Who will you vote for?

[chevyontheriver]

Well it’s a choice between two less than great candidates. I’m voting for the one that I think will be best for the country.

Less than great is an understatement.

 

[RoBo1988]

Tulsi Gabbard did seem like a breath of fresh air.

I like Gabbard too. If she ran as a Democrat I doubt if I'd vote for her, but if she won, I wouldn't be concerned that she was driving the country over a cliff, as the current administration is.

 

[Ted-01]

Join and build the American Solidarity Party. A centrist party that needs to be on the ballot in every state. That won't be on the ballot in more than a handful of states because of the want of a hundred active volunteers in each state to get them on the ballot. We get what we deserve in government, and we deserve either Biden or Trump. Half of us can then extol the wonders of our new president and the other half can riot and pillage because their bad guy didn't get elected.

I was thinking about this last night and still not sure what to make of it. I know nothing of the American Solidarity Party, as I no longer follow the news and whatnot. But I've seen third party movements in the past and seen them ultimately fail at some point or other.

I think one issue with them in today's environment, is that they try to achieve too much, too fast. Instead of kinda' bursting on to the political scene and winning national seats, perhaps they would do better by building up in a local arena and proving themselves as competent and effectual. Work in a county and then a state and show real improvements that attract folks from both the left and right sides of the spectrum.

Personally, other than Jesus Christ, I don't have any hope that some white knight (party) will suddenly appear and come to our rescue.

 

[St. Helens]

I don't like either of them. So I just don't know yet.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I was thinking about this last night and still not sure what to make of it. I know nothing of the American Solidarity Party, as I no longer follow the news and whatnot. But I've seen third party movements in the past and seen them ultimately fail at some point or other.

I think one issue with them in today's environment, is that they try to achieve too much, too fast. Instead of kinda' bursting on to the political scene and winning national seats, perhaps they would do better by building up in a local arena and proving themselves as competent and effectual. Work in a county and then a state and show real improvements that attract folks from both the left and right sides of the spectrum.

Personally, other than Jesus Christ, I don't have any hope that some white knight (party) will suddenly appear and come to our rescue.

Well, It's all a pipe dream unless there are people in the precincts organizing. What you say is true, that these things need a local presence. Which is why I suggested joining and volunteering locally. The alternative is the parties of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum remaining in power and the swamp smelling even more than it does today.

 

[jas3]

Join and build the American Solidarity Party. A centrist party that needs to be on the ballot in every state. That won't be on the ballot in more than a handful of states because of the want of a hundred active volunteers in each state to get them on the ballot. We get what we deserve in government, and we deserve either Biden or Trump. Half of us can then extol the wonders of our new president and the other half can riot and pillage because their bad guy didn't get elected.

I'm not sure if the ASP is Catholic or not, but a lot of their platform seems to mirror political positions expressed by Pope Francis, and not necessarily in a good way: abolishing capital punishment, the "persistence of discrimination" against minorities, and the existence of an "obligation" to illegal aliens, mainly. The only point where they deviate from him is in their advocacy of repealing laws that attempt to redefine marriage and allow no-fault divorce. They do have many good pro-family, pro-local-community policy proposals, but then they throw in things like the US needing to unilaterally get rid of its nuclear weapons, re-enter the Iran nuclear deal, and apologize to Japan for its use of nuclear weapons.

I would probably vote for a third party candidate who held the ASP's platform except for the social justice, anti-nuclear positions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm not sure if the ASP is Catholic or not, but a lot of their platform seems to mirror political positions expressed by Pope Francis, and not necessarily in a good way: abolishing capital punishment, the "persistence of discrimination" against minorities, and the existence of an "obligation" to illegal aliens, mainly. The only point where they deviate from him is in their advocacy of repealing laws that attempt to redefine marriage and allow no-fault divorce. They do have many good pro-family, pro-local-community policy proposals, but then they throw in things like the US needing to unilaterally get rid of its nuclear weapons, re-enter the Iran nuclear deal, and apologize to Japan for its use of nuclear weapons.

