The 'atomic age' also marked an increasing degeneracy and bankrupt morality of the so-called leaders of the U.S.
One group that is infrequently mentioned are the 'atomic vets' - those members of the military who were intentionally exposed to the radiation and blast effects of nuclear weapons testing from the 1940s to the 1960s.
And reading about them reveals an even darker period of testing of civilians - some included terminal patients that allowed themselves to be exposed to plutonium; children given trace elements of radioactive material; injecting poor pregnant women with radioactive iron - the list goes on.
The road that began with all that has led to the world of today where the U.S openly funds genocide in Gaza and risks nuclear war over the corrupt country of Ukraine.
“I've walked the Trinity test site and co-taught a course at the Air Force Academy on the making and use of the atomic bomb. Walking the site was an eerie experience. I did it in 1992. Once was enough.”
I would think so. Permit me a few comments… One of the emblematic talismans? significata? just plain absurdity of the nuclear age was the when the first atomic explosion took place in 1945, the heat from the detonation in the area of the blast turned the sand of the New Mexico desert into a new glass-like mineral called trinitite. Ah, yes, the unfolding innovation and vision needed to remake (repave) the entire earth with that manmade substance.
I will have to view “The Day After Trinity,” but in line with “So much pressure was applied to get the atomic 'gadget' to work that the scientists and government were reckless. Shrouding it all in secrecy didn't help” was this tidbit I came across somewhere along the way - don’t know accurate, but certainly plausible - is that a major influence on Truman’s decision to drop the bomb - in addition to sending a message to Stalin - was if it hadn’t been used, and the Republicans found out how much the Manhattan Project cost (~$3 billion in 1940s dollars, staggering) there would have been political hell to pay, as in likely impeachment.
Well, I guess we’ve progressed to more openness, if nothing else, when Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010 into law on Oct. 28, 2009, setting in motion a 30-year nuclear force upgrade plan projected to cost upwards of $1.5 trillion.
So to add to the post-Trinity absurdity, no political hell to pay over that.
Loath as I am to fly in the face of popular opinion, I can't bring myself to feel any guilt for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (nine years before I came on the scene), nor condemn the government & military of the time for using the latest technology in an attempt to end the war. Sorrow for the loss of life, certainly ... and yet I haven't heard of anyone shedding tears for the systematic destruction of Germany's major cities by the RAF and the USAAF or for the firebombing of Japan from one end to the other. Were those acts of war acceptable because they were conducted using "conventional" weapons?
Always overlooked - as in "rarely if ever mentioned" - is that the Soviets had a nuclear program in the works (granted, their information came from people within the Manhattan Project). The Germans also had a nuclear program early on, but it was shut down with the sinking of the Norwegian ferry "Hydro" (which contained the necessary supply of "heavy water").
Finally, in Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," we learn that the Japanese also had the beginnings of a nuclear program (see Chapter 14, "Physics and Desert Country").
So, I could be wrong, of course ... but this would appear to be a clear case of "Firstest with the Mostest." Unless, of course, someone has a compelling argument that neither the Soviets, nor the Germans, nor the Japanese - none of whom exhibited conspicuously higher moral standards between 1939-1945 - would have employed a nuclear device had they developed one in time.
Finally, it's regularly pointed out that the USA is the only country sufficiently evil and depraved enough to have used nuclear/thermonuclear weapons. Has anyone ever considered that the horrific destruction and loss of life resulting from those two missions 80 years ago may have been more of a deterrent than all the talk and treaties since?
I believe Hiroshima was defensible. Nagasaki was unnecessary--a rush-job to beat bad weather. Three days was not enough time for the Japanese to process the enormity of Hiroshima.
Also, it's my understanding that Japan was talking about surrender even before Hiroshima, but without ousting Hirohito. Truman wouldn't accept those terms. Is that correct, Bill? And then they did say they'd surrender unconditionally after Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was bombed nevertheless, for various reasons, among them to make sure the Soviets knew we meant business. At least, that's what I've heard over the years.
Yes, the U.S. insisted on "unconditional" surrender, whereas Japan wanted the emperor protected as a condition. In the end, I believe the U.S. quietly reassured Japan that the emperor would stay (after Hiroshima).
Nagasaki: Well, we had two bombs. And discretion was given to commanders on the scene to use the 2nd. It was supposed to come five days after Hiroshima--moved up to three days due to weather. On August 9, 1945, Nagasaki was an alternate target that got bombed because the primary was obscured in clouds.
In my opinion, intimidating the Soviets was a consideration but not the consideration for Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The primary consideration was ending the war. We had the bombs--why not use them? Anything to end the war more quickly, especially without more Allied lives being lost from kamikazes, future invasions, starvation in POW camps, etc.
People forget the war-weariness of Americans in 1945; they also forget the vengeance factor. After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death march, etc., there wasn't much sympathy for Japan. And of course the Japanese committed their own atrocities, e.g. the Rape of Nanking, the forced enslavement of Korean and Filipino women as sexual slaves (so-called comfort women), biological experiments on Allied POWs. Nasty stuff.
Phew, lot to respond to here, don't think I can cover it all, adequately, but a few comments...
Guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I [seven years post-event] think all the top government officials and brass in the military were opposed, there had been enough killing, Japan was completely blockaded, food stocks low, no worthwhile targets to hit, and with the promise of Stalin entering the war against them, it was just a matter of time. I think at someone in the military said, why not drop it offshore, that should be an ample demonstration. Rejected. So whadduh ya gonna do after spending $3 billion, ya can't just say, oh, never mind.
Then again, Paul Fussell wrote "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb." Haven't read it though.
Bombing campaign over Germany. Actually there has been some "re-examination" of that by Richard Overy and A.C. Grayling among other historians, and there was a good debate about the issue I saw on You Tube a few years ago, it was either an Oxford Union-sponsored debate, or one of the Intelligence Squared debates (easy enough I think to search You Tube).
There's also a literature from German historians on this, and while one might understandably say right, that's to be believed, my understanding from reviews I've read there's some decent work these historians have done. Sorry, don't recall any of the authors' names, an Internet search should reveal something worth chasing down.
Firebombing of Japan? See "Fog of War" about McNamara and Viet Nam, but in it he relates I think when he was part of the post-war Strategic Bombing Survey and he interviewed Curtis LeMay, who said something like this to McNamara, "You know if we had somehow lost the war, the could have brought us on war crimes charges."
Germany and Japan developing the bomb? Not much I can contribute there, except Japan not at that much involved, and the German project was going down the wrong theoretical path independent of the sabotage of the heavy water sources. Interesting though, the Germans did have on the drawing board what's variously called the "New York bomber" or the "Amerikabomber" which at least reached the prototype stage in the Messerschmitt 264, capable of reaching and returning from New York. I don't know enough if it was integrate with the atomic bomb project, or just conventional bombs.
Firstest with the Mostest? I'll grant you, better we got there before the others.
Deterrent? Whew, one helluva proposition, an ex post facto rationale. Of course all that Civil Defense emphasis, air raid shelters, your own bomb shelter under the back yard, "duck and cover," that was enough to make you think something was going to happen, and thank you Paul Nitze for hijacking Kennan's containment policy and transforming it into the $1+ trillion per year in "defense" spending we have now, which is apart from Obama signing in 2009 the defense authorization bill which set us on a 30-year nuclear "upgrade" path projected to cost (bankrupt?) us at $1.5 trillion.
Anyway, to get back to the question, more or less, my point being that despite the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, planners were calculating "acceptable deaths," while so much treasure was being spent on ever wilder "weapons systems" development. Are we going to repeat that scenario that gee, we've spent all this money, shouldn't we see what it bought us?
