Under bombardment.

Ukrainian officials have reported a massive barrage of Russian strikes on critical infrastructure in Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities.
Part of the Ukrainian capital was cut off from power and water supplies as a result, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said.

Officials reported possible power outages in the cities of Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia resulting from the strikes.

Critical infrastructure objects were also hit in the Cherkasy region south-east of Kyiv, and explosions were reported in other regions of Ukraine.
More

roughbarked said:

Under bombardment.

Ukrainian officials have reported a massive barrage of Russian strikes on critical infrastructure in Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities.
Part of the Ukrainian capital was cut off from power and water supplies as a result, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said.

Officials reported possible power outages in the cities of Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia resulting from the strikes.

Critical infrastructure objects were also hit in the Cherkasy region south-east of Kyiv, and explosions were reported in other regions of Ukraine.
More

This is probably a war crime, in spite of Wookie praising this as a great strategic move by Vladdie-Poots.

roughbarked said:

Under bombardment.

Ukrainian officials have reported a massive barrage of Russian strikes on critical infrastructure in Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities.
Part of the Ukrainian capital was cut off from power and water supplies as a result, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said.

Officials reported possible power outages in the cities of Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia resulting from the strikes.

Critical infrastructure objects were also hit in the Cherkasy region south-east of Kyiv, and explosions were reported in other regions of Ukraine.
More

All’s fair in love and war. Bit hard to take at times.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Under bombardment.

Ukrainian officials have reported a massive barrage of Russian strikes on critical infrastructure in Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities.
Part of the Ukrainian capital was cut off from power and water supplies as a result, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said.

Officials reported possible power outages in the cities of Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia resulting from the strikes.

Critical infrastructure objects were also hit in the Cherkasy region south-east of Kyiv, and explosions were reported in other regions of Ukraine.
More

This is probably a war crime, in spite of Wookie praising this as a great strategic move by Vladdie-Poots.

The yanks level cities, they attack every kind of civillian infrastructure immediately.

Now it’s winter expect things to get WORSE

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Under bombardment.

Ukrainian officials have reported a massive barrage of Russian strikes on critical infrastructure in Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities.
Part of the Ukrainian capital was cut off from power and water supplies as a result, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said.

Officials reported possible power outages in the cities of Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia resulting from the strikes.

Critical infrastructure objects were also hit in the Cherkasy region south-east of Kyiv, and explosions were reported in other regions of Ukraine.
More

All’s fair in love and war. Bit hard to take at times.

Actually, no. While targeting infrastructure of a city may be a war crime, targeting civilians most definitely is. The personal details of the Russians who decide the targets have been leaked, so when this is all over they will be among the first to be called up to answer for their crimes.

Oh, and Bakhmut is now totally in Ukrainian hands.

Russia launched another 50 of their dwindling supplies of cruise missiles into Ukrainian urban areas far away from the front line. (44 of them failed to reach their target)

As a tactical decision to crush the spirit of the Ukes, it is a failure. And instead of making Russia appear strong and fearsome, it is making them look like a child throwing a tantrum.

Dark Orange said:

Russia launched another 50 of their dwindling supplies of cruise missiles into Ukrainian urban areas far away from the front line. (44 of them failed to reach their target)

As a tactical decision to crush the spirit of the Ukes, it is a failure. And instead of making Russia appear strong and fearsome, it is making them look like a child throwing a tantrum.

Even Turkey is bossing Russia around.

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Under bombardment.

Ukrainian officials have reported a massive barrage of Russian strikes on critical infrastructure in Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities.
Part of the Ukrainian capital was cut off from power and water supplies as a result, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said.

Officials reported possible power outages in the cities of Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia resulting from the strikes.

Critical infrastructure objects were also hit in the Cherkasy region south-east of Kyiv, and explosions were reported in other regions of Ukraine.
More

All’s fair in love and war. Bit hard to take at times.

Actually, no. While targeting infrastructure of a city may be a war crime, targeting civilians most definitely is. The personal details of the Russians who decide the targets have been leaked, so when this is all over they will be among the first to be called up to answer for their crimes.

So, the Dam Busters in WW11 was different? Dresden and many others too.

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

All’s fair in love and war. Bit hard to take at times.

Actually, no. While targeting infrastructure of a city may be a war crime, targeting civilians most definitely is. The personal details of the Russians who decide the targets have been leaked, so when this is all over they will be among the first to be called up to answer for their crimes.

So, the Dam Busters in WW11 was different? Dresden and many others too.

Operation Chastise could be easily argued to have militarily significance – the destroyed hydro-electric generation (and flooded factories) reduced the German’s ability to manufacture weapons.

In Ukraine, the attacks are not directed at any such areas and have the appearance of being deliberately aimed at civilian infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the Russians have fired at (and killed two crew members of) a tugboat moving a grain barge.

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

Actually, no. While targeting infrastructure of a city may be a war crime, targeting civilians most definitely is. The personal details of the Russians who decide the targets have been leaked, so when this is all over they will be among the first to be called up to answer for their crimes.

So, the Dam Busters in WW11 was different? Dresden and many others too.

