This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Per above allowed comments, TDS. See you in 2020. Maybe run Crooked H again, so she (and corrupt Campaign managers) can target Popular Vote in an Electoral College contest. just sayin' and you started this.
Per above allowed comments, TDS. See you in 2020. Maybe run Crooked H again, so she (and corrupt Campaign managers) can target Popular Vote in an Electoral College contest. just sayin' and you started this.
February 1, 2019 at 10:05 AM
Even if Hillary is a bit crooked, it pales in comparison to the national nightmare we have now. This has been the darkest two years in America's history, no one doubts that. Hillary would have been light years beyond this. Of course Sanders would have been best. I am still hopeful that we can get out of this mess. With 2018 elections things are turning around. Like it or not Socialism is Americas future.
Low-yield weapons are a response to a shortcoming identified in the latest Nuclear Posture Review. The Russians have low-yield tactical nukes - they can use them in tight quarters with impunity because we could only respond with high-yield strategic weapons. This shortcoming in our nuclear arsenal could cause Russian first-use of a small tactical weapon to quickly escalate. Having the ability to respond in-kind would likely REDUCE the chance of an escalating nuclear war. That's a good thing.
The article was written by a person who didn't present all sides of the debate. Probably because the author didn't consider all sides.
Response to Bernie post it will be fun to see Bernie in a debate with Trump.
Poor Kamala can hide her faults (low intelligence, no charisma) in a Cal. election but all would come out in a National election without the safety of low information Cal. voters.
One National poll has Trump (the Anti-Globalist) up 19% to 49% with Hispanic voters (he received 29% of Hispanic vote in 2016)and lowest Af. Am. unemployment currently in recorded history.
Also NATO is getting $100B boost more with Trump leadership. Here is Big Lib USA news article on NATO. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/27/nato-chief-credits-trump/2695799002/
It is going to be quite a 2020 election and fun so buckle up.
"The article was written by a person who didn't present all sides of the debate. Probably because the author didn't consider all sides.
February 1, 2019 at 1:40 PM"
In case you have not noticed but there is one side which is good and the United States is not on it. We elected Trump, what kind of nation does that? Hint it is a very very bad one. American has no business having Trump as president and nuclear weapons. We do not have universal health care, we let our young people wallow in debt, we are immoral billionaires and we worship capitalism. A good country does not do these things.
The deterrent value of nukes totally evaporates if no one believes we'll ever use them. That's probably why Trump asked his famous question about using them, why not? (as a rhetorical question), and why he hinted at using nukes against NK if he was forced to. Having low-yield nukes does two things, it does allow us to consider using them in situations where a megaton bomb would be massive overkill with huge collateral damage. And, it makes it more likely the other guys think we might use them, which is the whole point and a foundation of our national security.
Normally I'm as pro US nuclear deterrence as anyone at the lab, but putting a low yield warhead on a USN SLBM seems really dumb. So walk me through how the following hypothetical scenario ends. Russia and NATO forces get into a conventional shooting war in some central Europe non-NATO country on the Russian boarder. The Russians start losing big and fear NATO might push into the Russian motherland, and they fire off a single small low yield nuke to blunt NATO advances or hit a forward NATO command base with it. The US C-in-C responds by having an Ohio Class boat patrolling the north Atlantic fire a Trident with a low yield W76-2... How do you think that Russian command center outside of Moscow is going to react when they pick that thing up on the old early warning radar and its heading towards them, due to arrive in about 10 minutes... just assume its the low yield mod and ride it out... or assume the worst that its a decapitation strike with the 100 kt W76 onboard and start counter firing some big boy SS-18s at the US...
There are 540 billionaires in the US. You tar the entire population of the US, all 325 million, because 1 in every 600,000 is a billionaire? That's twisted. Seriously twisted.
Name a good Socialist country. Just one. Just remember that Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway are not Socialist countries. They all allow private ownership and are all actually controlled by legislatures that have a tiny minority of Socialists. In fact, most are center-right.
Hey February 2, 2019 at 3:19 PM, It must have contained name calling. I think you called someone stupid. Please resubmit your comment without the offensive word.
