- Option 1: Drop nuclear bombs on Japan, kill 200 000 people, end the war right there.
- Option 2: Continue as is and let 400 000 people die every month.
Which option do you prefer?
There's an argument that Japan was ready to surrender. When? In a month? Two? Three?
Wow were you able to see the future?
There is a name for what you are saying but I do not remember what it is called false dichotomy?
- Option 1: Kill 200k.
- Option 2: Do not kill 200k
That's where you go wrong - you see the nuclear bombing of Japan as an isolated event. Place it into the context of several hundred thousand people dying every month as it was at the time, and it will look different.
It feels very strange to read the level of willful ignorance displayed by objektif on hackernews. To ignore the context that the Pacific theater was 4.5 years of the most brutal fighting of the war, a mountain of experience demonstrating the Japanese resolve to never surrender, and the looming land invasion of Japan that at the time was predicted to likely kill 1,000,000+ US soldiers and many times more Japanese civilians is so disconnected from reality.
I would also argue that the use of those bombs saved many more lives by teaching the world a lesson about the horror of nuclear weapons. Its very possible that nuclear weapons would have been used in future conflicts when they would have been much more prevalent had it not been for the example set in WWII.
>> I don't think you have to listen to Russian government propaganda to understand the NATO threat if you have any cognitive empathy whatsoever.
NATO is not a threat to Russia by any objective measure. Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, NATO countries in Europe were unilaterally diarming themselves. Just compare the size and composition of UK, French or (West-)German military in 1980s and 2010s - reduction in everything by a factor of 5-10x with a continuing downward trend. This is why NATO is struggling to support Ukraine, former powerhouses like Germany have very little left to share. Over the past two years, Russia has lost 20 TIMES more (visually confirmed) tanks than the whole German army fields. And yet we're somehow supposed to believe that such tiny force could pose a credible threat against Russia.
A person with "cognitive empathy" might actually feel that the truth is exactly the opposite: NATO became so weak over time that Russia stopped fearing it, and became increasingly brazen in pursuing its imperialist goals.
We have by far the most destructive war in Europe since the WWII, whole cities wiped from the earth, civilians executed in mass graves, daily terror attacks on cities where millions live - and to this day NATO's response is what exactly? Sending obsolete tanks and wasting months discussing whether Ukraine deserves modern air defense systems to stop terror raids against civilians? Is this the power you consider an existential threat to Russia? Who's the victim of propaganda here, really?
Imho high probability its who ever is reacting to your post. Cognitive warfare today means its highly advantageous to exploit propaganda blind spots by dialing them up to 11 to create dysfunction and make your opponent look bad. Your post has all the hallmarks of being a caricature aimed at creating a reaction.
I am sorry if its your actual opinion, in that case you should consider that giving up on a functioning reality model in favor of narratives is a deeply counterproductive idea. Distortions and pollution of the information environment are ambivalent to the intention of its creation. Its just creating blindspots that get exploited by hostile entities.
You are, evidentially. Since your solution to this problem is WWIII.
You're simultaneously claiming that Russia has last 20x the tank inventory of Germany, and also that Russia is somehow also capable of "pursuing its imperialist goals", which I guess still include capturing Berlin.
This is just not how real politics work. This is the result of bad politics of power players with a lack of understanding. Putin himself even said he might be thinking about joining NATO some day. That is was due to a weakening NATO is an analysis completely detached from reality. This ignores what happened in Ukraine in the last few decades. It is a simple explanation, but most importantly a completely wrong one.
There is a reason why the relation today is much worse than it was 30 years ago.
Funny that you accuse him of "not studying Duma policies". Unlike in the west, Russian parliament has as much power as Reichstag had in Nazi Germany. It yields no actual power. They are button-pushers who do as they are told, or get replaced.
>> Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. ~98% Nearly a decade ago now. This is ancient history. Crimea is not in the Ukraine.
Crimea is Ukraine. Nobody recognizes the sham referendum held under foreign military occupation. With 100 votes against 11, the General Assembly of the United Nations declared it illegitimate.
>> Regarding the Stinger Missile Defense System the US provided Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger, it is capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could hit Moscow in single digit minutes from the Ukrainian border.
I see from your link that Stinger is a light shoulder-fired weapon that has a warhead of 3 kg and range of 8 km. How should that carry a nuclear warhead to Moscow?
It doesn't. I was mistaken. Apologies, I'm not an expert on arms capabilities and I mixed up my arms in haste.
Ukraine does now have French SCALP cruise missiles that are nuclear capable, with a stated range of 160 miles (250kms) - not enough to decapitate Moscow, but close enough to be pretty threatening. [0]
Doesn't make any practical difference. Soviet "republics" were as independent as Reichskommissariat Niederlande. Internal borders were freely redrawn and native populations resettled to satisfy Soviet colonial policies. If you want to start settling old scores and reversing "historical injustices", you can demonstrate good faith by giving Estonia back the 5% of its territory that is still occupied by Russia. Not to mention China's grievances about "humiliations" and "injustices" regarding the Russian Far East.
Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.
"Soviet colonial policies"
That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
"If you want to start settling old scores"
It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
"you can demonstrate good faith"
USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east. Look how that worked out.
> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east. Look how that worked out.
Of all the Russian propaganda you pick the one piece that was super easy to debunk, Gorbachev himself said this never happened.