Operation Chastise could be easily argued to have militarily significance – the destroyed hydro-electric generation (and flooded factories) reduced the German’s ability to manufacture weapons.

In Ukraine, the attacks are not directed at any such areas and have the appearance of being deliberately aimed at civilian infrastructure.

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

So, the Dam Busters in WW11 was different? Dresden and many others too.

Operation Chastise could be easily argued to have militarily significance – the destroyed hydro-electric generation (and flooded factories) reduced the German’s ability to manufacture weapons.

In Ukraine, the attacks are not directed at any such areas and have the appearance of being deliberately aimed at civilian infrastructure.

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

Oh I am sure that if Ukraine was a Nazi war machine, attacks on their ability to continue their path of destruction would be similar. However in this instance, Ukraine is the victim rather than the aggressor.

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

So, the Dam Busters in WW11 was different? Dresden and many others too.

Operation Chastise could be easily argued to have militarily significance – the destroyed hydro-electric generation (and flooded factories) reduced the German’s ability to manufacture weapons.

In Ukraine, the attacks are not directed at any such areas and have the appearance of being deliberately aimed at civilian infrastructure.

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

And don’t forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, it shortened the war by killing thousands of civilians, but destroying cities, towns and villages in Ukraine, or the bombing of same in WW11 was partly aimed at destroying the will of the people. War does things to people that are often not very nice. However, Putin and company scrape the bottom of the barrow.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

Operation Chastise could be easily argued to have militarily significance – the destroyed hydro-electric generation (and flooded factories) reduced the German’s ability to manufacture weapons.

In Ukraine, the attacks are not directed at any such areas and have the appearance of being deliberately aimed at civilian infrastructure.

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

And don’t forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, it shortened the war by killing thousands of civilians, but destroying cities, towns and villages in Ukraine, or the bombing of same in WW11 was partly aimed at destroying the will of the people. War does things to people that are often not very nice. However, Putin and company scrape the bottom of the barrow.

The truth is that war is despicable and that by this time in our history we should have learned that.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

Operation Chastise could be easily argued to have militarily significance – the destroyed hydro-electric generation (and flooded factories) reduced the German’s ability to manufacture weapons.

In Ukraine, the attacks are not directed at any such areas and have the appearance of being deliberately aimed at civilian infrastructure.

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

Oh I am sure that if Ukraine was a Nazi war machine, attacks on their ability to continue their path of destruction would be similar. However in this instance, Ukraine is the victim rather than the aggressor.

My initial comment was ‘all’s fair in love and war,’ and regardless of who started it, both sides will do dastardly things to win.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

And don’t forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, it shortened the war by killing thousands of civilians, but destroying cities, towns and villages in Ukraine, or the bombing of same in WW11 was partly aimed at destroying the will of the people. War does things to people that are often not very nice. However, Putin and company scrape the bottom of the barrow.

The truth is that war is despicable and that by this time in our history we should have learned that.

You have more faith in human nature than me then.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

Oh I am sure that if Ukraine was a Nazi war machine, attacks on their ability to continue their path of destruction would be similar. However in this instance, Ukraine is the victim rather than the aggressor.

My initial comment was ‘all’s fair in love and war,’ and regardless of who started it, both sides will do dastardly things to win.

Yes. This is war and it is why it should be avoided at all costs.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

And don’t forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, it shortened the war by killing thousands of civilians, but destroying cities, towns and villages in Ukraine, or the bombing of same in WW11 was partly aimed at destroying the will of the people. War does things to people that are often not very nice. However, Putin and company scrape the bottom of the barrow.

The truth is that war is despicable and that by this time in our history we should have learned that.

You have more faith in human nature than me then.

That’s why I put the word ‘should’ in there. What we should do and what we do, are still miles apart.

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

So, the Dam Busters in WW11 was different? Dresden and many others too.

Operation Chastise could be easily argued to have militarily significance – the destroyed hydro-electric generation (and flooded factories) reduced the German’s ability to manufacture weapons.

In Ukraine, the attacks are not directed at any such areas and have the appearance of being deliberately aimed at civilian infrastructure.

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

I ignored the bombing of Dresden for two reasons:

1. I do not know enough about it to comment,

2. I have more important things to do.

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

Operation Chastise could be easily argued to have militarily significance – the destroyed hydro-electric generation (and flooded factories) reduced the German’s ability to manufacture weapons.

In Ukraine, the attacks are not directed at any such areas and have the appearance of being deliberately aimed at civilian infrastructure.

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

I ignored the bombing of Dresden for two reasons:

1. I do not know enough about it to comment,

2. I have more important things to do.

Well it was pretty much obliberated.

roughbarked said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

I ignored the bombing of Dresden for two reasons:

1. I do not know enough about it to comment,

2. I have more important things to do.

Well it was pretty much obliberated.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-the-terrible-destruction-of-dresden-was-justified

roughbarked said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

I ignored the bombing of Dresden for two reasons:

1. I do not know enough about it to comment,

2. I have more important things to do.

Well it was pretty much obliberated.

I am of the opinion that the destruction was unplanned – a combination of unplanned factors created the “perfect storm” of death and destruction.

