|
yes kwark, sorry about disregarding the fact that NK propably isn't as wide spread and well prepared as russia and the USA were in the USA.
I still believe that NK should have the potential to detect a nuclear missile launched at them, and if they are capable of launching (a) nuclear missile, shouldn't they be able to do so on that notice? They won't have any scruples retaliating the attack.
I criticise the american historical education (and only this one) because I have experienced it first hand, and it is not what it should be in my opinion (the school system in general isnt). I do not mean to be ignorant or condescending, and i understand that the situation is not 100% comparable to the cold war, but from all i know of the matter (i am no weapon or NK expert, but neither are you i believe) there is no reason to believe a first strike would hinder atomic retaliation from North Koreas side.
It seems you are well informed, and i'd be happy to read about some background info about the estimated results of a nuclear first strike on NK, if you have any sources.
I did probably come over quite harsh, because even if there is the possibility of a nuke stopping NKs retaliation, I believe nukes are NEVER the right solution. You do not weigh losses against losses (sacrificing them for us), especially if you're a nation that fights for freedom and human rights.
edit: i'm shocked by how many people want to argue FOR use of nuclear attacks, even justifying the bombs used on Japan.
|
It's pretty strange that people assume the only use of a nuclear strike is to incinerate civilian populations. NK has a lot of military installations that are not susceptible to conventional bombs because they are deep in the mountains. Nuclear bunker busters don't have much fallout. Some parts of the military wanted to use them in the middle east.
Pretty much every argument in here against a nuclear strike has been along the lines 'zomg genocide, mass casualties". If we were to ever use a nuclear strike on the norks I doubt it would be on civilians, what would we gain by doing something like that? So if a nuclear strike on the norks wouldn't create mass casualties or fallout what's your reason for opposing them so strongly?
|
On March 28 2013 03:19 ElMeanYo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 02:37 Blargh wrote:
Have some faith in Obama and his military officials.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
That wasn't a joke : (
Really, if you don't think he is making the right choice in this situation, then feel free to protest in DC over it. Otherwise, I think you will do exactly as I said you would, which is nothing. Thank you for your post, though.
@heliusx
Well, when it was used vs. Japan, it ended the war, so I think that's what the objective would be. It is a pretty big deal-breaker when the other country does not have the same technology. Though, it is said that Japan would have surrendered anyway, and then a ton of silly arguments over evidence and deaths ensue. (LOL, I called that shit)
I'm pretty sure a valid reason for not using nuclear weapons is that, like death sentences, it's doing exactly what you were opposing. No one wants NK to use nuclear weapons and if USA were to use them, then it's sort of silly. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other reasons why you wouldn't use them, such as it stirring up more trouble.
I imagine if nuclear weapons were used offensively, it would cause an outrage everywhere. So, it's actually a pretty stupid idea. The last thing we want is all future wars to revolve around the use of nuclear weapons, right?
@below post
Well, you did say "What would we gain if we did that?" and I answered that for you!
Also, this thread has too many "nukes", can has not nuke-related discussion  ?
|
On March 28 2013 03:48 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 03:19 ElMeanYo wrote:On March 28 2013 02:37 Blargh wrote:
Have some faith in Obama and his military officials.
HAHAHAHAHAHA That wasn't a joke : ( Really, if you don't think he is making the right choice in this situation, then feel free to protest in DC over it. Otherwise, I think you will do exactly as I said you would, which is nothing. Thank you for your post, though. @heliusx Well, when it was used vs. Japan, it ended the war, so I think that's what the objective would be. It is a pretty big deal-breaker when the other country does not have the same technology. Though, it is said that Japan would have surrendered anyway, and then a ton of silly arguments over evidence and deaths ensue. I'm pretty sure a valid reason for not using nuclear weapons is that, like death sentences, it's doing exactly what you were opposing. No one wants NK to use nuclear weapons and if USA were to use them, then it's sort of silly. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other reasons why you wouldn't use them, such as it stirring up more trouble. I imagine if nuclear weapons were used offensively, it would cause an outrage everywhere. So, it's actually a pretty stupid idea. The last thing we want is all future wars to revolve around the use of nuclear weapons, right?
I'm not arguing for or against their use. I'm just pointing out that it's pretty silly to pretend a nuclear device could only be used for killing cities.
|
On March 28 2013 03:20 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
yes kwark, sorry about disregarding the fact that NK propably isn't as wide spread and well prepared as russia and the USA were in the USA.
I still believe that NK should have the potential to detect a nuclear missile launched at them, and if they are capable of launching (a) nuclear missile, shouldn't they be able to do so on that notice? They won't have any scruples retaliating the attack.
