"The fog of war" docu....

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't like being overly polite to Fred anymore. He has an absurdly simplistic, dangerous view of the world; and he apparently does not know too much about history.

One of the lessons in the documentary was that, when engaged in war, one must put oneself in the enemy's mind, ie "what is the enemy thinking." This is probably why we didn't pre-emptively nuke the Soviets. We know they wouldn't pre-emptively nuke us. AND WE KNEW IT THEN. There is no "luck" to the fact that the USSR didn't bomb us first. It's not luck, it's common sense.

If people like Fred were in power we would have already nuked: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, France, Israel (even though they are our allies....doesn't matter, they have nukes, they are a danger), Russia, Chechnya, Belarus, Khazikstan, Ukraine, South Africa, and Cuba (they had missiles there one year).
 
And the question begged is how did we "know" this? Did we "know" it in the same way that Neville Chamberlain knew that Herr Hitler would cease attacking the rest of the world? Did we "know" via a prototype Psychic Friends Hotline? Did Houdini let us "know" by sending messages from the other side?

Most of the countries you mention would never have become any sort of threat to this country. Most would never have gained any war making technology that could have been used to threaten us. Not even close.

Human beings come in all types. Some wring their hands in the belief that hand-wringing will stop a known threat. Others take action. Maybe someday hand-wringing will stop a threat dead in its tracks. I don't think that day will come within the span of my lifetime, but I "know" that the hand-wringing will go on long after I'm gone.

All I ask is that the hand-wringers not use 20/20 hindsight to make believe that it was they, and not those who took action, that ended the threat.
 
'What nonsense'...

Stalin mobilized troops from as far east as Vladivostok
to assist in repeling the Nazi invaders. They were brought west by train and were instrumental in kicking Hitler the hell out of the USSR in 43, 44 and 45. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that he could have done the same thing with Mao's forces if necessary.
You speak with such disdain about the Russians yet 8 out of 10 German soldiers killed in WWII were killed by the Russians. You may want to reflect on that the next time you hear the Star Spangled Banner instead of Deutschland Uber Alles.

There was a great deal of doubt in 45 and 46 that Allied bombers could successfully penetrate Soviet airspace which would have been essential in delivering 'the bomb'. Shortly after the war, the Soviets were fielding AA missiles and jet fighters which would have torn our B-29's to shreds. We had nothing in the way of effective counter measures.

The trouble is that you want to play 'what if' but you don't want to embrace all of the variables.

Try some decaf and crack a history book. A little less hostility toward your peers would be appreciated as well.
 
Depending on the source of the KIAs in WWII, the Russians died in a ratio of anywhere between 4:1 to as much as 7.4:1 Russians to Germans. I've never found numbers lower than 4:1. Pardon me if I've never found their fighting ability formidable.

I've allowed for variables. No one was certain what the outcome would be in Hiroshima/Nagasaki either. The difference is they tried and succeeded.

The threat from the Soviets was very real. No less real than a mugger who begins to draw a gun and demand money. In the anti-gunners world, they think that if they do nothing and live, then they lived precisely because they were willing to do nothing. The fact is, they only lived because the mugger happened to choose not to kill them, or he just happened to not tweak out and jerk the trigger.

In the world that I inhabit it is better to kill those who threaten bodily harm rather than count on doing nothing. I'm funny that way. I have this belief that dead thugs do no further harm. The old good commie/dead commie thing. Now if the commie (bad guy, whatever) wants to rethink the threat, well that's cool with me too. As I said, once the Japanese snapped out of their death-cult trance, they turned out to be quite an outstanding bunch of folks. I lived in Okinawa for a year and a half, and I found the folks there quite personable.

In any event, nearly a hundred million lives were wasted in/on the Cold War.

Our nation still hasn't recovered from it. Our seas are littered with the aftermath of the Soviet's superior nuclear technological capabilities*, and all sorts of nuke stuff is up for grabs to the first guy that can pay more than 20 Rubles and a half of glass of vodka a month. Hell, even that freak of nature in N.Korea has nukes.

No, we haven't recovered from the Cold War, and the way things are going, maybe we never will.