From the Trident's trajectory they will know that we aimed it at the battlefield, not at Moscow. If we don't have any low-yield weapons, the Russians will know that the Trident launch is going to deliver a high-yield and they'll likely not wait it out.
If we do have low-yield weapons (and the Russians know it) they might wait it out. After all, in your scenario they used a low-yield weapon so they'll certainly have anticipated a response in kind.
Having more choices in how we retaliate is better than fewer choices. Plus, there are other scenarios in which we very well might prefer to use a low yield weapon that can hit anywhere on earth within minutes to one with a thermonuclear yield. Responding with a low-yield strike on Fordow after Iran nukes Israel might be one.
I not saying that we shouldn't have a low yield option or that it's dumb...I'm saying it's Dumb to put it on the exact same platform that can fire a high nuclear yield SLBM. A F-15E with a low yield B61 on it would be a better option.
Also "might" should not be US military nuclear doctrine... miscalculations can have horrible consequences when nuclear weapons are involved.
And in your last scenario there really wouldn't be anything for US nukes to hit in Iran after Israels nuclear counter strike. They don't need our help with that response. But if the US did want to help them out or offer a non-nuke alternative... we could easily devastate Iran and cripple its ability to exist as a country but conventional HE ordinance attacks leveling every single power plant, dam, water treatment plant, telecom, leadership building, port, airport, railhead, bridge and other critical infrastructure site in the country... leaving the civilian population to slowly die in the dark of starvation, disease... same outcome if you'd hit them with a nuclear strike but no politically un-correct radiation.
Also for some speculative fiction on exactly how the US military might respond to a small country's surprise nuclear strike on the US (main land, Hawaii, and Guam) I'd recommend Dr Jeffery Lewis' book "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States" ... hint, its non-nuclear, all conventional with special forces and over as fast as the US lead invasion of Iraq...
5:43 has just argued that we don't need nuclear weapons because we can completely destroy even a fledgling nuclear nation with our conventional weaponry. Right. Like that worked for us in Vietnam. He doesn't remember that we needed a coalition of dozens of countries and a ground invasion to defeat Iraq. A war we won but at the cost of thousands of coalition deaths and casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars, and years of upheaval. If Ira were to nuke Israel, they deserve to suffer the consequences, including the radiation.
5:43 has just argued that we don't need nuclear weapons because we can completely destroy even a fledgling nuclear nation with our conventional weaponry. Right. Like that worked for us in Vietnam. He doesn't remember that we needed a coalition of dozens of countries and a ground invasion to defeat Iraq. A war we won but at the cost of thousands of coalition deaths and casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars, and years of upheaval. If Ira were to nuke Israel, they deserve to suffer the consequences, including the radiation.
February 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM
You just made a good argument that we do not need nukes. We lost Vietnam because it was unjust war that we should have never been in. Nuking Saigon would not have helped win that war. We beat Iraq without nukes, sure we lost 3k people but compare that to Vietnam where we lost 50k. The fact is the only thing we need nukes for are small tiny countries and we could beat these no problem with conventional weapons. There are no major powers in the world with large arsenals that are a threat or ever will be a threat. Having ours just encourages more small countries to try and build their own. Right now the biggest threat to the United States and democracy is Trump.
You are being disingenuous. Of course, the US could win almost any war in short order, if all our forces were brought to bear immediately, as in WWII D-Day. The wars you mention were political, not military in nature. Go in to win, or prepare to lose. Somehow politicians can't get that.
That said, there is no guarantee that the US cannot lose, I mean really lose, as in subsequent occupation by a conquering force, any war it undertakes, if it is undertaken stupidly enough.
11:24 AM Russia, China, Pakistan, and North Korea all have large nuclear arsenals. Each one could potentially become an adversary. Arsenals large enough to oblitherate dozens to over a thousand American cities. Our nukes assure if they were to attack that they would be destroyed.
Of course nuking Saigon would not have helped. Saigon is in South Vietnam. South Vietnam was on our side.
This is where I would use some blunt language to comment on your intelligence or lack thereof. Unfortunately, Julian won't let me.
NOT being disingenuous. Your comment is patently false. The US cannot win "almost any war in short order." First, WWII D-Day took 6 months from planning to attack, but the build up of forces in Great Britain actually took years.
