Plan B Forum

Wimbledon’s decision to bar Russian and Belarusian athletes sets a bad precedent.

From the Guardian. I'm really not sure about this. Understandably, Ukrainian athletes are in favor and I think none of us wants to see two tennis players facing off, Russian vs Ukrainian. OTOH I'm pretty sure that in Putin's Russia, the friends and relatives of any tennis player bold enough to condemn the invasion will have short half-lives. It's different with team sports like World Cup or Olympics - although I can see that's illogical - because they often are reflective of national glory.

And I don't see Putin's invasion of Ukraine being all that different from the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in many respects. Yes I can say that and not worry that the feds will come knocking at my door, but 100,000 or more dead Iraqis might agree with me.

"And I don't see Putin's invasion of Ukraine being all that different from the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in many respects. Yes I can say that and not worry that the feds will come knocking at my door, but 100,000 or more dead Iraqis might agree with me."

Perhaps I am ill-informed or forgetful of USofA sentiments expressed during Desert Storm or Desert Freedom, but I don't think the USA view was that any part of Iraq should be totally integrated into USofA Sovereignty or the USofA should maintain control of any part of Iraq indefinitely , like Russia and Crimea. All-in-all, I thinks the USofA has a remarkable history of expanding its sovereignty without war with the giant exception of the genocide effort to destroy the occupiers of North America before the English arrived, and the wars with Mexico and Spain.

snailgate

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:28 pm

All-in-all, I thinks the USofA has a remarkable history of expanding its sovereignty without war with the giant exception of the genocide effort to destroy the occupiers of North America before the English arrived, and the wars with Mexico and Spain.

Also the (failed) invasion of Canada during the dust-up of 1812-14.

Desert Storm and Shield were the 1991 operations to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait. You probably mean Enduring Freedom which was the blanket term for the war on terrorism.

US and allies - including UK - invaded Iraq on specious grounds in 2003. There were no WMD and anyone who had paid any attention to the news of the last decade or so knew that Saddam's hints that he had WMD were just posturing for local consumption. I'm not trying to say that Saddam was a good guy - far from it - but I'm not sure he would have made my top ten list of dictators at the time. We know that GWB cherry picked the intelligence that supported his view and disregard the great bulk of both US and foreign intelligence which said that the risk was minimal and, more important, Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

All-in-all, I thinks the USofA has a remarkable history of expanding its sovereignty without war with the giant exception of the genocide effort to destroy the occupiers of North America before the English arrived, and the wars with Mexico and Spain.

Does Vietnam ring any bells? Grenada?

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:50 pm

All-in-all, I thinks the USofA has a remarkable history of expanding its sovereignty without war

Does Vietnam ring any bells? Grenada?

His point stands. They did not make war against the gov't of South Vietnam (although objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear) and two months in 1983 hardly count as "expansion of sovereignty" when you factor in that the US buggered off right smart.

The USA did not "keep" either place as a sovereign dependency, nor did it so attempt. Influence, install favorable leaders (no matter how scummy) yes - "sovereignty" no. Not even in the sense that those aforesaid scummy chaps (and chapettes) acknowledged the suzerainty of the USofA

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:50 pm

US and allies - including UK - invaded Iraq on specious grounds in 2003. There were no WMD and anyone who had paid any attention to the news of the last decade or so knew that Saddam's hints that he had WMD were just posturing for local consumption.

So you're saying that there weren't, and he was just bluffing?  Then why was he so adamant about preventing the UN or other third parties from gaining access to verify that there were none?  Just because we couldn't / didn't find any during the coalition's blitzkrieg doesn't mean that he didn't have them — or as is more likely the case, had them, used them on the Kurds and other internal groups (I seem to recall reports at the time of gas and chemical weapons deployed against the populace), and hadn't yet been able to restock them.

And that's not as far-fetched as it might appear.  Remember WWII?  The USA deployed two atomic bombs (definitely weapons of mass destruction) against Japan... but having dropped those two devices, just how many more did the military have stockpiled, ready to go?  Would they have been able, if Japan hadn't capitulated, to drop, say, one a day, or even one a week until they did?  I don't think so.  We had the technology; but we didn't have the on-hand capacity (or if we did, I've never seen it confirmed).

Prove me wrong.

-"BB"-

I recall the third bomb in 1945 was ready around 1 October.

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:19 pm

So you're saying that there weren't, and he was just bluffing?  Then why was he so adamant about preventing the UN or other third parties from gaining access to verify that there were none?

Maybe because a thorough inspection would have found nothing and revealed that he was just bluffing? 

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:32 pm

I recall the third bomb in 1945 was ready around 1 October.

That was almost two months after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th — which means any bombing missions during those seven weeks would have flown utilizing either incendiary bombs, explosive general purpose bombs, or a mixture of both.

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis.

-"BB"-

Scooter wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 23, 2022 11:45 pm

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:19 pm

So you're saying that there weren't, and he was just bluffing?  Then why was he so adamant about preventing the UN or other third parties from gaining access to verify that there were none?

Maybe because a thorough inspection would have found nothing and revealed that he was just bluffing? 

How can you bluff both sides of a statement?  The US-backed coalition was the one that claimed Hussein had WMDs, based on evidence of prior usage of such weapons against internal enemies such as the Kurds, and Hussein repeatedly denied those claims.  That's not a bluff; a bluff is something like, "Maybe I do, and maybe I don't.  How bad do you want to know, and what's it worth to you to find out?"  Or don't you play poker?