I criticise the american historical education (and only this one) because I have experienced it first hand, and it is not what it should be in my opinion (the school system in general isnt). I do not mean to be ignorant or condescending, and i understand that the situation is not 100% comparable to the cold war, but from all i know of the matter (i am no weapon or NK expert, but neither are you i believe) there is no reason to believe a first strike would hinder atomic retaliation from North Koreas side.
It seems you are well informed, and i'd be happy to read about some background info about the estimated results of a nuclear first strike on NK, if you have any sources.
I did probably come over quite harsh, because even if there is the possibility of a nuke stopping NKs retaliation, I believe nukes are NEVER the right solution. You do not weigh losses against losses (sacrificing them for us), especially if you're a nation that fights for freedom and human rights.
edit: i'm shocked by how many people want to argue FOR use of nuclear attacks, even justifying the bombs used on Japan.
As horrible as it is, there ARE arguements that I think make plenty of sense in the justification of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, and to an extent in North Korea as well.
Do you know how many people, American and Japanese, would have fought and died on the shores and in the cities of Japan if nuclear weaponry was not used? millions. Does that mean its okay to use a nuclear weapon to level 2 cities and kill thousands of innocent people? I dont know. I thank god that im not the one who had to make that decision. But there were reasons for it. I remember reading a quote that Truman made about not being able to live with himself if he sent millions of American men to their death by continuing a ground war with Japan. The use of nuclear weaponry was arguably the lesser of 2 evils.
Does that apply to North Korea now? I have no idea. As micronesia said, there are so many factors at play right now that we are not aware of as the general public. We have no idea what spy satellites are seeing in North Korea, or what they are planning. but I do know that they have called the US their arch nemesis, and I wouldnt put it past these people to do something crazy. We know they have nuclear weapons and one of the largest armies in the world. If innocent lives could be saved by a first strike, nuclear or not, I would have a hard time saying that it isnt justified.
|
On March 28 2013 03:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 02:57 xM(Z wrote:
that's part of the politics within NK. kim jong un vs old generals, party leaders or whatever they have there. he needs to prove himself.
wiki gossip:
"On March 14, 2013, reports surfaced from South Korean intelligence sources that Kim Jong-un had been the target of an assassination attempt.[101] The attempt was made by "disgruntled people inside the North" in response to the demotion of Reconnaissance General Bureau director Kim Yong-chol in November of 2012. According to the unnamed intelligence source the attempt was made in downtown Pyongyang and resulted in a firefight. The demotion was due to an internal power struggle between government factions.[102]" That doesn't change anything. The argument being made was that the US media is preparing the public for another potential conflict on the orders of their masters who wanted another war. The change in NK rhetoric towards an attack upon the US is a more probable cause for why the media is talking about a conflict with NK.
kim jong un had to step up the game (from where his father left it) to gain credibility with his own people.
what the US media does of this, one can't really speculate because it's to 'X'mongering.
hell, those 'masters' can even let a nuke fly from NK then use it's aftermath to rally people against shit for eons.
and the argument was against preemptive nuclear strikes i think.
|
On March 28 2013 03:48 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 03:19 ElMeanYo wrote:On March 28 2013 02:37 Blargh wrote:
Have some faith in Obama and his military officials.
HAHAHAHAHAHA @heliusx Well, when it was used vs. Japan, it ended the war, so I think that's what the objective would be. It is a pretty big deal-breaker when the other country does not have the same technology. Though, it is said that Japan would have surrendered anyway, and then a ton of silly arguments over evidence and deaths ensue.
While I too wish to avoid the debate of whether or not Japan would have surrendered. I think it is imperative to recognize that two bombs were used before the war ended. Whether or not the second was necessary, it is incorrect to say that the bomb ended the war, as the bomb on Hiroshima did not. So we cannot say that that a nuclear bomb is a deal breaker.
Again though, I don't want to debate whether the bombs are necessary, my standpoint on that matter might not even line up with what one might infer from the above response. I just think it's worth noting that so far in history, one bomb alone has not been enough to instantaneously end a war.
|
On March 28 2013 04:38 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 03:20 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
yes kwark, sorry about disregarding the fact that NK propably isn't as wide spread and well prepared as russia and the USA were in the USA.
I still believe that NK should have the potential to detect a nuclear missile launched at them, and if they are capable of launching (a) nuclear missile, shouldn't they be able to do so on that notice? They won't have any scruples retaliating the attack.
I criticise the american historical education (and only this one) because I have experienced it first hand, and it is not what it should be in my opinion (the school system in general isnt). I do not mean to be ignorant or condescending, and i understand that the situation is not 100% comparable to the cold war, but from all i know of the matter (i am no weapon or NK expert, but neither are you i believe) there is no reason to believe a first strike would hinder atomic retaliation from North Koreas side.