Obviously the closest we came was the Cuban Missile Crisis, I can remember watching Kennedy on t.v. that evening. I was scared then, and the next day, and the next... Good history since has revealed it was 50-50 that we're not dealing with the rubble to this day.
Kennedy was sufficiently chastened that he probably gave the best speech as president at American Univ. in June of 1963 more or less, we don't want a Pax America under the gun of America, nor the peace of the grave nor the security of slavery, but a peace in which all can flourish (again, easy enough to find online, but better yet search in conjunction with Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia economist/historian).
Can you imagine if there were a latter day missile crisis and the banana heads, alcoholics, incompetents, buffoons, and other bright stars in the night sky of Trump's picking were to steer a way through it?
Oh, one more thought... sure, better we got to the bomb first, before Russia, Germany, Japan. But what about that present day outlaw nation Israel?
We've advanced tremendously in our STEM development of weapons, not anywhere nearly so much in our humanities-based "swords into plowshares" aspirations.
As long as we live by might makes right nuclear arms are the ace up the sleeve. Until we live by international laws.... Mearsheimer will tell you having nuclear weapons is what saves nations from even more aggressive American exceptionalism or American rules-based disorder. Talking about disarmament without having international rules-based order is nonsense.
Yes, unfortunately there is no power on Earth that can stay the US's aggressive hand as it seeks to extract the last particles of resources available. Trump has escalated this big, ugly attitude/behavior but is not its root. A seemingly mild mannered Law Professor from Chicago area morphed into the POTUS who signed off on the "Patriot Act" notion that the US should exercise the power to terminate with extreme prejudice anyone, anywhere on Earth, at any time who is declared a "terrorist" threat to US interests. US citizens not excluded. Talk about IMPERIAL HUBRIS!!
USA PATRIOT Act was actually signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, just weeks after the 9/11 attacks. The act dramatically expanded the government's surveillance and investigative powers, aiming to prevent future terrorist attacks. While it didn’t explicitly authorize targeted killings, it laid the groundwork for broader interpretations of executive power in counterterrorism—especially when combined with later legal frameworks and technologies like drone strikes.
Under President Obama, the U.S. did intensify its use of targeted killings, particularly through drone warfare in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
Both Oct 7 and 9/11 were disproportionately small responses compared to the death and destruction caused by Israeli to Palestinians since 1948 and the death and destruction caused by America to Islamic nations since WWII.
Thanks for the clarification. The notion that "The Exceptional Nation" has such "rights" as killing anyone, anywhere, any time grew from the Neo-Con operations launched in wake of 9/11 and, there is good reason to believe, were concocted/planned PRIOR to the events that unfolded on that fateful September day. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist"--which this writer certainly ain't--to find that extremely plausible. Americans didn't like how it felt to be under attack from the skies one bit, did they? But you are correct that that taste of war on US soil was puny, to say the least, compared to the damage the US has wreaked on others over the decades. Indeed, since end of WW II, since the Korea "police action" was the first of many utterly unnecessary WARS OF CHOICE.
US restored the Shah, whose lineage traditionally ruled Iran, to power. He bore humble titles like "King of Kings" and "Light of the Universe" or some such nonsense. A truly autocratic ruler. If Trump knew anything about history, he'd surely admire the bastard. It's usually overlooked that it was a left-leaning popular upsurge of the people that ousted the Shah in 1979 (naturally he fled to the US). Their sacrifices were then negated by the rise of the Fundamentalists who have held the reins ever since. Iran is an open THEOCRACY and our homegrown "Christian" Fundamentalists would love to have the same here in the US!!
Greg, I think you would like Alvin Finkel's Humans: The 300,000 Year Struggle For Equality. I was amazed by the number of nations around the world since WWII that America interfered with to thwart attempts at democracy and equality and to erase existing equality and democracy. Evil Empire a grotesque understatement. This historian reveals how much equality was part of our human story. Fair sharing was our healthy default instinct. Alvin was not out to paint America as particularly anti- human force. The facts of that tiny time line since 1945 speak for themselves.
America does not obey but sanctions the International Criminal Court...America uses it veto power at the UN to veto majorities of the world's democratic voting in the UN"s General Assembly...
International Corporate Court overrules the sovereignty of nations of elected government's ability to look after their people's resources.
See Silent Coup by Matt Kennard.
America incorporated follows the Golden Rule. He who has gold makes the rules.
In my advanced US Army medical training--I extended my enlistment 4 months to receive the highest training offered to enlisted personnel short of being a Green Beret medic--in the classes on Chemical/Biological/Nuclear warfare, we were told that a colonel working on setting up Trinity slept on a cot one night, I guess very shortly before detonation, directly over an inadequately reinforced container holding the material that would power the explosion. He was said to have not lived very long thereafter. A true story or just a scare tactic? I don't know. I think it is now accepted by mainstream historians that the attacks on Japan were just as much about threatening the USSR as shortening the war in the Pacific. So who does the US feel a "need" to threaten now?? China is the obvious target. ("Better dead than Red" can be supplanted by "Better dead than having to learn Mandarin"!!!) And anyone else who rejects the US hegemonic yoke in a serious manner. Nuclear war is SHEER MADNESS, but so is the notion of "American Exceptionalism"!! The latter makes the former a genuine threat to the whole planet. ... BTW, "The Atomic Cafe" is another excellent documentary film. Had been available on DVD for home video, surely can be streamed somewhere.
As one who used to toil the Missile Fields of North America in SAC as a Sky-Cop back in the Seventies I can say I've had my share of Nuclear nightmare scenario's. I can't believe Land based ICBM's. are still being used & maintained. These weapons are just the ultimate apocalyptic symbol of humanities brutish, ugly nature..! These weapons must not ever be used again on Cities, or anywhere on this world, or others like when they proposed testing one even on the Moon!! "Saganist!!"
Mine as well Greg... (SSBN) boomers I'll always have a soft spot for the BUFFS & KC-135's. tho. having Served @ Whiteman, and GFAFB SAC Miss those Full Rolling & Take-off Klaxtons!! And SAC-ORI's. :/ :o) "A Suck for SAC is a Blow for Peace." "Peace Is Our Profession"
More detail needed. Truman used the bomb in a mad rush to demonstrate it before the war was over. It was Act-1 of the Cold War, to show the Soviets that the US had this new power. But... the Russians already knew! That's another story in itself. The site for the second bomb was selected (in a hurry) from a list of 6 possibilities, one was Kyoto. But one of the generals had had a honeymoon there years before, so the choice dropped down to the #6, Nagaskai, to incinerate that population to demonstrate the Empire's new toy. After the first blast, was a second even "needed"? Yes, to prove the capabilities of the plutonium bomb (Hiroshima was uranium). Depravity without limits.
It is acknowledged by historians that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki qualified as military targets (no significant Japanese assets in those areas). It was precisely to terrorize the CIVILIANS of the planet that those cities were incinerated.
If Israel successfully deploys a nuclear weapon to Iran, what would be the effects in North America? Not to sound callous of the complete tragedy for Iran. But I'm confused about Westerners flippantly discussing this as if the West itself wouldn't ALSO be hurt by the deployment of this kind of weapon, even if it's on the other side of the world. Like, what about blocking sunlight and crop production? You hear about "tactical nukes" as if they're some kind of "mini" nuke, but you also hear that the nukes of 2025 are way stronger than the nukes that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any thoughts?
Rachel, I'm not sure anyone quite knows how many nukes it would take to start a "nuclear winter," i.e. a near-global catastrophe. My guess is between 20-50 explosions in the megaton range. Again, the U.S. and Russia have roughly 11,000, so the overkill we possess is astounding.