The negotiations were always about NATO expanding into east Germany and not east in general.
NATO still isn’t in the former east Germany anyway.
I’m pretty sure I or others have told you this many times before though so I have to start questioning is you are posting in good faith or if your posting to push an agenda?.
"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner" [0]
That isn't a counter to a primary source that says he never discussed it.
Although I do know that NATO Expansion is another historical grievance Russia has (getting lots of these aren't they) because Russia is very much pro being able to invade states, and NATO stops that.
These documents are primary sources. Gorbachev says contradictory things.
"Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who participated in the 1990 negotiations, subsequently spoke out about the existence of a "guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east" inconsistently, confirming its existence in some interviews and refuting in others." [0]
Here is what Gorbachev was saying in 2008.
"Relations have further deteriorated after Nato promised eventual membership to Georgia and Ukraine, a move interpreted by Mr Gorbachev as an attempt to extend America's sphere of influence into Russia's backyard.
"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."" [1]
>> Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.
There is no practical difference between the two. All Soviet "republics" were run by Politburo in Moscow, the same way all orders in Nazi Germany came from Berlin, bypassing whatever formal structures existed. Both loved to micromanage. Whenever a local puppet didn't dance as Moscow expected, he was replaced. Leaders of "republics" couldn't even select deputies (second secretaries); they were assigned directly from Moscow to keep a close eye on formal heads of "republics".
If you want to play games, then sure, we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either. It was run by an Austrian painter who illegitimately seized power, and in its heyday, most people in the vast Nazi empire were not even ethnic Germans, so Germans had nothing to do with it all, naturally.
>> That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
I have no colonial past.
>> It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
Indeed, all was fine and dandy until Putin needed justifications for the invasion. Then it was suddenly discovered that a Soviet leader illegitimately "gifted" Crimea away. What's next, some error in the sale of Alaska too maybe? Can we please have it back, our emperor was too fond of America when he signed it?
>> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east.
It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion - but never brought up when Eastern Europe actually joined NATO two decades ago. On top of that, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have explicitly denied this hoax, the only one claiming this was a street thug in St Petersburg at the time.
This talking point is irrelevant anyway, as NATO did not place any permanent ground forces in Eastern Europe until the invasion of Ukraine. And whatever was left in Western Europe after the Cold War saw a reduction by an order of a magnitude, skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia.
"There is no practical difference between the two."
Soviet leadership acted in the interests of the Soviet Union (and their own), not in the interests of RSFSR.
"we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either"
No, you can't. Nazi Germany proclaimed the superiority of Germans (and of so called 'Arian race') and tried to achieve ethnic purity. Soviet Union was a multiethnic state, ethnic Russians constituted about half of Soviet population and the idea of the 'friendship of ethnicities' was heavily promoted.
"I have no colonial past."
But your country does.
"Then it was suddenly discovered"
Again, that's not how it was. Some people in Russia remembered it pretty well, like Moscow major Luzhkov who was helping Sevastopol with money, but all the presidents and governments consistently refused to support this idea.
"It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion"
"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner" [0]
"but never brought up"
What's the point to complain and to be told to know your place?
Anyway, ever heard of Putin's Munich speech in 2006?
"skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia"
That's undoable if the population supports the government, as it is currently in Russia - and doable without much violence when government and its institutions lose legitimacy in the eyes of its population. The USSR was vastly more powerful than Russia, yet it crumbled in a very short time when people simply stopped recognizing its government as legitimate. Town governments declared self-governance and stopped following orders from the central government, and local police, KGB and army chiefs stood by and ignored orders that come from Moscow, until new legitimate leaders emerged from the people and they quietly switched sides. Why aren't we seeing anything like this in Russia? Because 3/4 still support Putin and the war. To most Russians, it's a legitimate government doing the right thing. And hence comes the responsibility.
> That's undoable if the population supports the government, as it is currently in Russia
So what exactly is your source for this information? Polls by organization that Kremlin allows to work in Russia? Did it occur to you that they are as trustworthy as so-called referendums in Ukraine regions where 97% 'voted' to secede from Ukraine and become part of Russia?
> The USSR was vastly more powerful than Russia, yet it crumbled in a very short time when people simply stopped recognizing its government as legitimate
No, not really. The USSR was broke and was extremely lucky to have a decent human being as a leader, Gorbachev, as a leader, who didn't want any bloodshed. Had some hardline monster like Andropov lived longer, everyone here world be marching in lockstep, North Korea style.
And Putin's government is not even broke, it's actually swimming in money. Sure, the war is expensive, but he is far from being unable to pay the people who guard his regime. And I struggle to find an example in history of a popular revolution overthrowing a non-broke regime.
> Town governments declared self-governance ...
To put it mildly, you have a rather distant understanding of how it all happened.
>> Really, people polled around the world outside the NATO bubble blame NATO and USA. For years, since 2003 at least. Every year. It’s just not reported here.
Gallup: "Counter to some impressions, the U.S. and its allies aren’t the only ones who care about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Gallup surveys in 137 countries show Russia’s image has suffered worldwide since it began its war in Ukraine. For the first time in Gallup’s history of tracking ratings of world leaders, the majority of the world disapproves of Russia’s leadership." https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-re...
There's an argument that Japan was ready to surrender. When? In a month? Two? Three?