[Treefence]

All,

If anyone is looking for resources to stay connected and up to date on everything, I'm going to link some sites.  

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/at...pment.html
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop

This site lists all the equipment for both sides confirmed to be destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured.  They use physical evidence like videos or pictures.  The losses are going to be underestimated due to the required evidence to verify everything.  

Hopefully this post isn't considered inappropriate or out of line, I can remove if needed, but figured I'd share for anything as curious as I am.  

https://liveuamap.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Liveuamap

This site has, as you might guess, a live map of action in Ukraine, including highlighted spots with associated stories.  

There are tons of Twitter accounts I'd recommend following, a bunch of accounts that are related to OSINT, I'll just link this one: https://twitter.com/OSINTEng

And lastly, Walter: https://twitter.com/walterlekh

He hosts a regular joint space on Twitter you can listen in to, and even ask questions.  There are various people in the space from different parts of Ukraine that can give first hand reports.  

Most of the sources, for obvious reasons, that I follow are pro Ukraine, so sometimes the information can be biased.

[Treefence]

All,

If anyone is looking for resources to stay connected and up to date on everything, I'm going to link some sites.  

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/at...pment.html
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop

This site lists all the equipment for both sides confirmed to be destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured.  They use physical evidence like videos or pictures.  The losses are going to be underestimated due to the required evidence to verify everything.  

Hopefully this post isn't considered inappropriate or out of line, I can remove if needed, but figured I'd share for anything as curious as I am.  

https://liveuamap.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Liveuamap

This site has, as you might guess, a live map of action in Ukraine, including highlighted spots with associated stories.  

There are tons of Twitter accounts I'd recommend following, a bunch of accounts that are related to OSINT, I'll just link this one: https://twitter.com/OSINTEng

And lastly, Walter: https://twitter.com/walterlekh

He hosts a regular joint space on Twitter you can listen in to, and even ask questions.  There are various people in the space from different parts of Ukraine that can give first hand reports.  

Most of the sources, for obvious reasons, that I follow are pro Ukraine, so sometimes the information can be biased.

[OutsiderFan]

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...

- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.

If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response. 

Stripping it all away, and looking at things at the highest level, there is no reason for Russia to fear NATO because:
- NATO is a defensive alliance and not a threat to attack any country (Serbia mission was a UN initiative that asked NATO to support)
- NATO respects rights of any country's sovereignty and believes it should be self-determined to have whatever allies it wants

The only reason for Russia to take issue with NATO is because NATO creates too high of a cost for Russia to take what it wants by force. That. Is. It. So Russia balking at NATO effectively is saying it wants to take what it wants, therefore demonstrating the precise purpose of NATO in first place. Russia had its chances to negotiate peace agreements, but said no, giving countries no choice but to join NATO to be protected from and contain Russia. Now, that is the world Russia must accept, or get on with the nuclear holocaust.

So, given this, from a strategic standpoint, if you are Russia, you have four choices:
- GTFO of Ukraine completely, watch Ukraine become a NATO member and re-think Russia's ambitions/place in the world/government philosophy
- Get NATO into a conventional war you can't possibly win because your economy and citizens can't support it
- Try recruiting China and/or India to fight against NATO, and then go to war with NATO if you get them to join you 
- Take the whole world down with you by starting a nuclear war

NATO has already made its choices:
- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes
- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 
- Expand its membership
- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia

Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

[OutsiderFan]

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...

- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.

If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response. 

Stripping it all away, and looking at things at the highest level, there is no reason for Russia to fear NATO because:
- NATO is a defensive alliance and not a threat to attack any country (Serbia mission was a UN initiative that asked NATO to support)
- NATO respects rights of any country's sovereignty and believes it should be self-determined to have whatever allies it wants

The only reason for Russia to take issue with NATO is because NATO creates too high of a cost for Russia to take what it wants by force. That. Is. It. So Russia balking at NATO effectively is saying it wants to take what it wants, therefore demonstrating the precise purpose of NATO in first place. Russia had its chances to negotiate peace agreements, but said no, giving countries no choice but to join NATO to be protected from and contain Russia. Now, that is the world Russia must accept, or get on with the nuclear holocaust.

So, given this, from a strategic standpoint, if you are Russia, you have four choices:
- GTFO of Ukraine completely, watch Ukraine become a NATO member and re-think Russia's ambitions/place in the world/government philosophy
- Get NATO into a conventional war you can't possibly win because your economy and citizens can't support it
- Try recruiting China and/or India to fight against NATO, and then go to war with NATO if you get them to join you 
- Take the whole world down with you by starting a nuclear war

NATO has already made its choices:
- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes
- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 
- Expand its membership
- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia

Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

[Goose]

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...



- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.



If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response.

Agree.
<snip>

NATO has already made its choices:

- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes

- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 

- Expand its membership

- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia



Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

Basically agree, but it is more nuanced in terms of NATO's choices. Supplying resources to Ukraine has parameters. What resources are "acceptable" and what ones are not? This undoubtedly is modulated by the situation in Ukraine at any given time and by the political situation in each NATO member.
As far as accepting new NATO members goes, I think NATO would take Sweden and Finland (if they apply) pretty quickly. NATO does not want Georgia or Ukraine. The benefit/cost ratio for NATO just isn't good for either one. They are hard to defend, economically not strong, and have significant corruption problems. The odds of them dragging NATO into a war NATO doesn't want to fight are just too high.
If Ukraine survives, NATO would now pretty much be obligated to take them. Not  a good situation. NATO accepted as many Balkan states as it has in an attempt to prevent them from fighting each other. It didn't strengthen NATO against Russia or any other major powers other than not forcing the Balkan candidates to find protection against their neighbors elsewhere.