We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet and several other earth-sized ones.
Carl Sagan's concerns about "Nuclear Winter" posited a "full exchange" between the US and USSR. Not to make light at all of the consequences of a single weapon loosed on Iran by Israel, but that would not threaten the entire planet in the Sagan scenario. I am of the generation that grew up with the news that Strontium-90 had shown up in the cow's milk we were consuming, the dust from open air testing having settled on the pastures where those beasties grazed.
"We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet and several other earth-sized ones."
Bill - Reminds me of the original "The Day the Earth Stood Still," where Klaatu arrives to tell the earthlings essentially this, "Knock it off, you're not just an embarrassment to the rest of us, you're making us nervous, very nervous. Straighten up and fly right, or the party's over, capisce?" (Well, I took a little liberty with the quote.)
Your comment prompted me to look up the number of atmospheric nuclear tests there have been from 1945 to 1963, when the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed (I'm old enough to remember hearing in the news about such tests taking place.) The number is a staggering 528, out of 2000 overall. See https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-testing-tally for more information. What is it that they say, that there is no one alive today who doesn't have some detectable amount of strontium-90 in him/her?
I had the t.v. on in the background last night, with some news program with a segment on the military's control over the use of nuclear weapons. It cracked me up when someone on the program said that Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" was a documentary.
Kubrick and his team said later they had to document for the government how they came up with all the details they did - as much of it was classified in real life. (But they found it all in public sources).
One of the most effectively chilling sequences in "Dr. Strangelove..." is the B-52 crew fighting the fire ignited by a near-direct strike by a Russkie surface to air missile. (The nerve of them damned Russkies, trying to defend themselves!) The claustrophobic atmosphere in all the scenes inside the B-52 are a legacy of Kubrick's frequent personal handling of the main camera on his projects.
I wasn't aware of that. I was aware though that Kubrick based "Strangelove" on a 1958 novel "Red Alert" which he took into the realm of satire/dark comedy (Keenan Wynn did a masterful job, just cracks me up).
In a similar vein, TCM recently broadcast "Fail Safe," part of their background on the film being the Pentagon refusing to give any cooperation in the making of the film to the producers, they had to be very creative in making use of whatever stock footage of bombers and fighters they could get their hands on, I thought they did a decent job in that. achieving through their manipulations of the editing process a certain eeriness that would have been passed over if more conventional shots were used.
The wicked "black humor" that ended up in the film largely came from Terry Southern's work on the screenplay, with "Red Alert" having been the starting point. Southern in collaboration with Kubrick's inherent genius.
There is a good deal of misunderstanding of tactical vs strategic weapons; it isn't about yield, but about intended use. There are tactical weapons that are larger than those intended for strategic use. So your point is absolutely correct. Even a tactical nuke used on a city would produce an atmospheric event like a nuclear winter.
It's believed - based on a recent study - that a small meteorite hit caused a nuclear winter like period in Europe that led the Germanic tribes moving west against Rome.
And then there's the issue of the escalation ladder that starts with any use - even so-called 'tactical nukes'.
Tom, I'd say it's often yield and intended use, i.e. target. I remember the days we had tactical nuclear artillery shells intended to be used against Soviet armor. Their yield was in the low (5-15) kiloton range. Then of course you have the city-destroying "strategic" bombs with yields measured in the megatons. Those would cause unimaginable destruction, fallout, and dust/debris clouds.
Tactical and strategic are mutable, e.g. think of B-52 "strategic" bombers being used for tactical bombing runs in Vietnam. And, in least in theory, F-105s or FB-111s could have carried "strategic" nukes.
Two things I've not seen mentioned yet: 1.) the lovely "neutron bomb" that would kill humans and other living things but leave infrastructure largely intact for use by the conquering military power. Just because this concept seldom is mentioned these days doesn't mean the threat has gone away; and 2.) use of "depleted uranium" in US artillery shells used in recent wars against Islamic designated "enemies." The Pentagon, I'm sure, will fight tooth and nail against damage to US personnel being something qualifying for help from the soon to be "emasculated" VA healthcare system.
Completely forgot about the neutron bomb, that still in the arsenal? The ultimate expression of private equity.
As to the VA, did that start to crater when service personnel started returning from Dumbya's excellent adventure in Iraq, overwhelming the system, the Republicans refusing to raise taxes (what else is new?) to pay for what was needed, which opened the door to the private sector-more costly-lower quality health care? Or did the Right wing disassembly begin before then?
No reason to think the US (and possibly other entities) don't have some neutron bombs stashed away, just waiting for use. As for the VA, I have never sought assistance from that agency, but these things I know: 1.) it took years of lobbying by US personnel and their families affected by exposure to Agent Orange in Viet Nam to win some benefits. Foot-dragging directed from the very top of gov't, of course; 2.) likewise with vets damaged by exposure to chemicals in Iraq fiasco ("burn pits," depleted uranium artillery shells). I believe some progress had been made on that issue, now sure to be stifled; 3.) VA healthcare facilities have been known to be inadequately staffed for years PRIOR TO the assault on that agency launched by Musk's "DOGE." Some 70 to 80,000 VA employees are slated to be axed in coming months. But as with so many things with current administration, hard facts about the dates are not available. Trump, who evaded military service in his youth, is saying in essence to our veterans: "Thank you for your service, SUCKER!!"
I was at a conference where David Shulkin, recently departed as Secy of VA, spoke. He was purposely sought out by Trump to take the job. Impressive guy. He outlined the state of affairs with the VA when he walked in, then laid out the changes he wanted to see. Some very innovative stuff, in some areas putting the VA ahead of the private sector. For one thing, he wanted to keep beneficiaries within the system, where comprehensive, coordinated care could be given. Makes sense to me.
But the Republicans/Right weren't happy with that, they wanted a failed VA so the pieces could be snapped up by their private sector cronies. So they put up roadblocks to his getting the job done, and of course the inevitable smears, and he left. His book is "It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Work for the Government," or close enough. Says it all, Says a lot.
"SUCKERS!!" You said it. All they get out of the deal is something like "Thank you for your service" or "Made the ultimate sacrifice." My a**. More like "We fleeced you and your family even more while you were 'deployed' to someplace we have no business in being," and "Okay, we really took your life, it was nothing you sacrificed, but we're gonna cover that up."
We're all suckers in this game one way or another.
Have you come across Ashton Forbes' analysis of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH 370)? This guy is smarter than me by about 50 IQ points. Highly suggest you look him up on Twitter. Preview: MH 370 went missing in 2014. A few days after it disappeared, a video came out on a random corner of the internet of satellite views of something you just have to see to believe. I'm not even going to try to tell you, lol. So this Ashton Forbes became interested in the disappearance of the plane and whether the leaked satellite footage of its disappearance was real. The implications of the technology are ... huge. Here's one of his posts with 2 video excerpts set to play simultaneously. If you spend some time reading his posts, it's clear he's really just a curious guy and NOT some grifter trying to get attention:
There's an old idiom "when push comes to shove" that raises the question: as the U.S. keeps pushing, when will the Russians decide that they have been pushed enough?
In return for the unification of Germany, Secy of State under Bush I James Baker guaranteed to Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch to the east from Germany. Gorbachev believed. I think not that many months later Clinton finagled some rationale to say, oh, that agreement doesn't apply now, and began the expansion eastward that every Russian leader since (which I think means just Putin) said, knock it off, we've got security interests too. (Indeed, both Gorbachev and Putin proposed security integration with Europe, totally sensible proposals, rejected out of hand by Washington.
