3 of 4
3
U.S. Nuclear Strategy for the Post-Cold War Era
Posted: 11 October 2007 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15370
Joined  2006-02-14

The cable was an unheeded warning, one of many during that period. It has apparently been public since the early 1950s. So what?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 01:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2007-09-28

to defend the actions of the japanese during WWII is noting short of holocaust denial.

They japanese do not want to face the shame brought upon they by the imperial japanese forces.  The murder of millions, sex slaves, torture on a massive scale, medical experimentation, working people to death, officers having races to see who could behead 100 people the fastest, killing by vivesection, the list goes on.

By trying to write these FACTS out of their history books, they are adding to thier countries shame. It also precludes the possibility of a sincere apology.

Also, by hiding what happened, japanese society has not had to change to make sure it can never happen again.  Japanese society has VERY strict social rules. The individuals in that society only learn to follow those specific social rules. Therefore, when these individuals are outside of normal japanese society, they have no ‘moral compass’ and behave very much like psychopaths.  This is as true today as it was when they went on their murderous rampage across south east asia.  We owe it to the millions who suffered and died at the hands of the japanese, not to let them forget.

I accept that the above is a generalisation. however, i believe, what i have written could be described as a national trait.  Of course, I have met many japanese who were great as individuals, but that does not detract from serious social probelms in japanese society.

Ski.

 Signature 

hmmmmm  π

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

ski,

Please tell me you are not accusing me of denying their crimes? I have not.

I am more than aware of the “earthly paradise” that they brought with their Asian Monroe Doctrine. I am also just as opposed to their governments shameful denial of their policies as you are, but that has nothing to do with why the US government does/did what it does/did. You are committing the same mistake by glossing over the reasons and purposes of our governments policies if you are asserting that our policies with Japan were centered around our humanitarian concern for Asia.

I think your last sentence is equally applicable to Americans in regards to our ignorance of our own history, past and present crimes: “I have met many [americans] who were great as individuals, but that does not detract from serious social probelms in [american] society.” Actually, I would say that logic of self-reflection and the tearing away of our own self-deceptions is a huge part of my views on governmental policies. Just because I deconstruct our claims and hold it up with historical data and the consequences of those policies does not mean I am playing apologia for the “enemy.” What you are wanting from Japanese in regards to their social sins is precisly what I am doing with ours. I would hope you can respect that.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 02:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

doug,

what were the other “many”? Before I express what I suspect I want to give you the opportunity to share these “many” other warnings that went unheeded.

Cuz I dont know of “many” warnings that went unheeded, certainly not from someone who was not a “faceless bureaucrat” like Ambassador Grew. So share those with me, pretty please.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15370
Joined  2006-02-14
truthaddict - 11 October 2007 02:31 PM

what were the other “many”? Before I express what I suspect I want to give you the opportunity to share these “many” other warnings that went unheeded.

Cuz I dont know of “many” warnings that went unheeded, certainly not from someone who was not a “faceless bureaucrat” like Ambassador Grew. So share those with me, pretty please.

Come on, truthaddict. Read some WWII history.

Just for starters, HERE is what wiki has to say about the attack on Pearl Harbor:

U.S. civil and military intelligence had, amongst them, good information suggesting additional Japanese aggression throughout the summer and fall before the attack. At the time, none specifically indicated an attack against Pearl Harbor, nor has any doing so been identified since. Public press reports during summer and fall, including Hawaiian newspapers, contained extensive reports on the growing tension in the Pacific. Late in November, all Pacific commands, including both the Navy and Army in Hawaii, were separately and explicitly warned war with Japan was expected in the very near future, and it was preferred that Japan make the first hostile act as they were apparently preparing to do. It was felt that war would most probably start with attacks in the Far East: the Philippines, Indochina, Thailand, or the Russian Far East. The warnings were not specific to any area, noting only war with Japan was expected in the immediate short term and all commands should act accordingly. Had any of these warnings produced an active alert status in Hawaii, the attack might have been resisted more effectively, and perhaps resulted in less death and damage. On the other hand, recall of men on shore leave to the ships in harbor might have led to still more being casualties from bombs and torpedoes, or trapped in capsized ships by shut watertight doors (as the attack alert status would have required), or killed (in their obsolescent and obsolete aircraft) by more experienced Japanese aviators. When the attack actually arrived, Pearl Harbor was effectively unprepared: anti-aircraft weapons not manned, most ammunition locked down, anti-submarine measures not implemented (e.g., no torpedo nets in the harbor), combat air patrol not flying, available scouting aircraft not in the air at first light, Air Corps aircraft parked wingtip to wingtip to reduce sabotage risks (not ready to fly at a moment’s warning), and so on.

This stuff is very well known.

For an example of other intelligence in November of 1941 suggesting an attack on the Philippines or Borneo, check HERE. Do you know that governments receive bogus intelligence about possible attacks literally all the time? The report you noted was from January of 1941. By December it had likely been long ago circular-filed, as not credible.