[Goose]

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...



- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.



If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response.

Agree.
<snip>

NATO has already made its choices:

- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes

- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 

- Expand its membership

- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia



Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

Basically agree, but it is more nuanced in terms of NATO's choices. Supplying resources to Ukraine has parameters. What resources are "acceptable" and what ones are not? This undoubtedly is modulated by the situation in Ukraine at any given time and by the political situation in each NATO member.
As far as accepting new NATO members goes, I think NATO would take Sweden and Finland (if they apply) pretty quickly. NATO does not want Georgia or Ukraine. The benefit/cost ratio for NATO just isn't good for either one. They are hard to defend, economically not strong, and have significant corruption problems. The odds of them dragging NATO into a war NATO doesn't want to fight are just too high.
If Ukraine survives, NATO would now pretty much be obligated to take them. Not  a good situation. NATO accepted as many Balkan states as it has in an attempt to prevent them from fighting each other. It didn't strengthen NATO against Russia or any other major powers other than not forcing the Balkan candidates to find protection against their neighbors elsewhere.

[gailtate]

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...

- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.

If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response. 

Stripping it all away, and looking at things at the highest level, there is no reason for Russia to fear NATO because:
- NATO is a defensive alliance and not a threat to attack any country (Serbia mission was a UN initiative that asked NATO to support)
- NATO respects rights of any country's sovereignty and believes it should be self-determined to have whatever allies it wants

The only reason for Russia to take issue with NATO is because NATO creates too high of a cost for Russia to take what it wants by force. That. Is. It. So Russia balking at NATO effectively is saying it wants to take what it wants, therefore demonstrating the precise purpose of NATO in first place. Russia had its chances to negotiate peace agreements, but said no, giving countries no choice but to join NATO to be protected from and contain Russia. Now, that is the world Russia must accept, or get on with the nuclear holocaust.

So, given this, from a strategic standpoint, if you are Russia, you have four choices:
- GTFO of Ukraine completely, watch Ukraine become a NATO member and re-think Russia's ambitions/place in the world/government philosophy
- Get NATO into a conventional war you can't possibly win because your economy and citizens can't support it
- Try recruiting China and/or India to fight against NATO, and then go to war with NATO if you get them to join you 
- Take the whole world down with you by starting a nuclear war

NATO has already made its choices:
- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes
- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 
- Expand its membership
- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia

Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

Here's the thing. Discussion of options assumes a quantum of reason and rationality at this moment on the part of Russian "leadership". I contend that Vladimir Putin is off his Rasputin rocker. Thus, all speculation is navel gazing.  Can't imagine EndTimes but this is closest we've come since 10/62. Who'd-a-thunkit?  When I think about it, the 21st century sucks.  Or, maybe I should say, sucked.

[gailtate]

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...

- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.

If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response. 

Stripping it all away, and looking at things at the highest level, there is no reason for Russia to fear NATO because:
- NATO is a defensive alliance and not a threat to attack any country (Serbia mission was a UN initiative that asked NATO to support)
- NATO respects rights of any country's sovereignty and believes it should be self-determined to have whatever allies it wants

The only reason for Russia to take issue with NATO is because NATO creates too high of a cost for Russia to take what it wants by force. That. Is. It. So Russia balking at NATO effectively is saying it wants to take what it wants, therefore demonstrating the precise purpose of NATO in first place. Russia had its chances to negotiate peace agreements, but said no, giving countries no choice but to join NATO to be protected from and contain Russia. Now, that is the world Russia must accept, or get on with the nuclear holocaust.

So, given this, from a strategic standpoint, if you are Russia, you have four choices:
- GTFO of Ukraine completely, watch Ukraine become a NATO member and re-think Russia's ambitions/place in the world/government philosophy
- Get NATO into a conventional war you can't possibly win because your economy and citizens can't support it
- Try recruiting China and/or India to fight against NATO, and then go to war with NATO if you get them to join you 
- Take the whole world down with you by starting a nuclear war

NATO has already made its choices:
- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes
- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 
- Expand its membership
- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia

Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

Here's the thing. Discussion of options assumes a quantum of reason and rationality at this moment on the part of Russian "leadership". I contend that Vladimir Putin is off his Rasputin rocker. Thus, all speculation is navel gazing.  Can't imagine EndTimes but this is closest we've come since 10/62. Who'd-a-thunkit?  When I think about it, the 21st century sucks.  Or, maybe I should say, sucked.

[teejers1]

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...

- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.

If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response. 

Stripping it all away, and looking at things at the highest level, there is no reason for Russia to fear NATO because:
- NATO is a defensive alliance and not a threat to attack any country (Serbia mission was a UN initiative that asked NATO to support)
- NATO respects rights of any country's sovereignty and believes it should be self-determined to have whatever allies it wants

The only reason for Russia to take issue with NATO is because NATO creates too high of a cost for Russia to take what it wants by force. That. Is. It. So Russia balking at NATO effectively is saying it wants to take what it wants, therefore demonstrating the precise purpose of NATO in first place. Russia had its chances to negotiate peace agreements, but said no, giving countries no choice but to join NATO to be protected from and contain Russia. Now, that is the world Russia must accept, or get on with the nuclear holocaust.