I would probably vote for a third party candidate who held the ASP's platform except for the social justice, anti-nuclear positions.

ASP is not Catholic but was founded by believing Catholics and some believing Protestants and Jews at the close of WWII. That was the Christian Democratic Party that developed in many European countries.

I do not think of them as particularly following pope Francis. Me? With regard to the death penalty I do not at all share the dogmatism of Francis even while hoping to have less recourse to the death penalty. WRT nuclear weapons, a bedrock of bipartisan policy of mutual assured deterrence, I consider it to have been madness, and a great harm to the world. We could go into that further if you want. The French didn’t particularly trust the Anglo-American nuclear approach and I think they were right. In a world of renewed nuclear threat we have to decide how we are more secure. To the west of me is a massive array of missilery. When war starts that will be a prime target for multiple ground burst blockbusters. They are going to pound the sand until it’s all vaporized. It’s just ranchers. But the fallout will blow where it blows. Tell me how that’s gonna be a good thing. Tell me how vaporizing Nagasaki was a good thing. I’m saying this as a conservative. What gets conserved if we use our nukes?

 

[chevyontheriver]

… re-enter the Iran nuclear deal, …

Iran is a terrorist state and Trump was absolutely correct to sanction them. We need to provide carrots and sticks dealing with them long term but the Obama/Biden approach has failed.

 

[Niels]

I plan to vote for someone else. In my opinion, another Trump or Biden term would be about equally bad for the country. For different reasons. As going with the lesser of two evils is out, I'll cast my ballot for a candidate that my conscience finds more acceptable.

 

[jas3]

To the west of me is a massive array of missilery. When war starts that will be a prime target for multiple ground burst blockbusters. They are going to pound the sand until it’s all vaporized. It’s just ranchers. But the fallout will blow where it blows. Tell me how that’s gonna be a good thing. Tell me how vaporizing Nagasaki was a good thing. I’m saying this as a conservative. What gets conserved if we use our nukes?

Obviously nuclear war would be terrible, but the "A" in MAD requires that we can assure the destruction of a peer nation if they try to destroy us. I'm all for bilateral disarmament (and really we would need "trilateral" disarmament between the US, Russia, and China at this point), but just throwing away our own stockpile and hoping that Russia and China won't be emboldened with our ability to retaliate diminished is naive. I don't see a scenario where they respond to unilateral US arms reduction with their own arms reduction programs.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those prevented what would have been a catastrophic ground invasion. The Japanese weren't going to be convinced to surrender by conventional warfare short of a complete takeover of the country. The complete paradigm shift that took place when they realized we could level a city with one bomb was what ended the war and ultimately saved lives, both American and Japanese.

Edit: to answer your last question, the point of nukes is to be a deterrent, not to use them. I do worry with some of Russia's posturing about running tactical nuclear drills, where they would use smaller nuclear weapons intended to be weak enough not to provoke MAD. That use would be incredibly reckless, both environmentally and politically.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Obviously nuclear war would be terrible, but the "A" in MAD requires that we can assure the destruction of a peer nation if they try to destroy us. I'm all for bilateral disarmament (and really we would need "trilateral" disarmament between the US, Russia, and China at this point), but just throwing away our own stockpile and hoping that Russia and China won't be emboldened with our ability to retaliate diminished is naive. I don't see a scenario where they respond to unilateral US arms reduction with their own arms reduction programs.

For a while we had arms reduction with the Soviets. Now we are in a proliferation environment where the nuclear club has grown large. Because everybody wants the toys the big boys have. And some are crazy enough to want to use them. Proliferation is the fault of the USA and the Soviets who used nukes to enhance political power. Now it's messier than it was 30 years ago. Maybe polylateral negotiations can lessen the danger. And if that isn't possible, we can make ourselves safer by reducing even a bit our warhead count, even unilaterally.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those prevented what would have been a catastrophic ground invasion. The Japanese weren't going to be convinced to surrender by conventional warfare short of a complete takeover of the country. The complete paradigm shift that took place when they realized we could level a city with one bomb was what ended the war and ultimately saved lives, both American and Japanese.

