How Real Is the Chinese Military Threat?

[Jack Hays]

That's hilarious. From a community of three or four. I don't see where you've made much progress with your thread Jack. Spending so much time on one so irrelevant in your mind. Very funny.

I had no "progress" to make. I opened the thread only to accommodate a discussion flogger and I were having on another, unrelated thread. I'm perfectly OK letting it wander.eace

 

[Montecresto]

Please identify the individual quoted by you who had anything to do with the decision whether to use the bombs or, on the Japanese side, with the decision whether to surrender.eace

Well that's the point, it was about a committee of two. The man responsible for carrying it out said that he wasn't even consulted. A previous president even tried to persuade Truman against it to no avail. And it has been shown that it prompted Russia to rush to their own development and the otherwise completely unnecessary Cold War.

 

[Montecresto]

I had no "progress" to make. I opened the thread only to accommodate a discussion flogger and I were having on another, unrelated thread. I'm perfectly OK letting it wander.eace

Very well then. I'll leave you with your wandering thread.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well that's the point, it was about a committee of two. The man responsible for carrying it out said that he wasn't even consulted. A previous president even tried to persuade Truman against it to no avail. And it has been shown that it prompted Russia to rush to their own development and the otherwise completely unnecessary Cold War.

Committee of two? Really? And the Cold War line is of course bunk.eace

 

[Maenad]

I am not a military expert, I am just a person. However, I do know that China has announced her intent to take back ALL of her territories, and is preparing to fight to do that. Until that is finished, I don't think any country other than a former territory of China has much worry. Here is a 2012 article from Pravda that I think you will find interesting: China has territorial claims to nearly 20 countries - English pravda.ru

China has territorial claims to nearly 20 countries. 47554.jpeg

Chinese leader Mao Zedong not only built a strong country but also outlined a global goal: "We must conquer the globe where we will create a powerful state." Today, China has territorial claims to all its neighbors. Naturally, the U.S. is dreaming of becoming a mediator in resolving disputes in the region. But it seems that Beijing absolutely does not care about their opinion.

Burma, Laos, Northern India, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Ryukyu Islands, 300 islands of the South China, East China and Yellow Seas, as well as Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, South Kazakhstan, the Afghan province of Bahdashan, Transbaikalia and the Far East to South Okhotsk - here is the complete list of areas that, according to Zedong, were lost due to the fall of the Qing empire. All of these countries and regions combined exceed the territory of modern China. Not all complaints are voiced by the Government of China in the international

Any territorial dispute, but rather, its resolution, is a serious precedent. If China's claim in respect of at least one territory from the list of the "lost" is satisfied, the Chinese machine would be unstoppable.

It is something to think about. Contrary to what we like to believe about 'starving Chinese children' China is a very wealthy country. They are the lender not the borrower. So, that means that they are fiscally powerful. I really don't know if China wants to take over any other country besides those it has announced to recoup. But every day the US is working itself into a clearly subordinate position both militarily and economically.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well that's the point, it was about a committee of two. The man responsible for carrying it out said that he wasn't even consulted. A previous president even tried to persuade Truman against it to no avail. And it has been shown that it prompted Russia to rush to their own development and the otherwise completely unnecessary Cold War.

I'm sure General Marshall, Admiral King, Admiral Leahy and General Arnold would be surprised to learn there were only two. Then there were President Truman, Secretary Stimson and Acting Secretary of State Grew. Probably a few others, but it's getting late so I'm just working from memory.

As for the Cold War, I suggest We Now Know, Rethinking Cold War History by John Lewis Gaddis, published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997.eace

 

[Oozlefinch]

I'm sure General Marshall, Admiral King, Admiral Leahy and General Arnold would be surprised to learn there were only two. Then there were President Truman, Secretary Stimson and Acting Secretary of State Grew. Probably a few others, but it's getting late so I'm just working from memory.

As for the Cold War, I suggest We Now Know, Rethinking Cold War History by John Lewis Gaddis, published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997.eace

I would love to know what President tried to talk him out of using them.

President Truman himself did not even know about the program until he himself became President. So unless that President was the ghost of FDR, I see no credibility in that claim whatsoever.

