Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese  Click to Translate to Myanmar (Burmese)

PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL
123456
Forum Home Forum Home > Main Forums > Latest News
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why the US will use nuclear weapons
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Now tracking the new emerging South Africa Omicron Variant

Why the US will use nuclear weapons

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Dutch Josh View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: May 01 2013
Location: Arnhem-Netherla
Status: Offline
Points: 92327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dutch Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why the US will use nuclear weapons
    Posted: August 19 2023 at 12:28am

DJ, The US-my view- was able to be the dominant country maybe till 2022....

The US made the US$ the way to dominate global trade...That US$ domintated global energy trade, lots of weapon sales...The US was able-a.o. using NATO for it-to sell lots of its weapons...often linked with US bases..."US protection"...

Using the US$ as -maybe even the main- weapon, and as part of "economic sanctions" was a way for the US-led "NATO-west" to force its will upon other countries...If that did not do a "good enough" job military intervention, "regime change" operations were next...Sometimes resulting in "civil" wars...like in Syria, Yemen, Libya...

It was the "US way" or "no way"...."Either you are with us or you are against us"...

That confrontation strategy worked till last year...

Russia did make it clear it would NOT accept NATO moving further east...So when the US pushed it Ukraine puppet regime -after the western 2014 coup- to "move towards NATO membership" it may have been enough for Russia...NATO trained Ukraine forces were preparing to move into pro-Russian zones of Ukraine...Russia claimed a "R2P" Right to Protect...and invaded Ukraine...

The US/NATO expected sanctions would stop Russia from this action...stronger sanctions could break the Russian economy...

There were warnings in the west by experts that Russia is NOT like Iraq...economic warfare may not work...Those warnings were ignored...

In Afghanistan NATO did fight a war against a former ally-the taliban- since 2001...NATO had to pull out after two decades of war...This also should have been a warning...Just like Syria did NOT fall...Assad, once a London eye doctor-his brother would become Syrian "leader/dictator" - did stay in power...backed in part by Syrian orthodox christians...In Iraq NATO ended almost 2,000 years of orthodox christianity...Russia moved into Syria to -at least in part- save orthodox christianty being attacked by NATO puppets...(IS, alquaida...western sponsored and used for regime change proxy wars..). 

--------------

In august 1945 Japan had already lost the war in the Pacific...still on august 6 and 9 truman ordered two nuclear attacks on Japan...DJ-I think Roosevelt may have stopped the US nuclear programm after Germany surrendered in may '45...The US "Atomic bomb" was made to deal with a German/nazi nuclear threat...NOT to create US nuclear based dominance against the Soviet Union...Truman had another agenda then Roosevelt had...but F.D.R. died in april 1945...

The Soviet Union would join the war against Japan from august 15...It did kick out Japanese forces from northern China, Korea...A lack of landing-craft/boats was in the way for a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido..The soviet army was a land army much less able to fight an island war...Still the Soviet Union did take over Sachalin, Kuril Islands...could even make some historic claims on Hokkaido...part of Japan since the 19th century [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Ethnic_groups[/url] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Ethnic_groups The Ainu had lived on Hokkaido for centuries-Japan colonized the island -mostly- in the 19th century...

A claim was western allies did want to avoid invading Japan...so "the atomic bomb" was needed...But there were talks between Japan and (western) allies for over a year...The main disagreement was unconditional surrender...The "west" at the end accepted the Japan imperial family couldremain in power...

Some historians claim that on this basis the Japan/Pacific war could have ended months earlier...Just like there is a lot of discussion on "Pearl Harbour" -start of the -major- war with Japan-there will remain discussion on the end of that war...

-----------

(end of part 1-hope to find time for part 2 today...)

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
~Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Dutch Josh View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: May 01 2013
Location: Arnhem-Netherla
Status: Offline
Points: 92327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dutch Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2023 at 2:17am

part 2...US agenda

-In 1940/41 Japan GDP/production capacity was 10% of the US one...for most allies Germany was the "main competition" ...challenging both the US and UK...DJ-It may be hard to make statements on who's economy was stronger, the US, UK or German one...

In 2023 one can look at GDP statistics, GDP by PPP (Gross Domestic Product by Purchasing Power)..or even at GDP per capita One would get different lists...Income inequality may end up making a country weaker...

So in 1941/42 Japan may have been able-my view-the Pacific if it had "managed" its wars "better"...The Dutch East Indies -with NL under nazi occupation- were impossible to defend...French Vinchy-Indo China more or less welcomed the Japanese into Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia...For the UK the European war was the main conflict zone...keeping "lines of communication" open with British India...(including also Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka). 

Around 1900 the UK and US did see eachother as enemies...One may claim the UK "ruled the waves" maybe even up till 1945...