So, given this, from a strategic standpoint, if you are Russia, you have four choices:
- GTFO of Ukraine completely, watch Ukraine become a NATO member and re-think Russia's ambitions/place in the world/government philosophy
- Get NATO into a conventional war you can't possibly win because your economy and citizens can't support it
- Try recruiting China and/or India to fight against NATO, and then go to war with NATO if you get them to join you 
- Take the whole world down with you by starting a nuclear war

NATO has already made its choices:
- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes
- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 
- Expand its membership
- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia

Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

Here's the thing. Discussion of options assumes a quantum of reason and rationality at this moment on the part of Russian "leadership". I contend that Vladimir Putin is off his Rasputin rocker. Thus, all speculation is navel gazing.  Can't imagine EndTimes but this is closest we've come since 10/62. Who'd-a-thunkit?  When I think about it, the 21st century sucks.  Or, maybe I should say, sucked.

On the bright side, it puts the implosion of the football program (and continued mediocrity of the men's hoops program) in proper perspective, doesn't it!

[teejers1]

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...

- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.

If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response. 

Stripping it all away, and looking at things at the highest level, there is no reason for Russia to fear NATO because:
- NATO is a defensive alliance and not a threat to attack any country (Serbia mission was a UN initiative that asked NATO to support)
- NATO respects rights of any country's sovereignty and believes it should be self-determined to have whatever allies it wants

The only reason for Russia to take issue with NATO is because NATO creates too high of a cost for Russia to take what it wants by force. That. Is. It. So Russia balking at NATO effectively is saying it wants to take what it wants, therefore demonstrating the precise purpose of NATO in first place. Russia had its chances to negotiate peace agreements, but said no, giving countries no choice but to join NATO to be protected from and contain Russia. Now, that is the world Russia must accept, or get on with the nuclear holocaust.

So, given this, from a strategic standpoint, if you are Russia, you have four choices:
- GTFO of Ukraine completely, watch Ukraine become a NATO member and re-think Russia's ambitions/place in the world/government philosophy
- Get NATO into a conventional war you can't possibly win because your economy and citizens can't support it
- Try recruiting China and/or India to fight against NATO, and then go to war with NATO if you get them to join you 
- Take the whole world down with you by starting a nuclear war

NATO has already made its choices:
- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes
- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 
- Expand its membership
- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia

Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

Here's the thing. Discussion of options assumes a quantum of reason and rationality at this moment on the part of Russian "leadership". I contend that Vladimir Putin is off his Rasputin rocker. Thus, all speculation is navel gazing.  Can't imagine EndTimes but this is closest we've come since 10/62. Who'd-a-thunkit?  When I think about it, the 21st century sucks.  Or, maybe I should say, sucked.

On the bright side, it puts the implosion of the football program (and continued mediocrity of the men's hoops program) in proper perspective, doesn't it!

[OutsiderFan]

Here's the thing. Discussion of options assumes a quantum of reason and rationality at this moment on the part of Russian "leadership". I contend that Vladimir Putin is off his Rasputin rocker. Thus, all speculation is navel gazing.  Can't imagine EndTimes but this is closest we've come since 10/62. Who'd-a-thunkit?  When I think about it, the 21st century sucks.  Or, maybe I should say, sucked.

I'm not speculating about what will or won't happen, just what has happened and the choices, at a very high level. And while I agree Putin has lost his mind - even accounting for the fact his perspective is different than mine - there is reason to believe Putin doesn't have the support needed to start a strategic nuclear war. Still, I'm not ruling out him being able to convince the inner circle to start such a war either. Still has to be considered a possibility, no matter how remote.

[OutsiderFan]

Here's the thing. Discussion of options assumes a quantum of reason and rationality at this moment on the part of Russian "leadership". I contend that Vladimir Putin is off his Rasputin rocker. Thus, all speculation is navel gazing.  Can't imagine EndTimes but this is closest we've come since 10/62. Who'd-a-thunkit?  When I think about it, the 21st century sucks.  Or, maybe I should say, sucked.

I'm not speculating about what will or won't happen, just what has happened and the choices, at a very high level. And while I agree Putin has lost his mind - even accounting for the fact his perspective is different than mine - there is reason to believe Putin doesn't have the support needed to start a strategic nuclear war. Still, I'm not ruling out him being able to convince the inner circle to start such a war either. Still has to be considered a possibility, no matter how remote.

[martyup]

It seems many here agree that Putin's sanity is questionable.  He is a leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world with the ability to take actions that could kill millions of humans.  Humankind has been in this position before.  FDR delayed action and millions died.  Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives.  We must ask ourselves, should Putin be eliminated?

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

[martyup]

It seems many here agree that Putin's sanity is questionable.  He is a leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world with the ability to take actions that could kill millions of humans.  Humankind has been in this position before.  FDR delayed action and millions died.  Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives.  We must ask ourselves, should Putin be eliminated?

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

[gailtate]

It seems many here agree that Putin's sanity is questionable.  He is a leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world with the ability to take actions that could kill millions of humans.  Humankind has been in this position before.  FDR delayed action and millions died.  Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives.  We must ask ourselves, should Putin be eliminated?

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

Good points. One quibble: Harry Truman acted decisively, to be sure but the way I see the record there is nothing "arguable" about his dropping the big one. Twice. He did, indeed, unconditionally, actually and factually save lives. By the millions. His brand of plain-spoken, steely-eyed mentality has gone missing today. To our collective misfortune, sadly.

---

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...

- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.

If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response. 