 

[cpwill]

I'm sure General Marshall, Admiral King, Admiral Leahy and General Arnold would be surprised to learn there were only two. Then there were President Truman, Secretary Stimson and Acting Secretary of State Grew. Probably a few others, but it's getting late so I'm just working from memory.

As for the Cold War, I suggest We Now Know, Rethinking Cold War History by John Lewis Gaddis, published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997.eace

I would second that recommendation; I was fortunate enough to have Gaddis assigned to me once in school, and that was a book I definitely kept.

 

[cpwill]

Committee of two? Really? And the Cold War line is of course bunk.eace

:lol: No, no, he's right. If it hadn't been for us dropping the A-Bomb, Russia wouldn't have been a paranoid totalitarian pscyho-dictatorship. :lol: That works.

 

[SBu]

That would be for another thread I suppose as well. A rather broad subject. If you started a thread on it I would go participate. If you've noticed or not, my focus stays around US foreign policy, and specifically the use of the War Department (I know DOD) and in this thread this very particular subject, what I think is clear. I've seen far too many examples of American abuse of power, lies and deceit, and propaganda directed at the American people, to find credibility. I don't trust the White House when it comes to the use of our armed forces. If you want to criticise me for having learned my lesson that's ok. My father fought in the Battle of the Bulge, froze his feet (didn't loose them as many did there), I was in the army during Carters Administration (no action) and my son is army reserves (one tour A-Stan).

Very few wars that the US has fought in were defensive, though they are nearly always sold on that. Because of that, I pretty much need to see the whites of there eyes. Wars fought over, "interests", resources, real estate, prevention of things that "might happen", political wars essentially do not have my support. For me its plain, very plain to see that our bloated, over the top, dwarfing of all other countries combined or nearly combined, Pentagon budget is the very proof that we don't have a defensive military but a menacing military to go anywhere around the world and fight the types of wars mentioned above. I hear people here all the time point out, often in a bragging fashion that we have the most "bad ass" military on the planet, and yet some pep squeak country starts showing the slightest of military head (not referring to China here) and the hand wringing begins, the rhetoric and warnings of threats to US safety and fear sells. There's people on this board that have proclaimed that they don't care if there were WMD's or not in Iraq, they supported the war for its humanitarian mission. That's fine, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT SOLD THE WAR TO AMERICANS!! The Obama administration abused the UN resolution for use of force in Libya, for protection of civilians, to overthrow the government of Libya. That pissed off China and Russia (and me!) causing them to block all attempts to secure a resolution for use of force in Syria, as they have seen the pattern as well. I won't list ALL such examples of US intrigue here, the post is lengthy enough now. Suffice it to say, if its not a repetition, I don't trust What comes from our White House when it comes to projecting our military abroad. If that deserves criticism, continue on with it, I know you will.

I would say that it is healthy to distrust government and its motives, but not healthy to dwell on it to the point of dismissing good things that result from our military presence in many places. A lot of your criticism seems to come from our middle east policies. To that end, I agree that it is a bumbling confused schmischmorshen of policies. I think we are suffering from not adhering to the KISS (Keep it simple stupid) doctrine, preferably a KISS doctrine backed by some principles.

You're not going to hear an argument from me for a lot of what you say in this post, but I think if you argued a more balanced approach, we would probably find we have some points of agreement even if we have some points of disagreement.

 

[Montecresto]

I would love to know what President tried to talk him out of using them.

President Truman himself did not even know about the program until he himself became President. So unless that President was the ghost of FDR, I see no credibility in that claim whatsoever.

General Douglas MacArthur told former President Herbert Hoover that, if Truman had acted upon Hoover’s May 30, 1945 memo and changed the surrender terms, the war would have ended months earlier. “That the Japanese would have accepted it and gladly,” he averred, “I have no doubt.”[37] Hoover believed the Japanese would have negotiated as early as February.[38] - See more at: The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative :: JapanFocus


Ouch! Need a band aid?

