It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Best Baltic NATO base - Russian attack

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

Russia wouldn't allow it? So now Russia has the right to tell countries like Poland what they can and can't do on their own territory? Wow, good to know.




posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Secondly Germany and Japan had research as well for nuclear weapons and had they got them first they would have used them.


Well, by the time you guys nuked the innocent people, the war was pretty much over, so there's was no danger from Germany to use nuclear weapon because they had none. And the only one left was Japan and there was on the verge of defeat, but i guess you guys just wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor. I'm sorry but i don't understand your logic behind this: if they had finished nuclear weapon before us, they would have used it! So instead, we will use it first and we will slaughter thousands of innocent civilians.



I love how you guys intentionally ignore that part and skip to the end. Japan slaughtered over 80k civilians in the Philippines alone. I guess you find it acceptable because you cant blame the US for it?


And so, to make things even, you decided to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people, instead of bringing to justice those who had committed war crimes! I like your logic.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: JeanPaul


What nation actually used nukes, on civilian populations, twice?


Maybe Japan should not have started a war. I love how you guys intentionally ignore that part and skip to the end. Japan slaughtered over 80k civilians in the Philippines alone. I guess you find it acceptable because you cant blame the US for it?

Secondly Germany and Japan had research as well for nuclear weapons and had they got them first they would have used them.


The US didn't have to use nukes to "win" the war. Japan was defeated. The US put up conditions of surrender that Japan would have never accepted, because the US wanted to use the nukes in order to intimidate Russia. Once the nukes dropped (on civilian populations) the US changed the terms of surrender. Even high ranking military personnel spoke out against the decision, which was mostly advocated by the OSS (pre CIA intelligence agency that was in Truman's ear).

This is a thread within itself. You're going to deny this till you're blue in the face. Patriotism and all.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
Well, by the time you guys nuked the innocent people, the war was pretty much over, so there's was no danger from Germany to use nuclear weapon because they had none. And the only one left was Japan and there was on the verge of defeat, but i guess you guys just wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor. I'm sorry but i don't understand your logic behind this: if they had finished nuclear weapon before us, they would have used it! So instead, we will use it first and we will slaughter thousands of innocent civilians.


You don't bother to do any research do you?
Invading mainland Japan would have cost around 250k allied casualties. Secondly Japan pressed their entire population into war service and had already established a 5 million man civil defense with another 30 million to be processed. The 2 cities hit were industrial cities responsible for Japans military industrial base, making them legitimate targets.

Your attempt to deflect aside, Japan started the war. We finished it.





originally posted by: Nikola014
And so, to make things even, you decided to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people, instead of bringing to justice those who had committed war crimes! I like your logic.


Do some research before making false claims. See my comments above to your other misinformed comment.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JeanPaul

Russia wouldn't allow it? So now Russia has the right to tell countries like Poland what they can and can't do on their own territory? Wow, good to know.


It would have escalated the already cold war like tensions. It did escalate tensions. All the moves the US has been making since the fall of the USSR has been escalating tensions into a new Cold War. You can't be this, well, ignorant. The USA wants to contain Russia in order to prevent it from every having the ability to challenge US hegemony as the USSR once did. Denying this is absurd.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I would agree with you, if the west and especially the US hadn't recognized and illegally, against ALL international laws, created the independent Kosovo. Even though I am not a lawyer, i believe when that happened, the international laws have been violated and therefore, not valid anymore.

So, my question to you is, why can the west do whatever they want, including to interfere into other countries businesses, but that's not allowed for Russia or any other superpower?



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

Japan was not defeated. Since you seem lost on history as well the 2 bombs dropped weren't dropped on the same day. The Japanese refused to surrender after we dropped the first nuke and after Russia declared war on Japan.

It was not until a few days later when we dropped the second nuke that Japan finally surrendered.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

Russia is containing itself by its actions in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Chechnya and by economically screwing Belarus and a few other central Asian countries.

If the Us is to deploy a missile shield its no ones business but our own. That is the exact same position Russia takes when it comes to its armed forces and whats best for Russian interests.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

So the moves that Russia has been making are just in response to the US, right?



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

the actions in Kosovo weren't a violation of international law, regardless of how much Russia likes to lie on that occasion.



NATO-Russia relations


Claim: NATO's operation over Kosovo was illegitimate

Fact: The NATO operation for Kosovo followed over a year of intense efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to bring about a peaceful solution. The UN Security Council on several occasions branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees driven from their homes as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's Operation Allied Force was launched to prevent the large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians.