Stripping it all away, and looking at things at the highest level, there is no reason for Russia to fear NATO because:
- NATO is a defensive alliance and not a threat to attack any country (Serbia mission was a UN initiative that asked NATO to support)
- NATO respects rights of any country's sovereignty and believes it should be self-determined to have whatever allies it wants

The only reason for Russia to take issue with NATO is because NATO creates too high of a cost for Russia to take what it wants by force. That. Is. It. So Russia balking at NATO effectively is saying it wants to take what it wants, therefore demonstrating the precise purpose of NATO in first place. Russia had its chances to negotiate peace agreements, but said no, giving countries no choice but to join NATO to be protected from and contain Russia. Now, that is the world Russia must accept, or get on with the nuclear holocaust.

So, given this, from a strategic standpoint, if you are Russia, you have four choices:
- GTFO of Ukraine completely, watch Ukraine become a NATO member and re-think Russia's ambitions/place in the world/government philosophy
- Get NATO into a conventional war you can't possibly win because your economy and citizens can't support it
- Try recruiting China and/or India to fight against NATO, and then go to war with NATO if you get them to join you 
- Take the whole world down with you by starting a nuclear war

NATO has already made its choices:
- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes
- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 
- Expand its membership
- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia

Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

Here's the thing. Discussion of options assumes a quantum of reason and rationality at this moment on the part of Russian "leadership". I contend that Vladimir Putin is off his Rasputin rocker. Thus, all speculation is navel gazing.  Can't imagine EndTimes but this is closest we've come since 10/62. Who'd-a-thunkit?  When I think about it, the 21st century sucks.  Or, maybe I should say, sucked.

On the bright side, it puts the implosion of the football program (and continued mediocrity of the men's hoops program) in proper perspective, doesn't it!

You sure-as-sh!t can say that again, ol' pal. Regardless, #MuirAndShawMustGo.

[gailtate]

It seems many here agree that Putin's sanity is questionable.  He is a leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world with the ability to take actions that could kill millions of humans.  Humankind has been in this position before.  FDR delayed action and millions died.  Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives.  We must ask ourselves, should Putin be eliminated?

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

Good points. One quibble: Harry Truman acted decisively, to be sure but the way I see the record there is nothing "arguable" about his dropping the big one. Twice. He did, indeed, unconditionally, actually and factually save lives. By the millions. His brand of plain-spoken, steely-eyed mentality has gone missing today. To our collective misfortune, sadly.

---

Interesting development this morning on topic of possible Russian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine...

- UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said Russia should think twice about taking such an approach as it could trigger “an international response”.

If this is corroborated by other NATO members - and hard to believe it wouldn't be - we will know the rules of engagement, and can probably assume tactical nuke use will evoke the same international response. 

Stripping it all away, and looking at things at the highest level, there is no reason for Russia to fear NATO because:
- NATO is a defensive alliance and not a threat to attack any country (Serbia mission was a UN initiative that asked NATO to support)
- NATO respects rights of any country's sovereignty and believes it should be self-determined to have whatever allies it wants

The only reason for Russia to take issue with NATO is because NATO creates too high of a cost for Russia to take what it wants by force. That. Is. It. So Russia balking at NATO effectively is saying it wants to take what it wants, therefore demonstrating the precise purpose of NATO in first place. Russia had its chances to negotiate peace agreements, but said no, giving countries no choice but to join NATO to be protected from and contain Russia. Now, that is the world Russia must accept, or get on with the nuclear holocaust.

So, given this, from a strategic standpoint, if you are Russia, you have four choices:
- GTFO of Ukraine completely, watch Ukraine become a NATO member and re-think Russia's ambitions/place in the world/government philosophy
- Get NATO into a conventional war you can't possibly win because your economy and citizens can't support it
- Try recruiting China and/or India to fight against NATO, and then go to war with NATO if you get them to join you 
- Take the whole world down with you by starting a nuclear war

NATO has already made its choices:
- Hold fast, supply resources to Ukraine to fight and wait out Russia until it implodes
- Only engage militarily if Russia uses chemical or nuclear weapons or attacks a NATO member 
- Expand its membership
- Re-double efforts to move away from fossil fuels that fund Russia

Russia only has losing options for its ambitions, much like Japan and Germany faced in WWII.  Only, unlike Japan and Germany, it only took two weeks after its reckless action in Ukraine for Russia for the dye on its L to be cast. NATO countries will be far better off in any scenario. Even if we all get vaporized, we'll have nothing to worry about anymore :)

Here's the thing. Discussion of options assumes a quantum of reason and rationality at this moment on the part of Russian "leadership". I contend that Vladimir Putin is off his Rasputin rocker. Thus, all speculation is navel gazing.  Can't imagine EndTimes but this is closest we've come since 10/62. Who'd-a-thunkit?  When I think about it, the 21st century sucks.  Or, maybe I should say, sucked.

On the bright side, it puts the implosion of the football program (and continued mediocrity of the men's hoops program) in proper perspective, doesn't it!

You sure-as-sh!t can say that again, ol' pal. Regardless, #MuirAndShawMustGo.

[bl82]

All,

If anyone is looking for resources to stay connected and up to date on everything, I'm going to link some sites.  

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/at...pment.html
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop

This site lists all the equipment for both sides confirmed to be destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured.  They use physical evidence like videos or pictures.  The losses are going to be underestimated due to the required evidence to verify everything.  

