Nuclear War

[tim]

Well he had nerve gas and did not use it.

I've already went over this.

The Iran-Iraq War saw the use of chemical attacks against civilians.

In his book, “Of Spies and Stratagems,” Stanley P. Lovell, the head of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services during the war, says historians would be wise to dismiss the notion that nerve gas munitions were not used in World War II for humanitarian reasons.

At the war trials at Nuremberg, Nazi leader Hermann Göring was asked why the Germans did not use “Gas Blau” to stop the Normandy invasion. Lovell paraphrases Göring’s explanation that it was because they could not create suitable gas masks for horses, which were critical for transporting supplies.

From “Of Spies and Stratagems,” by Stanley Lovell:

Q. We know you had Gas Blau [a name used for nerve gas] which would have stopped the Normandy invasion. Why didn’t you use it?

A. Die Pferde (the horses).

Q. What have horses to do with it?

A. Everything. A horse lies down in the shafts or between the thills as soon as his breathing is restricted. We never have had a gas mask a horse would tolerate.

Q. What has that to do with Normandy?

A. We did not have enough gasoline to adequately supply the German Air Force and the Panzer Divisions, so we used horse transport in all operations. You must have known that the first thing we did in Poland, France, everywhere, was to seize the horses. All our material was horse-drawn. Had we used gas you would have retaliated and you would have instantly immobilized us.

Q. Was it that serious, Marshal?

A. I tell you, you would have won the war years ago if you had used gas – not on our soldiers, but on our transportation system. Your intelligence men are asses!

Iraq chemical attacks against Iran refers to chemical attacks used by the Iraqi armed forces against Iranian combatants and non-combatants. The Iraqi armed forces employed chemical weapons against combatants and non-combatants in border cities and villages and more than 30 attacks against Iranian civilians were reported. There were chemical attacks against some medical centers and hospitals by the Iraqi army.[1] According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian combatants and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve gas. As of 2002, 5,000 of the 80,000 survivors continue to seek regular medical treatment, while 1,000 are hospital inpatients.[2][3] According to the Geneva Protocol, chemical attacks were banned, but in practice, to prevent an Iranian victory, the United States supported the Iraqi army in their use of chemical weapons

[tim]

You don't understand the most basic concepts of Generational Theory.

What you just described is a political non-crisis war.

Why didn't we use the same tactics we used on Japan in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and War on Terror?

Did you not read General Chi Haotian's speech?

Things get strange around here occasionally. That's why I ask so many questions.

The more I read and consider, the more this seems like total guessing, and the bias with humans is that usually people won't go back and bother to see what the actual predictions are, so it won't really matter at that point. Do you see that too, tim?

The bias in humans is that a human cannot fully understand events that they did not personally experience.

This is the most basic concept of generational theory and why we see history repeating. We can read about the past and watch movies but it will never be the same as suffering yourself and having traumatic experiences shape your worldview.

Looking at history as seasonal and cyclical and applying generational theory is the least biased way to look at the world. The coming crisis would have happened no matter what form of government or political party has governed.

[Navigator]

What you just described is a political non-crisis war.

Why didn't we use the same tactics we used on Japan in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and War on Terror?

How is using nuclear weapons against solely military targets a political non-crisis war?

We didn't use the same tactics after WW2 because the USA was never directly threatened (outside of the 9/11 terror attacks, which were a "one time" event - meaning that there were no repeats). When the citizenry feel that their lives or way of life are directly threatened, the gloves come off.

[tim]

What you just described is a political non-crisis war.

Why didn't we use the same tactics we used on Japan in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and War on Terror?

How is using nuclear weapons against solely military targets a political non-crisis war?

Straight from John's book:

Crisis wars are the worst kinds of wars -- the genocidal wars.

Some people would argue that America has never fought a genocidal war, but indeed we have -- twice since the nation's founding.

The most recent crisis war was World War II. Before it was over, we firebombed and destroyed major cities like Dresden and Tokyo, with the intention of destroying the cities and their inhabitants, including millions of civilians. And we dropped nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities for exactly the same reason.

I'm not blaming the Allies for taking these genocidal actions. But I'm making the point that genocidal actions like these always occur in crisis wars. In fact, I don't assign blame to anybody for the actions I describe in this book. I'm simply describing what happens, what always happens.

By contrast, the Vietnam War did not exhibit any of this kind of genocide by the Americans. Let's face it: We could have beaten the Vietnamese if we'd been willing to use nuclear weapons on Hanoi, but nothing like that could ever have happened. (Incidentally, the Vietnam war was a genocidal crisis war for the Vietnamese, which explains not only the Tet offensive, but also the massive civil war that engulfed Cambodia in the mid-1970s.)