* Apparently the Soviets were unclear on the concept of submarines being able to surface, as well as submerge. The sub Kursk they lost just a couple of years ago was a classic example. The recovery effort was even more absurd. They wouldn't let us help, and after a week of screwing around they finally let the Norwegians take a crack at it. Using a British LR5 rescue sub, the Norge were inside in just a few hours. Too bad it was a week late. Gotta watch out for that superior Russian tech. Formidable indeed. :rolleyes:
 
Further points...
Late 20th century submarine technology has absolutely nothing to do with the theoretical ability or lack thereof of our B-29's to penetrate Russian aispace and deliver the bomb without staggering losses of aircraft and crew in the immediate post WWII environment. If you were shooting for a non-sequiter, you hit the 10 ring.

Two bombs dropped on an island nation with limited resources, who had the hell beat out of them for four years is hardly analogous to us successfully using the same strategywith the Russians. We could have blockaded the Japanese islands and starved them out. We dropped the bombs for political reasons, to hasten their surrender and keep the Soviets out of the far East as much as possible.

If you have a map of the world, I invite you now to look at it. Notice the relative difference in size between Russia and Japan. Notice that Russia is not an island, has an immensely larger population than Japan and possesses unlimited natural resources. Consider that Russia was at the height of it's military mobilization and power in the post-war years. Much of it's war maufacturing had been decentralized during the war and re-located either in or east of the Ural Mountains. Russia was flush with victory over it's Nazi adversaries. Russia's airforce was ascendent, utilizing jet and missile technology captured from the Germans. They even had their own fleet of B-29 clones made after planes which were 'confiscated' after landing on Russian soil during WWII. As a nation, we did not possess the will, politically or militarily, to do what you suggest.

Other points...

We have plenty of our own ships/subs littering the seabed due to tech failures. What's yer point?

Japan is not near the top of the world's economies. They are a regional economy of barely more than third world status with a historically huge US market. They must import almost all of their resources and many of their consumables. Thier markets have been threatened in the last 25 years by the ascendency of South Korea and China.

We chose to 'fight' the Soviets with tech advancements and economic leverage. Due to our relative ability to obliterate each other several times over, we fought conventional, regional proxy wars while the insane theory of Mutually Assured Destruction helped us both make sane decisions about keeping the nuclear genie in the bottle. Psychos like LeMay and his adherants nearly brought us to the edge on several occasions, most notably the Cuban missle crisis.

'Nearly a hundred million lives were wasted in/on the Cold War.' And your preference would have been what?
I submit that if we had dropped the bomb on Russia we would still be in a hot war with them. Sometimes swatting flies is preferable than going after the dung heap.
 
Late 20th century submarine technology has absolutely nothing to do with the theoretical ability or lack thereof of our B-29's to penetrate Russian aispace and deliver the bomb without staggering losses of aircraft and crew in the immediate post WWII environment. If you were shooting for a non-sequiter, you hit the 10 ring.
For starters the comment about the Russian/Soviet submarines was to point out one of thousands (millions if you count individual lives lost) of reasons why we are not better off for having let the Soviets run amok. As to its relevance to Soviet technology in general, it speaks volumes. Below is a list of all Cold War era Submarine accidents that I could find in a reasonable amount of time.

Some of the more interesting statistics are the number of subs with all hands lost Russian 8 (technically 9, but one of them, the B-37, killed 10 Russian sailors on an adjacent parade ground :rolleyes: )

Americans 2

Number of nuke subs irretrievably (to date at least) on the bottom of the sea: 8

Number of those Russian: 4

Number of those American: 2.

Why does this matter? Well, because in everything the Russians/Soviets ever did, they did it poorly, and with cobbled together technology. They were constantly overrated in virtually all of their pursuits; so much so - it could be argued - that we weren't even able to predict the subsequent demise of the Soviet Union. Those who held that the Soviets were invulnerable (as you seem to) told us that everything in the good ol' Rodina was as great as ever. I don't doubt for a minute that they thought them capable of a six decade long "Hot War" as well.


Submarine [*] Nationality Date Type of Accident


USS Sea Robin (SS-407) [?] American 22 October 1948 Man Overboard

USS Cochino (SS-345) [1 from Cochino/6 from Tusk (during rescue)] American 26 August 1949 Fire