Hopefully this post isn't considered inappropriate or out of line, I can remove if needed, but figured I'd share for anything as curious as I am.  

https://liveuamap.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Liveuamap

This site has, as you might guess, a live map of action in Ukraine, including highlighted spots with associated stories.  

There are tons of Twitter accounts I'd recommend following, a bunch of accounts that are related to OSINT, I'll just link this one: https://twitter.com/OSINTEng

And lastly, Walter: https://twitter.com/walterlekh

He hosts a regular joint space on Twitter you can listen in to, and even ask questions.  There are various people in the space from different parts of Ukraine that can give first hand reports.  

Most of the sources, for obvious reasons, that I follow are pro Ukraine, so sometimes the information can be biased.

Thanks for all these links, Treefence. Very helpful.

[bl82]

All,

If anyone is looking for resources to stay connected and up to date on everything, I'm going to link some sites.  

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/at...pment.html
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop

This site lists all the equipment for both sides confirmed to be destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured.  They use physical evidence like videos or pictures.  The losses are going to be underestimated due to the required evidence to verify everything.  

Hopefully this post isn't considered inappropriate or out of line, I can remove if needed, but figured I'd share for anything as curious as I am.  

https://liveuamap.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Liveuamap

This site has, as you might guess, a live map of action in Ukraine, including highlighted spots with associated stories.  

There are tons of Twitter accounts I'd recommend following, a bunch of accounts that are related to OSINT, I'll just link this one: https://twitter.com/OSINTEng

And lastly, Walter: https://twitter.com/walterlekh

He hosts a regular joint space on Twitter you can listen in to, and even ask questions.  There are various people in the space from different parts of Ukraine that can give first hand reports.  

Most of the sources, for obvious reasons, that I follow are pro Ukraine, so sometimes the information can be biased.

Thanks for all these links, Treefence. Very helpful.

[Phogge]

Well James Bond died in the last picture so all hope is gone. Empty the wine closets and liquor cabinet. Forget about eating quinoa and kale. Load up on donuts and ice cream. Watch The End movie.

[Phogge]

Well James Bond died in the last picture so all hope is gone. Empty the wine closets and liquor cabinet. Forget about eating quinoa and kale. Load up on donuts and ice cream. Watch The End movie.

[jacket3ree]

I'm glad this thread is alive.  This is geo-political rather than political and feels, sadly, existential.

For those of us who grew up in the '60s with duck 'n cover and known routes to fallout shelters, it is surreal to watch this threat back in the age of Tik Tok. As a kid I was afraid of two things: rattlesnakes and nuclear holocaust.  Three things: rattlesnakes, nuclear holocaust, and fire drills.  Four things: rattlesnakes, nuclear holocaust, fire drills, and snow tires.  I've experienced three of the four and have no desire to complete the cycle.

My fear of nuclear holocaust was abated by my mother, a Kubrick fan.  Before videos were a thing, she found a midnight showing once and took me.  Wow, this is MAD (and Miss Scott ain't bad). I get it. It'll never happen.  (Read Schlosser's  Command and Control if you want real nuke anxiety.)

Now here we are. It's 1939 Poland with the threat of weapons Hitler was trying to get, but didn't have yet. 

I don't pretend to know what to do other than there is a bright line at NATO borders and if he steps across one of them, the world as we know it is over. Either there is a free pass for anyone to restore historical empires using force, or it will all escalate quickly and we are living on an uninhabitable ball of rock. Is China the key to this?  Global thermonuclear war is bad for business. Can they take him to the side and tell him his backside is officially exposed? Stand down or we'll take care of you?  Maybe a dmz of Russian speaking Donbas and Luhansk (People's Republics of Save the World) for a buffer, now GTFO of Ukraine and stay out.

Political boundaries have certainly shifted over time, but I thought we were done with all that. Dammit.

For now, treat Russia like a pariah state.  Today I paid $6.20 for a gallon.  (Right, Big Oil, your supply changed overnight? Jackals.) I think I saw somewhere that Russia has the economy of Texas.  Who needs them?  (No offense Texas and you have oil too, right?)  Just a giant resource rich version of PRNK. How's that been working out for them? Check out the night view from space between North and South Korea.  My son has been to their dmz on a deployment and went into that border hut. He said the difference is s.t.a.r.k.

I like the stories in this thread of how people have reached out personally rather through general aid organizations, although the latter is noble too. I had one connection with Ukraine. Over the shelter-in-place period, I rebuilt my home-built entertainment center by ridding it of the old plasma TV and going in on new tube amplification, hand-built in Wisconsin by an ex-Marine. Old Soviet military tubes are prized for their reliability. I had a pair driving the speakers. Last Christmas they were replaced with the iconic Western Electric tubes now built in Georgia, just outside Chattanooga.  When I rebuilt the center to accommodate the new amp (that is mahogany!), I went retro-industrial and found a cool nixie tube clock online that I mounted in a piece of padauk I had out in the garage, using aluminum offsets with LED back lighting. Some old barn wood and T6061 aluminum completed the amp alcove.  Need something on the barn wood. Tube clock!

Turns out the nixie tubes came from Ukraine with a receipt in Cyrillic and an English "Thank you!" and smiley face.  The instructions are Cyrillic too, so I think I set the time and date right once, but the joke when someone looked and said "what time is that supposed to be," was always "Ukrainian Tube Time!"  But the numbers are a glowing yellow-orange, look cool, and occasionally do that flippy rollover off-gassing thing so as not to burn out prematurely.