And Washington continued to screw around with Ukraine, including a coup to oust the democratically elected president (familiar theme with the US), arranged by "Tory" Nuland. Further provocation led to Putin invading Ukraine, his back was against the wall, what else could he do to be understood?
Oh, let me add, on at least two occasions, Minsk I and II, Russia and Ukraine were close to a peace agreement, but Washington wouldn't hear of it, it was prepared to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian, as it ordered millions upon millions of Ukrainian flag lapel pins from China to distribute to all members of the NATO coalition, and any other country that can benefit by prostrating itself to America.
Amen! The Neo-Con cabal that has controlled US Foreign Policy for decades now--currently we're truly under the rule of the lunatics from Camp Trump who took over the asylum--would have us believe that either Baker's "promise" was fiction, or that it meant nothing because not in a written formal agreement. In short, Gorbachev got suckered, but perhaps willingly? There's even a book out called "Not One Inch," but I have not read it. The US War Industry simply could not accept the idea of genuine rapprochement with a nation that the US had vilified since the October Revolution of 1917. The alliance with USSR to defeat Nazi Germany was entered into hesitantly, deemed an unfortunate necessity of the moment. I don't think any other POTUS but FDR could have gotten that deal made. And no sooner had the war ended, with so many Soviet casualties racked up, than the vilification resumed. Not just resumed but greatly amped up, leading to the execution of the Rosenbergs, the infamous HUAC witch-hunting, the rise of politicians like Richard Nixon, etc. etc.
"The alliance with USSR to defeat Nazi Germany was entered into hesitantly, deemed an unfortunate necessity of the moment."
This is the truth of WWII, spoken by Stalin: "The war was won with American equipment, American money, and Soviet soldiers' lives."
"And no sooner had the war ended, with so many Soviet casualties racked up, than the vilification resumed. Not just resumed but greatly amped up, leading to the execution of the Rosenbergs, the infamous HUAC witch-hunting, the rise of politicians like Richard Nixon, etc. etc."
Yes, and among those "etc.s" are the permanent warping of our government and society as Eisenhower warned about; the hijacking of Kennan's containment policy based on diplomacy and the competition of economic, political, and cultural strengths of societies by Nitze's overarching militaristic approach based on a staggeringly expensive arms buildup (to the tune of $1+ trillion/year in "defense" spending today); the relegation of diplomacy and especially of international law to far-distant second place status in conducting foreign relations; the hypocritical decimation of promoting democracy and self-determination in other countries, particularly in Cuba and Latin America, by overthrowing democratically elected leaders and supporting repressive dictatorial regimes there to snuff out any hint of communism, real or exaggerated or imagined; the disparagement of any fundamentally just, sensible, and requisite measure as national health as "creeping socialism" or communism; the related elimination of a leftist movement; the veneration of the free market private enterprise model as the penultimate form of an economy; the fluidity between "might makes right" and "American Exceptionalism"; and a few other trivialities...
Indeed. There were far too many internal problems in the USSR to start discussing here, but their economic development wasn't helped by the ceaseless campaign against their very existence by the Capitalist Powers. US troops were part of a coalition that actually invaded the Russian Far East while the Revolution was still in its infancy. They were soundly defeated by the young Red Army. And of course the Nazis inflicted great damage on infrastructure during the world war. This paved the way for the US to start asserting itself as THE Global Power post-war. As to shunting diplomacy, foreign aid, etc. to the back burner, the current regime in Washington has gone far beyond that, putting such ideas out with the morning trash! That stuff hints too much of being "woke," eh?!?
Permit me to take up a bit more of your patience... "That stuff hints too much of being 'woke,' eh?!?" cracks me up.
I'm not familiar with the internal problems of the USSR, more so with the staggering losses in both human and physical terms from WWII, to the point I think it was a miracle that they made Yuri Gagarin the first man in space only 16 years after the end of the war. Then again, how much did Stalin prolong the suffering of the people by diverting resources to military capability v. recovery from the war? (As an aside, I knew of the 1917 dispatch of US troops to Russia, didn't know they actually entered combat, and lost.)
Krushchev may have seen problems with the USSR when he denounced Stalin. (By the way, his "We will bury you!" speech was not about victory in war, but in outproducing, outlasting the West.) Gorbachev certainly saw them, and sought greater integration with the West to help alleviate them. The ph***ingly arrogant Americans turned down his pleadings, a chance for a more peaceful, cooperative, prosperous world.
It's propaganda, of course, that our outspending the USSR militarily lead to the end of the Cold War, but it probably made some contribution, but also at considerable, but unspoken, cost to us. But basically Kennan was right, and we continue to pay for Nitze's legacy, literally and symbolically. We sought to be THE Global Power not so much for the good of the world, but the greed of ourselves, which is our legacy, augmented by the grift of Trump.
How come he hasn't directed the Postal Service to come out with commemorative stamp of him yet?
Yes, some time after USSR collapsed the CIA admitted "We will bury you" was an intentional mistranslation of "We will surpass you" (economically, technologically). The early Soviet success in space exploration showed the power of a "command economy." The Politburo says "Full speed ahead" and resources flow where needed. US finally caught up and got to land on the Moon first by a similar route, but Heaven forbid any terminology akin to Socialist practices should be employed. The Apollo Program was at least as much about propaganda as Science. I'm sure a Trump postage stamp will be coming, and his birthday likely will replace "Flag Day" for a June 14 official holiday!! [picture puking emoji here!]
The test of Russia's military capabilities in the US-provoked situation in the Ukraine (increasingly being waged on undisputedly Russian turf as well) makes it clear that the Russians are no real threat to US hegemony. I'll end by simply noting that the Chinese are being pushed mighty hard these days, and that is guaranteed to only escalate further.
A possible Showdown in Taiwan..? The world is getting stranger by the hour. Hard not to lose your soul, but the ones we have to be the most watchful for, and keep an eye on the most as always since time immemorial are the ones who are drawn to Politics & Religion telling us they know what is best for us! Yea. right!! Amirite!? They simply are just good at convincing those of us too busy "Living" that they know what's best. Don't let them push their agenda that helps only them and their Ilk! There is nothing new under the Sun...
US media have been pushing and pushing the notion that China will try to reunite (reincorporate if you will) with its province, Taiwan, stolen after the Kuomintang (Fascistic nationalists) fled the mainland with Mao's troops hot on their heels. The Chinese leadership has never relinquished its claim to Taiwan, and I feel it is entirely just and proper. I believe the US WANTS a military conflict to erupt over this province as the excuse for war against mainland China. The magnitude of the INSANITY of wishing for this war with another nuclear-armed state is immeasurable. But that's the USA of today. Mr. Trump told us he would dismantle the Deep State! Okay, Donald. Here's an excellent opportunity to throw the ol' monkey wrench into the gears: de-escalate the anti-China rhetoric and military buildup in the Pacific! I won't hold my breath waiting for such a change in policy, though.
The 'atomic age' also marked an increasing degeneracy and bankrupt morality of the so-called leaders of the U.S.
One group that is infrequently mentioned are the 'atomic vets' - those members of the military who were intentionally exposed to the radiation and blast effects of nuclear weapons testing from the 1940s to the 1960s.
And reading about them reveals an even darker period of testing of civilians - some included terminal patients that allowed themselves to be exposed to plutonium; children given trace elements of radioactive material; injecting poor pregnant women with radioactive iron - the list goes on.
The road that began with all that has led to the world of today where the U.S openly funds genocide in Gaza and risks nuclear war over the corrupt country of Ukraine.
"Nuclear disarmament, not rearmament, is the only sensible policy here."