Nor did World War I exhibit this kind genocidal behavior in western Europe. I've found that those who compare WW I and WW II rarely have the vaguest idea what WW I was about, and simply assume that it was identical to WW II. I'll give just one stark example of the difference between the two wars: In WW II, Germany and Japan refused to surrender, even when it was certain that they would lose, and even when their cities were being firebombed and millions of civilians killed. But in WW I, Germany capitulated long before it had to; there was no genocidal climax, which is what characterizes a crisis war.

Prior to World War II, America's previous crisis war was the Civil War. At the climax of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln OKed a "scorched earth policy": General Sherman marched through Georgia killing not only everyone in sight, but also destroyed all homes and crops so that any survivors starved to death.

This kind of genocidal behavior did not occur in any of America's other wars -- the Gulf War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War I, the Spanish-American War, or the Mexican-American war.

Non-crisis wars are political wars -- they come from the politicians. They can start at any time a politician decides, and they can end at any time.

Crisis wars come "from the people" rather than from the politicians. They're almost like sex in their emotional ferocity. The recur in any society at roughly 70-90 year intervals. Crisis wars may get off to a bumpy start, but once they pick up speed they can't be stopped, and end with a genocidal fury.

Here are some other examples of crisis wars:

When a historian uses the phrase "spiraled out of control" to talk about a war, then it's probably a crisis war. The French Revolution is a good example: A general desire by the French people to punish the aristocrats who had brought the country to bankruptcy in 1789 spiralled out of control into a massacre, a Reign of Terror where anyone who had even been associated in any way with an aristocrat became a victim of the guillotine.
In the early 1990s, Serbs launched an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Croats and the Bosnians in the Balkans. These were all people who had lived together in the former Yugoslavia. They were neighbors, they had intermarried, their kids went to school together, and so forth. But the Serbs launched a campaign to mass-murder the men, bury them in mass graves, and mass-rape the women.
In 1994 Rwanda, not only did the Hutus mass-kill and mass-rape their Tutsi neighbors, but they went a step further and hacked off their arms, legs and heads, and made piles of various body parts in different places.

The fact that historians have been unable to generalize this concept into an understanding that there are two different kinds of wars is a source of constant amazement to me, because the difference between crisis and non-crisis wars is as plain as the nose on your face.

The genocidal nature of World War II and the Civil War is clear and stark to anyone who thinks about it. The political, and decidedly non-genocidal nature of Vietnam, WW I, and other wars, is just as clear and stark.

Even professional historians have difficulty understanding this distinction, and that may simply be because of the nature of historical study itself.

Historians get their kicks out of validating the tiniest details about past times. Did Lincoln have fried eggs for breakfast on the day he signed the Emancipation Proclamation? Proving or disproving that claim would be a major find in the world of historians. Thus, if a 1920s book says that he did eat fried eggs, but a more modern discovery showed that he had pancakes instead, then it's worth throwing a party to celebrate.

This attention to the tiniest detail is both the strength and the weakness of historians. The distinction between crisis and non-crisis wars is a big picture kind of thing, but historians miss the differences because they can't step back and look at the bigger picture.

This was illustrated in a discussion I had with a history professor. I compared World War II to the Vietnam War. I said something like, "We dropped nuclear weapons on Japan in WW II, but in the Vietnam War we prosecuted soldiers for harming civilians."

Well, he got all excited. "No, we didn't prosecute all the soldiers who harmed civilians in Vietnam. There were a lot more soldiers who didn't get prosecuted."

Listening to him I got this weird feeling that I always get that people are sometimes totally oblivious to what's going on. I stared at him for a second, and then raised my voice a little. "WE DROPPED NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON JAPANESE CITIES!"

I hope he got the point. It's like not being able to tell the difference between a summer drizzle and a raging typhoon because you're focusing on only one raindrop at a time.

I was trying to explain that it didn't matter how many dozens of soldiers were or were not prosecuted for harming civilians in the Vietnam War, because the number was tiny compared to the huge masses of civilians who were killed in the explosive ending to World War II.

This little anecdote illustrates some of the difficulties I've found in explaining Generational Dynamics to a general reader, even someone with the background and discipline of a professor of history.

I've now had over three years of experience in understanding and evaluating crisis wars, and I've found that if you look at the big picture about a war, then it's rarely difficult to evaluate it as a crisis or non-crisis war.

[thomasglee]

You don't understand the most basic concepts of Generational Theory.

What you just described is a political non-crisis war.

Why didn't we use the same tactics we used on Japan in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and War on Terror?

Did you not read General Chi Haotian's speech?

Things get strange around here occasionally. That's why I ask so many questions.