It seems you are well informed, and i'd be happy to read about some background info about the estimated results of a nuclear first strike on NK, if you have any sources.
I did probably come over quite harsh, because even if there is the possibility of a nuke stopping NKs retaliation, I believe nukes are NEVER the right solution. You do not weigh losses against losses (sacrificing them for us), especially if you're a nation that fights for freedom and human rights.
edit: i'm shocked by how many people want to argue FOR use of nuclear attacks, even justifying the bombs used on Japan. As horrible as it is, there ARE arguements that I think make plenty of sense in the justification of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, and to an extent in North Korea as well. Do you know how many people, American and Japanese, would have fought and died on the shores and in the cities of Japan if nuclear weaponry was not used? millions. Does that mean its okay to use a nuclear weapon to level 2 cities and kill thousands of innocent people? I dont know. I thank god that im not the one who had to make that decision. But there were reasons for it. I remember reading a quote that Truman made about not being able to live with himself if he sent millions of American men to their death by continuing a ground war with Japan. The use of nuclear weaponry was arguably the lesser of 2 evils. Does that apply to North Korea now? I have no idea. As micronesia said, there are so many factors at play right now that we are not aware of as the general public. We have no idea what spy satellites are seeing in North Korea, or what they are planning. but I do know that they have called the US their arch nemesis, and I wouldnt put it past these people to do something crazy. We know they have nuclear weapons and one of the largest armies in the world. If innocent lives could be saved by a first strike, nuclear or not, I would have a hard time saying that it isnt justified.
Just to add to that, the US warned Japan a month in advance that they would suffer untold destruction if they were to continue the war. The US told the Japanese what would happen, and Japan basically said, "Bring it on". Adding on to the fact, the US needed a quick and prompt surrender before the Soviets would have gotten involved. Should the war had gone on for another month or two, the exact same issue with East and West Germany would have developed in Japan.
In the situation with Japan during World War II, I would say there were plenty of reasons to justify the use of the bomb.
With the current North Korean situation, none of the above mentioned factors come into play. There's nothing a nuclear weapon can do more effectively than a conventional military attack could do.
It's hard to believe North Korea having significant second strike capabilities. They're military is already strapped for funds as is, they aren't going to have enough to fund multiple nuclear submarines/aircraft carriers. If North Korea was more like Iran, it would be reasonable to assume that they would have the resources to set up a rudimentary second strike system. As is, it's highly unlikely that a country as poor and as technologically backward as North Korea has the ability to effectively retaliate if its main nuclear hub is destroyed.
|
On March 28 2013 04:38 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 03:20 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
yes kwark, sorry about disregarding the fact that NK propably isn't as wide spread and well prepared as russia and the USA were in the USA.
I still believe that NK should have the potential to detect a nuclear missile launched at them, and if they are capable of launching (a) nuclear missile, shouldn't they be able to do so on that notice? They won't have any scruples retaliating the attack.
I criticise the american historical education (and only this one) because I have experienced it first hand, and it is not what it should be in my opinion (the school system in general isnt). I do not mean to be ignorant or condescending, and i understand that the situation is not 100% comparable to the cold war, but from all i know of the matter (i am no weapon or NK expert, but neither are you i believe) there is no reason to believe a first strike would hinder atomic retaliation from North Koreas side.
It seems you are well informed, and i'd be happy to read about some background info about the estimated results of a nuclear first strike on NK, if you have any sources.
I did probably come over quite harsh, because even if there is the possibility of a nuke stopping NKs retaliation, I believe nukes are NEVER the right solution. You do not weigh losses against losses (sacrificing them for us), especially if you're a nation that fights for freedom and human rights.
edit: i'm shocked by how many people want to argue FOR use of nuclear attacks, even justifying the bombs used on Japan. As horrible as it is, there ARE arguements that I think make plenty of sense in the justification of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, and to an extent in North Korea as well. Do you know how many people, American and Japanese, would have fought and died on the shores and in the cities of Japan if nuclear weaponry was not used? millions. Does that mean its okay to use a nuclear weapon to level 2 cities and kill thousands of innocent people? I dont know. I thank god that im not the one who had to make that decision. But there were reasons for it. I remember reading a quote that Truman made about not being able to live with himself if he sent millions of American men to their death by continuing a ground war with Japan. The use of nuclear weaponry was arguably the lesser of 2 evils. Does that apply to North Korea now? I have no idea. As micronesia said, there are so many factors at play right now that we are not aware of as the general public. We have no idea what spy satellites are seeing in North Korea, or what they are planning. but I do know that they have called the US their arch nemesis, and I wouldnt put it past these people to do something crazy. We know they have nuclear weapons and one of the largest armies in the world. If innocent lives could be saved by a first strike, nuclear or not, I would have a hard time saying that it isnt justified.