-For FDR the goal of a US atomic bomb was to "end the war in Europe"...for truman the goal of the atomic bomb was to get US global dominance...Maybe in august 1945 not (only)  to "limit" the Soviet Union...but also to "limit" the UK....

-------------------

Till 2022 the US-via a.o. NATO "partners" was able to remain the #1 superpower...One can discuss the position of the US between 1945 and 1991 -end of Soviet Union...There were (UK !!) plans to "switch sides" after D-day in 1944-joining Germany against the Soviet Union...When the Germans invaded Norway-april 1940-the UK did send military aid to Norway that was meant for Finland...The UK -de facto- was on the side of Finland in the Soviet - Finland 1940 war...

A main UK goal always was "balance of power" in Europe...(also limiting European navies...The UK did take over the Dutch role when NL was under Napoleon/French occupation between 1795 and 1813).

"Limiting" Russian power may have switched from the UK to the US after 1945...Also trying to avoid Russian-China cooperation. This may have been one of the goals of the Nixon/Kissinger visit to Mao/China in 1972...Try to keep an upcoming China away from the Soviet Union by offering "western goodies" (from science to energy...OPEC was once western controlled...).

-----------

The present US goal may be keeping the US$ as the global trade currency...DJ-It looks like other NATO countries for now agree with that goal...NOT in the interest of a.o. the Euro/€...

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area[/url] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area and [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population[/url] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population 

The US may see itself as #1 in many ways...looking at statistics Russia, Canada, China ...but also the EU may be larger than the US by seize...China, India, EU are the top 3 by population...

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)#Table[/url] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)#Table in economic power one could claim China and the EU are the major powers...with India moving to put the US on position #4 within a decade...

The outcome of US/NATO confrontation politics is [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS[/url] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS in fact is on its way to "take over the planet"....

-----------

In history there always was a fight over being #1...The Dutch did "beat" the Spanish in 1648...(also because both UK and France had internal crises)...in many ways the French could be seen as becoming dominant after 1789-1795...One could claim the US and France -both fighting the UK- were almost allies...The French even moved into Egypt...moving -1812- into Russia turned out to be the wrong move...

After "Waterloo" june 1815 one could see the UK (re)gaining dominance...Trade-posts became colonies...the UK did take over "positions" other countries had ...German, Italian unification did not come in time to get those countries a major global role...They tried to get "a bigger part of the cake" (one could claim in a.o. both World Wars) but had to accept the UK, France -and a bit less NL, US (after the US-Spanish wars)  already had "the best parts"...

The US may have become dominant in 1945...the Vietnam war may have shown limits to US power...Also US "made" Israel did not bring long lasting unchallenged US global power...One could claim the US did become the "only superpower" after the Soviet Union ended in 1991...

DJ-my view-other foreign policy could have resulted in "western dominance" -including Russia...The Warsaw-pact ended...why did NATO go on ? To promote US weapons ? Fight wars in US interests ? The Yugoslavia-war also was avoidable...Somehow both the US and UK did stay in confrontation modus with Russia...

The outcome of western foreign confrontation policies-excluding Russia-did result in BRICS...

----------------

The upcoming South Africa BRICS meeting may underline the shift of global power...The 20th century did see "global power" move away from Europe to the US...in many ways 2023 is the end of US global power...

Russia may have more nuclear weapons than the US has...Russia is also "on the winning side" with BRICS...It does not need its nuclear weapons to get a dominant position...it already has one...

With Brazil already in BRICS, countries like Argentina, Cuba, Mexico on a BRICS waitinglist Russia using nuclear weapons against the US would damage its BRICS+ allies...

-Goal of US nucleat weapon use....

In 1945 the US used its atomic bombs to show the world it was #1...In 2023 the US may try to do that tric again...

Not because other countries do not have nuclear weapons...to many countries do...but to show "the world" the US is willing to also use them...

To enforce US dominance "or else" the US will blow up the world....

------------

One of the major jobs BRICS+ has is to convince the US NOT to go nuclear...stop to see alternatives for US power as a threat...China is going for "make trade not war"....

The major risk is coming from "the west" ignoring others interests...going for a neo-colonial (almost "white power") agenda...

NATO/US is in a major conflict with mot omly Russia but also China...India knows the US does not accept India taking over the US economy in seize...In Pakistan the US is behind the coup/arrest of Imran Khan...the very popular leader now replaced by a US puppet...

North Korea is "unhappy" with growing US nuclear presence in East asia...The US is seeking confrontation with FIVE nuclear powers...(Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea)....

The UK, France, Israel also have nuclear weapons...but de facto only usable as means of self defence...

The only way the US may try to get #1 with some hope of success-after losing also the war in Ukraine-may be in using nuclear weapons....

DJ-Even after the US would use a nuclear weapon very likely Russia, China, India would try to avoid a further escalation...to avoid "blowing up the planet"...However that idea -others may allow the US to use nuclear weapons- may go very very wrong....

