For this article the picture didn't display, but it was otherwise OK.
Republicans who question U.S. aid to Ukraine may soon have the power to end it
Kevin McCarthy is touting it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
For this article the picture didn't display, but it was otherwise OK.
Republicans who question U.S. aid to Ukraine may soon have the power to end it
Kevin McCarthy is touting it.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Kevin McCarthy interview with punch bowl news is primary source.
10/18/22 ☀️ Punchbowl News AM - Punchbowl News
PRESENTED BY BY PUNCHBOWL NEWS STAFF THE TOP Happy Tuesday morning. It’s […]
punchbowl.news
X Fan
Active Member
^^^
FWIW: I interpreted that interview as typical political posturing….Ukraine is a lever that the Republicans want to use to get Biden/Democratic Party to back off on overspending and wantonly driving the national debt higher and/or address other issues that the Republican Party caucus wants addressed (that is of course presuming they win which is not certain).
I believe Ukraine remains a bi-partisan priority with a clear minority of Republicans philosophically against the spend since they want domestic items addressed. OTOH, there are most likely Democratic House/Senate members that if the shoe was on the other foot (like USA 1970/80s), they would be against it too. But…they need to unify behind their caucus and are afraid to step out of line.
FWIW: I interpreted that interview as typical political posturing….Ukraine is a lever that the Republicans want to use to get Biden/Democratic Party to back off on overspending and wantonly driving the national debt higher and/or address other issues that the Republican Party caucus wants addressed (that is of course presuming they win which is not certain).
I believe Ukraine remains a bi-partisan priority with a clear minority of Republicans philosophically against the spend since they want domestic items addressed. OTOH, there are most likely Democratic House/Senate members that if the shoe was on the other foot (like USA 1970/80s), they would be against it too. But…they need to unify behind their caucus and are afraid to step out of line.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Trying to use something that both sides want as a bargaining chip I will never understand.
It's like the constant debt limit threats. Does either side actually want to default on the national debt? No? Well, then you have no leverage.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Abolishing the federal reserve would be great progress.
Very interesting article on the Russian team that provides targeting for the missiles being launched at Ukraine now. The way the journalists figured this out was also interesting.
The Ukrainians shot down three Russian Ka-52 choppers around Kherson today. They won't be able to sustain those sorts of aircraft and crew losses indefinitely. Time for Ukraine to pour it on and try to end this before winter.
odessa-journal.com
Air Force: APU shot down three Russian Ka-52 helicopters in a day | odessa-journal.com
All three shot down in the Kherson region. The third Russian helicopter Ka-52 was shot down today. The Air Force of Ukraine reported this on Telegram. The
odessa-journal.com
A lot of politicians posture to the base, and the base on that side pretty much wants to burn down everything. There actually are people who do want the US to default on the national debt. Those in the legislature probably know it would be economic suicide, but they have people back home who want it to happen.
The Fed is far from perfect, but we're better off with it than without it
If The Federal Reserve Is Abolished, What Then?
In the 100 years after the Feds creation the US had 22 recessional years and one depression. In the 100 years before the Fed's creation the US had 44 recession years and 6 depressions. During that 100 years the US was on the gold standard, it isn't today.
But this is off topic. Some antiques are showing up on the battlefield, even in the hands of people who are getting known for being milblooger like this
Thread by @ChrisO_wiki on Thread Reader App
That gun he's holding is a PPSh-41
PPSh-41 - Wikipedia
It was probably made in the 1940s. The Soviets quit using them in the 1960s. It was a good short ranged weapon and got a lot of use in the room to room fighting in Stalingrad, but it's not a great weapon if you need any accuracy at range. It's odd that someone so prominent with the Russian public is using a weapon probably older than his grandfather.
A Russian D-1 howitzer that has seen better days
The last one of these rolled off the production line in 1949.
That sound you hear is the Russian army scraping the bottom of the barrel.
petit_bateau
Active Member
Soviet Russia declared war on Japan in 1945, and the result was not inconclusive. This is why Russia still occupies the northern Kuril islands to this day, hence the issues around Sakhalin LNG etc.