That's what made his unwillingness to submit to independent third-party verification so suspect.  If he truly didn't have any, he could have thrown the whole damned country open to them, saying something along the lines of "Here you go; and please turn the lights off when you leave", then retire to one of his palaces and sleep the sleep of a guiltless man.

-"BB"-

The interesting thing about the chemical weapons used at Halabja was that the first US conclusion was that the Iranians did it. US Army War College report c 1990 author's name something like Pelletier and I can't find it on Google. Of course back then it was in the US interest to blame Iran and not Saddam; at some later point they did some more investigation or re-reviewed the original evidence and concluded that it was Saddam that did it. By then of course Saddam was bogeyman of the month. I don't know - I know more than most about chemical weapons (but not nearly as much as many) and one day I'll tell you the story of Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, Morton Thiokol and the Challenger explosion - and I was pretty convinced by the War College Report. Saddam wanted his local enemies, especially the Iranians, to think that he had the means to blow them out of existence. He probably knew that he couldn't fool the Israelis but they were not going to let on.

And his unwillingness to submit to inspections was all part of the act.

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 24, 2022 12:37 am

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:32 pm

I recall the third bomb in 1945 was ready around 1 October.

That was almost two months after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th — which means any bombing missions during those seven weeks would have flown utilizing either incendiary bombs, explosive general purpose bombs, or a mixture of both.

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis.

-"BB"-

Nope, we were both wrong: the fourth bomb was ready on August 19. Even figuring transit time from from Los Alamos to Tinian, it could probably have been used by the 22nd.

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 24, 2022 11:38 pm

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 24, 2022 12:37 am

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:32 pm

I recall the third bomb in 1945 was ready around 1 October.

That was almost two months after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th — which means any bombing missions during those seven weeks would have flown utilizing either incendiary bombs, explosive general purpose bombs, or a mixture of both.

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis.

Nope, we were both wrong: the fourth bomb was ready on August 19. Even figuring transit time from from Los Alamos to Tinian, it could probably have been used by the 22nd.

Three days to get an atomic bomb from New Mexico to Tinian Island?

They didn't have FedEx in those days, and you just don't just hang a bomb under the wing of an airplane and island-hop from the West Coast to an island in the middle of the Philippine Sea.  Considering the first two bombs were delivered as parts by naval warship — the ill-fated cruiser USS Indianapolis — after being transported by train from Los Alamos, and then assembled and armed on the island, I presume any additional devices (if needed) would have been transported in the same manner.  I therefore believe that the first date you gave, in early October, is probably closer to correct as to the date that bomb #3 would have been on Tinian, assembled, prepped, and ready to be loaded onto another B-29.

-"BB"-

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 25, 2022 12:16 am

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 24, 2022 11:38 pm

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 24, 2022 12:37 am

That was almost two months after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th — which means any bombing missions during those seven weeks would have flown utilizing either incendiary bombs, explosive general purpose bombs, or a mixture of both.

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis.

Nope, we were both wrong: the fourth bomb was ready on August 19. Even figuring transit time from from Los Alamos to Tinian, it could probably have been used by the 22nd.

Three days to get an atomic bomb from New Mexico to Tinian Island?

They didn't have FedEx in those days, and you just don't just hang a bomb under the wing of an airplane and island-hop from the West Coast to an island in the middle of the Philippine Sea.  Considering the first two bombs were delivered as parts by naval warship — the ill-fated cruiser USS Indianapolis — after being transported by train from Los Alamos, and then assembled and armed on the island, I presume any additional devices (if needed) would have been transported in the same manner.  I therefore believe that the first date you gave, in early October, is probably closer to correct as to the date that bomb #3 would have been on Tinian, assembled, prepped, and ready to be loaded onto another B-29.

-"BB"-

The large parts for the first two bombs had been sent by ship, but absolutely could be carried on a cargo plane. (A C-54 Skymaster could carry it.) The core could be (and was) sent by air-a C-54, PBY, PBM, or a modified B-24/PB4Y could carry it.

Just watched the very inspiring CNN documentary film on Alexei Navalny called Navalny - it’s very well worth watching so program the DVR to record the rerun of it if you can. Provides a great context for why Putin was so compelled to start a larger war in Ukraine just now.


https://youtu.be/6HS4RF4mIYQ

Looks like Putin and the UN are close to an agreement . . .

There's a piece in today's Guardian:

Ukraine can’t win this war – we must consider Putin’s terms for making peace

The author makes the point that there is no way Putin will ever walk away and that the longer it goes on the more Ukrainians will be killed and the fewer will ever return to shattered homes, farms and lives. We are not willing to risk WW3 with all that that entails so what are the choices? It pains me to say it and I want nothing more than to see Putin in an orange jump suit, if possible in the next cell to his old buddy TFG, but I think he's probably right.

He does not make this point, but there seems to be more and more evidence that Putin is not well. If there is one thing worse than a Dr No style megalomaniac with nukes, it's a sick megalomaniac with nukes.

It does make sense. A halt to the fighting with the promise of actual negotiation, rather than outright "no we won't accept anything at all other than y'all go back home and stop being naughty"

Hey, why not offer Russia a role in NATO - let 'em join. Guarantee their borders for a change. Or something. Somehow, Putin needs to "win" - but it doesn't have to be all of Ukraine.

It's either that or WW3 - the thing in-between is not working and cannot work. Of course, if this is just Putin's "Sudetenland" or Anschluss then we might as well get stuck in and get it over with before he invades Poland