When Russia was massed on the border last month and we all knew what was about to happen, I found the receipt (kept because I've never had a Cyrillic receipt before) and certainly understand "@" in any language, so I sent off a quick note in English and Google Ukrainian saying how much I loved the tube set and I want to send a dozen friends the same thing, so here's my card number to buy those, but you know on second thought, this is looking scary and I hope you'll be OK, so don't worry about the tubes so much and use this in case. Honestly I have stupid friends who don't appreciate the glory of cathode tubes so it would be lost on them and I'm rooting for you guys.

Their response?  A little Ukrainian flag showed up on my doorstep with another tube set, another Cyrillic receipt with a smiley face, but this time also a heart.  Before thinking 'how the heck did this get here so fast with all that happening, because now they are under siege,' I sent he/she/them another note of thanks and please, please, I hope you are safe. No word since. I'll admit that I've cried a little. I don't even know their name(s).

[jacket3ree]

I'm glad this thread is alive.  This is geo-political rather than political and feels, sadly, existential.

For those of us who grew up in the '60s with duck 'n cover and known routes to fallout shelters, it is surreal to watch this threat back in the age of Tik Tok. As a kid I was afraid of two things: rattlesnakes and nuclear holocaust.  Three things: rattlesnakes, nuclear holocaust, and fire drills.  Four things: rattlesnakes, nuclear holocaust, fire drills, and snow tires.  I've experienced three of the four and have no desire to complete the cycle.

My fear of nuclear holocaust was abated by my mother, a Kubrick fan.  Before videos were a thing, she found a midnight showing once and took me.  Wow, this is MAD (and Miss Scott ain't bad). I get it. It'll never happen.  (Read Schlosser's  Command and Control if you want real nuke anxiety.)

Now here we are. It's 1939 Poland with the threat of weapons Hitler was trying to get, but didn't have yet. 

I don't pretend to know what to do other than there is a bright line at NATO borders and if he steps across one of them, the world as we know it is over. Either there is a free pass for anyone to restore historical empires using force, or it will all escalate quickly and we are living on an uninhabitable ball of rock. Is China the key to this?  Global thermonuclear war is bad for business. Can they take him to the side and tell him his backside is officially exposed? Stand down or we'll take care of you?  Maybe a dmz of Russian speaking Donbas and Luhansk (People's Republics of Save the World) for a buffer, now GTFO of Ukraine and stay out.

Political boundaries have certainly shifted over time, but I thought we were done with all that. Dammit.

For now, treat Russia like a pariah state.  Today I paid $6.20 for a gallon.  (Right, Big Oil, your supply changed overnight? Jackals.) I think I saw somewhere that Russia has the economy of Texas.  Who needs them?  (No offense Texas and you have oil too, right?)  Just a giant resource rich version of PRNK. How's that been working out for them? Check out the night view from space between North and South Korea.  My son has been to their dmz on a deployment and went into that border hut. He said the difference is s.t.a.r.k.

I like the stories in this thread of how people have reached out personally rather through general aid organizations, although the latter is noble too. I had one connection with Ukraine. Over the shelter-in-place period, I rebuilt my home-built entertainment center by ridding it of the old plasma TV and going in on new tube amplification, hand-built in Wisconsin by an ex-Marine. Old Soviet military tubes are prized for their reliability. I had a pair driving the speakers. Last Christmas they were replaced with the iconic Western Electric tubes now built in Georgia, just outside Chattanooga.  When I rebuilt the center to accommodate the new amp (that is mahogany!), I went retro-industrial and found a cool nixie tube clock online that I mounted in a piece of padauk I had out in the garage, using aluminum offsets with LED back lighting. Some old barn wood and T6061 aluminum completed the amp alcove.  Need something on the barn wood. Tube clock!

Turns out the nixie tubes came from Ukraine with a receipt in Cyrillic and an English "Thank you!" and smiley face.  The instructions are Cyrillic too, so I think I set the time and date right once, but the joke when someone looked and said "what time is that supposed to be," was always "Ukrainian Tube Time!"  But the numbers are a glowing yellow-orange, look cool, and occasionally do that flippy rollover off-gassing thing so as not to burn out prematurely.

When Russia was massed on the border last month and we all knew what was about to happen, I found the receipt (kept because I've never had a Cyrillic receipt before) and certainly understand "@" in any language, so I sent off a quick note in English and Google Ukrainian saying how much I loved the tube set and I want to send a dozen friends the same thing, so here's my card number to buy those, but you know on second thought, this is looking scary and I hope you'll be OK, so don't worry about the tubes so much and use this in case. Honestly I have stupid friends who don't appreciate the glory of cathode tubes so it would be lost on them and I'm rooting for you guys.

Their response?  A little Ukrainian flag showed up on my doorstep with another tube set, another Cyrillic receipt with a smiley face, but this time also a heart.  Before thinking 'how the heck did this get here so fast with all that happening, because now they are under siege,' I sent he/she/them another note of thanks and please, please, I hope you are safe. No word since. I'll admit that I've cried a little. I don't even know their name(s).

[81alum]

Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives. 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

It is arguable.  Truman certainly saved millions of lives compared with a land invasion of Japan, which was the only real alternative he considered. 

Bart Bernstein's Hist 252 course has long raised other possibilities which we could discuss here, but which would be off topic in an already off topic thread.  Suffice it to say that Curtis LeMay himself, architect of the bombing campaign against Japan, stated “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb,” Eisenhower regretted the decision to use the bomb, and Chester Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. … The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”  (Bernstein's argument is that the A-bomb was used more for diplomatic reasons--to prevent the USSR from contributing to the defeat of Japan and thus gaining greater influence in Asia.  The Cold War in this view began before the end of WWII.)