How dare you bring a word like 'sensible' into a discussion of U.S. foreign policy. It's not only anomalous, it's UNPATRIOTIC!
How true ...
“I've walked the Trinity test site and co-taught a course at the Air Force Academy on the making and use of the atomic bomb. Walking the site was an eerie experience. I did it in 1992. Once was enough.”
I would think so. Permit me a few comments… One of the emblematic talismans? significata? just plain absurdity of the nuclear age was the when the first atomic explosion took place in 1945, the heat from the detonation in the area of the blast turned the sand of the New Mexico desert into a new glass-like mineral called trinitite. Ah, yes, the unfolding innovation and vision needed to remake (repave) the entire earth with that manmade substance.
I will have to view “The Day After Trinity,” but in line with “So much pressure was applied to get the atomic 'gadget' to work that the scientists and government were reckless. Shrouding it all in secrecy didn't help” was this tidbit I came across somewhere along the way - don’t know accurate, but certainly plausible - is that a major influence on Truman’s decision to drop the bomb - in addition to sending a message to Stalin - was if it hadn’t been used, and the Republicans found out how much the Manhattan Project cost (~$3 billion in 1940s dollars, staggering) there would have been political hell to pay, as in likely impeachment.
Well, I guess we’ve progressed to more openness, if nothing else, when Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010 into law on Oct. 28, 2009, setting in motion a 30-year nuclear force upgrade plan projected to cost upwards of $1.5 trillion.
So to add to the post-Trinity absurdity, no political hell to pay over that.
Loath as I am to fly in the face of popular opinion, I can't bring myself to feel any guilt for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (nine years before I came on the scene), nor condemn the government & military of the time for using the latest technology in an attempt to end the war. Sorrow for the loss of life, certainly ... and yet I haven't heard of anyone shedding tears for the systematic destruction of Germany's major cities by the RAF and the USAAF or for the firebombing of Japan from one end to the other. Were those acts of war acceptable because they were conducted using "conventional" weapons?
Always overlooked - as in "rarely if ever mentioned" - is that the Soviets had a nuclear program in the works (granted, their information came from people within the Manhattan Project). The Germans also had a nuclear program early on, but it was shut down with the sinking of the Norwegian ferry "Hydro" (which contained the necessary supply of "heavy water").
Finally, in Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," we learn that the Japanese also had the beginnings of a nuclear program (see Chapter 14, "Physics and Desert Country").
So, I could be wrong, of course ... but this would appear to be a clear case of "Firstest with the Mostest." Unless, of course, someone has a compelling argument that neither the Soviets, nor the Germans, nor the Japanese - none of whom exhibited conspicuously higher moral standards between 1939-1945 - would have employed a nuclear device had they developed one in time.
Finally, it's regularly pointed out that the USA is the only country sufficiently evil and depraved enough to have used nuclear/thermonuclear weapons. Has anyone ever considered that the horrific destruction and loss of life resulting from those two missions 80 years ago may have been more of a deterrent than all the talk and treaties since?
No, I didn't think so ...
I believe Hiroshima was defensible. Nagasaki was unnecessary--a rush-job to beat bad weather. Three days was not enough time for the Japanese to process the enormity of Hiroshima.
Also, it's my understanding that Japan was talking about surrender even before Hiroshima, but without ousting Hirohito. Truman wouldn't accept those terms. Is that correct, Bill? And then they did say they'd surrender unconditionally after Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was bombed nevertheless, for various reasons, among them to make sure the Soviets knew we meant business. At least, that's what I've heard over the years.
Yes, the U.S. insisted on "unconditional" surrender, whereas Japan wanted the emperor protected as a condition. In the end, I believe the U.S. quietly reassured Japan that the emperor would stay (after Hiroshima).
Nagasaki: Well, we had two bombs. And discretion was given to commanders on the scene to use the 2nd. It was supposed to come five days after Hiroshima--moved up to three days due to weather. On August 9, 1945, Nagasaki was an alternate target that got bombed because the primary was obscured in clouds.
In my opinion, intimidating the Soviets was a consideration but not the consideration for Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The primary consideration was ending the war. We had the bombs--why not use them? Anything to end the war more quickly, especially without more Allied lives being lost from kamikazes, future invasions, starvation in POW camps, etc.
People forget the war-weariness of Americans in 1945; they also forget the vengeance factor. After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death march, etc., there wasn't much sympathy for Japan. And of course the Japanese committed their own atrocities, e.g. the Rape of Nanking, the forced enslavement of Korean and Filipino women as sexual slaves (so-called comfort women), biological experiments on Allied POWs. Nasty stuff.
Agreed. But as Stubb said to Ahab, "We've been killin'! Our blood's up!" I guess bloodlust is like a force of Nature, not easily denied.
Phew, lot to respond to here, don't think I can cover it all, adequately, but a few comments...
Guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I [seven years post-event] think all the top government officials and brass in the military were opposed, there had been enough killing, Japan was completely blockaded, food stocks low, no worthwhile targets to hit, and with the promise of Stalin entering the war against them, it was just a matter of time. I think at someone in the military said, why not drop it offshore, that should be an ample demonstration. Rejected. So whadduh ya gonna do after spending $3 billion, ya can't just say, oh, never mind.
Then again, Paul Fussell wrote "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb." Haven't read it though.
Bombing campaign over Germany. Actually there has been some "re-examination" of that by Richard Overy and A.C. Grayling among other historians, and there was a good debate about the issue I saw on You Tube a few years ago, it was either an Oxford Union-sponsored debate, or one of the Intelligence Squared debates (easy enough I think to search You Tube).
There's also a literature from German historians on this, and while one might understandably say right, that's to be believed, my understanding from reviews I've read there's some decent work these historians have done. Sorry, don't recall any of the authors' names, an Internet search should reveal something worth chasing down.
Firebombing of Japan? See "Fog of War" about McNamara and Viet Nam, but in it he relates I think when he was part of the post-war Strategic Bombing Survey and he interviewed Curtis LeMay, who said something like this to McNamara, "You know if we had somehow lost the war, the could have brought us on war crimes charges."
Germany and Japan developing the bomb? Not much I can contribute there, except Japan not at that much involved, and the German project was going down the wrong theoretical path independent of the sabotage of the heavy water sources. Interesting though, the Germans did have on the drawing board what's variously called the "New York bomber" or the "Amerikabomber" which at least reached the prototype stage in the Messerschmitt 264, capable of reaching and returning from New York. I don't know enough if it was integrate with the atomic bomb project, or just conventional bombs.
Firstest with the Mostest? I'll grant you, better we got there before the others.
Deterrent? Whew, one helluva proposition, an ex post facto rationale. Of course all that Civil Defense emphasis, air raid shelters, your own bomb shelter under the back yard, "duck and cover," that was enough to make you think something was going to happen, and thank you Paul Nitze for hijacking Kennan's containment policy and transforming it into the $1+ trillion per year in "defense" spending we have now, which is apart from Obama signing in 2009 the defense authorization bill which set us on a 30-year nuclear "upgrade" path projected to cost (bankrupt?) us at $1.5 trillion.
Anyway, to get back to the question, more or less, my point being that despite the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, planners were calculating "acceptable deaths," while so much treasure was being spent on ever wilder "weapons systems" development. Are we going to repeat that scenario that gee, we've spent all this money, shouldn't we see what it bought us?
Obviously the closest we came was the Cuban Missile Crisis, I can remember watching Kennedy on t.v. that evening. I was scared then, and the next day, and the next... Good history since has revealed it was 50-50 that we're not dealing with the rubble to this day.