 

[Montecresto]

I would say that it is healthy to distrust government and its motives, but not healthy to dwell on it to the point of dismissing good things that result from our military presence in many places. A lot of your criticism seems to come from our middle east policies. To that end, I agree that it is a bumbling confused schmischmorshen of policies. I think we are suffering from not adhering to the KISS (Keep it simple stupid) doctrine, preferably a KISS doctrine backed by some principles.

You're not going to hear an argument from me for a lot of what you say in this post, but I think if you argued a more balanced approach, we would probably find we have some points of agreement even if we have some points of disagreement.

Can you be specific about which part you consider to be unbalanced?

 

[Montecresto]

:lol: No, no, he's right. If it hadn't been for us dropping the A-Bomb, Russia wouldn't have been a paranoid totalitarian pscyho-dictatorship. :lol: That works.

Leading atomic scientists cautioned that surprise use of the bomb against Japan could precipitate an uncontrollable arms race with the Soviet Union that boded future disaster for mankind. - See more at: The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative :: JapanFocus


And the leading scientists were right, and it lasted 40 odd years!


And I see you even had a fan club for your silly notion.

 

[Montecresto]

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II

 

[cpwill]

Leading atomic scientists cautioned that surprise use of the bomb against Japan could precipitate an uncontrollable arms race with the Soviet Union that boded future disaster for mankind. - See more at: The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative :: JapanFocus


And the leading scientists were right, and it lasted 40 odd years!

:lol: leading atomic scientists could have benefited from a history class. The Soviet Union was going to try to re-create and expand the Russian Empire, and was in the process of doing so long before the bombings. The Russian cultural tendency to expand power projection as far as possible, producing inevitable clashes with other systems, especially the American one has been identified since at least de Toqueville. Furthermore, the Soviets knew we had the A-bomb prior to our dropping it due to their extensive (and successful) espionage penetration of our government, making the point by those scientists that a "surprise use" of the bomb might have geopolitical results immaterial, since no surprise was possible for the Soviets.

 

[Oozlefinch]

General Douglas MacArthur told former President Herbert Hoover that, if Truman had acted upon Hoover’s May 30, 1945 memo and changed the surrender terms, the war would have ended months earlier. “That the Japanese would have accepted it and gladly,” he averred, “I have no doubt.”[37] Hoover believed the Japanese would have negotiated as early as February.[38] - See more at: The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative :: JapanFocus

Ouch! Need a band aid?

And once again, can you prove by giving us anything from the Japanese side that they would have accepted anything but an armistice and a status quo ante bellum?

This is why you consistently fail to make your point. You can give 10 billion claims by anybody you want from the Pope to the May Queen, they mean absolutely nothing unless it is from somebody who was in the upper reaches of the Japanese Government.

Not to mention that the "demands for surrender" were not from President Truman, but from the Allied Powers. This included France, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union (among others). President Truman could have suggested anything he wanted, but unless the others went along with it that would have meant nothing.

 

[Montecresto]

:lol: leading atomic scientists could have benefited from a history class. The Soviet Union was going to try to re-create and expand the Russian Empire, and was in the process of doing so long before the bombings. Furthermore, the Soviets knew we had the A-bomb prior to our dropping it due to their extensive (and successful) espionage penetration of our government, making the point by those scientists that a "surprise use" of the bomb might have geopolitical results immaterial, since no surprise was possible for the Soviets.

January 1945 - MacArthur forwarded to the President a Japanese offer to surrender to which was exactly what we accepted 7 months later. Had it been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb (200,000 killed).

 

[Montecresto]

And once again, can you prove by giving us anything from the Japanese side that they would have accepted anything but an armistice and a status quo ante bellum?

This is why you consistently fail to make your point. You can give 10 billion claims by anybody you want from the Pope to the May Queen, they mean absolutely nothing unless it is from somebody who was in the upper reaches of the Japanese Government.

Not to mention that the "demands for surrender" were not from President Truman, but from the Allied Powers. This included France, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union (among others). President Truman could have suggested anything he wanted, but unless the others went along with it that would have meant nothing.

YOU, mocked the idea that a former president tried to reason with Truman over use of the atomic bomb. I proved you wrong. Thought I was on your ignore?