You 'might' be able to make the case that the Hiroshima bombing promoted surrender. One bomb. Maybe. The Nagasaki bombing was just not necessary for that purpose. Japan was on the way to surrender. Eisenhower concurred, opposing the second bomb. It was the superfluous murder of thousands of civilians and, had we not been victorious, would have been rightly tried as a war crime. It was a war crime. Just like the fire-bombing of civilians was. But we won, so we chose the cases to be tried.

Edit: to answer your last question, the point of nukes is to be a deterrent, not to use them. I do worry with some of Russia's posturing about running tactical nuclear drills, where they would use smaller nuclear weapons intended to be weak enough not to provoke MAD. That use would be incredibly reckless, both environmentally and politically.

We have almost had nuclear war a few handsful of times now. Sometimes by accident. A flock of birds once. If the purpose is not to use them, and they have almost been used several times, and they would be environmentally nasty, maybe the deterrence isn't all that positive in a risk/benefit analysis. We have 'tactical' nukes too, and train to use them, and have not renounced a first strike use of them. There is a lot of recklessness going around and it's not all Russian.

The moral effect of MAD has also been significant. If we can be incinerated at any moment what is life worth? Fulton Sheen saw abortion as the direct result of nuclear madness. I think he was crazy right about that. The decline in American civilization is tied to our nukes.

 

[jas3]

And if that isn't possible, we can make ourselves safer by reducing even a bit our warhead count, even unilaterally.

In what way does that make us safer?

The Nagasaki bombing was just not necessary for that purpose. Japan was on the way to surrender. Eisenhower concurred, opposing the second bomb.

This is a case of hindsight being 20/20. There was a significant possibility that Japan didn't surrender, even if the emperor wanted to. When it became clear that he intended to surrender, he faced a coup attempt, which fortunately failed, but if it hadn't it would have dragged out the war even longer.

Statements of opposition that were made years after the fact are influenced by this hindsight, even for people who were directly involved like Eisenhower. Honestly I think it's hypocritical of some of them who in their later years made critical comments about drawing a line at bombing "women and children" as if the conventional bombings in European Axis territory didn't also kill civilians, or as if there weren't legitimate military targets in the Japanese cities selected for bombing.

If the purpose is not to use them, and they have almost been used several times, and they would be environmentally nasty, maybe the deterrence isn't all that positive in a risk/benefit analysis.

The risk of not having that deterrent is, in the worst case, total destruction of the country, and in a slightly better case, not being able to defend others or prosecute sponsors of terrorism against us if they happen to be a favorite proxy of Russia or China.

We have 'tactical' nukes too, and train to use them, and have not renounced a first strike use of them. There is a lot of recklessness going around and it's not all Russian.

Sure, I think the US would also be reckless to use tactical nukes, but they serve as a deterrent to countries that would attack us with one, given that we would be able to respond in kind.

The moral effect of MAD has also been significant. If we can be incinerated at any moment what is life worth? Fulton Sheen saw abortion as the direct result of nuclear madness. I think he was crazy right about that. The decline in American civilization is tied to our nukes.

I will have to listen to what he said on the matter, but my impression has always been that it's more of a result of feminism and eugenics, combined with the development of birth control pills.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In what way does that make us safer?

Less targets. Less targets hit. Less blast effect. Less fallout.

This is a case of hindsight being 20/20. There was a significant possibility that Japan didn't surrender, even if the emperor wanted to. When it became clear that he intended to surrender, he faced a coup attempt, which fortunately failed, but if it hadn't it would have dragged out the war even longer.

We had two bomb designs. They wanted to use both to see which one was best. THAT's why we dropped two bombs. They should have waited longer to see if surrender was on the way. They still had a second bomb if Japan refused to surrender. But, as I said, they wanted to test the bomb design so they 'had to' drop it. They waited a whopping three days between bombs. If they had waited another week they may have had a surrender without vaporizing 40,000 people instantly.

