist hardliners (and their western string-pullers no doubt.) A indication of a willingness to to resume negotaitions could have been made any time.

Evidence?

 

[RD2003]

Evidence?

As the man said, Google it.

 

[teqniq]

As if tyrants have never been negotiated with.

What exactly is your point caller? You singularly fail to address the issue that Putin is somebody to whom good faith is a completely alien concept.

 

[TopCat]

None of the grain shipments have been attacked etc.

 

[Cid]

As the man said, Google it.

I mean for one thing I'm not even sure which set of negotiations you're talking about at this point.

 

[RD2003]

I mean for one thing I'm not even sure which set of negotiations you're talking about at this point.

The already occupied territories.

 

[Rob Ray]

A indication of a willingness to to resume negotaitions could have been made any time.

There is absolutely no evidence that offering talks would have forestalled or changed anything.

You can say they would have but it's nothing more than conjecture, and going round in circles saying "shoulda coulda" as though this opinion has any meaning at all is a waste of time. Back on ignore for you, I think, my own fault for engaging in the first place really.

 

[RD2003]

What exactly is your point caller? You singularly fail to address the issue that Putin is somebody to whom good faith is a completely alien concept.

That tyrants acting in bad faith have been brought to the negotiating table many times before. Negotiations might even be a way of appealing to more realistic elements within the regime.

 

[Cid]

There is absolutely no evidence that offering talks would have forestalled or changed anything.

You can say they would have but it's nothing more than conjecture, and going round in circles saying "shoulda coulda" as though this opinion has any meaning at all is a waste of time. Back on ignore for you, I think, my own fault for engaging in the first place really.

Yep, just lazy counterfactuals, and I also need to stop getting drawn back in.

 

[RD2003]

There is absolutely no evidence that offering talks would have forestalled or changed anything.

You can say they would have but it's nothing more than conjecture, and going round in circles saying "shoulda coulda" as though this opinion has any meaning at all is a waste of time. Back on ignore for you, I think, my own fault for engaging in the first place really.

And no evidence that there wouldn't.

Do you think it bothers me if somebody puts me on ignore?

 

[Spymaster]

As I said, good faith or not, being tied up in negotiation for as long as possible would have been better than war. And you never know-the more talking that takes place and all that...

What on Earth are you talking about? Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. Russia said they want bits of Ukraine and Ukraine told them to fuck off.

What more negotiating would you have advised?

 

[teqniq]

None of the grain shipments have been attacked etc.

Russia needs those shipments to continue as badly as Ukraine does, including the grain they will have certainly stolen. Also they cannot afford to piss the Turks off by breaking the deal.

 

[RD2003]

What on Earth are you talking about? Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. Russia said they want bits of Ukraine and Ukraine told them to fuck off.

What more negotiating would you have advised?

As it seems I keep having to say, I'd rather the negotiations had been prolonged indefinitely than the current bloodbath we're seeing, even if that meant dangling promises in front of Russia. A guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality would have been a start.

They're not the political geniuses so many people seem to think, the gang in Kiev.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Shocked I tell ye

 

[Spymaster]

As it seems I keep having to say, I'd rather the negotiations had been prolonged indefinitely than the current bloodbath we're seeing, even if that meant dangling promises in front of Russia.

Which negotiations?

 

[Cid]

And no evidence that there wouldn't.

Do you think it bothers me if somebody puts me on ignore?

Not always about you... It's more that every thread outside the main one descends into the same circular shit, and stymies discussion of specific issues like mobilisation. So back on ignore you go.

 

[RD2003]

Which negotiations?

Negotiations could have been opened at any time had there been a will. There were negotiations early in the war, but by then it was too late.

 

[teqniq]

That tyrants acting in bad faith have been brought to the negotiating table many times before. Negotiations might even be a way of appealing to more realistic elements within the regime.

Not buying this nonsense. Putin has a stellar track record of bad faith; he would only use it as a means to regroup and cement facts on the ground.

 

[RD2003]

Not buying this nonsense. Putin has a stellar track record of bad faith; he would only use it as a means to regroup and cement facts on the ground.

What do you think is going to happen after the negotiations that will inevitably come? And when did a (largely) defeated power not regroup?