S-117 [All] Russian 15 December 1952 Unknown

USS Pomodon (SS-486) [5]
American 21 February 1955 Explosion

Vengeance [Russian] (M-200) [All]
Russian 21 November 1956 Collision

M-256 [28] Russian 26 September 1957 Fire

USS Stickleback (SS-415) [0] American 30 May 1958 Collision

USS Cutlass (SS-478) [1] American 1 June 1958 Man Overboard

USS Sargo (SSN-583) [1] American 14 June 1960 Fire

K-8 [3 injured] Russian 13 October 1960 Reactor Accident

S-80 [All] Russian 27 January 1961 Foundered

K-19 [8] Russian 4 July 1961 Reactor Coolant Leak

B-37 [122] Russian 11 January 1962 Torpedo Explosion

USS Requin (SS-481) [1] American 21 September 1962 Work Accident

USS Thresher (SSN-593) [All] American 10 April 1963 Foundered

USS Grayback (SSG-574) [1] American 27 August 1963 Fire

Picuda (SS-382) [2] American 18 April 1967 Man Overboard

K-3 [39] Russian 8 September 1967 Fire

K-129 [All] Russian 11 April 1968 Explosion

USS Scorpion (SSN-589) [All] American 21 May 1968 Unknown

K-27 [9] Russian 24 May 1968 Reactor Accident

USS Chopper (SS-342) [0] American 11 February, 1969 Diving accident

USS Guitarro (SSN-665) [0] American 15 May 1969 Flooded Pierside (during construction)

K-8 [All] Russian 11 April 1970 Fire/Sank

USS Tautog /K-108 American / Russian June 1970 Submerged Collision [0 killed]

K-19 [28] Russian 24 February 1972 Fire

USS Sturgeon (SSN-637) [1] American 25 August 1972 Man Overboard

USS Plunger (SSN-595) [1] American 01 December 1973 Man Overboard

USS Dace (SSN-607) [1] American 20 August 1976 Man Overboard

K-47 [8] Russian 26 September 1976 Fire

USS Ray (SSN-653) [0] American 20 September, 1977 Underwater Grounding

USS Grayback (SS-574) [5] American 14 January 1982 Diving Personnel Accident

K-122 [?] Russian 21 August 1981 Reactor Accident

K-123 [?] Russian 08 August 1982 Reactor Accident

K-429 [17] Russian 24 June 1983 Flooding

K-131 [13] Russian 18 June 1984 Fire

K-431 [?] Russian December 1985 Reactor Accident

USS Nathaniel Greene (SSBN-636) [0] American 13 March, 1986 Underwater Grounding

K-219 [4] Russian 06 October 1986 Explosion

USS Ulysses S. Grant (SSBN-631) [2] American 6 April 1987 Man Overboard

USS Bonefish (SS-582) [3] American 24 April, 1988 Fire

USS Barbel (SS-580) [?] American 1 May 1989 Flooding

Komsomolets (K-278) [42] Russian 07 April 1989 Fire

K-192 (ex. K-131) [?] Russian 25 June 1989 Reactor Accident

USS Baton Rouge (SSN-689) / Barracuda American / Russian 11 February, 1992 Collision [0]

Kursk [All] Russian 13 August, 2000 Explosion

USS Greeneville (SSN-772) [0] American 9 February, 2001 Collision

USS Dolphin (AGSS-555)[0] American 21 May 2002 Flooding

USS Oklahoma City (SSN-723) [?] American 13 November 2002 Collision

USS Hartford (SSN-768) [0] American 25 October 2003 Grounding

[*] Indicates number of dead.


__________________________________________________

No one that I know of ever suggested that deep penetration of Russian airspace would have been neccessary. I also have no idea how the Russians could possibly have known that we had only a few nukes in our inventory, nor how they would have used such knowledge to convince the Russian people to engage us in 60 years and counting worth of hot war.

But no one needs to take my word for it. They only need ask themselves that if the Russians were so formidable (dying if we take even the low figure of 4 to 1 against their enemies) and so resourceful (that gigantic chunk of steppe, taiga, and tundra they've carved out for themselves) why then did they lose so completely? It's true that everything they ever touched turned to crap, but that was no less true in 46-47. Come to think of it, other than those dolls that stack together, their less than adventuresome space program, and (some) AK-47s, I can't think of much they make that works.
'Nearly a hundred million lives were wasted in/on the Cold War.' And your preference would have been what?
You already know my preference. You haven't become that befuddled over a simple argument have you?
 
Befuddled? Me?...

