The non-renewal of the START Treaty

[Vicus]

The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria led to Japan’s Greatest Defeat

Operation August Storm, the massive 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria, was Japan’s death blow, and brought an end to World War II.


A huge motorized Soviet convoy advances across the Grand Khingan Mountain Range in south central Manchuria.

Even as the Russians were about to battle for Berlin in April 1945, arrangements were made to release some major Red Army combat units for the coming war with Japan in the Far East. Beginning in March 1945, Stalin began transferring forces to the East, including the Karelian Front and the 2nd Ukrainian Front. (A Front was the Soviet equivalent of a U.S. Army Group and generally consisted of three to five armies—more than 100,000 men.)

By August, Soviet strength in the Far East had doubled, from the former 40 divisions to 80 divisions with strong supporting forces. These troops were assembled in rear areas well out of view of the Japanese border guards, and as the time for the attack neared they were quietly moved forward under cover of darkness to their assault positions (much as Nazi Germany did prior to its 1941 sneak attack against the Soviet Union).

ETC,... by August Japan was technical defeated.

For japan surrender there was NO need to nuke 2 city's.

more: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/ar...eatest-defeat/

[JackMcThorn]

Posted by Vicus (here)
The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria led to Japan’s Greatest Defeat

Operation August Storm, the massive 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria, was Japan’s death blow, and brought an end to World War II.


A huge motorized Soviet convoy advances across the Grand Khingan Mountain Range in south central Manchuria.

Even as the Russians were about to battle for Berlin in April 1945, arrangements were made to release some major Red Army combat units for the coming war with Japan in the Far East. Beginning in March 1945, Stalin began transferring forces to the East, including the Karelian Front and the 2nd Ukrainian Front. (A Front was the Soviet equivalent of a U.S. Army Group and generally consisted of three to five armies—more than 100,000 men.)

By August, Soviet strength in the Far East had doubled, from the former 40 divisions to 80 divisions with strong supporting forces. These troops were assembled in rear areas well out of view of the Japanese border guards, and as the time for the attack neared they were quietly moved forward under cover of darkness to their assault positions (much as Nazi Germany did prior to its 1941 sneak attack against the Soviet Union).

ETC,... by August Japan was technical defeated.

For japan surrender there was NO need to nuke 2 city's.

more: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/ar...eatest-defeat/

This operation began some hours before the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and three days after on Hiroshima. It did have some influence on Japan's surrender. But it did not soundly beat Japan before the bombs dropped, so no dice.

[Vicus]

Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks...

[JackMcThorn]

Posted by Vicus (here)
Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks...

There was a race to the bomb and Japan was not going to get away with Pearl Harbor scot-free. So while I don't condone its [the bombs] use, I do think the history is meant to be preserved and remembered by the facts. That's all I'm saying. If the enemy, the axis powers had it first, they most likely would have used it also.

The key fact of WWI and WWII is the u.s. categorically remain isolationist for the first two years of each of these wars. They did not want to be involved until it was absolutely necessary. This america is far different from today's america and many people do not regard the isolationist america in their history recall.

An isolationist america is one in which I would rather be a part of but those days are long gone.

[rgray222]

Posted by Vicus (here)
Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks...

History has already been written for this time period, and most of the important secrets have been revealed. I don’t believe it’s possible to rewrite history (as much as people would like to). During that time, Japanese leaders and military factions disagreed about surrender, but most top officials and military leaders would have kept fighting even without the atomic bombs. History is based on facts. Just because we have strong political opinions today that might fit better if history had been different doesn’t mean it actually was. It simply is what it is.

[sdv]

Posted by JackMcThorn (here)

Posted by Vicus (here)
Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks...

There was a race to the bomb and Japan was not going to get away with Pearl Harbor scot-free. So while I don't condone its [the bombs] use, I do think the history is meant to be preserved and remembered by the facts. That's all I'm saying. If the enemy, the axis powers had it first, they most likely would have used it also.

The key fact of WWI and WWII is the u.s. categorically remain isolationist for the first two years of each of these wars. They did not want to be involved until it was absolutely necessary. This america is far different from today's america and many people do not regard the isolationist america in their history recall.

An isolationist america is one in which I would rather be a part of but those days are long gone.

The isolationist story is not quite true. Go to China and you will find a museum that has all the photographs and stories of how America did help China before Pearl Harbour. It is a remarkable story. Hundreds of ace American pilots resigned from the airforce and then went to China and enlisted as civilians to help the Chinese fight the Japanese. They are remembered and honoured as heroes in China, because that is what they were. So, America was helping the Chinese fight the Japanese before Pearl Harbour, just not officially.

https://youtu.be/HaN_e18AF8w?si=xPN6rENc59G95Itc

[JackMcThorn]

Posted by sdv (here)

Posted by JackMcThorn (here)

Posted by Vicus (here)
Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks...

There was a race to the bomb and Japan was not going to get away with Pearl Harbor scot-free. So while I don't condone its [the bombs] use, I do think the history is meant to be preserved and remembered by the facts. That's all I'm saying. If the enemy, the axis powers had it first, they most likely would have used it also.

The key fact of WWI and WWII is the u.s. categorically remain isolationist for the first two years of each of these wars. They did not want to be involved until it was absolutely necessary. This america is far different from today's america and many people do not regard the isolationist america in their history recall.

An isolationist america is one in which I would rather be a part of but those days are long gone.