Soviet–Japanese War - Wikipedia
Soviet Russia declared war on Japan in 1945, and the result was not inconclusive. This is why Russia still occupies the northern Kuril islands to this day, hence the issues around Sakhalin LNG etc.
Soviet–Japanese War - Wikipedia
I should have mentioned that for completeness, but it was picking on a vastly weakened opponent by 1945.
It seems strange to say- but the US dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as awful and probably unnecessary as it was, may have saved Japan from conquest by a much more belligerent Soviet state. My grandfather was a very accomplished logistician for the Air Force and spent a fair bit of time driving a Jeep around Japan in the immediate aftermath of WW2, and had very divided feelings about our use of nuclear weapons there. From my perspective it was a mistake, but nothing about that period is crystal clear.
KBF
Model X owner (formerly Cdn Signature Model S)
Nobody knew the long term consequences of radiation exposure in 1945. Based on what he knew then Harry Truman probably did make the right call. Looking back on it knowing what we know now, it's more questionable.
Truman had estimates that the US casualties from the invasion of Japan were going to be on the order of 1 million. The US minted purple heart medals anticipating this. The DoD is still giving out purple hearts minted in 1945 and they gave them out like candy in Vietnam. I knew someone who got three in six weeks.
The Japanese casualties, both military and civilian, from an invasion would have been staggeringly higher. In the late war invasions Japanese casualties were often many times US casualties and most Japanese casualties were people KIA.
My father was a special photographer in the air force on his second tour when the war ended (he was supposed to be stateside but got sent as a replacement for someone who got sick just before deployment). He said the atomic bombs may have saved his life. He had the feeling his number might be coming up.
He was based on Attu when the war ended and brought back a few shots from his missions. One was a B-25 in his unit which only had one wing visible, the rest of the plane was a sheet of flame. He took the picture a couple of days before VJ Day.
The title of this article is a bit sensational, but I found it to be a good read. Always good to hear numerous perspectives on something as serious as the origins of nuclear warfare:
The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan. Stalin Did.
Have 70 years of nuclear policy been based on a lie?
foreignpolicy.com
The title of this article is a bit sensational, but I found it to be a good read. Always good to hear numerous perspectives on something as serious as the origins of nuclear warfare:
The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan. Stalin Did.
Have 70 years of nuclear policy been based on a lie?
The Russians could take a few outlying islands that were not heavily defended, which they did, but they lacked the ability to make an invasion of any of the main Japanese islands. By 1945 the US possessed the best amphibious navy the world had ever seen. The British had their own forces too, but the US was the only navy capable of supporting an amphibious invasion out of range of land based air. The D-Day landing in France were limited to two locations because of the limited range of the Spitfire.
Russian fighters, both home grown and those they got from lend-lease were incredibly short ranged. The US rejected the P-39 from the USAAF as soon as other fighters became available. because of it's poor high altitude performance and it's very short range but they stayed in production throughout the war because the Russians loved them. Some of the top Soviet fighter aces flew the P-39. For the Eastern Front where battles often took place within 50 miles of frontline air bases the P-39 was fine. Most air battled on the Eastern Front also took place below 10,000 feet. Neither side had many strategic bombers trying to attack from high altitude so there was little need to go high.
The USSR had done river assaults but had no experience with salt water amphibious operations.
Stalin wanted to invade Hokaido, but he needed a lot of help from the US, but the Americans refused. What the Russians asked for was probably way too little to do the job. This post details some of it
How much amphibious lift capability did the Soviet Union have in the Far East in 1945? To what extent could they have meaningfully partic...
Japan probably knew that the Russians were incapable of pulling off an opposed landing on any of the major islands. The Japanese had a large fleet of kamikaze boats squirreled away for the invasion. They would have been attacking the poorly prepared Soviet fleet in large numbers and probably would have sunk a number of troop and supply ships. Supplying an invasion after the troops get ashore is very tricky. The US almost failed at Guadalcanal because the initial invasion fleet was not loaded correctly and the invasion ships had to be pulled out early because of the USN losses in the Battle of Savo Island and incessant Japanese air raids. The Marines ended up with tons of things like building materials for an air base, but not enough ammunition, heavy weapons, fuel, or food. They captured a bunch of Japanese rations and that was all they had to eat for a week or two.