The only way out is wiser leaders in the US, the "NATO-west" willing to give up neo-colonialism...

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
~Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Dutch Josh View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: May 01 2013
Location: Arnhem-Netherla
Status: Offline
Points: 92327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dutch Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2023 at 4:55am

Maybe a part 3,

-Pandemic links of wars with pandemics are not hard to find...The spanish Flu would not have been killing tens of millions without the world at war in 1917-18...The 30/80 year war in Europe (1568/1618-1648) did see millions of German and NL citizens die from diseases a.o. the plague...In W.W. 2 1939-45 also lots of diseases showed up-killing millions-however not resulting in any major pandemic...

-Germany and Japan could have "won" W.W.2 if they had managed to get the Soviet Union on their side...For Japan going on an "anti colonial" "greater Asia" propaganda agenda would "give room" in French and Dutch colonies-also good sources for raw materials Japan wanted...

Russia did see conflicts in the 19th century with "British India" a.o. in Afghanistan...(but also in East Turkmenistan/Xinjiang-Uyghur-istan...now part of China)...Germany and Japan could have used those conflicts...claim they "supported" a worker revolution in Asia as long as that "revolution" also worked for Germany, Japan...of course the Soviet Union would not mind getting closer to the Indian Ocean...

The main problem Germany, Japan had was "narrow minded superiority views" in the way of developing good international working relations for them. Juan Peron in Argentina-former military attaché in Mussolini ruled Italy...could have become an "Azis-ally"...Franco may have meant more...

DJ-The "west" however was more afraid of stalin than of hitler...So Germany, Japan joining forces with stalin/USSR could have pushed the US and UK closer...

Maybe -linking to the subject- the point is you did not need nuclear weapons to find an end to W.W.2 both for the "west" and for Russia, China...

---------

Israel may have been considering nuclear weapons against Iran...however Israel made the choice of a "limited conflict" with Iran mainly fought in Syria, Iraq, open sea...Even an all out non nuclear attack on Iran by Israel could very likely end Israel...

France, UK may think of nuclear weapon use in Africa (there were once nuclear tests in Africa [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerboise_Bleue_(nuclear_test)[/url] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerboise_Bleue_(nuclear_test) ; Gerboise Bleue (French: [ʒɛʁbwaz blø]lit.'Blue Jerboa') was the codename of the first French nuclear test. It was conducted by the Nuclear Experiments Operational Group (GOEN), a unit of the Joint Special Weapons Command[1] on 13 February 1960, at the Saharan Military Experiments Centre near RegganeFrench Algeria in the Sahara desert region of Tanezrouft, during the Algerian War.[2][3]

DJ, however the "costs" could be to high...other ways (coups, proxy wars)  may offer better perspectives...

Also North Korea could be dreaming of a nuclear attack on US bases...but it knows the US would destroy North Korea...China, Russia would not welcome such action (for now)...

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
~Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Dutch Josh View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: May 01 2013
Location: Arnhem-Netherla
Status: Offline
Points: 92327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dutch Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2023 at 12:14pm

DJ-I think-if we can avoid using nuclear weapons in the short term- nuclear weapons may become obsolete...They do not do the job people want them to do...often "over reacting" and increasing risks beyond the acceptable...

In the middle ages and before cities had walls for protection...Gunpowder, canons, made those walls less and less effective...In modern wars walls only have very limited use...

So-if we survive the present crises-can we deal with (most) nuclear weapons the way we did with most walls-tear them down ? 

Certainly in present major wars fighting parties often do not go for all out war...There always seems to be an opening for de-escalation, limiting of fights...

Russia could bring down any Israeli or US plane supporting IS in Syria...In order to "select battles" Russia does NOT shoot at US/Israeli planes over Syria, Lebanon against the will of those countries...at least so far...Russia also has some "control" over Iran and other forces in Syria...

In Ukraine Russia could have gone for "shock & awe" massive bombardments like the US did over Iraq several times...against any law...

It is the US that is stealing oil in Syria, Iraq...It is France stealing uranium and gold in Niger..."within their rules-based-order"crimes...

China does not need to invade its province Taiwan...it could take over control of shipping, air...( no doubt Russia, Iran, others willing to help)...Taiwan is part of China...Taiwan, the US themselves claim to see it that way...Still the US claims to have a "right" to send its navy via Chinese waters between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland...

Western countries "do not know" how to behave within the international order they claim to believe in...and of course that will have a price...BRICS may decide soon on the price the NATO-west has to pay...

US nuclear weapons may not be able to "restore" US dominance...The alternative-more fair trade and international cooperation may be a better alternative...

Still...the Ukraine, Syria...so many other wars should not have happened...it was "the NATO west" that pushed for wars...It may be the US that can not accept changes...

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
~Albert Einstein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down