Here's a little history lesson for you. We went into Afghanistan to win. Remember Rumsfeld's "Shock and Awe"? Mother Of All Bombs and all that? Remember? The US invaded Afghanistan supported by the UK, Canada, and Australia in October, 2001. We fought the Taliban for FIVE YEARS with these same allies until 2006 when NATO forces joined the fight - a coalition of almost 60 countries in total. Despite this coalition, the additional troops, and the additional air and ground power, we still couldn't win the war.
A 2006 analysis by General McChrystal concluded that a successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would require 500,000 troops and 5 years. Five *MORE* years fighting with *HALF* of our deployable military (not all military personnel can be deployed as some have to stay home to man the bases and handle logistics).
FIVE MORE YEARS with half our military to defeat Afghanistan, the 39th largest country by population, and the 96th largest economy.
In late 2009 Obama made the decision to send in 30,000 more US troops for a peak of 100,000 troops in 2011. The number of US war deaths started to decline in 2012, 11 years after the war started but fighting continued until 2014.
Thirteen years, 60 countries, 2300 US military personnel killed, 1000 other coalition members killed. The US spent $1.07 TRILLION on the war. I have no idea how much the other ~60 countries spent. Afghanistan.
8:05 pm has no real idea of the current status of US military readiness vs currently deployed forces in "war zones." The fact of outrageous expenditures in Afghanistan is purely a political failure, not a military one. "60 countries" means nothing if less than 10% of the military capability of each country is used (not simply troop numbers). Military strategy counts and has never been used in Afghanistan, or anywhere else since WWII by the US. Political strategy has been used and is not capable of winning wars.
So what you are saying is that we should nuked Afghanistan?
2/06/2019 11:49 AM
Exactly, if we had used various weapons of mass destruction the death toll on the US would have less than 100, maybe a few billion spent. Perhaps something similar could have been done in Iraq. It is odd that people do not seem to understand that the use of nukes would have saved money and lives in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars would have been over in weeks and not years. They certainly would have cost less US lives.
So the effects of immediate radiation, fallout, and subsequent disease and death among the innocent civilian population causes you no concern as a human being? It is odd that you do not seem to understand this.
"Military strategy counts and has never been used in Afghanistan, or anywhere else since WWII by the US."
2/06/2019 5:06 PM
Wrong, MacArthur used brilliant military strategy to get the upper hand in Korea. But then, Truman fired him and we lost, and wars have mostly been run by draft-dodging pols ever since. So, you are right on that count.
The decision to cut off enemy supply lines by the Inchon invasion was every bit as strategic as the decision to bomb Schweinfurt to cut off enemy supply of ball bearings.
"The decision to cut off enemy supply lines by the Inchon invasion was every bit as strategic as the decision to bomb Schweinfurt to cut off enemy supply of ball bearings."
And the strategy to invade the Philippines by the US in WWII was of no value it cost needless lives, and did nothing to end the war. MacArthur was a horrible general who only cared about self-glory rather than winning. That is way he was thrown out. This nut would have started a war with China. He was always very bitter about his role of WWII which was worthless in terms of defeating Japan. Japan was defeated by the naval actions and by the correct island hopping to Iwa Jima. Going through New Guina and Philippines where a total waste of time wasted resources that played no valuable role the Pacific front and everyone knew it including MacArthur. If MacArthur had just retaken Seoul the war would have been over, but he wanted to have one real victory that mattered in his career so he pushed on got China involved and rather than backing down wanted to nuke them which would have lead who knows what. Why was MacArthur was not fired after he lost the Philippines the first time is beyond me.
35 comments:
Well it is been 90 days since TRIAD took over. Have they now admitted that LANL is full of cowboys and needs to clean house?
Of course Trump only wants war.
If you got rid of borders than we would never need nuclear weapons. No funding for the wall, people should come and go was they please.
Per above allowed comments, TDS. See you in 2020.
Maybe run Crooked H again, so she (and corrupt Campaign managers) can target Popular Vote in an Electoral College contest. just sayin' and you started this.
Per above allowed comments, TDS. See you in 2020.
Maybe run Crooked H again, so she (and corrupt Campaign managers) can target Popular Vote in an Electoral College contest. just sayin' and you started this.