LOL oh the ignorance. Who says the US even needed to fight a ground war against Japan? Japan is a set of small islands dog. All you have to do is clear them out of China and the rest of Asia, then blow up their ships. The use of nuclear weapons was not to win the war, it was to tell the world that they better be fucking scared of the US. All of those Japanese lives were sacrifices to prove USA's military dominance over the rest of the world, especially over the communist Soviet.
Remember, the Soviets and the Americans were both fighting Japan. America, in a sense, "won", because they were able to completely dominate Japan instead of fighting with them head to head. That was so that the USA could tell the Soviets "hey look what we have, don't question our authority".
Don't do what you're doing right now trying to justify the nukes used on Japan. America's government has been rotten to the core since before the US's creation.
Now as for North Korea, we have such a better military force, we should be able to roll over their standing forces with just our regular forces. Implementing our special military would be overkill, which is exactly what needs to happen. Free the North Korean's from the NK government. If they want to unify with SK then that's fine, if not, it may just take time and a lot of US intervention to get them walking on their own two feet.
NK as a country is trash right now, but nukes are never the answer. They never should have been invented in the first place, because they are completely and utterly unnecessary, in every possible situation.
|
Are people actually taught in schools that nuclear strikes on Japan were justified and 'necessary'? Goddamn, that just makes me so angry. Japan was about to capitulate by the time the nuclear strikes were carried out; the reason nuclear bombs were used was because, 1. USA wanted to negotiate even more favourable terms of capitulation, quicker, and 2. as a show of power to the rest of the world, USSR in particular. There would not be 'millions' of casualties in a ground-based assault on Japan even if such an assault would in fact take place (it wouldn't).
|
The more I think about it, the more it seems like NK is just posturing.
Calling USA their arch nemesis is pretty laughable, it implies some kind of rivalry or contest as opposed to complete and utter domination culturally, economically, militaristically (omg is that even a word?) etc
This combined with the whole "we're going to get nukes" seems to me an attempt to appear more important and respectable than they really are, not sure what the goal here is though since they already seem to be receiving aid :S
On March 28 2013 05:12 Shinta) wrote:
NK as a country is trash right now, but nukes are never the answer. They never should have been invented in the first place, because they are completely and utterly unnecessary, in every possible situation.
Yawn..... so many reasons this is wrong.
Even if they are never used, the deterrent factor alone has and will probably continue to save millions upon millions of lives.
|
On March 28 2013 05:37 Reason wrote:The more I think about it, the more it seems like NK is just posturing. Calling USA their arch nemesis is pretty laughable, it implies some kind of rivalry or contest as opposed to complete and utter domination culturally, economically, militaristically (omg is that even a word?) etc This combined with the whole "we're going to get nukes" seems to me an attempt to appear more important and respectable than they really are, not sure what the goal here is though since they already seem to be receiving aid :S Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 05:12 Shinta) wrote:
NK as a country is trash right now, but nukes are never the answer. They never should have been invented in the first place, because they are completely and utterly unnecessary, in every possible situation. Yawn..... so many reasons this is wrong. Even if they are never used, the deterrent factor alone has and will probably continue to save millions upon millions of lives.
The deterrent factor alone has been cause for war, and has resulted in the loss of lives. It also fuels rage and fear.
Have you ever been put into a submissive position? Did you like and accept it as it was? If so, you are not a normal human being.
You're statement is wrong for so many reasons, not mine.
Do you know what other deterrent factor saves lives? Being better than the other country. Like I said before, our special forces can take out the entire NK standing army with most likely less than 50 casualties. Thus liberating a country and spreading democracy and freedom. You think a nuke's "deterrent factor" can do the same? People who think like you are corrupting the minds of those who feel indifferent in the matter.
Like I said before, nukes have never been the answer, they never will be the answer. Anytime you can use the excuse that nukes were necessary, you can find many other ways to find much better solutions.
|
On March 28 2013 05:26 Salazarz wrote:
Are people actually taught in schools that nuclear strikes on Japan were justified and 'necessary'? Goddamn, that just makes me so angry. Japan was about to capitulate by the time the nuclear strikes were carried out; the reason nuclear bombs were used was because, 1. USA wanted to negotiate even more favourable terms of capitulation, quicker, and 2. as a show of power to the rest of the world, USSR in particular. There would not be 'millions' of casualties in a ground-based assault on Japan even if such an assault would in fact take place (it wouldn't).
And why should we believe that your claims hold any more validity than what is taught in US schools? You should back up what you're saying with evidence, I don't think people are going to believe you just because you say so.
