Who defeated Japan in the 2nd World War?

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,214
Wirral
#91
During the Cuban missile crisis, Vulcan bomber crews slept and lived in campers next to their aircraft in case the worse was to happen.
To go off at a tangent - and why not? - there was a big issue with the decision to raise the V Force’s readiness level being taken by very very few people without for example notifying Cabinet.
 
Dec 2014
407
Wales
#92
There was no MAD in Nov-Dec 1950. USSR had only detonated its first atomic bomb the previous year and did not have a sizeable arsenal, nor an adequate number of aircraft capable of carrying/dropping them. First thermonuclear bomb wasn't even first detonated until 1952. At the time, Mac was correct in that the US would suffer little damage if the Soviets jumped in to back the Chinese. But Truman did not want a war even with China, he wanted limited war for limited means, and there was not a sizeable and powerful enough faction in the US at the time to start a war with the Soviet Union.
I was merely pointing out that Mac was the first person to come up with the idea of using nukes for a tactical objective in a conventional war. Even then people such as Truman realised that doing so was an escalation that could only make the situation worse, and any benefits gained would be offset by the strategic costs. Such an action would force China to officially declare war on the US and its allies, causing the fighting in Korea to spread across SE Asia, might well cause the Soviets to attack into Europe, and alienate virtually all of America's allies, especially Britain, who's Prime Minister had already gone to the US seeking reassurance nukes would not be used, not to mention Japan, a major centre for the war effort.

But even later in the 1980s, the most dangerous time of the Cold War, most number and increasingly accurate, and an ongoing barely cold conflict between US and USSR, even at the most terrifying times there were still many who believed it wouldn't be that bad, that losses would be sustainable, and that since it was bound to happen, best just start it and be the first ones shooting. Which isn't an unreasonable train of thought, especially for someone on the ruthless side. After all, one of the ways to survive a Mexican standoff is to be one the one who doesn't just shoot first, but hits first.
Like MAD, you won't survive a Mexican standoff - that's what it means:

A Mexican standoff is a confrontation in which no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory. As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event makes it possible to resolve it

You may fire first, you may hit first, but if he manages to pull the trigger (which a Mexican Standoff assumes he will) everyone dies. The problem comes, as you say in your last paragraph, when someone sees (or believes they see) an advantage to be gained by creating a 'better' bomb or delivery system. At that point there is a danger of someone believing it is no longer a Mexican Standoff, which is why I am opposed to trying to develop a 'better' bomb.
 
Mar 2019
850
Kansas
#93
To go off at a tangent - and why not? - there was a big issue with the decision to raise the V Force’s readiness level being taken by very very few people without for example notifying Cabinet.
I was simply counterpointing the navy's expectation that they would have a reasonable amount of advanced warning to deploy assets. On the other hand the air force took the approach that any warning may be measured in minutes.
 
Jul 2016
8,950
USA
#94
With rods from the gods ICBMs are obsolete.
Far from it. Satellites are easy to destroy. Simply blow a few up and it renders orbit unsustainable, flying fields of shrapnel prevent almost anything from surviving. Called orbital denial and one thing both Chinese and Russians plan doing the second a war against US breaks out, to kill all our satellites, especiallyi GPS.

So for redundancy, keep ICBM, as well as bombers, plus sub launched.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,015
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#95
Far from it. Satellites are easy to destroy. Simply blow a few up and it renders orbit unsustainable, flying fields of shrapnel prevent almost anything from surviving. Called orbital denial and one thing both Chinese and Russians plan doing the second a war against US breaks out, to kill all our satellites, especiallyi GPS.

So for redundancy, keep ICBM, as well as bombers, plus sub launched.
Which makes you wonder how much military capability relies on satellite telemetry. Like. do drone navigation systems rely on it?
 
Mar 2019
850
Kansas
#96
Far from it. Satellites are easy to destroy. Simply blow a few up and it renders orbit unsustainable, flying fields of shrapnel prevent almost anything from surviving. Called orbital denial and one thing both Chinese and Russians plan doing the second a war against US breaks out, to kill all our satellites, especiallyi GPS.

So for redundancy, keep ICBM, as well as bombers, plus sub launched.
It is one of the main reasons space has never really been weaponized. A rocket full of steel balls exploded at the right time and the enemy looses billions of dollars worth or equipment lol
 

Edratman

Ad Honorem
Feb 2009
6,564
Eastern PA
#97
You may fire first, you may hit first, but if he manages to pull the trigger (which a Mexican Standoff assumes he will) everyone dies. The problem comes, as you say in your last paragraph, when someone sees (or believes they see) an advantage to be gained by creating a 'better' bomb or delivery system. At that point there is a danger of someone believing it is no longer a Mexican Standoff, which is why I am opposed to trying to develop a 'better' bomb.
The real problem is the development of defensive missile systems. If one nation appears to be close to implementing an impervious defensive shield, then opponent nations have to seriously consider a preemptive strike as a defensive measure.

In 1972 the US and Russia signed the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty in recognition of the inherent risks of defensive missile shields. Since then, this treaty has gone the way of the dodo because of .........reasons.....
 
Jul 2016
8,950
USA
#98
Which makes you wonder how much military capability relies on satellite telemetry. Like. do drone navigation systems rely on it?
Radio signal comms, to control the drone, I believe are done by satellites. Most of the US capabilities using precision and networking and nagivation are done by satellites. Taking them out will be a major coup for any enemy. It'll hurt them too, as they rely on GPS and communication satellites, but if it comes down to a major war, to level to playing field, its a worthy tactic.

The bad part is that orbit will become no-man's land afterwards. No satellites or space travel will likely survive until they figure out a way to clean out the crap. Its already getting rather bad up there as it was. When the Indians recently shot a missile at a satellite to prove to the world they could do it, the shrapnel from that reeked havoc.

"It is the most iconic piece of space debris: that famous little screwdriver that slipped through an astronaut’s grasp and has been circling low Earth orbit at up to 21,600 mph for, like, what now—35 years?"

DANGER: ORBITAL DEBRIS
 
Likes: Scaeva

Similar History Discussions