February 1, 2019 at 10:05 AM
Even if Hillary is a bit crooked, it pales in comparison to the national nightmare we have now. This has been the darkest two years in America's history, no one doubts that. Hillary would have been light years beyond this. Of course Sanders would have been best. I am still hopeful that we can get out of this mess. With 2018 elections things are turning around. Like it or not Socialism is Americas future.
Low-yield weapons are a response to a shortcoming identified in the latest Nuclear Posture Review. The Russians have low-yield tactical nukes - they can use them in tight quarters with impunity because we could only respond with high-yield strategic weapons. This shortcoming in our nuclear arsenal could cause Russian first-use of a small tactical weapon to quickly escalate. Having the ability to respond in-kind would likely REDUCE the chance of an escalating nuclear war. That's a good thing.
The article was written by a person who didn't present all sides of the debate. Probably because the author didn't consider all sides.
Response to Bernie post it will be fun to see Bernie in a debate with Trump.
Poor Kamala can hide her faults (low intelligence, no charisma) in a Cal. election but all would come out in a National election without the safety of low information Cal. voters.
One National poll has Trump (the Anti-Globalist) up 19% to 49% with Hispanic voters (he received 29% of Hispanic vote in 2016)and lowest Af. Am. unemployment currently in recorded history.
Also NATO is getting $100B boost more with Trump leadership.
Here is Big Lib USA news article on NATO.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/27/nato-chief-credits-trump/2695799002/
It is going to be quite a 2020 election and fun so buckle up.
Maybe someone who knows all the yield variations of all the US warheads would disagree, if he could do so publicly.
"The article was written by a person who didn't present all sides of the debate. Probably because the author didn't consider all sides.
February 1, 2019 at 1:40 PM"
In case you have not noticed but there is one side which is good and the United States is not on it. We elected Trump, what kind of nation does that? Hint it is a very very bad one. American has no business having Trump as president and nuclear weapons. We do not have universal health care, we let our young people wallow in debt, we are immoral billionaires and we worship capitalism. A good country does not do these things.
The deterrent value of nukes totally evaporates if no one believes we'll ever use them. That's probably why Trump asked his famous question about using them, why not? (as a rhetorical question), and why he hinted at using nukes against NK if he was forced to. Having low-yield nukes does two things, it does allow us to consider using them in situations where a megaton bomb would be massive overkill with huge collateral damage. And, it makes it more likely the other guys think we might use them, which is the whole point and a foundation of our national security.
Normally I'm as pro US nuclear deterrence as anyone at the lab, but putting a low yield warhead on a USN SLBM seems really dumb. So walk me through how the following hypothetical scenario ends. Russia and NATO forces get into a conventional shooting war in some central Europe non-NATO country on the Russian boarder. The Russians start losing big and fear NATO might push into the Russian motherland, and they fire off a single small low yield nuke to blunt NATO advances or hit a forward NATO command base with it. The US C-in-C responds by having an Ohio Class boat patrolling the north Atlantic fire a Trident with a low yield W76-2... How do you think that Russian command center outside of Moscow is going to react when they pick that thing up on the old early warning radar and its heading towards them, due to arrive in about 10 minutes... just assume its the low yield mod and ride it out... or assume the worst that its a decapitation strike with the 100 kt W76 onboard and start counter firing some big boy SS-18s at the US...
Julian,
Why did you censure my post on how Bernie's capital gains tax would kill startup investment? You claim to be fair and unbiased but you're clearly not.
8:01 PM
There are 540 billionaires in the US. You tar the entire population of the US, all 325 million, because 1 in every 600,000 is a billionaire? That's twisted. Seriously twisted.
Name a good Socialist country. Just one. Just remember that Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway are not Socialist countries. They all allow private ownership and are all actually controlled by legislatures that have a tiny minority of Socialists. In fact, most are center-right.
Hey February 2, 2019 at 3:19 PM,
It must have contained name calling.
I think you called someone stupid.
Please resubmit your comment without the offensive word.
It was also seriously off-topic.
2:47 PM,
From the Trident's trajectory they will know that we aimed it at the battlefield, not at Moscow. If we don't have any low-yield weapons, the Russians will know that the Trident launch is going to deliver a high-yield and they'll likely not wait it out.