This review of a 1995 book by Alperovitz discusses the controversy and some of the evidence that came to light long after the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books...op-it.html

Debating whether the A-bomb was necessary or useful for ending WWII became a cottage industry in the 1990s and there is a lot of interesting reading about it.  In the 1970s when I confronted my parents about Hiroshima, I was told that my father would have been in the invasion, he would likely have been killed, and I never would have been born.  That was a conversation-stopper.

Now, if I had to make this relevant to a Ukraine thread, I would say that Putin is obsessed with self-serving interpretations of history.  He might well claim that our decision to deliberately kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to accelerate victory in WWII was no different from his deliberate killing of civilians.  There are obvious counterarguments to that, but it does rather force us to talk about the ends of war rather than the means if we want to take the high ground.

[81alum]

Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives. 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

It is arguable.  Truman certainly saved millions of lives compared with a land invasion of Japan, which was the only real alternative he considered. 

Bart Bernstein's Hist 252 course has long raised other possibilities which we could discuss here, but which would be off topic in an already off topic thread.  Suffice it to say that Curtis LeMay himself, architect of the bombing campaign against Japan, stated “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb,” Eisenhower regretted the decision to use the bomb, and Chester Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. … The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”  (Bernstein's argument is that the A-bomb was used more for diplomatic reasons--to prevent the USSR from contributing to the defeat of Japan and thus gaining greater influence in Asia.  The Cold War in this view began before the end of WWII.)

This review of a 1995 book by Alperovitz discusses the controversy and some of the evidence that came to light long after the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books...op-it.html

Debating whether the A-bomb was necessary or useful for ending WWII became a cottage industry in the 1990s and there is a lot of interesting reading about it.  In the 1970s when I confronted my parents about Hiroshima, I was told that my father would have been in the invasion, he would likely have been killed, and I never would have been born.  That was a conversation-stopper.

Now, if I had to make this relevant to a Ukraine thread, I would say that Putin is obsessed with self-serving interpretations of history.  He might well claim that our decision to deliberately kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to accelerate victory in WWII was no different from his deliberate killing of civilians.  There are obvious counterarguments to that, but it does rather force us to talk about the ends of war rather than the means if we want to take the high ground.

[Phogge]

We had to give up on Bond and Bourne but there is still Jessica Chastain.

[Phogge]

We had to give up on Bond and Bourne but there is still Jessica Chastain.

[BostonCard]

I recently got a custom leather bookmark from Ukraine through Etsy.  My wife made fun of the carbon footprint at the time (as if it would be any less if it had been made in a factory in China).  Like jacketree, I think of my Ukrainian seller and hope he is somehow in Poland now.

BC

[BostonCard]

I recently got a custom leather bookmark from Ukraine through Etsy.  My wife made fun of the carbon footprint at the time (as if it would be any less if it had been made in a factory in China).  Like jacketree, I think of my Ukrainian seller and hope he is somehow in Poland now.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Some exceptionally ominous developments today:

- Syrian troops being recruited by Russia to fight in Ukraine
- Russia executed false flag in Belarus (claiming Ukraine bombed when Russia did) that results in Belarus Army being ready to invade Ukraine now
- Ukraine defense intel reporting Russia plans to blow up Chernobyl

The takeaway here is Putin is not backing down at all. The odds of NATO countries getting off the sidelines might be increasing.

[OutsiderFan]

Some exceptionally ominous developments today:

- Syrian troops being recruited by Russia to fight in Ukraine
- Russia executed false flag in Belarus (claiming Ukraine bombed when Russia did) that results in Belarus Army being ready to invade Ukraine now
- Ukraine defense intel reporting Russia plans to blow up Chernobyl

The takeaway here is Putin is not backing down at all. The odds of NATO countries getting off the sidelines might be increasing.

[JohnR34231]

Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives. 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

It is arguable.  Truman certainly saved millions of lives compared with a land invasion of Japan, which was the only real alternative he considered. 

Bart Bernstein's Hist 252 course has long raised other possibilities which we could discuss here, but which would be off topic in an already off topic thread.  Suffice it to say that Curtis LeMay himself, architect of the bombing campaign against Japan, stated “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb,” Eisenhower regretted the decision to use the bomb, and Chester Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. … The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”  (Bernstein's argument is that the A-bomb was used more for diplomatic reasons--to prevent the USSR from contributing to the defeat of Japan and thus gaining greater influence in Asia.  The Cold War in this view began before the end of WWII.)

This review of a 1995 book by Alperovitz discusses the controversy and some of the evidence that came to light long after the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books...op-it.html

Debating whether the A-bomb was necessary or useful for ending WWII became a cottage industry in the 1990s and there is a lot of interesting reading about it.  In the 1970s when I confronted my parents about Hiroshima, I was told that my father would have been in the invasion, he would likely have been killed, and I never would have been born.  That was a conversation-stopper.

My father-in-law would have also been in the invasion. My wife and I have never complained, either.

[JohnR34231]

Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives. 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

It is arguable.  Truman certainly saved millions of lives compared with a land invasion of Japan, which was the only real alternative he considered. 