Following the air campaign, the subsequent NATO-led peacekeeping operation, KFOR, which initially included Russia, has been under UN mandate (UNSCR 1244), with the aim of providing a safe and secure environment in Kosovo.

Back to top

Claim: The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical

Fact: The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole international community dealing with a long-running crisis that was recognized by the UN Security Council as a threat to international peace and security.

Following the operation, the international community engaged in nearly ten years of diplomacy, under UN authority, to find a political solution and to settle Kosovo's final status, as prescribed by UNSCR 1244.

In Crimea, there was no pre-existing crisis, no attempt to discuss the situation with the Ukrainian government, no involvement of the United Nations, and no attempt at a negotiated solution.

In Kosovo, international attempts to find a solution took over 3,000 days. In Crimea, Russia annexed part of Ukraine's territory in less than 30 days. It has sought to justify its illegal and illegitimate annexation, in part, by pointing to a "referendum" that was inconsistent with Ukrainian law, held under conditions of illegal armed occupation with no freedom of expression or media access for the opposition, and without any credible international monitoring.

Back to top

Claim: Russia's annexation of Crimea was justified by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo (online here).

Fact: The court stated that their opinion was not a precedent. The court said they had been given a "narrow and specific" question about Kosovo's independence which would not cover the broader legal consequences of that decision.



The Kosovo argument is just as bad as the idiotic NATO promised not to enlarge BS that Putin is lying about.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I always thought it was the Germans who started the WW2, guess you learn something new everyday.



You don't bother to do any research do you?
Invading mainland Japan would have cost around 250k allied casualties. Secondly Japan pressed their entire population into war service and had already established a 5 million man civil defense with another 30 million to be processed. The 2 cities hit were industrial cities responsible for Japans military industrial base, making them legitimate targets.

I would like to know how did you get that number of how just how many casualties would allies have if they indeed invaded Japan. I can't recall seeing it in ANY historical book, so I would like to get multiple sources behind your statement. But i guess you're right. The whole world couldn't have dealt with Japan, so using nukes was the only option.


Do some research before making false claims. See my comments above to your other misinformed comment.

You use words such as "research" and "false" quite easily, so they had lost all of their meaning when you're using them.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

The activity in Kosovo was taken through the UNSC, with the approval of Russia. It wasn't done just by the West. UNSC 1244 authorized military activity, and the peace agreement was proposed by Finland and Russia, which led to Yugoslavia withdrawing from Kosovo. The ICJ in 2010 ruled that Kosovo declaring independence in 2008 did not violate international law.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: maddy21
How quickly where they spotted and detained ? IF this was an actual attack by a small group of armed personal its entirely possible they could have done a lot of damage. Example Mehran base attack(Pakistan). Now plz don't give me stupid replies saying "how can you compare Pakistan to NATO". Pakistan is 3rd world Nation blah blah blah...

But if you can scale across the base with a ladder and not get caught within 5 minutes then we have a serious problem with security. But so far we don't know how long it took for security personal to react.
qqqqqq+

Don't think it important at, all how long. YOU CAN SEE From the Picture that fence is decrative in nature. Security areas have barbed wire fences.if I had to guess I'd say they snuck into base housing. When I was a kid staying on base we used to so the same thing to sneak off post.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JeanPaul

Japan was not defeated. Since you seem lost on history as well the 2 bombs dropped weren't dropped on the same day. The Japanese refused to surrender after we dropped the first nuke and after Russia declared war on Japan.

It was not until a few days later when we dropped the second nuke that Japan finally surrendered.



I never said they were dropped on the same day. Japan didn't surrender until the US changed the terms of surrender. they were assured the emperor would remain. It was also Russia's advance that brought them to the realization that they had to quickly surrender, and accept promises that they would retain parts of their own political system.Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown this to be the case. They had been ready to surrender for some time, but were trying to negotiate favorable terms of surrender, mostly that they would keep their sovereignty and that the emperor would remain in place. After the nukes were dropped, and after Russia advanced on Japan, the Japanese leaders were then told they would be able to maintain autonomy and the emperor would remain in a visible role.

Even Truman's own survey showed Japan was ready to surrender, even if Russia hadn't declared war, even if the USA didn't drop nukes. It was the terms of surrender keeping them from doing so:

" Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Even General Eisenhower knew, when he said, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Again, General Eisenhower said:

"In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’."

It goes on and on. Start a thread on the topic. If you don't I will.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014

I always thought it was the Germans who started the WW2, guess you learn something new everyday.