If we do have low-yield weapons (and the Russians know it) they might wait it out. After all, in your scenario they used a low-yield weapon so they'll certainly have anticipated a response in kind.
Having more choices in how we retaliate is better than fewer choices. Plus, there are other scenarios in which we very well might prefer to use a low yield weapon that can hit anywhere on earth within minutes to one with a thermonuclear yield. Responding with a low-yield strike on Fordow after Iran nukes Israel might be one.
5:06 PM
Just responding to Mr. Off Topic, 12:04 PM. I'm guessing you're the same guy.
February 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM
I not saying that we shouldn't have a low yield option or that it's dumb...I'm saying it's Dumb to put it on the exact same platform that can fire a high nuclear yield SLBM. A F-15E with a low yield B61 on it would be a better option.
Also "might" should not be US military nuclear doctrine... miscalculations can have horrible consequences when nuclear weapons are involved.
And in your last scenario there really wouldn't be anything for US nukes to hit in Iran after Israels nuclear counter strike. They don't need our help with that response. But if the US did want to help them out or offer a non-nuke alternative... we could easily devastate Iran and cripple its ability to exist as a country but conventional HE ordinance attacks leveling every single power plant, dam, water treatment plant, telecom, leadership building, port, airport, railhead, bridge and other critical infrastructure site in the country... leaving the civilian population to slowly die in the dark of starvation, disease... same outcome if you'd hit them with a nuclear strike but no politically un-correct radiation.
Also for some speculative fiction on exactly how the US military might respond to a small country's surprise nuclear strike on the US (main land, Hawaii, and Guam) I'd recommend Dr Jeffery Lewis' book "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States" ... hint, its non-nuclear, all conventional with special forces and over as fast as the US lead invasion of Iraq...
5:43 has just argued that we don't need nuclear weapons because we can completely destroy even a fledgling nuclear nation with our conventional weaponry. Right. Like that worked for us in Vietnam. He doesn't remember that we needed a coalition of dozens of countries and a ground invasion to defeat Iraq. A war we won but at the cost of thousands of coalition deaths and casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars, and years of upheaval. If Ira were to nuke Israel, they deserve to suffer the consequences, including the radiation.
5:43 has just argued that we don't need nuclear weapons because we can completely destroy even a fledgling nuclear nation with our conventional weaponry. Right. Like that worked for us in Vietnam. He doesn't remember that we needed a coalition of dozens of countries and a ground invasion to defeat Iraq. A war we won but at the cost of thousands of coalition deaths and casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars, and years of upheaval. If Ira were to nuke Israel, they deserve to suffer the consequences, including the radiation.
February 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM
You just made a good argument that we do not need nukes. We lost Vietnam because it was unjust war that we should have never been in. Nuking Saigon would not have helped win that war. We beat Iraq without nukes, sure we lost 3k people but compare that to Vietnam where we lost 50k. The fact is the only thing we need nukes for are small tiny countries and we could beat these no problem with conventional weapons. There are no major powers in the world with large arsenals that are a threat or ever will be a threat. Having ours just encourages more small countries to try and build their own. Right now the biggest threat to the United States and democracy is Trump.
February 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM
You are being disingenuous. Of course, the US could win almost any war in short order, if all our forces were brought to bear immediately, as in WWII D-Day. The wars you mention were political, not military in nature. Go in to win, or prepare to lose. Somehow politicians can't get that.
That said, there is no guarantee that the US cannot lose, I mean really lose, as in subsequent occupation by a conquering force, any war it undertakes, if it is undertaken stupidly enough.
11:24 AM Russia, China, Pakistan, and North Korea all have large nuclear arsenals. Each one could potentially become an adversary. Arsenals large enough to oblitherate dozens to over a thousand American cities. Our nukes assure if they were to attack that they would be destroyed.
Of course nuking Saigon would not have helped. Saigon is in South Vietnam. South Vietnam was on our side.
This is where I would use some blunt language to comment on your intelligence or lack thereof. Unfortunately, Julian won't let me.
NOT being disingenuous. Your comment is patently false. The US cannot win "almost any war in short order." First, WWII D-Day took 6 months from planning to attack, but the build up of forces in Great Britain actually took years.