For an example of a telegram by Ambassador Grew on November 17, 1941, that is, less than a month before Pearl Harbor, and almost a full year after the cable you quoted, check HERE. Clearly the Ambassador did not believe he had any special insight into Japanese military preparations by November.

HERE is the confidential army assessment of the Japanese military situation on Nov. 2, 1941, by General Sherman Miles, for the Assistant Chief of Staff. In particular:

1. After four years of war in China, Japan is militarily over-extended on the mainland of Asia, economically weak, and psychologically aware of the fact that her economic structure is crumbling.

2 For obvious reasons both Germany and China would like to embroil the United State in a large scale war with Japan. While Japan is reluctant to go to war with us, her political and economic situations demand action. She has the following alternatives:

a. Attack Siberia to neutralize the threat on her flank and rear.

b. Occupy Thailand as a base from which to launch an offensive against Burma or Malaya.

c. Contain or isolate the Philippine Islands and Hongkong and seize the Netherlands East Indies.

d. Launch a direct attack on Singapore.

e. Make a determined effort to bring the war in China to a close by cutting China’s last supply route, the Burma Road.

f. Bide her time while disposing her forces from north to such in such a way that she will be able to seize the opportunity for successful aggression in whatever direction it presents itself.

3. A Japanese attack on Siberia is unlikely as long as Russian resistance in Europe continues, and as long as the Siberian forces are not materially reduced in strength. Action under b above might, and under c or d above would certainly bring Japan into armed conflict with ABD powers-a situation which Japan, at present, wishes to avoid.

4. A drive from Indo-China into Yunnan would probably not involve Japan with any Third Power. Although an extremely difficult operation for the Japanese, requiring elaborate preparation on their part, a successful drive into Yunnan and across the Burma Road, even if it did not cause China’s early capitulation would nevertheless, be a terrific blow at her chances of holding out. It would not however, have the effect of immediately releasing any considerable Japanese force for use elsewhere, since long-drawn out mopping up operations would probably be necessary.

6. Because of the ruggedness of the terrain in southern Yunnan, and the almost complete lack of communications, the Chinese, if determined, could put up a very strong resistance even with the means now at their disposal. Such a defense would further deplete Japan’s meager resources and immobilize her remaining reserves. (For a description of the terrain see Tab A.)

6. Japan’s most probable line of action, therefore, will be to continue her efforts to secure a relaxation of American economic pressure while completing her plans and arranging her forces for an advance in the direction which will be most fruitful of quick results.

No mention of Pearl Harbor.

HERE is an intelligence report from Nov. 21, 1941 finding the Japanese expeditionary force near, Palau, Dutch East Indies. HERE is an intelligence report from Nov. 22, 1941 indicating that the Japanese 4th fleet may move to Palau. HERE is one indicating that their aim was Portuguese Timor.

Etc., etc. I don’t have time to look through all this stuff, but there’s tons of it.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

Doug,

“no mention of pearl harbor”? the Grew cable I mentioned did.

the warnings I was referring to were about attacks against the US. not Palau, China, Timor, etc.

I originally mentioned a cable from Grew where he specifically cited Pearl Harbor - which refutes what Wikipedia and you just said - and when you said there were “many” others I assumed we were still talking about warnings of attack against the US. As far as intelligence reports about possible attacks on others I am aware of, but that wasnt really what I was asking for.

Let me keep my comment in context: I said my views are shaped by alot more than the McCollum memo. The Grew cable is one of many and I think it is particularly valuable because of who it came from and that it specifically named Pearl Harbor and was based on numerous souces that Grew trusted enough to pass on the warning.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 04:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/grew3.htm

[Telegram: Paraphrase]

TOKYO, January 27, 1941-6 p.m.
[Received January 27-6: 38 a.m.]

125. A member of the Embassy was told by my———- colleague that from many quarters, including a Japanese one, he had heard that a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor was planned by the Japanese military forces, in case of “trouble” between Japan and the United States; that the attack would involve the use of all the Japanese military facilities. My colleague said that he was prompted to pass this on because it had come to him from many sources, although the plan seemed fantastic.

GREW

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15370
Joined  2006-02-14

Re. the Wiki entry. Read it again:

“U.S. civil and military intelligence had, amongst them, good information suggesting additional Japanese aggression throughout the summer and fall before the attack. At the time, none specifically indicated an attack against Pearl Harbor, nor has any doing so been identified since.”

There was no indication of Pearl Harbor being targeted during the summer and fall of 1941, which is when the most crucial evidence would have been coming in. During the Fall, the most critical time, all indications were of an attack elsewhere, as noted in the stuff I quoted previously. Read the dates. I’ve provided all of them.

Also note that I included another, later cable from Grew, where he disavowed knowing the Japanese plans.