This is a debate that has been going on for decades. I think the best people can do is read the Wikipedia page on the arguments made by both sides. Here's a relevant quote:
The fact that even after the triple shock of the Soviet intervention and two atomic bombs, the Japanese cabinet was deadlocked and incapable of deciding upon a course of action is telling both of the power of the Army and naval factions in the cabinet, and of their unwillingness to even consider surrender. Even following the personal intervention of the emperor to break the deadlock in favour of surrender, there were no less than three separate coup attempts by senior Japanese officers to try to prevent the surrender and take the Emperor into 'protective custody'. Once these coup attempts had failed, senior leaders of the air force and Navy ordered bombing and kamikaze raids on the U.S. fleet (in which some Japanese generals personally participated) to try to derail any possibility of peace. It is clear from these accounts that while many in the civilian government knew the war could not be won, the power of the military in the Japanese government kept surrender from even being considered as a real option prior to the two atomic bombs
From: Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, by Richard B. Frank.
And lots of other points made by historian James Maddox. I guess for people reading this, its not so simple as someone on Team Liquid thinks its easy and straightforward, therefore it must be. There are lots of people on both sides of the debate. Maddox points out that Truman's top military advisers, including Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, General Douglas MacArthur, or Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, never expressed any reservations about using the bomb and even suggested an invasion after its use.
These are the people who would best know whether simply surrounding japan and controlling the air and sea would be enough to force surrender. Some people say Leahy was against the bomb's use for these reasons, but as Maddox points out:
Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.
Now I'm not sure what saying "up to the last it wouldn't go off" means (is he saying the bomb would fail, or the war wouldn't be called off?). But I'm pretty sure this issue isn't going to be settled by people making arrogant proclamations that this issue is easy, and telling us with all certainty what the appropriate course of military action would be as if they had the knowledge and experience of a fleet admiral, and the understanding of Japanese tenacity and resources in the war.
|
United States24583 Posts
On March 28 2013 05:26 Salazarz wrote:
Are people actually taught in schools that nuclear strikes on Japan were justified and 'necessary'?
I think it's taught as a 'controversial issue' the way creationists want evolution/creationism to be taught. They attempt to present the facts and then let the student decide. It really isn't the US government's place to tell American schoolchildren if it was justified or not.
Goddamn, that just makes me so angry. Japan was about to capitulate by the time the nuclear strikes were carried out
No. Even after the second bomb was dropped, the military leaders of Japan were preparing to continue the war. The emperor of Japan, Hirohito, was famous for asking "haven't we had enough" and convincing his military leaders that they should just surrender. In fact, right before the surrender, there was an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. Your BS about how Japan was just about to surrender and there was no need for bombs, an invasion, or anything else is unfounded.
the reason nuclear bombs were used was because, 1. USA wanted to negotiate even more favourable terms of capitulation, quicker, and 2. as a show of power to the rest of the world, USSR in particular. Source?
There would not be 'millions' of casualties in a ground-based assault on Japan even if such an assault would in fact take place (it wouldn't).
This is exactly what the allies were planning for. In fact, I know people (now dead) who were in the military at the time and were being prepared for an invasion of Japan. They thought they were going to die. In fact, a couple of them, who got a promotion shortly before the end of WW2, got so drunk out of some type of desperation that they were found driving a jeep down the street firing a pistol into the air and had their promotion immediately revoked.
Also I'm not sure how you did the forced attrition report or whatever it is and determined exactly how many casualties there would be on each side in the pending land invasion. Saying things like "you are wrong" and omitting any evidence or serious credentials doesn't help.
The same thing is happening with much of the discussion in this thread regarding North Korea. I would love to see some actual evidence or credentials of claims regarding exactly what NK is or isn't capable of. Reading a few articles on google news is not really sufficient.
edit: here might be a viable use for nukes by the way: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=402807
|
On March 28 2013 05:12 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 04:38 Aveng3r wrote:On March 28 2013 03:20 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
yes kwark, sorry about disregarding the fact that NK propably isn't as wide spread and well prepared as russia and the USA were in the USA.
I still believe that NK should have the potential to detect a nuclear missile launched at them, and if they are capable of launching (a) nuclear missile, shouldn't they be able to do so on that notice? They won't have any scruples retaliating the attack.
I criticise the american historical education (and only this one) because I have experienced it first hand, and it is not what it should be in my opinion (the school system in general isnt). I do not mean to be ignorant or condescending, and i understand that the situation is not 100% comparable to the cold war, but from all i know of the matter (i am no weapon or NK expert, but neither are you i believe) there is no reason to believe a first strike would hinder atomic retaliation from North Koreas side.
It seems you are well informed, and i'd be happy to read about some background info about the estimated results of a nuclear first strike on NK, if you have any sources.