As to the legitimacy of the initial attack, I have no idea. But just because it was done in the past by those “on our side” does not make it open season on civilians.

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

Actually, no. While targeting infrastructure of a city may be a war crime, targeting civilians most definitely is. The personal details of the Russians who decide the targets have been leaked, so when this is all over they will be among the first to be called up to answer for their crimes.

So, the Dam Busters in WW11 was different? Dresden and many others too.

Operation Chastise could be easily argued to have militarily significance – the destroyed hydro-electric generation (and flooded factories) reduced the German’s ability to manufacture weapons.

In Ukraine, the attacks are not directed at any such areas and have the appearance of being deliberately aimed at civilian infrastructure.

I think targeting power, water and communications infrastructure is fair game – even if it directly harms a civilian population and I don’t think for a second that Russian missile strikes are completely indiscriminate, but that doesn’t mean that they are not willing to kill civilians to meet some military objective (no matter how small).

roughbarked said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

Cutting electricity supply would stop the manufacture of certain war items and other war related production, plus you ignore the bombing of Dresden. I think the problem is people like to judge others, but do not judge themselves. If you think there are goodies on one side and baddies on the other, you are fooling yourself.

I ignored the bombing of Dresden for two reasons:

1. I do not know enough about it to comment,

2. I have more important things to do.

Well it was pretty much obliterated.

Dresden is one of those things that will be argued about until the end of time.

It’s a hackneyed phrase, ‘you had to be there at the time’. Talking about it 70 -80 years afterwards, we can never really understand the pressures and stresses that had been working on people involved in the events of WW2, or how years of full-on total war had affected their thinking and attitudes, or how the desire to have it all over and done with after those years and the cost of the struggle had altered their ideas of what was justified.

We can judge them by the standards we hold today, but we can’t say that we wouldn’t ever adopt the attitudes of late WW2 if we were subject to something similar.

There’s points put forward that Dresden was a military manufacturing centre, and a rail hub, and it was both of those things, so it was a ‘legitimate target’. There was air defence over the city, so it wasn’t ‘undefended’.

There’s also points that by Feb 1945, bombing German cities had become comparatively irrelevant, and there was actually a lot of reluctance to bomb Dresden on the Allied side, even right at the top. Churchill expressed reservations on more than one occasion.

There’s also arguments that it was meant to terrorise the German population and weaken their support and work for the Nazi regime. If so, it certainly did terrorise the German people. It’s been suggested that Dresden was an example to the Soviets, to show what Britain and America could do if Soviet forces overstepped the agreed limits in Europe.

There’s also the notion that it was done to keep the Soviets on side. Stalin directly asked Churchill on one occasion ‘why have you not yet bombed Dresden?’.

Bearing in mind that we can’t really comprehend how people were thinking after years of the kind of war they’d lived through, i suggest that Dresden was probably attacked for a combination of the ‘reasons’ given. It was an appalling thing, something we tell ourselves we wouldn’t do, but i don’t think we should be so sure of that.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Dark Orange said:

I ignored the bombing of Dresden for two reasons:

1. I do not know enough about it to comment,

2. I have more important things to do.

Well it was pretty much obliterated.

Dresden is one of those things that will be argued about until the end of time.

It’s a hackneyed phrase, ‘you had to be there at the time’. Talking about it 70 -80 years afterwards, we can never really understand the pressures and stresses that had been working on people involved in the events of WW2, or how years of full-on total war had affected their thinking and attitudes, or how the desire to have it all over and done with after those years and the cost of the struggle had altered their ideas of what was justified.

We can judge them by the standards we hold today, but we can’t say that we wouldn’t ever adopt the attitudes of late WW2 if we were subject to something similar.

There’s points put forward that Dresden was a military manufacturing centre, and a rail hub, and it was both of those things, so it was a ‘legitimate target’. There was air defence over the city, so it wasn’t ‘undefended’.

There’s also points that by Feb 1945, bombing German cities had become comparatively irrelevant, and there was actually a lot of reluctance to bomb Dresden on the Allied side, even right at the top. Churchill expressed reservations on more than one occasion.

There’s also arguments that it was meant to terrorise the German population and weaken their support and work for the Nazi regime. If so, it certainly did terrorise the German people. It’s been suggested that Dresden was an example to the Soviets, to show what Britain and America could do if Soviet forces overstepped the agreed limits in Europe.

There’s also the notion that it was done to keep the Soviets on side. Stalin directly asked Churchill on one occasion ‘why have you not yet bombed Dresden?’.

Bearing in mind that we can’t really comprehend how people were thinking after years of the kind of war they’d lived through, i suggest that Dresden was probably attacked for a combination of the ‘reasons’ given. It was an appalling thing, something we tell ourselves we wouldn’t do, but i don’t think we should be so sure of that.

It was said of the first war, that it was the war to end all wars.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Dark Orange said:

I ignored the bombing of Dresden for two reasons:

1. I do not know enough about it to comment,

2. I have more important things to do.

Well it was pretty much obliterated.

Dresden is one of those things that will be argued about until the end of time.