 

[cpwill]

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II

:shrug: and it was General Patton's opinion that we should have paired up with what was left of the Wermacht and kept driving East into Russia. Admiral Leahy did not know what we know now, which has been painstakingly spelled out for you and which you have been unable to counter. In fact the Japanese were not ready to surrender (as we now know), just as in fact fewer people died in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than died in the regular old bombing of Tokyo.

Mind you, Leahy is right about one thing, there were other ways to force surrender. We could have either killed millions of Japanese through deprivation in a long, slow, starvation process, or we could have (as was the plan) invaded and basically committed genocide.

 

[Oozlefinch]

:lol: leading atomic scientists could have benefited from a history class. The Soviet Union was going to try to re-create and expand the Russian Empire, and was in the process of doing so long before the bombings. Furthermore, the Soviets knew we had the A-bomb prior to our dropping it due to their extensive (and successful) espionage penetration of our government, making the point by those scientists that a "surprise use" of the bomb might have geopolitical results immaterial, since no surprise was possible for the Soviets.

And the Soviets would never have accepted anything other then a complete surrender, because they had their eyes on some prime Japanese real estate. Manchuria, Korea, northern China, and the islands north of Honshu.

In fact, they knew of the bomb even before President Truman did, and they certainly did nothing to stop it's use.

 

[Oozlefinch]

YOU, mocked the idea that a former president tried to reason with Truman over use of the atomic bomb. I proved you wrong. Thought I was on your ignore?

You have het to prove that President Hoover knew about the bomb.

Just as you have proved to fail that Japan would have surrendered earlier. I have already proven that even with 2 bombs dropped and the Soviets invading, they still could not agree to surrender.

So anything else you bring up continues to be meaningless. It is like asking for the opinion of your cat if man could ever walk on the moon. And just as relevant.

 

[cpwill]

January 1945 - MacArthur forwarded to the President a Japanese offer to surrender to which was exactly what we accepted 7 months later. Had it been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb (200,000 killed).

The deal was unconditional surrender - that was what all the allies had agreed to. No more Post-WWI-Partial-Deals that just created new wars with the same belligerents a generation later. The Japanese offered a partial surrender :shrug: we would have been betraying the Soviets to have accepted - a move that would have kicked off the Cold War immediately.

However I find it interesting that your response to my debunking your claim about the Soviets is to start talking about Japanese.

 

[cpwill]

You have yet to prove that President Hoover knew about the bomb.

Just as you have proved to fail that Japan would have surrendered earlier. I have already proven that even with 2 bombs dropped and the Soviets invading, they still could not agree to surrender.

:shrug: he's chosen his hill to die on, and will hold it regardless of bombardment by fact.

 

[Montecresto]

:shrug: and it was General Patton's opinion that we should have paired up with what was left of the Wermacht and kept driving East into Russia. Admiral Leahy did not know what we know now, which has been painstakingly spelled out for you and which you have been unable to counter. In fact the Japanese were not ready to surrender (as we now know), just as in fact fewer people died in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than died in the regular old bombing of Tokyo.

Mind you, Leahy is right about one thing, there were other ways to force surrender. We could have either killed millions of Japanese through deprivation in a long, slow, starvation process, or we could have (as was the plan) invaded and basically committed genocide.

If your going to lie, it's not debate. In January of 1945 MacArthur forwarded a surrender agreement that had the same terms of the final agreement. Had it been excepted then, 65,000 US casualties wouldn't have died on Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, 80,000 civilians in Tokyo, and 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To think that the men engaged in the war in real time knew less than arm chair generals years after the fact is preposterous. Later dude.

 

[Montecresto]

The deal was unconditional surrender - that was what all the allies had agreed to. No more Post-WWI-Partial-Deals that just created new wars with the same belligerents a generation later. The Japanese offered a partial surrender :shrug: we would have been betraying the Soviets to have accepted - a move that would have kicked off the Cold War immediately.

However I find it interesting that your response to my debunking your claim about the Soviets is to start talking about Japanese.

Wrong again. The link says the two were "exactly" the same.