Kennedy was sufficiently chastened that he probably gave the best speech as president at American Univ. in June of 1963 more or less, we don't want a Pax America under the gun of America, nor the peace of the grave nor the security of slavery, but a peace in which all can flourish (again, easy enough to find online, but better yet search in conjunction with Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia economist/historian).
Can you imagine if there were a latter day missile crisis and the banana heads, alcoholics, incompetents, buffoons, and other bright stars in the night sky of Trump's picking were to steer a way through it?
Oh, one more thought... sure, better we got to the bomb first, before Russia, Germany, Japan. But what about that present day outlaw nation Israel?
We've advanced tremendously in our STEM development of weapons, not anywhere nearly so much in our humanities-based "swords into plowshares" aspirations.
Lotta jabber. Ciao.
Thanks for your suggested viewing, Bill. I plan to view The Day After Trinity tonight.
As long as we live by might makes right nuclear arms are the ace up the sleeve. Until we live by international laws.... Mearsheimer will tell you having nuclear weapons is what saves nations from even more aggressive American exceptionalism or American rules-based disorder. Talking about disarmament without having international rules-based order is nonsense.
Yes, unfortunately there is no power on Earth that can stay the US's aggressive hand as it seeks to extract the last particles of resources available. Trump has escalated this big, ugly attitude/behavior but is not its root. A seemingly mild mannered Law Professor from Chicago area morphed into the POTUS who signed off on the "Patriot Act" notion that the US should exercise the power to terminate with extreme prejudice anyone, anywhere on Earth, at any time who is declared a "terrorist" threat to US interests. US citizens not excluded. Talk about IMPERIAL HUBRIS!!
USA PATRIOT Act was actually signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, just weeks after the 9/11 attacks. The act dramatically expanded the government's surveillance and investigative powers, aiming to prevent future terrorist attacks. While it didn’t explicitly authorize targeted killings, it laid the groundwork for broader interpretations of executive power in counterterrorism—especially when combined with later legal frameworks and technologies like drone strikes.
Under President Obama, the U.S. did intensify its use of targeted killings, particularly through drone warfare in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
Both Oct 7 and 9/11 were disproportionately small responses compared to the death and destruction caused by Israeli to Palestinians since 1948 and the death and destruction caused by America to Islamic nations since WWII.
Thanks for the clarification. The notion that "The Exceptional Nation" has such "rights" as killing anyone, anywhere, any time grew from the Neo-Con operations launched in wake of 9/11 and, there is good reason to believe, were concocted/planned PRIOR to the events that unfolded on that fateful September day. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist"--which this writer certainly ain't--to find that extremely plausible. Americans didn't like how it felt to be under attack from the skies one bit, did they? But you are correct that that taste of war on US soil was puny, to say the least, compared to the damage the US has wreaked on others over the decades. Indeed, since end of WW II, since the Korea "police action" was the first of many utterly unnecessary WARS OF CHOICE.
Iran elected a progressive democratic leader back in the 1950's and America installed the SHA...that screwed up that nation ever since.
US restored the Shah, whose lineage traditionally ruled Iran, to power. He bore humble titles like "King of Kings" and "Light of the Universe" or some such nonsense. A truly autocratic ruler. If Trump knew anything about history, he'd surely admire the bastard. It's usually overlooked that it was a left-leaning popular upsurge of the people that ousted the Shah in 1979 (naturally he fled to the US). Their sacrifices were then negated by the rise of the Fundamentalists who have held the reins ever since. Iran is an open THEOCRACY and our homegrown "Christian" Fundamentalists would love to have the same here in the US!!
Greg, I think you would like Alvin Finkel's Humans: The 300,000 Year Struggle For Equality. I was amazed by the number of nations around the world since WWII that America interfered with to thwart attempts at democracy and equality and to erase existing equality and democracy. Evil Empire a grotesque understatement. This historian reveals how much equality was part of our human story. Fair sharing was our healthy default instinct. Alvin was not out to paint America as particularly anti- human force. The facts of that tiny time line since 1945 speak for themselves.
America does not obey but sanctions the International Criminal Court...America uses it veto power at the UN to veto majorities of the world's democratic voting in the UN"s General Assembly...
International Corporate Court overrules the sovereignty of nations of elected government's ability to look after their people's resources.
See Silent Coup by Matt Kennard.
America incorporated follows the Golden Rule. He who has gold makes the rules.
In my advanced US Army medical training--I extended my enlistment 4 months to receive the highest training offered to enlisted personnel short of being a Green Beret medic--in the classes on Chemical/Biological/Nuclear warfare, we were told that a colonel working on setting up Trinity slept on a cot one night, I guess very shortly before detonation, directly over an inadequately reinforced container holding the material that would power the explosion. He was said to have not lived very long thereafter. A true story or just a scare tactic? I don't know. I think it is now accepted by mainstream historians that the attacks on Japan were just as much about threatening the USSR as shortening the war in the Pacific. So who does the US feel a "need" to threaten now?? China is the obvious target. ("Better dead than Red" can be supplanted by "Better dead than having to learn Mandarin"!!!) And anyone else who rejects the US hegemonic yoke in a serious manner. Nuclear war is SHEER MADNESS, but so is the notion of "American Exceptionalism"!! The latter makes the former a genuine threat to the whole planet. ... BTW, "The Atomic Cafe" is another excellent documentary film. Had been available on DVD for home video, surely can be streamed somewhere.
As one who used to toil the Missile Fields of North America in SAC as a Sky-Cop back in the Seventies I can say I've had my share of Nuclear nightmare scenario's. I can't believe Land based ICBM's. are still being used & maintained. These weapons are just the ultimate apocalyptic symbol of humanities brutish, ugly nature..! These weapons must not ever be used again on Cities, or anywhere on this world, or others like when they proposed testing one even on the Moon!! "Saganist!!"
The submarine-based missile force is the favored delivery method these days.
Mine as well Greg... (SSBN) boomers I'll always have a soft spot for the BUFFS & KC-135's. tho. having Served @ Whiteman, and GFAFB SAC Miss those Full Rolling & Take-off Klaxtons!! And SAC-ORI's. :/ :o) "A Suck for SAC is a Blow for Peace." "Peace Is Our Profession"
More detail needed. Truman used the bomb in a mad rush to demonstrate it before the war was over. It was Act-1 of the Cold War, to show the Soviets that the US had this new power. But... the Russians already knew! That's another story in itself. The site for the second bomb was selected (in a hurry) from a list of 6 possibilities, one was Kyoto. But one of the generals had had a honeymoon there years before, so the choice dropped down to the #6, Nagaskai, to incinerate that population to demonstrate the Empire's new toy. After the first blast, was a second even "needed"? Yes, to prove the capabilities of the plutonium bomb (Hiroshima was uranium). Depravity without limits.
It is acknowledged by historians that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki qualified as military targets (no significant Japanese assets in those areas). It was precisely to terrorize the CIVILIANS of the planet that those cities were incinerated.
Exactly, and the same (but worse) terror than the long fire-bombing of Tokyo. But who follows rules?
"But one of the generals had had a honeymoon there years before..."
That was Henry Stimson, Secy of War. Just amazing how fickle fate can be, no...?
If Israel successfully deploys a nuclear weapon to Iran, what would be the effects in North America? Not to sound callous of the complete tragedy for Iran. But I'm confused about Westerners flippantly discussing this as if the West itself wouldn't ALSO be hurt by the deployment of this kind of weapon, even if it's on the other side of the world. Like, what about blocking sunlight and crop production? You hear about "tactical nukes" as if they're some kind of "mini" nuke, but you also hear that the nukes of 2025 are way stronger than the nukes that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any thoughts?