It’s a hackneyed phrase, ‘you had to be there at the time’. Talking about it 70 -80 years afterwards, we can never really understand the pressures and stresses that had been working on people involved in the events of WW2, or how years of full-on total war had affected their thinking and attitudes, or how the desire to have it all over and done with after those years and the cost of the struggle had altered their ideas of what was justified.

We can judge them by the standards we hold today, but we can’t say that we wouldn’t ever adopt the attitudes of late WW2 if we were subject to something similar.

There’s points put forward that Dresden was a military manufacturing centre, and a rail hub, and it was both of those things, so it was a ‘legitimate target’. There was air defence over the city, so it wasn’t ‘undefended’.

There’s also points that by Feb 1945, bombing German cities had become comparatively irrelevant, and there was actually a lot of reluctance to bomb Dresden on the Allied side, even right at the top. Churchill expressed reservations on more than one occasion.

There’s also arguments that it was meant to terrorise the German population and weaken their support and work for the Nazi regime. If so, it certainly did terrorise the German people. It’s been suggested that Dresden was an example to the Soviets, to show what Britain and America could do if Soviet forces overstepped the agreed limits in Europe.

There’s also the notion that it was done to keep the Soviets on side. Stalin directly asked Churchill on one occasion ‘why have you not yet bombed Dresden?’.

Bearing in mind that we can’t really comprehend how people were thinking after years of the kind of war they’d lived through, i suggest that Dresden was probably attacked for a combination of the ‘reasons’ given. It was an appalling thing, something we tell ourselves we wouldn’t do, but i don’t think we should be so sure of that.

Supposedly by this time everyone was sick of the war and just wanted it to end and didn’t care about bombing of civilians.

In regards to war what does one do if the “enemy” builds military structures inside its cities next to such building as schools, day care centres and uses the population as human shields.

Oh dear

Russian Ministry of Defense suspends mobilization

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/31/europe/russian-mobilization-suspended-intl/index.html

CNN — 

Russia has now announced a stop to its “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement Monday that all partial mobilization activities, including summons deliveries, have been suspended.

The ministry added that “all activities related to conscription for military service” have been halted.
—
Military units will only be accepting volunteers and contractors from now on, the statement continued

The “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine has been beset by errors, caused angry protests and prompted a mass exodus since it was announced in September.

Cymek said:

In regards to war what does one do if the “enemy” builds military structures inside its cities next to such building as schools, day care centres and uses the population as human shields.

from ‘Frequently asked questions on the rules of war’

https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-rules-of-war-faq-geneva-conventions

‘If armed forces are using a hospital or school as a base to launch attacks or store weapons, are those places then a legitimate military target?

The laws of war prohibit direct attacks on civilian objects, like schools. They also prohibit direct attacks against hospitals and medical staff, which are specially protected under IHL. That said, a hospital or school may become a legitimate military target if it contributes to specific military operations of the enemy and if its destruction offers a definite military advantage for the attacking side.

If there is any doubt, they cannot be attacked. Hospitals only lose their protection in certain circumstances – for example if a hospital is being used as a base from which to launch an attack, as a weapons depot, or to hide healthy soldiers/fighters. And there are certain conditions too.

Before a party to a conflict can respond to such acts by attacking, it has to give a warning, with a time limit, and the other party has to have ignored that warning. Some States have endorsed the Safe Schools Declaration and Guidelines, which aim to reduce the military use of schools.’

US-trained Afghan commandos say Russia trying to recruit them to fight in Ukraine
Afghan special forces soldiers who fought alongside American troops and then fled to Iran after the chaotic US withdrawal last year are being recruited by Russia to fight in Ukraine, according to three former Afghan generals.
24m ago

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-01/russia-recruiting-us-trained-afghan-commandos-veterans-say/101600404

If military facilities of military production facilities are interspersed among civilian areas, then that does not mean that they are not legitimate targets.

While ‘attacking’ forces should make every effort to avoid killing civilians and destroying their property, it has to be accepted that such things may be unavoidable where those facilities are interspersed in civilian areas.

There’s some responsibility on the part of the ‘target’ side, too, if the structure of their forces and production is set up in a way that makes civilian areas legitimate targets.

This was partly the case in Dresden, where some production facilities were scattered among dwelling areas.

It was more of a problem in Japan, where a very great deal of parts production was done in ‘backyard’ workshops, in a kind of ‘mum and pop’ industrial base. Lots and lots of little workshops in residential areas, all feeding their finished parts to larger factories for assembly.

That style of production is still very big in Japan, with the same kind of home-based, small-scale workshops turning out parts for cars, planes, and electronics on the basis of thousands of individual contracts with larger companies.

To strike at war production in Japan was inseparable from striking at civilian areas.

dv said:

Oh dear

Russian Ministry of Defense suspends mobilization

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/31/europe/russian-mobilization-suspended-intl/index.html

CNN — 

Russia has now announced a stop to its “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement Monday that all partial mobilization activities, including summons deliveries, have been suspended.

The ministry added that “all activities related to conscription for military service” have been halted.
—
Military units will only be accepting volunteers and contractors from now on, the statement continued

The “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine has been beset by errors, caused angry protests and prompted a mass exodus since it was announced in September.