Here's a little history lesson for you. We went into Afghanistan to win. Remember Rumsfeld's "Shock and Awe"? Mother Of All Bombs and all that? Remember? The US invaded Afghanistan supported by the UK, Canada, and Australia in October, 2001. We fought the Taliban for FIVE YEARS with these same allies until 2006 when NATO forces joined the fight - a coalition of almost 60 countries in total. Despite this coalition, the additional troops, and the additional air and ground power, we still couldn't win the war.
A 2006 analysis by General McChrystal concluded that a successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would require 500,000 troops and 5 years. Five *MORE* years fighting with *HALF* of our deployable military (not all military personnel can be deployed as some have to stay home to man the bases and handle logistics).
FIVE MORE YEARS with half our military to defeat Afghanistan, the 39th largest country by population, and the 96th largest economy.
In late 2009 Obama made the decision to send in 30,000 more US troops for a peak of 100,000 troops in 2011. The number of US war deaths started to decline in 2012, 11 years after the war started but fighting continued until 2014.
Thirteen years, 60 countries, 2300 US military personnel killed, 1000 other coalition members killed. The US spent $1.07 TRILLION on the war. I have no idea how much the other ~60 countries spent. Afghanistan.
2/05/2019 8:05 PM
So what you are saying is that we should nuked Afghanistan?
I would never say "we should nuked Afghanistan." I speak much better English than that.
8:05 pm has no real idea of the current status of US military readiness vs currently deployed forces in "war zones." The fact of outrageous expenditures in Afghanistan is purely a political failure, not a military one. "60 countries" means nothing if less than 10% of the military capability of each country is used (not simply troop numbers). Military strategy counts and has never been used in Afghanistan, or anywhere else since WWII by the US. Political strategy has been used and is not capable of winning wars.
So what you are saying is that we should nuked Afghanistan?
2/06/2019 11:49 AM
Exactly, if we had used various weapons of mass destruction the death toll on the US would have less than 100, maybe a few billion spent. Perhaps something similar could have been done in Iraq. It is odd that people do not seem to understand that the use of nukes would have saved money and lives in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars would have been over in weeks and not years. They certainly would have cost less US lives.
2/06/2019 7:04 PM
So the effects of immediate radiation, fallout, and subsequent disease and death among the innocent civilian population causes you no concern as a human being? It is odd that you do not seem to understand this.
"Military strategy counts and has never been used in Afghanistan, or anywhere else since WWII by the US."
2/06/2019 5:06 PM
Wrong, MacArthur used brilliant military strategy to get the upper hand in Korea. But then, Truman fired him and we lost, and wars have mostly been run by draft-dodging pols ever since. So, you are right on that count.
MacArthur was not is a position to use strategy. He used theater tactics.
The decision to cut off enemy supply lines by the Inchon invasion was every bit as strategic as the decision to bomb Schweinfurt to cut off enemy supply of ball bearings.
Those were good tactics to employ at the time. Strategy is not usually tied to a specific action at a specific time, but guides those actions.
"The decision to cut off enemy supply lines by the Inchon invasion was every bit as strategic as the decision to bomb Schweinfurt to cut off enemy supply of ball bearings."
And the strategy to invade the Philippines by the US in WWII was of no value it cost needless lives, and did nothing to end the war. MacArthur was a horrible general who only cared about self-glory rather than winning. That is way he was thrown out. This nut would have started a war with China. He was always very bitter about his role of WWII which was worthless in terms of defeating Japan. Japan was defeated by the naval actions and by the correct island hopping to Iwa Jima. Going through New Guina and Philippines where a total waste of time wasted resources that played no valuable role the Pacific front and everyone knew it including MacArthur. If MacArthur had just retaken Seoul the war would have been over, but he wanted to have one real victory that mattered in his career so he pushed on got China involved and rather than backing down wanted to nuke them which would have lead who knows what. Why was MacArthur was not fired after he lost the Philippines the first time is beyond me.
"Why was MacArthur was not fired after he lost the Philippines the first time is beyond me."
2/18/2019 5:31 AM
That is why you are you and he was he.
Right. The idea that "retaking Seoul" (???) would have ended the war is just nuts.
Post a Comment