Statements of opposition that were made years after the fact are influenced by this hindsight, even for people who were directly involved like Eisenhower. Honestly I think it's hypocritical of some of them who in their later years made critical comments about drawing a line at bombing "women and children" as if the conventional bombings in European Axis territory didn't also kill civilians, or as if there weren't legitimate military targets in the Japanese cities selected for bombing.

There was no legitimate military target at Nagasaki Ground Zero. There was a Catholic cathedral there that was the target in this residential area. And as to the firebombing of Dresden, we won't consider that a war crime only because the victors decided who to prosecute for war crimes.

The risk of not having that deterrent is, in the worst case, total destruction of the country, and in a slightly better case, not being able to defend others or prosecute sponsors of terrorism against us if they happen to be a favorite proxy of Russia or China.

How many thousand warheads do we need for deterrence?

Sure, I think the US would also be reckless to use tactical nukes, but they serve as a deterrent to countries that would attack us with one, given that we would be able to respond in kind.

It just lowers the bar and consequently increases the probability for use, and, if used, lowers the bar for the bigger missiles to be used.

I will have to listen to what he said on the matter, but my impression has always been that it's more of a result of feminism and eugenics, combined with the development of birth control pills.

I heard the recording just today. And yes, feminism and eugenics (Sanger) and the Pill (failures of the Pill) were huge causal agents. But the idea that nothing matters, that you live for today, that started in the nihilism following WWI but took off in the nuclear age.

Wondering what you think of this: The Bomb and the American Barbarian

See also this one for a history of reaction to the bombing of Japan: Hunter: Conservative criticism of Hiroshima bombing worse than Obama’s

I guess maybe I'm paleo-conservative in that I don't think bombing civilians is noble.

 

[Tuur]

There was no legitimate military target at Nagasaki Ground Zero. There was a Catholic cathedral there that was the target in this residential area. And as to the firebombing of Dresden, we won't consider that a war crime only because the victors decided who to prosecute for war crimes.

Nagasaki wasn't the primary target that day. Bock's Car first went to Kokura, the target the arsenal there, but found visual targeting wasn't possible due to weather. Nagasaki was the secondary, the target the port and shipbuilding facilities. Low on fuel, they found overcast skies, and tried radar, with a break in the clouds allowing visual targeting. When Bock's Car landed, it didn't have enough fuel to taxi off the runway.

Fat Man fell about 1 and a half miles off target (2.4 km). This was the era of Norton bomb sights and gravity bombs. In generally, US WWII bombers were expected to deliver between 30% to maybe 35% (won't swear to this) within a 1,000 ft (305) radius of the target. Fat Man ended up a little under 550 yards (500m) from Urakami Cathedral during mass.

It's perhaps worth nothing that Vannevar Bush, for years after the war, would wakeup screaming from nightmares about the burning of Tokyo. We don't hear much about the firebombing of Tokyo. Incendiary bombing and intentionally starting firestorms was common in WWII. Up 97,000 died from the firebombing of Tokyo. 25,000 died in Dresden.

From the safe vantage of hindsight, people can may make what arguments they will. There were military targets in both Tokyo and Dresden, and whether where the bombs fell in Dresden was a case of deliberate targeting or "close enough" for a firestorm I can't say. I've heard both claims. Just know that Dresden wasn't the only city that was firebombed in WWII, and Vannevar Bush had nightmares about the burning of Tokyo.

I will admit being biased. My father would have participated in Operation Downfall, as would have others I knew, including three uncles. The surrender of Japan made Operation Downfall unnecessary. As it happened, I knew a man who'd been in Nagasaki with the first Allied troops after surrender, and he described having hair loss and spots on his legs that were later attributed to radiation. Looking it up, that would have been on September 11, 1945. Bock's Car dropped Fat Man on August 9, 1945, so he would have arrived 33 days after the bombing.

