4 ms·

How is that possible? Even if the US bombed the USSR and prevented a counterstrike the US would have been worse off. You don't get to subtract 100M people out

by GDC7 5y ago

How is that possible? Even if the US bombed the USSR and prevented a counterstrike the US would have been worse off. You don't get to subtract 100M people out of 2.7B , the 2nd country in GDP and expect things to remain as they were before. Also the entire world would have reacted, anticipating that they too were going to be nuked as soon as they did something which would have even remotely alerted paranoid Uncle Sam.

qersist3nce 5y ago
> Also the entire world would have reacted Hard no. No one "reacted" after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were glassed.
- GDC7 5y ago
  In fact they reacted before. With spies inside Project Manhattan. Both the UK and USSR reacted with what they could, meaning their intelligence and espionage. It's kind of a selection bias considering that the only country capable of building the Atomic Bomb was the US.
  - radicalbyte 5y ago
    The UK provided key expertise to the Manhattan Project, so to say that they were "spying" is not fair. The UK bomb project had been going on for longer, and making it a joint US/UK project sped up development.
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      Members of the UK delegation were spies for the Soviets, and other members looked as hard as they could to find advantage for their own country. I certainly do not look askance upon the latter, and would have done the same. I don't think anyone doubts the contributions our British friends made to the success of the project.
nickff 5y ago
>"Even if the US bombed the USSR and prevented a counterstrike the US would have been worse off." Von Neumann may have been advocating for a strike before the Soviets had operational nuclear capabilities. >"You don't get to subtract 100M people out of 2.7B , the 2nd country in GDP and expect things to remain as they were before." It is unlikely that an American nuclear strike would have wiped out the entire population of the Soviet Union; one would expect a targeted strike on critical government and army facilities, or something like what happened against the Japanese. >"Also the entire world would have reacted, anticipating that they too were going to be nuked as soon as they did something which would have even remotely alerted paranoid Uncle Sam. " The rest of the world didn't conquer and subjugate all of Eastern Europe, then steal from them and kidnap people in large numbers.
- WitCanStain 5y ago
  It's interesting to appeal to the plight of Eastern Europeans given that they were also on the list of targets. The Soviets are harming Eastern Europeans, we must nuke the Eastern Europeans!
- GDC7 5y ago
  > It is unlikely that an American nuclear strike would have wiped out the entire population of the Soviet Union; one would expect a targeted strike on critical government and army facilities, or something like what happened against the Japanese. USSR lion share of the population is/was in Moscow and St. Petersburg. A decapitation strike would have killed many in those 2 cities for sure. Add the fires, the confusion, the famine and the fact that you must followup with an invasion because nukes radiations dissipate fast and other countries around would see it as a huge opportunity to expand. It's easy to imagine the countries of the Marshall plan abandon said plan and saying "screw it! We'll get the eastward land instead" 100M is not far fetched. > The rest of the world didn't conquer and subjugate all of Eastern Europe, then steal from them and kidnap people in large numbers. The US is magnanimous . Meaning like some guy who got out of the hood and lets it slide when somebody dents his Ferrari. Had that person missed on a lucky break and still be in the hood, his reaction would be very different and much more violent , and it doesn't even need to be a Ferrari, just a light fender bender on a Civic will cause trouble. The US is magnanimous because of its standards of living , not the other way around.
tashoecraft 5y ago
You have to understand where Von Nuemann came from to see why he wanted to initiate a first strike prior to the USSR developing nuclear weapons. He lost lots of family and friends due to the nazis. He saw his people get slaughtered due to a nation with crazy ideology being technically superior. He never wanted to be put in that situation again and worked on the Manhattan project because he believed in the USA. He viewed the USSR as another threat just like the nazis. For many it seemed like a guarantee that war would happen. Many also claimed that early attack could save lives. I’m not here to claim what he felt was right, but given the environment and conditions he lived through, I don’t pretend that I wouldn’t hold similar views given the circumstances.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  We do not in fact have to entertain the idle thoughts of people advocating a holocaust bigger than hitler's (whom the ussr defeated).
  - corndoge 5y ago
    Who are you replying to? Or are you just choosing to take the most inhospitable interpretation of the parent, rather than the one that makes sense?
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      In what world do we need to consider whether killing 100M people is okay? There is no such world.
      - tashoecraft 5y ago
        That would be if the US bombed every single inch of Russia. There was not that capability for a while. Not saying killing any people is okay, let alone millions or hundred million. But I don't believe the intention of a strategic first strike on the USSR was to kill every person. Knocking out 1/2 cities would have accomplished their goals, resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in their mind saving more millions from the believed inevitable global nuclear WW3. Again, not saying it's justified, you're just viewing this from the future where you can see the outcome.

by GDC7 5y ago

qersist3nce 5y ago

> Also the entire world would have reacted Hard no. No one "reacted" after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were glassed.