Rachel, I'm not sure anyone quite knows how many nukes it would take to start a "nuclear winter," i.e. a near-global catastrophe. My guess is between 20-50 explosions in the megaton range. Again, the U.S. and Russia have roughly 11,000, so the overkill we possess is astounding.
We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet and several other earth-sized ones.
Carl Sagan's concerns about "Nuclear Winter" posited a "full exchange" between the US and USSR. Not to make light at all of the consequences of a single weapon loosed on Iran by Israel, but that would not threaten the entire planet in the Sagan scenario. I am of the generation that grew up with the news that Strontium-90 had shown up in the cow's milk we were consuming, the dust from open air testing having settled on the pastures where those beasties grazed.
"We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet and several other earth-sized ones."
Bill - Reminds me of the original "The Day the Earth Stood Still," where Klaatu arrives to tell the earthlings essentially this, "Knock it off, you're not just an embarrassment to the rest of us, you're making us nervous, very nervous. Straighten up and fly right, or the party's over, capisce?" (Well, I took a little liberty with the quote.)
Your comment prompted me to look up the number of atmospheric nuclear tests there have been from 1945 to 1963, when the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed (I'm old enough to remember hearing in the news about such tests taking place.) The number is a staggering 528, out of 2000 overall. See https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-testing-tally for more information. What is it that they say, that there is no one alive today who doesn't have some detectable amount of strontium-90 in him/her?
I had the t.v. on in the background last night, with some news program with a segment on the military's control over the use of nuclear weapons. It cracked me up when someone on the program said that Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" was a documentary.
Kubrick and his team said later they had to document for the government how they came up with all the details they did - as much of it was classified in real life. (But they found it all in public sources).
One of the most effectively chilling sequences in "Dr. Strangelove..." is the B-52 crew fighting the fire ignited by a near-direct strike by a Russkie surface to air missile. (The nerve of them damned Russkies, trying to defend themselves!) The claustrophobic atmosphere in all the scenes inside the B-52 are a legacy of Kubrick's frequent personal handling of the main camera on his projects.
I wasn't aware of that. I was aware though that Kubrick based "Strangelove" on a 1958 novel "Red Alert" which he took into the realm of satire/dark comedy (Keenan Wynn did a masterful job, just cracks me up).
In a similar vein, TCM recently broadcast "Fail Safe," part of their background on the film being the Pentagon refusing to give any cooperation in the making of the film to the producers, they had to be very creative in making use of whatever stock footage of bombers and fighters they could get their hands on, I thought they did a decent job in that. achieving through their manipulations of the editing process a certain eeriness that would have been passed over if more conventional shots were used.
The wicked "black humor" that ended up in the film largely came from Terry Southern's work on the screenplay, with "Red Alert" having been the starting point. Southern in collaboration with Kubrick's inherent genius.
Agree about "Fail-Safe," X K. I'd mentioned it in response to one of Bill's other recent posts. It truly WAS eerie. Simply haunting.
There is a good deal of misunderstanding of tactical vs strategic weapons; it isn't about yield, but about intended use. There are tactical weapons that are larger than those intended for strategic use. So your point is absolutely correct. Even a tactical nuke used on a city would produce an atmospheric event like a nuclear winter.
It's believed - based on a recent study - that a small meteorite hit caused a nuclear winter like period in Europe that led the Germanic tribes moving west against Rome.
And then there's the issue of the escalation ladder that starts with any use - even so-called 'tactical nukes'.
Tom, I'd say it's often yield and intended use, i.e. target. I remember the days we had tactical nuclear artillery shells intended to be used against Soviet armor. Their yield was in the low (5-15) kiloton range. Then of course you have the city-destroying "strategic" bombs with yields measured in the megatons. Those would cause unimaginable destruction, fallout, and dust/debris clouds.
Tactical and strategic are mutable, e.g. think of B-52 "strategic" bombers being used for tactical bombing runs in Vietnam. And, in least in theory, F-105s or FB-111s could have carried "strategic" nukes.
Two things I've not seen mentioned yet: 1.) the lovely "neutron bomb" that would kill humans and other living things but leave infrastructure largely intact for use by the conquering military power. Just because this concept seldom is mentioned these days doesn't mean the threat has gone away; and 2.) use of "depleted uranium" in US artillery shells used in recent wars against Islamic designated "enemies." The Pentagon, I'm sure, will fight tooth and nail against damage to US personnel being something qualifying for help from the soon to be "emasculated" VA healthcare system.
Completely forgot about the neutron bomb, that still in the arsenal? The ultimate expression of private equity.
As to the VA, did that start to crater when service personnel started returning from Dumbya's excellent adventure in Iraq, overwhelming the system, the Republicans refusing to raise taxes (what else is new?) to pay for what was needed, which opened the door to the private sector-more costly-lower quality health care? Or did the Right wing disassembly begin before then?
No reason to think the US (and possibly other entities) don't have some neutron bombs stashed away, just waiting for use. As for the VA, I have never sought assistance from that agency, but these things I know: 1.) it took years of lobbying by US personnel and their families affected by exposure to Agent Orange in Viet Nam to win some benefits. Foot-dragging directed from the very top of gov't, of course; 2.) likewise with vets damaged by exposure to chemicals in Iraq fiasco ("burn pits," depleted uranium artillery shells). I believe some progress had been made on that issue, now sure to be stifled; 3.) VA healthcare facilities have been known to be inadequately staffed for years PRIOR TO the assault on that agency launched by Musk's "DOGE." Some 70 to 80,000 VA employees are slated to be axed in coming months. But as with so many things with current administration, hard facts about the dates are not available. Trump, who evaded military service in his youth, is saying in essence to our veterans: "Thank you for your service, SUCKER!!"
I was at a conference where David Shulkin, recently departed as Secy of VA, spoke. He was purposely sought out by Trump to take the job. Impressive guy. He outlined the state of affairs with the VA when he walked in, then laid out the changes he wanted to see. Some very innovative stuff, in some areas putting the VA ahead of the private sector. For one thing, he wanted to keep beneficiaries within the system, where comprehensive, coordinated care could be given. Makes sense to me.
But the Republicans/Right weren't happy with that, they wanted a failed VA so the pieces could be snapped up by their private sector cronies. So they put up roadblocks to his getting the job done, and of course the inevitable smears, and he left. His book is "It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Work for the Government," or close enough. Says it all, Says a lot.
"SUCKERS!!" You said it. All they get out of the deal is something like "Thank you for your service" or "Made the ultimate sacrifice." My a**. More like "We fleeced you and your family even more while you were 'deployed' to someplace we have no business in being," and "Okay, we really took your life, it was nothing you sacrificed, but we're gonna cover that up."
We're all suckers in this game one way or another.
Have you come across Ashton Forbes' analysis of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH 370)? This guy is smarter than me by about 50 IQ points. Highly suggest you look him up on Twitter. Preview: MH 370 went missing in 2014. A few days after it disappeared, a video came out on a random corner of the internet of satellite views of something you just have to see to believe. I'm not even going to try to tell you, lol. So this Ashton Forbes became interested in the disappearance of the plane and whether the leaked satellite footage of its disappearance was real. The implications of the technology are ... huge. Here's one of his posts with 2 video excerpts set to play simultaneously. If you spend some time reading his posts, it's clear he's really just a curious guy and NOT some grifter trying to get attention:
https://x.com/JustXAshton/status/1939769260667973727
https://rayjc.com/2025/07/21/babylon-the-great-the-mother-of-harlots-and-a-bom-i-nations-of-the-earth/
There's an old idiom "when push comes to shove" that raises the question: as the U.S. keeps pushing, when will the Russians decide that they have been pushed enough?