Most of the above is probably more than anyone wanted to hear about Nagasaki and Dresden. History is what history is, and no amount of ink can change what was done, one way or the other. Make of Dresden what you will. Just know that Urakami Cathedral wasn't the target that August day in 1945.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

So there are lots of ways of doing that.

There is only one way if you actually want your vote to be more than just a statement.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

So far it's Biden and Trump neck and neck beating out everybody else by a mile.

Can't we please vote FOR a decent candidate and not vote AGAINST a bad candidate by voting for another bad candidate?

I've only voted "for" a candidate twice in my life. 1980 and 2020. Every other time I voted "against" someone. The first time I voted was in 1972.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

There is a lot of WWII misinformation nonsense floating around on a thread about who you are going to vote for for president in 2024.

 

[jas3]

Less targets. Less targets hit. Less blast effect. Less fallout.

These are all technically true, but they don't make us safer. The primary targets of any large-scale nuclear attack are going to be cities. If you leave your house unlocked while you leave for vacation to avoid the destruction of your lock and door frame if a burglar breaks in, you may be giving an attacker fewer targets, but you're not any safer for it.

We had two bomb designs. They wanted to use both to see which one was best. THAT's why we dropped two bombs.

I'm curious, are there any sources from before the end of the war that justify this claim? I've seen it made in memoirs or interviews from after the war, but again, when the threat has been eliminated years ago, the POWs are already home, and Pearl Harbor is a distant memory, it's a lot easier to be cynical of the bombs' use.

There was no legitimate military target at Nagasaki Ground Zero. There was a Catholic cathedral there that was the target in this residential area.

A target being "at ground zero" is a meaningless metric for bombs of the time, which used visual targeting by the bombardier and were unguided once dropped, meaning they could land far away from their intended target even with a skilled crew operating the bomber. The bomb did significant damage to Mitsubishi's munitions and steel plants, so by the standards of the time it was a successful strike.

Fat Man fell about 1 and a half miles off target (2.4 km). This was the era of Norton bomb sights and gravity bombs. In generally, US WWII bombers were expected to deliver between 30% to maybe 35% (won't swear to this) within a 1,000 ft (305) radius of the target. Fat Man ended up a little under 550 yards (500m) from Urakami Cathedral during mass.

This exactly. We take it for granted today that Israel can deliver a warhead from a fighter jet to a particular building in the Iranian embassy complex to take out an Iranian general without leveling the surrounding buildings, but it takes a lot of different technologies working together to make that happen. It shouldn't skew our expectations for what could be done with sight before launch alone.

How many thousand warheads do we need for deterrence?

Probably more than the ASP wants.

Wondering what you think of this: The Bomb and the American Barbarian

See also this one for a history of reaction to the bombing of Japan: Hunter: Conservative criticism of Hiroshima bombing worse than Obama’s

I'll check these out, thanks.

There is a lot of WWII misinformation nonsense floating around on a thread about who you are going to vote for for president in 2024.

All in the name of figuring out what the ASP's deal is

 

[Tuur]

I'm curious, are there any sources from before the end of the war that justify this claim? I've seen it made in memoirs or interviews from after the war, but again, when the threat has been eliminated years ago, the POWs are already home, and Pearl Harbor is a distant memory, it's a lot easier to be cynical of the bombs' use.

It was taken as a given that Little Boy would function as planned. Fat Man was a different type, without going into more details than that (yes, that aspect is declassified and yes, what I know is possibly wrong). The Fat Mani type was the one in the Trinity test, so yes, on August 9, 1945 they knew it would work.

Can only speculate why subsequent devices were planned along the lines of Fat Man instead of Little Boy, and my speculations would be that of someone who knows nothing about it

 

[chevyontheriver]

There is only one way if you actually want your vote to be more than just a statement.

What! Vote for Trump? Sorry. I just have higher standards than that. Not voting for Biden either for multiple political reasons having nothing to do with his dotage. But you can vote however you want.