GDC7 5y ago
In fact they reacted before. With spies inside Project Manhattan. Both the UK and USSR reacted with what they could, meaning their intelligence and espionage. It's kind of a selection bias considering that the only country capable of building the Atomic Bomb was the US.
- radicalbyte 5y ago
  The UK provided key expertise to the Manhattan Project, so to say that they were "spying" is not fair. The UK bomb project had been going on for longer, and making it a joint US/UK project sped up development.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    Members of the UK delegation were spies for the Soviets, and other members looked as hard as they could to find advantage for their own country. I certainly do not look askance upon the latter, and would have done the same. I don't think anyone doubts the contributions our British friends made to the success of the project.

nickff 5y ago

>"Even if the US bombed the USSR and prevented a counterstrike the US would have been worse off." Von Neumann may have been advocating for a strike before the Soviets had operational nuclear capabilities. >"You don't get to subtract 100M people out of 2.7B , the 2nd country in GDP and expect things to remain as they were before." It is unlikely that an American nuclear strike would have wiped out the entire population of the Soviet Union; one would expect a targeted strike on critical government and army facilities, or something like what happened against the Japanese. >"Also the entire world would have reacted, anticipating that they too were going to be nuked as soon as they did something which would have even remotely alerted paranoid Uncle Sam. " The rest of the world didn't conquer and subjugate all of Eastern Europe, then steal from them and kidnap people in large numbers.

WitCanStain 5y ago
It's interesting to appeal to the plight of Eastern Europeans given that they were also on the list of targets. The Soviets are harming Eastern Europeans, we must nuke the Eastern Europeans!
GDC7 5y ago
> It is unlikely that an American nuclear strike would have wiped out the entire population of the Soviet Union; one would expect a targeted strike on critical government and army facilities, or something like what happened against the Japanese. USSR lion share of the population is/was in Moscow and St. Petersburg. A decapitation strike would have killed many in those 2 cities for sure. Add the fires, the confusion, the famine and the fact that you must followup with an invasion because nukes radiations dissipate fast and other countries around would see it as a huge opportunity to expand. It's easy to imagine the countries of the Marshall plan abandon said plan and saying "screw it! We'll get the eastward land instead" 100M is not far fetched. > The rest of the world didn't conquer and subjugate all of Eastern Europe, then steal from them and kidnap people in large numbers. The US is magnanimous . Meaning like some guy who got out of the hood and lets it slide when somebody dents his Ferrari. Had that person missed on a lucky break and still be in the hood, his reaction would be very different and much more violent , and it doesn't even need to be a Ferrari, just a light fender bender on a Civic will cause trouble. The US is magnanimous because of its standards of living , not the other way around.

tashoecraft 5y ago

You have to understand where Von Nuemann came from to see why he wanted to initiate a first strike prior to the USSR developing nuclear weapons. He lost lots of family and friends due to the nazis. He saw his people get slaughtered due to a nation with crazy ideology being technically superior. He never wanted to be put in that situation again and worked on the Manhattan project because he believed in the USA. He viewed the USSR as another threat just like the nazis. For many it seemed like a guarantee that war would happen. Many also claimed that early attack could save lives. I’m not here to claim what he felt was right, but given the environment and conditions he lived through, I don’t pretend that I wouldn’t hold similar views given the circumstances.

tehjoker 5y ago
We do not in fact have to entertain the idle thoughts of people advocating a holocaust bigger than hitler's (whom the ussr defeated).
- corndoge 5y ago
  Who are you replying to? Or are you just choosing to take the most inhospitable interpretation of the parent, rather than the one that makes sense?
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    In what world do we need to consider whether killing 100M people is okay? There is no such world.
    - tashoecraft 5y ago
      That would be if the US bombed every single inch of Russia. There was not that capability for a while. Not saying killing any people is okay, let alone millions or hundred million. But I don't believe the intention of a strategic first strike on the USSR was to kill every person. Knocking out 1/2 cities would have accomplished their goals, resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in their mind saving more millions from the believed inevitable global nuclear WW3. Again, not saying it's justified, you're just viewing this from the future where you can see the outcome.