The isolationist story is not quite true. Go to China and you will find a museum that has all the photographs and stories of how America did help China before Pearl Harbour. It is a remarkable story. Hundreds of ace American pilots resigned from the airforce and then went to China and enlisted as civilians to help the Chinese fight the Japanese. They are remembered and honoured as heroes in China, because that is what they were. So, America was helping the Chinese fight the Japanese before Pearl Harbour, just not officially.

https://youtu.be/HaN_e18AF8w?si=xPN6rENc59G95Itc

The isolationist story is the american position for both world wars.

99 american pilots and 2oo support crew were hired as mercenaries in china for less than 7 months of combat in 1941 does not constitute an american country's posture.

The devil is in the details. I am not painting with a broad brush here.

[Vicus]

Let me be clear...

First at all, I am not disrespectful with soldiers from all the countries who fought against Nazism and japan Imperialism ,on the contrary ,I'm respectful for them.

Now, you know I'm a "conspiracy theorist" nut,like everybody in this forum, that is the "image" out there from this forum and everybody out there in forums,blogs, homepages,etc . writing/talking outside
mainstream ...meaning: you are an "enemy " for "the system" ,because you aren't "assimilate"

The comic part from "conspiracy theories" is that a few years later they are TRUTH, and now in a few months...thank to internet (the System failure,good for us)

And more that 20 years ago I reed : Pearl Harbor was NO surprise for U.S., they become the tip from Australia about the Japan fleet moves...

What U.S. did? first take away the best ships and... SILENCE...

The Japan attack dint came because they were crazy,but desperate... because the oil embargo from U.S. (sound familiar?)yesterday/today same "politics"

And because it was a good reason to enter into WW2 (for the Banks,whatever dirty theme we today know better...) and that was not the first time, for enter the WW1 was a similar episode...)

WHAT FOR take my time to post this?

Well, if people would take the time to reed my second post from this Thread 1, 2 times , is all about that the "principal" problem now after START is over,isn't Iran or China...
Not even Russia who is the biggest country on the planet with more than enough resources to not think about for a second to invade somebody, for what?

What they need is to be let alone in peace...but we all here know that dint happen ,even before our lifetime...

Well , not one from that "bad" countries want/need to initiate a nuclear war .

The only trigger-happy,like his CV prove is the "good" U.S.

Prove me wrong.

[Ravenlocke]

Zlatti71

Vance and Pashinyan sign an agreement on peaceful nuclear cooperation between the USA and Armenia

https://x.com/Zlatti_71/status/2020888139439419830

[Wilbur2]

The thing is, if the other side doesn't honour their treaty obligations anyway, then there's little point in signing treaties, and doing so can be damaging to the West, since the West is based (or used to be, anyway) on the idea that one is bound by one's treaty obligations. It's very difficult for a country like the UK or USA to renege on treaty obligations that they have ratified in their domestic law, since in doing so they break their own laws. I'm not saying that the Russians have not been keeping their side - I don't know anything about it, frankly.
What I do know is that China signs treaties and has no intention of keeping its side of the bargain. Any future treaty on nuclear weapons would presumably be aimed more at China than at Russia. Russia hardly has the economy to be a nuclear superpower going forward.
When China entered the WTO, it simply ignored its responsibilities. I knew this first hand from day-to-day living in China. A box of Kelloggs cornflakes in the UK was dirt-cheap. In China, in the late noughties and since, the same box of cornflakes would be at least twice the price, usually more. Even if shipped from the West, shipping costs would have been next to nothing, since ships went from China to the West laden with goods, and then went back to China empty. Same with jars of coffee. Same with pretty much anything shipped from the West. I bought a German washing machine in China, because the Chinese ones were poor quality. It was more expensive in China that it would have cost me in the UK, even though it would have been assembled, by a German company, in China, and probably never left the Chinese mainland. Same with cars - they cost multiples of the price of the same car in the UK, and the UK is known to be expensive for cars compared to Europe. I could go on, but you get the idea. Another favourite method was to just tie everything up at customs, so you couldn't actually get anything from the West. I knew a Chinese entrepreneur who made his living from importing; his biggest problem was that goods would get to the Chinese border and then, oops, paperwork lost, or it needs to be inspected, and we can't fit the inspection in this month so it will have to wait until your goods have perished, type of thing. There's plenty of ways of non-complying with a treaty without non-complying with the treaty.
I was involved in negotiating and running contracts between a UK university and various Chinese universities. When the Chinese side wanted something, it would point to the contract and say, "but you agreed to this". But when the UK university did the same, the Chinese university would say, "oh, well, that's not how it works in China. We don't focus on the details of the contract...Chinese culture...blah blah blah".
So when people in the West say that the West should unilaterally divest itself of nuclear weapons, I don't think they know who they are dealing with. It's like Douglas Murray is fond of saying, "It's all very well being a masochist; but what are you going to do when you meet a real sadist?" This dictum applies, mutatis mutandis to keeping up your side of a bargain.
One could go on endlessly, actually, about the masochism of the West. While China builds coal-powered electricity power stations all over the place, the UK Labour government DEMOLISHED UK coal-powered stations, so that they couldn't be recommissioned.
This might all seem like I'm going off topic; but my point is that nuclear treaties, like other treaties, are not worth the paper they are written on if you can't enforce them. Also, I may seem like I am criticising China. I am criticising them, since I expect world leaders, and especially powerful countries, to have an ethics level that exceeds that of a child. When they don't, I criticise them. But criticising China is not my main aim here. My main aim is to say that the West should understand that other countries take advantage of the fact that many Western countries bind themselves domestically when they ratify treaties. They should thus be very wary of signing agreements with other nations that have a history of ignoring their treaty obligations.