The more I read and consider, the more this seems like total guessing, and the bias with humans is that usually people won't go back and bother to see what the actual predictions are, so it won't really matter at that point. Do you see that too, tim?

The bias in humans is that a human cannot fully understand events that they did not personally experience.

This is the most basic concept of generational theory and why we see history repeating. We can read about the past and watch movies but it will never be the same as suffering yourself and having traumatic experiences shape your worldview.

Looking at history as seasonal and cyclical and applying generational theory is the least biased way to look at the world. The coming crisis would have happened no matter what form of government or political party has governed.

Bingo!

[Cool Breeze]

You don't understand the most basic concepts of Generational Theory.

What you just described is a political non-crisis war.

Why didn't we use the same tactics we used on Japan in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and War on Terror?

Did you not read General Chi Haotian's speech?

Things get strange around here occasionally. That's why I ask so many questions.

The more I read and consider, the more this seems like total guessing, and the bias with humans is that usually people won't go back and bother to see what the actual predictions are, so it won't really matter at that point. Do you see that too, tim?

The bias in humans is that a human cannot fully understand events that they did not personally experience.

This is the most basic concept of generational theory and why we see history repeating. We can read about the past and watch movies but it will never be the same as suffering yourself and having traumatic experiences shape your worldview.

Looking at history as seasonal and cyclical and applying generational theory is the least biased way to look at the world. The coming crisis would have happened no matter what form of government or political party has governed.

I think this is accurate. See world? If a smart man like tim says something accurate, I agree. Bias reveals that people won't remember this idea or post, which further proves my point - I'm all about seeking the truth or best way to explain things. That's all.

[Trevor]

Something to keep in mind with these tests is, aircraft carriers aren't stationary targets. They're not going to just stand there and let you hit them. They've got time to move, not to mention formidable defenses and electronic countermeasures.

Not only that, aircraft carriers don't operate alone. You've got several ships escorting, along with dozens of aircraft in the sky, all of whom are also going to be firing back at you. While I do think China could sink an aircraft carrier if they devote enough resources to it, the idea they're little more than sitting ducks isn't something I agree with.

[Guest]

Something to keep in mind with these tests is, aircraft carriers aren't stationary targets. They're not going to just stand there and let you hit them. They've got time to move, not to mention formidable defenses and electronic countermeasures.

Not only that, aircraft carriers don't operate alone. You've got several ships escorting, along with dozens of aircraft in the sky, all of whom are also going to be firing back at you. While I do think China could sink an aircraft carrier if they devote enough resources to it, the idea they're little more than sitting ducks isn't something I agree with.

The more I read about the Chinese, the more I see how incompetent they are.

[tim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... recedented

China's Orbital Bombardment System Firing Hypersonic Weapons Showed Unprecedented Capability, FT Says

Since the Financial Times reported China conducted two hypersonic tests over the summer, US officials have expressed concern about technological advances because no nation (except China) can propel a hypersonic weapon into space that can fly over the South Pole, rendering US missile defense systems useless. In other words: a possible checkmate.

In a new report via FT, People familiar with details of the July 27 test said China launched an "orbital bombardment system" rocket over the South China Sea while moving at five times the speed of sound. Pentagon experts are unsure how China managed to fire a hypersonic glide vehicle from the system while traveling at such speeds in space. It appears China has mastered a technology that Russia and the US have yet to acquire fully.

The orbital bombardment system could be a checkmate to the US because it flies over the South Pole, putting US missile defense shields out of reach. There's also the issue of the hypersonic glide vehicle that is highly maneuverable and is hard to shoot down, which suggests the US is prone to a hypersonic missile attack from China.

[El Cid M]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... recedented

China's Orbital Bombardment System Firing Hypersonic Weapons Showed Unprecedented Capability, FT Says

Since the Financial Times reported China conducted two hypersonic tests over the summer, US officials have expressed concern about technological advances because no nation (except China) can propel a hypersonic weapon into space that can fly over the South Pole, rendering US missile defense systems useless. In other words: a possible checkmate.

In a new report via FT, People familiar with details of the July 27 test said China launched an "orbital bombardment system" rocket over the South China Sea while moving at five times the speed of sound. Pentagon experts are unsure how China managed to fire a hypersonic glide vehicle from the system while traveling at such speeds in space. It appears China has mastered a technology that Russia and the US have yet to acquire fully.

The orbital bombardment system could be a checkmate to the US because it flies over the South Pole, putting US missile defense shields out of reach. There's also the issue of the hypersonic glide vehicle that is highly maneuverable and is hard to shoot down, which suggests the US is prone to a hypersonic missile attack from China.

Better dead than red.

Cowards are free to surrender.