I did probably come over quite harsh, because even if there is the possibility of a nuke stopping NKs retaliation, I believe nukes are NEVER the right solution. You do not weigh losses against losses (sacrificing them for us), especially if you're a nation that fights for freedom and human rights.
edit: i'm shocked by how many people want to argue FOR use of nuclear attacks, even justifying the bombs used on Japan. As horrible as it is, there ARE arguements that I think make plenty of sense in the justification of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, and to an extent in North Korea as well. Do you know how many people, American and Japanese, would have fought and died on the shores and in the cities of Japan if nuclear weaponry was not used? millions. Does that mean its okay to use a nuclear weapon to level 2 cities and kill thousands of innocent people? I dont know. I thank god that im not the one who had to make that decision. But there were reasons for it. I remember reading a quote that Truman made about not being able to live with himself if he sent millions of American men to their death by continuing a ground war with Japan. The use of nuclear weaponry was arguably the lesser of 2 evils. Does that apply to North Korea now? I have no idea. As micronesia said, there are so many factors at play right now that we are not aware of as the general public. We have no idea what spy satellites are seeing in North Korea, or what they are planning. but I do know that they have called the US their arch nemesis, and I wouldnt put it past these people to do something crazy. We know they have nuclear weapons and one of the largest armies in the world. If innocent lives could be saved by a first strike, nuclear or not, I would have a hard time saying that it isnt justified. LOL oh the ignorance. Who says the US even needed to fight a ground war against Japan? Japan is a set of small islands dog. All you have to do is clear them out of China and the rest of Asia, then blow up their ships. The use of nuclear weapons was not to win the war, it was to tell the world that they better be fucking scared of the US. All of those Japanese lives were sacrifices to prove USA's military dominance over the rest of the world, especially over the communist Soviet. Remember, the Soviets and the Americans were both fighting Japan. America, in a sense, "won", because they were able to completely dominate Japan instead of fighting with them head to head. That was so that the USA could tell the Soviets "hey look what we have, don't question our authority". Don't do what you're doing right now trying to justify the nukes used on Japan. America's government has been rotten to the core since before the US's creation. Now as for North Korea, we have such a better military force, we should be able to roll over their standing forces with just our regular forces. Implementing our special military would be overkill, which is exactly what needs to happen. Free the North Korean's from the NK government. If they want to unify with SK then that's fine, if not, it may just take time and a lot of US intervention to get them walking on their own two feet. NK as a country is trash right now, but nukes are never the answer. They never should have been invented in the first place, because they are completely and utterly unnecessary, in every possible situation.
Dont ever fucking call me ignorant again, not after the heap of shit you just posted.
1) I know that japan is a series of small Islands, dog. The war strategy that the US used against japan was called island hopping. The strategy was to slowly advance towards the mainland until they were close enough for their bombers to be able to make a round trip and hit the major cities. It is BECAUSE of the fierce, dedicated resistance that US forces encountered on these islands that the decision to us the nukes seemed more justified. If taking the small, remote islands was as difficult as it was, who knows how bloody and devastating a ground war on the mainland would be.
2)Those japanese lives were nothing but sacrifices to tell the world not to mess with the US? are YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? do you know ANYTHING AT ALL about the history of world war 2? I dont even know where to start arguing that point. The cold war didnt start till after ww2. I dont think it was a dick size comparison at this point.
EDIT: furthermore, the cities that were dropped on were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those cities were industrial centers, critical to the war effort. If the US was just out for blood, they would have dropped on Tokyo.
3) While it is true that the Soviet Union was "against" Japan as well as we were, it is clear that there was no enthusiasm in really helping the US in the fight. As you may or may not know (the intelligence you displayed in your previous post doesnt have me holding my breath) Russia was EASILY the most devastated country in the war population wise, losing as many soldiers as the rest of the world combined (more than 20 million people). Would you be eager to jump right back into battle after suffering those kinds of losses? I think not. It was clear that we could expect little real support from Russia, and with no Japanese surrender on the horizon, the use of nuclear weaponry was arguably justifiable.
4) We do currently have a larger and stronger military force than NK, yes. But their standing army is 3rd largest in the world. Are you really so eager to go to battle with them straight up? you shouldnt be.
5)you go on to say that using special military "is exactly what needs to happen" and I quote you on that. And yet when I argued basically the same point in my arguement about Japan you said "LOL OH THE IGNORANCE".
Im done. Sorry for derailing. this dude pissed me off something horrible though.
|
On March 28 2013 05:00 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 04:38 Aveng3r wrote:On March 28 2013 03:20 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
yes kwark, sorry about disregarding the fact that NK propably isn't as wide spread and well prepared as russia and the USA were in the USA.