Perhaps it's you that is befuddled upon learning that your 'simple' argument isn't so simple. So, no one that you've talked to suggested that deep penetration of Russian airspace would have been necessary? Perhaps you need to widen your circle of friends and/or information sources. Brother John Birch doesn't tell you everything you need to know. You have no idea how the Russians could have known how few nukes we had in our inventory? Wake up...Stalin knew EVERYTHING about the Manhattan Project. He knew that we had dropped the bomb on Japan at the same time that Truman did.
You say that all Russian equipment is junk, the result of cobbled together technology? Right!
Does that include thermonuclear weapons arranged for multiple independently targeted warhead delivery sittting atop multi-stage intercontinental ballistic missiles? Unlike your arguments, these take some intellectual skill, discipline and craftmanship to produce.
Russian Junk???? Some Facts for ya...
Fact...the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle is considered one of the best bolt action battle rifles ever made. It routinely beats the German Mauser in accuracy, simplicity and rate of fire.
Fact... the Russian T-34 tank is considered by many armor experts to be THE best main battle tank of WWII. Fact...the Russian Sturmovic (sp) groud support/tank buster fighter is considered by many to have broken the back of the German Panzer assault on Russia.
Fact...the Russians realized the utility of arming their troops with simple, quality made automatic fire weapons of short to medium range long before the rest of the world embraced this concept.
Fact...the early Russian MIG jet fighters RULED the skies over Europe until the advent of the F-86 in the early '50s and then the Century series later.
Fact...Russian rocket/missile technology dwarfed our own well into the Eisenhower presidency. They were routinely pushing the envelopes of air defense and space, both militarily and scientifically while we were still testing rockets that blew up, self destructed or otherwise failed at an alarming rate.
Fact... like them or not, the Russians are pretty damned good at defending their country. I'm no lover of Marx or Stalin by any measure, but to deny these facts is to deny history, is intellectually lazy and betrays a dependence on dogma over the obvious.
So, we're gonna nuke Russia in the post WWII mid 40's with prop driven bombers, not only pull it off repeatedly but get away with it...don't make me laugh.
 
We were lend-leasing all over the world...again, what's yer point?

I've recieved a message accusinf me of putting words in your mouth. Quite the contrary, I refuted your earlier post point by point with facts regarding the Russians abilities in defense, weaponry, aeronautics and technology. You've chosen to play the victim.
Game over.
 
WWII Death Count Per Country:


Country Military Civilian Total


USSR 12 million 17 million 29 million

Germany 3.25 million 2.44 million 5.69 million


I guess if it weren't for their most excellent gear they would have been killed at a rate of 10 to 1... or worse.
 
Again, your point is........?

Even if the Russians suffered 100 to 1 casualties, it was Berlin that was left in ruins and 300 thousand of the Wehrmacht's finest marched off to Siberia in May of 45.

The Russians chose to fight and fought to win, a characteristic that was both praised and encouraged in earlier posts.

Do you really think they would have fought us any less vehemently after attacking them with nuclear weapons?
Fortunately, delusional paranoids like LeMay did not win the arguement.
 
Again, your point is........?
Pretty plain.
Even if the Russians suffered 100 to 1 casualties, it was Berlin that was left in ruins and 300 thousand of the Wehrmacht's finest marched off to Siberia in May of 45.
While fighting virtually everyone else on the European continent. A relatively small country like Germany made it all the way to Moscow's doorstep.
The Russians chose to fight and fought to win, a characteristic that was both praised and encouraged in earlier posts.
I don't consider sending my countrymen into mindless slaughter "winning". Don't get me wrong, if I were in charge of the U.S.S.R. in 1944/45 I'd be happy that the Germans were running out of steam, but I wouldn't stretch to say that I "won" after a (best case) 4 to 1 slaughter. Especially if we add in the civilians. Ugh! Then it's what? 8, 9, 10... to 1? Woof!
Do you really think they would have fought us any less vehemently after attacking them with nuclear weapons?
The Japanese most certainly did.
 
Your refusal to accept the obvious is stunning and is almost matched by your failure to grasp simple, historic facts.

The Germans were NOT fighting everone in western Europe while simultaneously fighting the Russians. The Nazis had kicked the feces out of everyone there in the space of 6 weeks. They had England on the ropes. Western Europe was occupied. They were able to give their ENTIRE attention to defeating Stalin. Hitler rolled the dice in Russia and got his ass handed to him.

By any measure, kicking an invading army out of your own country, continuing to kick them across eastern Europe and to the doorstep of their own capital, then taking their capital by storm puts a big old check mark in the win column.

This horse is dead.
 
This thread was technically off topic from the start. Though viewpoints have been expressed relatively politely throughout, tensions seem to be running higher now. I'm going to close the thread as it has veered from the original topic and has become argumentative.

As always, feel free to PM or email me if you have any questions about this action.

-Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top