All historical material has to be read in context.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

rolleyes

these are rhetorical questions because its obvious whats going on:

why is summer and fall the “most crucial” time?

is the january warning less credible because it was issued in january and not march or september?

why do you think the “disavow” cable is referring to all previous cables, especially when it says what it IS referring to? take your “All historical material has to be read in context” advice and apply it to that cable (ie refer to the referred cable).

do you think I have said he knew what their plans were? I never said so, All I mentioned was that he passed on a warning he got about an attack on a specific target that was confirmed by numerous sources. I used this cable as an example to illustrate a broader point about how the FDR administration knew what they were doing, what the risks were, etc.

dont you think you are guilty of the same shoddy scholarship work that you accuse others of when you try to link one cable to another just to dismiss its importance because it doesnt fall in line with your predisposition? See, I dont miss the importance of the cables you provided. I just recognize that the “disavow” cable was specifically referring to a completely different cable and issue than the one in January.

you’re overselling with comments like “most crucial,” etc. and I think you are misinterpreting the “disavow” cable - and others - to suit your own predisposition; and i think you are misunderstanding what i have been saying all along, which is unfortunate.

but seriously, im done with this topic.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15370
Joined  2006-02-14
truthaddict - 11 October 2007 05:15 PM

why is summer and fall the “most crucial” time?

Because the attack happened in the winter. Remember, December 7, 1941?

truthaddict - 11 October 2007 05:15 PM

is the january warning less credible because it was issued in january and not march or september?

Yes, because it was nearly a full year before the attack, and was not followed up by any later or more precise detail. Indeed, all later detail contradicted it, and the person who gave that “warning” apparently didn’t persist in believing it either.

truthaddict - 11 October 2007 05:15 PM

why do you think the “disavow” cable is referring to all previous cables, especially when it says what it IS referring to? take your “All historical material has to be read in context” advice and apply it to that cable (ie refer to the referred cable).

Because he claims not to know what the Japanese are going to do. If he still thought they were going to go after Pearl Harbor, he would have said so.

truthaddict - 11 October 2007 05:15 PM

but seriously, im done with this topic.

I don’t believe you.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02

TA, Pearl Harbor did not happen until after my mother was born- after Nov 1944.  There is nothing about Pearl Harbor before that time.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 12:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21
SkiCarver - 08 October 2007 08:23 PM

Point 1. Defence policy aims to maximise peace and security.

There will, for the foreseeable future, be dictators and other threats. Even within technologically advanced countries, there are still those who use violence for their own ends. Internationally, there will always be those (individuals, groups countries) who wish to expand their influence and are willing to use violence to achieve it. I am sure we can all accept this as a sad fact.

SkiCarver… but what about when the danger lies within?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 06:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2007-09-28
erasmusinfinity - 13 October 2007 12:01 AM
SkiCarver - 08 October 2007 08:23 PM

Point 1. Defence policy aims to maximise peace and security.

There will, for the foreseeable future, be dictators and other threats. Even within technologically advanced countries, there are still those who use violence for their own ends. Internationally, there will always be those (individuals, groups countries) who wish to expand their influence and are willing to use violence to achieve it. I am sure we can all accept this as a sad fact.

SkiCarver… but what about when the danger lies within?

I am not sure I understand your point/question.

also, I cannot realistically see justifications for the use of nukes in your own country. as the thread is about us nuclear strategy (supposedly) I didn’t feel the need to elaborate on this issue.

Ski.

 Signature 

hmmmmm  π

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 09:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

ski,

it most certainly got away from nuclear strategy.

and you know I was thinking about the alleged “need” to have this destructive weapon for “security.” we can bypass the perverse play on words that we get security from the threat and prospects of massive destruction. but why stop there? why not say we need a new and more powerful weapon? too many others have nukes now so perhaps we need a new and more destructive weapon to hold over their heads so we can have public rhetoric about securty, defense, etc.

obviously thats just lunacy. we will repeat what happened before. others will “race” to catch up. in other words, nuclear proliferation has done nothing but escalate our problems, not resolve them.

brennen brought up the point about undiscovering things. this is where I agree partially with the NPT: nuclear states should make “good faith” efforts to disarm ALL nukes. Where I dont agree is with the vague rhetoric of “good faith.” And during the 1980s there were efforts to open universal inspections and resolutions passed to put some stiff control on these monsters. So while I agree that we already opened the can of worms the solution is kind of obvious, though perhaps difficult:

Zymurgy’s First Law of Evolving Systems Dynamics: Once you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a bigger can.

I think that “bigger can” involves more than containing our nukes and dismanteling them. I think there is a kernel of truth in that we have used them for some perverse sense of security. It is sort of like Adolf Hitler. He was for peace, but on his terms. Nukes are about security but on a very disturbing platform. The “bigger can” would be what Jefferson called for in the Declaration of Independence: the altering or abolishing of the current structure, which I see as being a social revolution with the aims of reigning in power structures and restructuring along anarchsit principles.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15370
Joined  2006-02-14
truthaddict - 13 October 2007 09:01 AM

the altering or abolishing of the current structure, which I see as being a social revolution with the aims of reigning in power structures and restructuring along anarchsit principles.

So then we’d have all these loose nukes floating around, usable by anarchist cells that live around where the missiles are based?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3