Is this to get the ones who left the country to come back so they can then be called up next month?

buffy said:

dv said:

Oh dear

Russian Ministry of Defense suspends mobilization

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/31/europe/russian-mobilization-suspended-intl/index.html

CNN — 

Russia has now announced a stop to its “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement Monday that all partial mobilization activities, including summons deliveries, have been suspended.

The ministry added that “all activities related to conscription for military service” have been halted.
—
Military units will only be accepting volunteers and contractors from now on, the statement continued

The “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine has been beset by errors, caused angry protests and prompted a mass exodus since it was announced in September.

Is this to get the ones who left the country to come back so they can then be called up next month?

:) I doubt they’ll fall for it.

buffy said:

dv said:

Oh dear

Russian Ministry of Defense suspends mobilization

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/31/europe/russian-mobilization-suspended-intl/index.html

CNN — 

Russia has now announced a stop to its “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement Monday that all partial mobilization activities, including summons deliveries, have been suspended.

The ministry added that “all activities related to conscription for military service” have been halted.
—
Military units will only be accepting volunteers and contractors from now on, the statement continued

The “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine has been beset by errors, caused angry protests and prompted a mass exodus since it was announced in September.

Is this to get the ones who left the country to come back so they can then be called up next month?

IDK, it might just be a reflection on how poorly it is going. It does appear to have been halted at the Ministry level without any official change in Putin’s policy so perhaps there is some trouble in paradise.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

Is this to get the ones who left the country to come back so they can then be called up next month?

:) I doubt they’ll fall for it.

I can imagine them saying ‘i’ll go home when Putin’s gone to Hell’.

dv said:

buffy said:

dv said:

Oh dear

Russian Ministry of Defense suspends mobilization

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/31/europe/russian-mobilization-suspended-intl/index.html

CNN — 

Russia has now announced a stop to its “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement Monday that all partial mobilization activities, including summons deliveries, have been suspended.

The ministry added that “all activities related to conscription for military service” have been halted.
—
Military units will only be accepting volunteers and contractors from now on, the statement continued

The “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine has been beset by errors, caused angry protests and prompted a mass exodus since it was announced in September.

Is this to get the ones who left the country to come back so they can then be called up next month?

IDK, it might just be a reflection on how poorly it is going. It does appear to have been halted at the Ministry level without any official change in Putin’s policy so perhaps there is some trouble in paradise.

This looks likely.

dv said:

buffy said:

dv said:

Oh dear

Russian Ministry of Defense suspends mobilization

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/31/europe/russian-mobilization-suspended-intl/index.html

CNN — 

Russia has now announced a stop to its “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement Monday that all partial mobilization activities, including summons deliveries, have been suspended.

The ministry added that “all activities related to conscription for military service” have been halted.
—
Military units will only be accepting volunteers and contractors from now on, the statement continued

The “partial mobilization” of citizens to fight in the country’s war on Ukraine has been beset by errors, caused angry protests and prompted a mass exodus since it was announced in September.

Is this to get the ones who left the country to come back so they can then be called up next month?

IDK, it might just be a reflection on how poorly it is going. It does appear to have been halted at the Ministry level without any official change in Putin’s policy so perhaps there is some trouble in paradise.

Let’s hope so.

captain_spalding said:

If military facilities of military production facilities are interspersed among civilian areas, then that does not mean that they are not legitimate targets.

While ‘attacking’ forces should make every effort to avoid killing civilians and destroying their property, it has to be accepted that such things may be unavoidable where those facilities are interspersed in civilian areas.

There’s some responsibility on the part of the ‘target’ side, too, if the structure of their forces and production is set up in a way that makes civilian areas legitimate targets.

This was partly the case in Dresden, where some production facilities were scattered among dwelling areas.

It was more of a problem in Japan, where a very great deal of parts production was done in ‘backyard’ workshops, in a kind of ‘mum and pop’ industrial base. Lots and lots of little workshops in residential areas, all feeding their finished parts to larger factories for assembly.

That style of production is still very big in Japan, with the same kind of home-based, small-scale workshops turning out parts for cars, planes, and electronics on the basis of thousands of individual contracts with larger companies.

To strike at war production in Japan was inseparable from striking at civilian areas.

I would very much doubt that the Allies had any concern about the production of arms in Dresden or the two cities in Japan that were A Bombed. They were making a point in the most dramatic way they could and showing just what they could do if Germany and Japan continued with the war. The only aim was to win the war in whatever way possible and as quickly as possible, civilian deaths were a very minor consideration and the numbers that did die was extra emphasis of the Allies capability.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

If military facilities of military production facilities are interspersed among civilian areas, then that does not mean that they are not legitimate targets.

While ‘attacking’ forces should make every effort to avoid killing civilians and destroying their property, it has to be accepted that such things may be unavoidable where those facilities are interspersed in civilian areas.

There’s some responsibility on the part of the ‘target’ side, too, if the structure of their forces and production is set up in a way that makes civilian areas legitimate targets.

This was partly the case in Dresden, where some production facilities were scattered among dwelling areas.