The United States didn't enter WWII until Japan attacked the US. That is when WWII started for the US and it was started by Japan. A few days later Nazi Germany then declared war on the US because they were allied with Japan.

So yes, you did learn something new today.



originally posted by: Nikola014
I would like to know how did you get that number of how just how many casualties would allies have if they indeed invaded Japan. I can't recall seeing it in ANY historical book, so I would like to get multiple sources behind your statement. But i guess you're right. The whole world couldn't have dealt with Japan, so using nukes was the only option.


The planned invasion of the Japanese mainland was called Operation downfall and included US and UK forces under a joint Command. The Japanese warrior ethos required all civilians to defend the homeland. When they ran out of weapons to give the civilians they started handing out swords, knives, gardening tools etc.

The Japanese had Operation Ketsugō, which dealt with the total defense of the Japanese Islands. Japans strategy was to make the cost of invading so high that the allies would instead push for an armistice rather than a total Japanese surrender. Like the Nazis, the option was unconditional surrender.

Casualty estimates were submitted by multiple military commands with Pacific responsibility in addition to President Truman's own staff.

The estimates are based on a population (civilians included) that would die for the Emperor.





originally posted by: Nikola014
You use words such as "research" and "false" quite easily, so they had lost all of their meaning when you're using them.

Which doesn't negate the fact that you didn't know US history in terms of WWII nor how WWII started for the US, let alone operations to invade Japan and japans operation to defend Japan.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JeanPaul

So the moves that Russia has been making are just in response to the US, right?


In Ukraine? Yes. This doesn't mean I "side" with team Russia. It means I'm willing to admit the USA has been interfering with Russia's peripheral nations. And that Russia finally put its foot down in Ukraine, because of the strategic importance of the nation. The USA knows full well Ukraine is a "wobbler" nation. If Russia gained the lead on development and trade, with influence over Ukraine's economy and political system, Russia would be on it's way to establishing a wider economic base so as to challenge US hegemony.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

There was no change in terms to surrender. The Allies, like they did with Nazi Germany, agreed on unconditional surrender. The Japanese tried to use their relationship with Russia to push for an armistice and unbeknownst to the Japanese the Russias were dumping their non aggression pact with the Japanese.

What does this have to do with the topic?



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

There is no such thing as a Russian peripheral nation. They are sovereign nations who answer to their own people and not Moscow.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

The last I looked, they weren't "Russia's peripheral nations", they were independent countries, that had the right to do what they wanted on their own territory. The Ukraine wasn't balking on their lease of the Russian naval base, they weren't balking on their deals to produce engines for Russian rockets, they weren't balking on producing all the equipment and structures for Russian military equipment. So because they chose to be friendlier to the West, that gives Russia the right to "put their foot down" and take some of their territory?



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Nikola014

I always thought it was the Germans who started the WW2, guess you learn something new everyday.


The United States didn't enter WWII until Japan attacked the US. That is when WWII started for the US and it was started by Japan. A few days later Nazi Germany then declared war on the US because they were allied with Japan.

So yes, you did learn something new today.



originally posted by: Nikola014
I would like to know how did you get that number of how just how many casualties would allies have if they indeed invaded Japan. I can't recall seeing it in ANY historical book, so I would like to get multiple sources behind your statement. But i guess you're right. The whole world couldn't have dealt with Japan, so using nukes was the only option.


The planned invasion of the Japanese mainland was called Operation downfall and included US and UK forces under a joint Command. The Japanese warrior ethos required all civilians to defend the homeland. When they ran out of weapons to give the civilians they started handing out swords, knives, gardening tools etc.

The Japanese had Operation Ketsugō, which dealt with the total defense of the Japanese Islands. Japans strategy was to make the cost of invading so high that the allies would instead push for an armistice rather than a total Japanese surrender. Like the Nazis, the option was unconditional surrender.

Casualty estimates were submitted by multiple military commands with Pacific responsibility in addition to President Truman's own staff.

The estimates are based on a population (civilians included) that would die for the Emperor.





originally posted by: Nikola014
You use words such as "research" and "false" quite easily, so they had lost all of their meaning when you're using them.

Which doesn't negate the fact that you didn't know US history in terms of WWII nor how WWII started for the US, let alone operations to invade Japan and japans operation to defend Japan.


This wasn't the cause of WW2. It's how the US entered the war but even that is up for debate. How much of a "surprise" attack Pearl Harbor actually was. The US population at the time were highly non interventionist.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join