ANZUS treaty and the changing world

Post Reply New Topic

The fact of the matter is that Japan was rapidly running out of fuel and supplies, there was an internal conglict amongst Japans leaders and had been for some time. It is reasonable to assume that given the effective siege of Japan they would have capitulated in a month or so. Russia attacked them at the same time as the bombs went of and this alone would have led them to surrender to the US to avoid Russian occupation. The bombs were dropped when they were because the US was running out of time to use them.

@ Dogbrain please dont be so insulting, To associate miasma theory which had absolutely no scientific basis to the understanding of history that has written records is infantile. US foreing policy has for the last 100 or so years been one of expansionism and lies. The behaviour of the US to the rest of the world has at best been disgraceful. I suggest that you do far more reading on the behaviour of the US in the twentieth century and stop believing the spin put out by succesive US governments.

You still don't understand the psychology. Besides which, the casualty rates in those months would have far exceeded the damage of the bombs.
The US already tested the bombs in an American desert - they wouldn't have risked bombers on a completely untested weapon, so this time-frame you speak of makes little sense.

Of course I understand the pyscology that you are refering too. My point is and it is backed up plenty of evidence the Japanese were close to forced surrender because they had bugger all resources left. Of course they tested the bomb in the states, but they had not tested it on humans and if you dont think the US were that callous ask the residents of Rongelap in the marshall islands what they think of The US and their ethics involving nuclear weapons testing.

Back to your original post I personally do not think we are under any threat from Indonesia, China or anyone else for that matter. If China did decide to invade us we would just have to put up with it, the alternative, a war between the US and its allies against China would be far too disastrous,

Wait - you didn't just say that if the Chinese decided they wanted Australia we should just say, sure! Take it!
Really? Really? No, seriously. Really?
Sure, they have an army bigger than our population. Doesn't mean we just give in.

Well the way I see it is fight and have utter destruction or survive. Neither choice is pleasant but I know the one I would prefer.

Then you are a fool.

"There will be wars and rumours of wars" so says the bible. I'm a christian so I worry about the next life more than this one. I think it will all get worse in this life.

I have found it strange the new coziness of US presidents with our PMs, but Howard cultivated it.

You're a worrier, you are.

Though you may not believe it, China is held in check by India and the US nuclear submarines in the pacific.

Any major aggression by China against any nation East of them will mean the nations West of China will side against them. Same happens if they try to expand westward.. they will face an enemy force East of them. Either side has them facing nuclear armed and ready opponents.

With the majority of their nation's population and industry on the coastline, a nuke strike on China will literally wipe their ability to fight once those cities are hit. It makes no sense to have 2 billion people.. get nuked down to 1.5 billion and then have no industry to arm and equip whatever is left of their army.

If there is anything you can say about the Chinese is that they aren't stupid and they do pay a LOT of attention to history. They will not get into a 2 sided war that could go nuclear.

That is, they will not START it. But you can bet they'll try to coax the other side to punch first so that the world cannot unite against them on 2 fronts (or 3 rather as the north lay the Russians)

Dantac, that's what concerns me. Let's face it; the Chinese government practically invented sneaky.