It was more of a problem in Japan, where a very great deal of parts production was done in ‘backyard’ workshops, in a kind of ‘mum and pop’ industrial base. Lots and lots of little workshops in residential areas, all feeding their finished parts to larger factories for assembly.

That style of production is still very big in Japan, with the same kind of home-based, small-scale workshops turning out parts for cars, planes, and electronics on the basis of thousands of individual contracts with larger companies.

To strike at war production in Japan was inseparable from striking at civilian areas.

I would very much doubt that the Allies had any concern about the production of arms in Dresden or the two cities in Japan that were A Bombed. They were making a point in the most dramatic way they could and showing just what they could do if Germany and Japan continued with the war. The only aim was to win the war in whatever way possible and as quickly as possible, civilian deaths were a very minor consideration and the numbers that did die was extra emphasis of the Allies capability.

Actually, the decisions on which cities were bombed was not taken lightly. But you are half-right in that while Nagasaki was chosen for its shipbuilding industry, the second city was originally to be Kyoto, but it was somehow successfully argued that destroying the cultural centre of a population was a bad long-term decision.

So Hiroshima was chosen because its lack of strategic significance meant it had not suffered much allied bombing so a proper test could be made of the bomb’s destructive power on an undamaged city.

And Dresden was a major transportation hub.

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

If military facilities of military production facilities are interspersed among civilian areas, then that does not mean that they are not legitimate targets.

While ‘attacking’ forces should make every effort to avoid killing civilians and destroying their property, it has to be accepted that such things may be unavoidable where those facilities are interspersed in civilian areas.

There’s some responsibility on the part of the ‘target’ side, too, if the structure of their forces and production is set up in a way that makes civilian areas legitimate targets.

This was partly the case in Dresden, where some production facilities were scattered among dwelling areas.

It was more of a problem in Japan, where a very great deal of parts production was done in ‘backyard’ workshops, in a kind of ‘mum and pop’ industrial base. Lots and lots of little workshops in residential areas, all feeding their finished parts to larger factories for assembly.

That style of production is still very big in Japan, with the same kind of home-based, small-scale workshops turning out parts for cars, planes, and electronics on the basis of thousands of individual contracts with larger companies.

To strike at war production in Japan was inseparable from striking at civilian areas.

I would very much doubt that the Allies had any concern about the production of arms in Dresden or the two cities in Japan that were A Bombed. They were making a point in the most dramatic way they could and showing just what they could do if Germany and Japan continued with the war. The only aim was to win the war in whatever way possible and as quickly as possible, civilian deaths were a very minor consideration and the numbers that did die was extra emphasis of the Allies capability.

Actually, the decisions on which cities were bombed was not taken lightly. But you are half-right in that while Nagasaki was chosen for its shipbuilding industry, the second city was originally to be Kyoto, but it was somehow successfully argued that destroying the cultural centre of a population was a bad long-term decision.

So Hiroshima was chosen because its lack of strategic significance meant it had not suffered much allied bombing so a proper test could be made of the bomb’s destructive power on an undamaged city.

And Dresden was a major transportation hub.

Hiroshima was, in fact, a large army training and assembly point, as well as being home to a strong manufacturing sector, which is why it was on the target list. BUT… there was consideration given to the fact that it had not yet been seriously bombed.

captain_spalding said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

I would very much doubt that the Allies had any concern about the production of arms in Dresden or the two cities in Japan that were A Bombed. They were making a point in the most dramatic way they could and showing just what they could do if Germany and Japan continued with the war. The only aim was to win the war in whatever way possible and as quickly as possible, civilian deaths were a very minor consideration and the numbers that did die was extra emphasis of the Allies capability.

Actually, the decisions on which cities were bombed was not taken lightly. But you are half-right in that while Nagasaki was chosen for its shipbuilding industry, the second city was originally to be Kyoto, but it was somehow successfully argued that destroying the cultural centre of a population was a bad long-term decision.

So Hiroshima was chosen because its lack of strategic significance meant it had not suffered much allied bombing so a proper test could be made of the bomb’s destructive power on an undamaged city.

And Dresden was a major transportation hub.

Hiroshima was, in fact, a large army training and assembly point, as well as being home to a strong manufacturing sector, which is why it was on the target list. BUT… there was consideration given to the fact that it had not yet been seriously bombed.

FWIW …

“Hiroshima was the primary target of the first atomic bombing mission on 6 August, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternative targets.”

“At 03:47 Tinian time (GMT+10), 02:47 Japanese time on the morning of 9 August 1945, Bockscar, flown by Sweeney’s crew, lifted off from Tinian island with the Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Bombing_of_Hiroshima

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

If military facilities of military production facilities are interspersed among civilian areas, then that does not mean that they are not legitimate targets.

While ‘attacking’ forces should make every effort to avoid killing civilians and destroying their property, it has to be accepted that such things may be unavoidable where those facilities are interspersed in civilian areas.

There’s some responsibility on the part of the ‘target’ side, too, if the structure of their forces and production is set up in a way that makes civilian areas legitimate targets.

This was partly the case in Dresden, where some production facilities were scattered among dwelling areas.