I still believe that NK should have the potential to detect a nuclear missile launched at them, and if they are capable of launching (a) nuclear missile, shouldn't they be able to do so on that notice? They won't have any scruples retaliating the attack.
I criticise the american historical education (and only this one) because I have experienced it first hand, and it is not what it should be in my opinion (the school system in general isnt). I do not mean to be ignorant or condescending, and i understand that the situation is not 100% comparable to the cold war, but from all i know of the matter (i am no weapon or NK expert, but neither are you i believe) there is no reason to believe a first strike would hinder atomic retaliation from North Koreas side.
It seems you are well informed, and i'd be happy to read about some background info about the estimated results of a nuclear first strike on NK, if you have any sources.
I did probably come over quite harsh, because even if there is the possibility of a nuke stopping NKs retaliation, I believe nukes are NEVER the right solution. You do not weigh losses against losses (sacrificing them for us), especially if you're a nation that fights for freedom and human rights.
edit: i'm shocked by how many people want to argue FOR use of nuclear attacks, even justifying the bombs used on Japan. As horrible as it is, there ARE arguements that I think make plenty of sense in the justification of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, and to an extent in North Korea as well. Do you know how many people, American and Japanese, would have fought and died on the shores and in the cities of Japan if nuclear weaponry was not used? millions. Does that mean its okay to use a nuclear weapon to level 2 cities and kill thousands of innocent people? I dont know. I thank god that im not the one who had to make that decision. But there were reasons for it. I remember reading a quote that Truman made about not being able to live with himself if he sent millions of American men to their death by continuing a ground war with Japan. The use of nuclear weaponry was arguably the lesser of 2 evils. Does that apply to North Korea now? I have no idea. As micronesia said, there are so many factors at play right now that we are not aware of as the general public. We have no idea what spy satellites are seeing in North Korea, or what they are planning. but I do know that they have called the US their arch nemesis, and I wouldnt put it past these people to do something crazy. We know they have nuclear weapons and one of the largest armies in the world. If innocent lives could be saved by a first strike, nuclear or not, I would have a hard time saying that it isnt justified. Just to add to that, the US warned Japan a month in advance that they would suffer untold destruction if they were to continue the war. The US told the Japanese what would happen, and Japan basically said, "Bring it on". Adding on to the fact, the US needed a quick and prompt surrender before the Soviets would have gotten involved. Should the war had gone on for another month or two, the exact same issue with East and West Germany would have developed in Japan. In the situation with Japan during World War II, I would say there were plenty of reasons to justify the use of the bomb. With the current North Korean situation, none of the above mentioned factors come into play. There's nothing a nuclear weapon can do more effectively than a conventional military attack could do. It's hard to believe North Korea having significant second strike capabilities. They're military is already strapped for funds as is, they aren't going to have enough to fund multiple nuclear submarines/aircraft carriers. If North Korea was more like Iran, it would be reasonable to assume that they would have the resources to set up a rudimentary second strike system. As is, it's highly unlikely that a country as poor and as technologically backward as North Korea has the ability to effectively retaliate if its main nuclear hub is destroyed.
I really don't know about all of this talk about how Japan was going to surrender. They seemed to be fighting pretty fucking hard for the islands they captured in the Pacific, I'm couldn't see them not fighting harder for their homeland.
I think the point that people make often about the nuclear bomb and how it was evil to drop it was that the US could have easily just dropped a bomb or two on uninhabited islands or something along those lines to demonstrate they had the capacity to do create extremely destructive explosions. If Japan refused to surrender after that, then dropping bombs on Japan itself would be the next step. Again, it's hard to evaluate decisions like that without being there and knowing all of the information people had available at the time (and also the limit of that information, like the performance of the nuclear weapons).
However, I remember learning in a WW2 history class that there is actually a lot of documentation about how military officials and scientists in the US were eager to drop this bomb to see what it's capacities were. They dropped the bomb on a few cities to actually test it's performance. In particular, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen specifically because they were less fortified harbours that most closely resembled the Halifax harbour, where the next largest "conventional" (e.g. non-nuclear) explosion occurred (the Halifax Explosion). They wanted to compare the destruction unleashed by the nuclear bomb to the largest explosion achieved by conventional weaponry.
That's some pretty evil shit right there, I don't really care what anybody says. Using civilians and cities as testing points for destructive weaponry is fucking awful, and never justifiable ever during any war. I'm sure they could have dropped it on a more remote part of Japan, or even the first one on an uninhabited island, to tell Japan they actually had this weapon, and were prepared to use it. Instead they decided to do controlled, comparable tests upon civilian populations. That's what's fucked up about America dropping the bomb in WW2.