I have read stories that the Japanese were approaching US diplomats in Switzerland during the summer to try and negotiate a surrender. About their only condition was they get to keep the emperor. The US was contemplating putting the emperor on trial, but once MacArthur learned how the Japanese system worked, he kept the emperor.
What probably brought the Japanese to the point of pulling the plug was a combination of factors. The US had conducted carrier raids up and down the Japanese coast sinking most of the remaining navy. First submarines and then a mining campaign in 1945 had sunk virtually all the Japanese merchant fleet leaving Japan short of just about everything. They were still using small coal carriers to haul coal from Korea and Manchuria to Japan, but they knew that source was going away when the USSR declared war.
The article talks about the conventional B-29 raids and many of them did do more damage than the nuclear weapons. Tokyo was especially hit hard with a fire storm raid.
The attack on Hiroshima probably did contribute some to the calculus, but they were looking at their last supply lifeline being shut off by the Russians on the mainland; all other trade shut down by submarines, mines, and US air power in the south; US air raids destroying cities one after another; and then finally the new US ability to do severe damage to a city with a single plane may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
We'll never know for sure what were the greatest factors, but all probably contributed.
Sometimes events are simple, within 2 weeks of the second bombing Japan surrendered. That time was mostly spent on the status of the emperor and deciding who would be signing, etc. Japan had no idea how many bombs we had, how many we'd be willing to use, etc. Anyone interested in that topic will find a wealth of books and research on the last months of the Japanese empire.
petit_bateau
Active Member
The Royal Navy (FAA) was operating the marinised Spitfire ('Seafire') off its carriers alongside Avengers, Fireflies, F4U Corsairs, and Hellcats. So not a great deal different than the USN in terms of aircraft. The RN was capable of conducting out-of-area amphibious landings and did so.; and was scheduled to be part of the landing forces on Japan. RN ships were part of the shore bombardment effort of the Japanese mainland, FAA aircraft conducted attacks over the Japanese mainland, etc. The real limiting factor was the RN's fleet train but that too just about made it work.
(It was actually the RN (FAA) Seafires flying off of RN carriers that provided the beach fighter cover for the landings in Italy, Sicily, North Africa (Torch), and they were again part of the cover for Normandy, and then did the cover for Dragoon (South of France) before heading out east with BPF for Rangoon, Okinawa, Sumatra, Japan, etc).
The British Pacific Fleet at war-end comprised "6 fleet carriers, 4 light carriers, 2 aircraft maintenance carriers and 9 escort carriers, with a total of more than 750 aircraft, 4 battleships, 11 cruisers, 35 destroyers, 14 frigates, 44 smaller warships, 31 submarines, and 54 large vessels in the fleet train." So whilst it was certainly as not as great a Pacific contributor as the USN, it was by no means a token effort. Also the UK's RAF was mobilising its heavy bomber force to head out to the Pacific for the Japanese mainland invasions, and a lot of British / Empire troops were also en route, when the two atomic bombs brought everything to a swift end.
Let's hope there is no further escalation in the nuclear sector in Ukraine - Russia is already committing enough nuclear crimes in that respect with Chernoby and the ZPPN complex.
Last edited:
IIRC, US looked at human cost (on both sides) of 2 alternatives: what it would take to conquer Japan given the losses on Iwo Jima, and what losses Japan would take if US continued to bomb military targets in Japan given the inevitable collateral civilian losses. I googled to double-check and ... there are opinions on both sides, but this article stuck out for me (limited hindsight, but people doing the best they could with the info they had at the time): If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used
I think a much better case can be made for the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The second one was entirely unecessary, imo. I get that war is extremely messy, but I just can't help but find the indescrimanant targeting of major population centers exceedingly distasteful.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
That’s just an aspect of perspective. If I asked you the same question 80 years ago having seen your platoon or squadron get mowed down would you have the same answer?
Similar threads