It was more of a problem in Japan, where a very great deal of parts production was done in ‘backyard’ workshops, in a kind of ‘mum and pop’ industrial base. Lots and lots of little workshops in residential areas, all feeding their finished parts to larger factories for assembly.

That style of production is still very big in Japan, with the same kind of home-based, small-scale workshops turning out parts for cars, planes, and electronics on the basis of thousands of individual contracts with larger companies.

To strike at war production in Japan was inseparable from striking at civilian areas.

I would very much doubt that the Allies had any concern about the production of arms in Dresden or the two cities in Japan that were A Bombed. They were making a point in the most dramatic way they could and showing just what they could do if Germany and Japan continued with the war. The only aim was to win the war in whatever way possible and as quickly as possible, civilian deaths were a very minor consideration and the numbers that did die was extra emphasis of the Allies capability.

Actually, the decisions on which cities were bombed was not taken lightly. But you are half-right in that while Nagasaki was chosen for its shipbuilding industry, the second city was originally to be Kyoto, but it was somehow successfully argued that destroying the cultural centre of a population was a bad long-term decision.

So Hiroshima was chosen because its lack of strategic significance meant it had not suffered much allied bombing so a proper test could be made of the bomb’s destructive power on an undamaged city.

And Dresden was a major transportation hub.

It is the victors that write history and why would they admit they wanted to make a point that Germany and Japan could not ignore. At the time the Allies were well on the road to winning the war, but they wanted to end it quickly so they would not lose more of their own troops. They succeeded by killing more civilians at one time than ever before, which was their aim. None of these populated centers in the scheme of things, were especially important for their war effort.

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

I would very much doubt that the Allies had any concern about the production of arms in Dresden or the two cities in Japan that were A Bombed. They were making a point in the most dramatic way they could and showing just what they could do if Germany and Japan continued with the war. The only aim was to win the war in whatever way possible and as quickly as possible, civilian deaths were a very minor consideration and the numbers that did die was extra emphasis of the Allies capability.

Actually, the decisions on which cities were bombed was not taken lightly. But you are half-right in that while Nagasaki was chosen for its shipbuilding industry, the second city was originally to be Kyoto, but it was somehow successfully argued that destroying the cultural centre of a population was a bad long-term decision.

So Hiroshima was chosen because its lack of strategic significance meant it had not suffered much allied bombing so a proper test could be made of the bomb’s destructive power on an undamaged city.

And Dresden was a major transportation hub.

It is the victors that write history and why would they admit they wanted to make a point that Germany and Japan could not ignore. At the time the Allies were well on the road to winning the war, but they wanted to end it quickly so they would not lose more of their own troops. They succeeded by killing more civilians at one time than ever before, which was their aim. None of these populated centers in the scheme of things, were especially important for their war effort.

The other theory is that they (the USA) wanted to end the war with Japan before the Soviets could transfer troops east and join in the fight. Then they’d have to be allowed to participate in the peace. The US wanted the Soviets out and to deal with Japan alone on their own terms.

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

PermeateFree said:

I would very much doubt that the Allies had any concern about the production of arms in Dresden or the two cities in Japan that were A Bombed. They were making a point in the most dramatic way they could and showing just what they could do if Germany and Japan continued with the war. The only aim was to win the war in whatever way possible and as quickly as possible, civilian deaths were a very minor consideration and the numbers that did die was extra emphasis of the Allies capability.

Actually, the decisions on which cities were bombed was not taken lightly. But you are half-right in that while Nagasaki was chosen for its shipbuilding industry, the second city was originally to be Kyoto, but it was somehow successfully argued that destroying the cultural centre of a population was a bad long-term decision.

So Hiroshima was chosen because its lack of strategic significance meant it had not suffered much allied bombing so a proper test could be made of the bomb’s destructive power on an undamaged city.

And Dresden was a major transportation hub.

It is the victors that write history and why would they admit they wanted to make a point that Germany and Japan could not ignore. At the time the Allies were well on the road to winning the war, but they wanted to end it quickly so they would not lose more of their own troops. They succeeded by killing more civilians at one time than ever before, which was their aim. None of these populated centers in the scheme of things, were especially important for their war effort.

The 150,000 dead form the atomic bombs compares unfavourably with estimates I’ve read that invading the Japanese home islands might result in 2 million allied deaths.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Dark Orange said:

Actually, the decisions on which cities were bombed was not taken lightly. But you are half-right in that while Nagasaki was chosen for its shipbuilding industry, the second city was originally to be Kyoto, but it was somehow successfully argued that destroying the cultural centre of a population was a bad long-term decision.

So Hiroshima was chosen because its lack of strategic significance meant it had not suffered much allied bombing so a proper test could be made of the bomb’s destructive power on an undamaged city.

And Dresden was a major transportation hub.

It is the victors that write history and why would they admit they wanted to make a point that Germany and Japan could not ignore. At the time the Allies were well on the road to winning the war, but they wanted to end it quickly so they would not lose more of their own troops. They succeeded by killing more civilians at one time than ever before, which was their aim. None of these populated centers in the scheme of things, were especially important for their war effort.