In return for the unification of Germany, Secy of State under Bush I James Baker guaranteed to Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch to the east from Germany. Gorbachev believed. I think not that many months later Clinton finagled some rationale to say, oh, that agreement doesn't apply now, and began the expansion eastward that every Russian leader since (which I think means just Putin) said, knock it off, we've got security interests too. (Indeed, both Gorbachev and Putin proposed security integration with Europe, totally sensible proposals, rejected out of hand by Washington.
And Washington continued to screw around with Ukraine, including a coup to oust the democratically elected president (familiar theme with the US), arranged by "Tory" Nuland. Further provocation led to Putin invading Ukraine, his back was against the wall, what else could he do to be understood?
Oh, let me add, on at least two occasions, Minsk I and II, Russia and Ukraine were close to a peace agreement, but Washington wouldn't hear of it, it was prepared to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian, as it ordered millions upon millions of Ukrainian flag lapel pins from China to distribute to all members of the NATO coalition, and any other country that can benefit by prostrating itself to America.
Amen! The Neo-Con cabal that has controlled US Foreign Policy for decades now--currently we're truly under the rule of the lunatics from Camp Trump who took over the asylum--would have us believe that either Baker's "promise" was fiction, or that it meant nothing because not in a written formal agreement. In short, Gorbachev got suckered, but perhaps willingly? There's even a book out called "Not One Inch," but I have not read it. The US War Industry simply could not accept the idea of genuine rapprochement with a nation that the US had vilified since the October Revolution of 1917. The alliance with USSR to defeat Nazi Germany was entered into hesitantly, deemed an unfortunate necessity of the moment. I don't think any other POTUS but FDR could have gotten that deal made. And no sooner had the war ended, with so many Soviet casualties racked up, than the vilification resumed. Not just resumed but greatly amped up, leading to the execution of the Rosenbergs, the infamous HUAC witch-hunting, the rise of politicians like Richard Nixon, etc. etc.
Just to pick up on a couple of points...
"The alliance with USSR to defeat Nazi Germany was entered into hesitantly, deemed an unfortunate necessity of the moment."
This is the truth of WWII, spoken by Stalin: "The war was won with American equipment, American money, and Soviet soldiers' lives."
"And no sooner had the war ended, with so many Soviet casualties racked up, than the vilification resumed. Not just resumed but greatly amped up, leading to the execution of the Rosenbergs, the infamous HUAC witch-hunting, the rise of politicians like Richard Nixon, etc. etc."
Yes, and among those "etc.s" are the permanent warping of our government and society as Eisenhower warned about; the hijacking of Kennan's containment policy based on diplomacy and the competition of economic, political, and cultural strengths of societies by Nitze's overarching militaristic approach based on a staggeringly expensive arms buildup (to the tune of $1+ trillion/year in "defense" spending today); the relegation of diplomacy and especially of international law to far-distant second place status in conducting foreign relations; the hypocritical decimation of promoting democracy and self-determination in other countries, particularly in Cuba and Latin America, by overthrowing democratically elected leaders and supporting repressive dictatorial regimes there to snuff out any hint of communism, real or exaggerated or imagined; the disparagement of any fundamentally just, sensible, and requisite measure as national health as "creeping socialism" or communism; the related elimination of a leftist movement; the veneration of the free market private enterprise model as the penultimate form of an economy; the fluidity between "might makes right" and "American Exceptionalism"; and a few other trivialities...
Indeed. There were far too many internal problems in the USSR to start discussing here, but their economic development wasn't helped by the ceaseless campaign against their very existence by the Capitalist Powers. US troops were part of a coalition that actually invaded the Russian Far East while the Revolution was still in its infancy. They were soundly defeated by the young Red Army. And of course the Nazis inflicted great damage on infrastructure during the world war. This paved the way for the US to start asserting itself as THE Global Power post-war. As to shunting diplomacy, foreign aid, etc. to the back burner, the current regime in Washington has gone far beyond that, putting such ideas out with the morning trash! That stuff hints too much of being "woke," eh?!?
Permit me to take up a bit more of your patience... "That stuff hints too much of being 'woke,' eh?!?" cracks me up.
I'm not familiar with the internal problems of the USSR, more so with the staggering losses in both human and physical terms from WWII, to the point I think it was a miracle that they made Yuri Gagarin the first man in space only 16 years after the end of the war. Then again, how much did Stalin prolong the suffering of the people by diverting resources to military capability v. recovery from the war? (As an aside, I knew of the 1917 dispatch of US troops to Russia, didn't know they actually entered combat, and lost.)
Krushchev may have seen problems with the USSR when he denounced Stalin. (By the way, his "We will bury you!" speech was not about victory in war, but in outproducing, outlasting the West.) Gorbachev certainly saw them, and sought greater integration with the West to help alleviate them. The ph***ingly arrogant Americans turned down his pleadings, a chance for a more peaceful, cooperative, prosperous world.
It's propaganda, of course, that our outspending the USSR militarily lead to the end of the Cold War, but it probably made some contribution, but also at considerable, but unspoken, cost to us. But basically Kennan was right, and we continue to pay for Nitze's legacy, literally and symbolically. We sought to be THE Global Power not so much for the good of the world, but the greed of ourselves, which is our legacy, augmented by the grift of Trump.
How come he hasn't directed the Postal Service to come out with commemorative stamp of him yet?
Yes, some time after USSR collapsed the CIA admitted "We will bury you" was an intentional mistranslation of "We will surpass you" (economically, technologically). The early Soviet success in space exploration showed the power of a "command economy." The Politburo says "Full speed ahead" and resources flow where needed. US finally caught up and got to land on the Moon first by a similar route, but Heaven forbid any terminology akin to Socialist practices should be employed. The Apollo Program was at least as much about propaganda as Science. I'm sure a Trump postage stamp will be coming, and his birthday likely will replace "Flag Day" for a June 14 official holiday!! [picture puking emoji here!]
The test of Russia's military capabilities in the US-provoked situation in the Ukraine (increasingly being waged on undisputedly Russian turf as well) makes it clear that the Russians are no real threat to US hegemony. I'll end by simply noting that the Chinese are being pushed mighty hard these days, and that is guaranteed to only escalate further.
A possible Showdown in Taiwan..? The world is getting stranger by the hour. Hard not to lose your soul, but the ones we have to be the most watchful for, and keep an eye on the most as always since time immemorial are the ones who are drawn to Politics & Religion telling us they know what is best for us! Yea. right!! Amirite!? They simply are just good at convincing those of us too busy "Living" that they know what's best. Don't let them push their agenda that helps only them and their Ilk! There is nothing new under the Sun...
US media have been pushing and pushing the notion that China will try to reunite (reincorporate if you will) with its province, Taiwan, stolen after the Kuomintang (Fascistic nationalists) fled the mainland with Mao's troops hot on their heels. The Chinese leadership has never relinquished its claim to Taiwan, and I feel it is entirely just and proper. I believe the US WANTS a military conflict to erupt over this province as the excuse for war against mainland China. The magnitude of the INSANITY of wishing for this war with another nuclear-armed state is immeasurable. But that's the USA of today. Mr. Trump told us he would dismantle the Deep State! Okay, Donald. Here's an excellent opportunity to throw the ol' monkey wrench into the gears: de-escalate the anti-China rhetoric and military buildup in the Pacific! I won't hold my breath waiting for such a change in policy, though.
The Russians have been very patient waiting for Americans to come to their senses.
Some of that is covered in my link above.