Bart Bernstein's Hist 252 course has long raised other possibilities which we could discuss here, but which would be off topic in an already off topic thread.  Suffice it to say that Curtis LeMay himself, architect of the bombing campaign against Japan, stated “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb,” Eisenhower regretted the decision to use the bomb, and Chester Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. … The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”  (Bernstein's argument is that the A-bomb was used more for diplomatic reasons--to prevent the USSR from contributing to the defeat of Japan and thus gaining greater influence in Asia.  The Cold War in this view began before the end of WWII.)

This review of a 1995 book by Alperovitz discusses the controversy and some of the evidence that came to light long after the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books...op-it.html

Debating whether the A-bomb was necessary or useful for ending WWII became a cottage industry in the 1990s and there is a lot of interesting reading about it.  In the 1970s when I confronted my parents about Hiroshima, I was told that my father would have been in the invasion, he would likely have been killed, and I never would have been born.  That was a conversation-stopper.

My father-in-law would have also been in the invasion. My wife and I have never complained, either.

[Mick]

I think I saw somewhere that Russia has the economy of Texas.  Who needs them?  (No offense Texas and you have oil too, right?)  

Economies by size, 2021 (US$trillions).

USA, 19.5
China, 12.2
Japan, 4.9
Germany, 3.7
California, 3.1
India, 2.7
U.K., 2.6
France, 2.6
Brazil, 2.1
Italy, 1.9
Texas, 1.8
New York, 1.7
Canada, 1.6
Russia, 1.6
South Korea, 1.5

[Mick]

I think I saw somewhere that Russia has the economy of Texas.  Who needs them?  (No offense Texas and you have oil too, right?)  

Economies by size, 2021 (US$trillions).

USA, 19.5
China, 12.2
Japan, 4.9
Germany, 3.7
California, 3.1
India, 2.7
U.K., 2.6
France, 2.6
Brazil, 2.1
Italy, 1.9
Texas, 1.8
New York, 1.7
Canada, 1.6
Russia, 1.6
South Korea, 1.5

[martyup]

Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives. 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

It is arguable.  Truman certainly saved millions of lives compared with a land invasion of Japan, which was the only real alternative he considered. 

Bart Bernstein's Hist 252 course has long raised other possibilities which we could discuss here, but which would be off topic in an already off topic thread.  Suffice it to say that Curtis LeMay himself, architect of the bombing campaign against Japan, stated “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb,” Eisenhower regretted the decision to use the bomb, and Chester Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. … The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”  (Bernstein's argument is that the A-bomb was used more for diplomatic reasons--to prevent the USSR from contributing to the defeat of Japan and thus gaining greater influence in Asia.  The Cold War in this view began before the end of WWII.)

This review of a 1995 book by Alperovitz discusses the controversy and some of the evidence that came to light long after the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books...op-it.html

Debating whether the A-bomb was necessary or useful for ending WWII became a cottage industry in the 1990s and there is a lot of interesting reading about it.  In the 1970s when I confronted my parents about Hiroshima, I was told that my father would have been in the invasion, he would likely have been killed, and I never would have been born.  That was a conversation-stopper.

My father-in-law would have also been in the invasion. My wife and I have never complained, either.

My point was less about Truman's decision to drop the bombs and more about FDR's failure to take out Hitler early when he had the chance.  With today's advanced technology, he should be vulnerable to assassination.   Is that justified at this point?  Who makes that call?  Biden? Israel? Nato?

[martyup]

Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives. 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

It is arguable.  Truman certainly saved millions of lives compared with a land invasion of Japan, which was the only real alternative he considered. 

Bart Bernstein's Hist 252 course has long raised other possibilities which we could discuss here, but which would be off topic in an already off topic thread.  Suffice it to say that Curtis LeMay himself, architect of the bombing campaign against Japan, stated “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb,” Eisenhower regretted the decision to use the bomb, and Chester Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. … The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”  (Bernstein's argument is that the A-bomb was used more for diplomatic reasons--to prevent the USSR from contributing to the defeat of Japan and thus gaining greater influence in Asia.  The Cold War in this view began before the end of WWII.)

This review of a 1995 book by Alperovitz discusses the controversy and some of the evidence that came to light long after the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books...op-it.html

Debating whether the A-bomb was necessary or useful for ending WWII became a cottage industry in the 1990s and there is a lot of interesting reading about it.  In the 1970s when I confronted my parents about Hiroshima, I was told that my father would have been in the invasion, he would likely have been killed, and I never would have been born.  That was a conversation-stopper.

My father-in-law would have also been in the invasion. My wife and I have never complained, either.

My point was less about Truman's decision to drop the bombs and more about FDR's failure to take out Hitler early when he had the chance.  With today's advanced technology, he should be vulnerable to assassination.   Is that justified at this point?  Who makes that call?  Biden? Israel? Nato?

[dabigv13]

Russia has demonstrated far more ability with foreign assassinations. Would be a terrible idea to stir that hornets nest.

[dabigv13]

Russia has demonstrated far more ability with foreign assassinations. Would be a terrible idea to stir that hornets nest.

[BostonCard]

Also, UN Security Council is meeting at Russia’s request to discuss the Us’s biological weapons “program” in Ukraine.

The brazenness of the gaslighting would impress me, if it didn’t have devastating consequences.

In the meantime, apparently the line of how much NATO will do apparently lies between giving Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, but not giving them jets.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, UN Security Council is meeting at Russia’s request to discuss the Us’s biological weapons “program” in Ukraine.

The brazenness of the gaslighting would impress me, if it didn’t have devastating consequences.

In the meantime, apparently the line of how much NATO will do apparently lies between giving Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, but not giving them jets.

BC