The 150,000 dead form the atomic bombs compares unfavourably with estimates I’ve read that invading the Japanese home islands might result in 2 million allied deaths.

The A Bomb was an experimental weapon that America was keen to test in a war setting, so the outcome was not assured, but it was known that many allied lives would be lost with a conventional invasion. So they chose their troops over the Japanese civilians and who could blame them, but the loss of civilian life was of secondary importance. Please stop this ridiculous assumption that the enemy all wore black hats whilst we wore all white ones. There is only one aim in war and that is to win and morals concerning enemy civilians are not regarded very highly.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

It is the victors that write history and why would they admit they wanted to make a point that Germany and Japan could not ignore. At the time the Allies were well on the road to winning the war, but they wanted to end it quickly so they would not lose more of their own troops. They succeeded by killing more civilians at one time than ever before, which was their aim. None of these populated centers in the scheme of things, were especially important for their war effort.

The 150,000 dead form the atomic bombs compares unfavourably with estimates I’ve read that invading the Japanese home islands might result in 2 million allied deaths.

The A Bomb was an experimental weapon that America was keen to test in a war setting, so the outcome was not assured, but it was known that many allied lives would be lost with a conventional invasion. So they chose their troops over the Japanese civilians and who could blame them, but the loss of civilian life was of secondary importance. Please stop this ridiculous assumption that the enemy all wore black hats whilst we wore all white ones. There is only one aim in war and that is to win and morals concerning enemy civilians are not regarded very highly.

Certainly nuking civilians is abhorrrent but if we forget thinking of Japaanese and mericans and merely think of humans sure 150,000 dead is a more moral outcome than upwards of

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

It is the victors that write history and why would they admit they wanted to make a point that Germany and Japan could not ignore. At the time the Allies were well on the road to winning the war, but they wanted to end it quickly so they would not lose more of their own troops. They succeeded by killing more civilians at one time than ever before, which was their aim. None of these populated centers in the scheme of things, were especially important for their war effort.

The 150,000 dead form the atomic bombs compares unfavourably with estimates I’ve read that invading the Japanese home islands might result in 2 million allied deaths.

The A Bomb was an experimental weapon that America was keen to test in a war setting, so the outcome was not assured, but it was known that many allied lives would be lost with a conventional invasion. So they chose their troops over the Japanese civilians and who could blame them, but the loss of civilian life was of secondary importance. Please stop this ridiculous assumption that the enemy all wore black hats whilst we wore all white ones. There is only one aim in war and that is to win and morals concerning enemy civilians are not regarded very highly.

Certainly nuking civilians is abhorrent but if we forget thinking of Japanese and Americans and merely think of humans surely 150,000 dead is a more moral outcome than upwards of 4 million lives lost in the hard slog to total surrender.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The 150,000 dead form the atomic bombs compares unfavourably with estimates I’ve read that invading the Japanese home islands might result in 2 million allied deaths.

The A Bomb was an experimental weapon that America was keen to test in a war setting, so the outcome was not assured, but it was known that many allied lives would be lost with a conventional invasion. So they chose their troops over the Japanese civilians and who could blame them, but the loss of civilian life was of secondary importance. Please stop this ridiculous assumption that the enemy all wore black hats whilst we wore all white ones. There is only one aim in war and that is to win and morals concerning enemy civilians are not regarded very highly.

Certainly nuking civilians is abhorrent but if we forget thinking of Japanese and Americans and merely think of humans surely 150,000 dead is a more moral outcome than upwards of 4 million lives lost in the hard slog to total surrender.

the trolley car dilemma.

JudgeMental said:

the trolley car dilemma.

That it was. And one that weighed heavily on Truman, who was unaware of the bomb’s existence until he took over as President after Roosevelt died.

Conservative estimates of Allied dead from the invasion of the Japanese home islands (Operation Downfall) were 500,000, with 1 million wounded. Other estimates provided figures anywhere from two to four times as many.

Operation Olympic, the unavoidable first-up invasion of Kyushu would have seen Allied assault waves opposed by 350,000 dug-in and determined Japanese troops (who knew precisely where the attack would come), supported by 1,000 kamikaze planes. The slaughter would have been horrendous on both sides.

Amongst their other concerns, the Americans had severe doubts that they could even produce enough Purple Heart medals (for Americans killed or wounded in service) fast enough to meet the expected numbers needed.

The Japanese Imperial General Staff had accepted the concept that if 20 million Japanese dead was the price of ‘national honour’, then so be it. Every citizen was to be conscripted into the fighting: old men and women, young boys and girls, armed with hand grenades or even just a sharpened bamboo stake, driven in waves into the Allied guns.

Conservative estimates of Japanese who would be killed in the fighting to subdue the home islands were from 3 million to 5 million.

An argument is made that the Japanese islands could have been blockaded, and starved into submission. Perhaps that was possible. But they really would have been starved into surrendering, with millions of people dying a slow and awful death, with the young, the old, and the frail the first to die.

Given these prospects, and given an opportunity to demonstrate an unanswerable capability and its actual effects on a comparatively small target, what choice did Truman have?