Edit: Doing a quick google search, I can't find sources to completely back this up. I was able to find references that scientists extensively studied the Halifax explosion, and used it to maximize damage done in nagasaki and Hiroshima, but nothing about using it as a control. Doesn't rule it out, and it still seems likely, but the original point generally stands, bombing a dense urban centre as opposed to a remote, relatively uninhabited area is kinda fucked.
|
On March 28 2013 05:26 Salazarz wrote:
Are people actually taught in schools that nuclear strikes on Japan were justified and 'necessary'? Goddamn, that just makes me so angry. Japan was about to capitulate by the time the nuclear strikes were carried out; the reason nuclear bombs were used was because, 1. USA wanted to negotiate even more favourable terms of capitulation, quicker, and 2. as a show of power to the rest of the world, USSR in particular. There would not be 'millions' of casualties in a ground-based assault on Japan even if such an assault would in fact take place (it wouldn't).
youre wrong too, man. Japan was in no way at all about to surrender. And if there would have been a ground based assault on mainland Japan there would have been staggering loss of life. Millions is not an exaggeration.
EDIT: Thank you so much person above me.
|
On March 28 2013 05:59 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 05:26 Salazarz wrote:
Are people actually taught in schools that nuclear strikes on Japan were justified and 'necessary'? I think it's taught as a 'controversial issue' the way creationists want evolution/creationism to be taught. They attempt to present the facts and then let the student decide. It really isn't the US government's place to tell American schoolchildren if it was justified or not. Show nested quote +Goddamn, that just makes me so angry. Japan was about to capitulate by the time the nuclear strikes were carried out No. Even after the second bomb was dropped, the military leaders of Japan were preparing to continue the war. The emperor of Japan, Hirohito, was famous for asking "haven't we had enough" and convincing his military leaders that they should just surrender. In fact, right before the surrender, there was an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. Your BS about how Japan was just about to surrender and there was no need for bombs, an invasion, or anything else is unfounded. Show nested quote +the reason nuclear bombs were used was because, 1. USA wanted to negotiate even more favourable terms of capitulation, quicker, and 2. as a show of power to the rest of the world, USSR in particular. Source? Show nested quote +There would not be 'millions' of casualties in a ground-based assault on Japan even if such an assault would in fact take place (it wouldn't). This is exactly what the allies were planning for. In fact, I know people (now dead) who were in the military at the time and were being prepared for an invasion of Japan. They thought they were going to die. In fact, a couple of them, who got a promotion shortly before the end of WW2, got so drunk out of some type of desperation that they were found driving a jeep down the street firing a pistol into the air and had their promotion immediately revoked. Also I'm not sure how you did the forced attrition report or whatever it is and determined exactly how many casualties there would be on each side in the pending land invasion. Saying things like "you are wrong" and omitting any evidence or serious credentials doesn't help. The same thing is happening with much of the discussion in this thread regarding North Korea. I would love to see some actual evidence or credentials of claims regarding exactly what NK is or isn't capable of. Reading a few articles on google news is not really sufficient. edit: here might be a viable use for nukes by the way: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=402807
The entire War was basically an "honorable" coup. The Army was always wrong but extremely power hungry. The other military branches didn't agree with the war or at the least how the war was being fought. Of course the emperor didn't like any of it either, but the Army had the majority of power and were thus manipulating Japan.
I feel sorry for your people who were in the military at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that a ground based assault was even the slightest bit necessary. If they would have died in a war that way, I would think of it as an dishonorable death, gone to waste for no reason. Using nukes in that situation makes it clear that the US is either impatient or amateur, or.... terrible people. An all out ground assault REALLY would have made the US look amateur and idiotic.
the reason nuclear bombs were used was because, 1. USA wanted to negotiate even more favourable terms of capitulation, quicker, and 2. as a show of power to the rest of the world, USSR in particular.
This tidbit is common sense. If you want a source for that then look it up yourself. If you don't want to believe it, then it's your loss. There isn't a point to researching something that every unbiased knowledgeable person (in the field) knows to be true, just to hand out a source.
User was warned for this post by MoonBear
|
United States24583 Posts
On March 28 2013 06:11 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 05:59 micronesia wrote:On March 28 2013 05:26 Salazarz wrote:
Are people actually taught in schools that nuclear strikes on Japan were justified and 'necessary'? I think it's taught as a 'controversial issue' the way creationists want evolution/creationism to be taught. They attempt to present the facts and then let the student decide. It really isn't the US government's place to tell American schoolchildren if it was justified or not. Goddamn, that just makes me so angry. Japan was about to capitulate by the time the nuclear strikes were carried out No. Even after the second bomb was dropped, the military leaders of Japan were preparing to continue the war. The emperor of Japan, Hirohito, was famous for asking "haven't we had enough" and convincing his military leaders that they should just surrender. In fact, right before the surrender, there was an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. Your BS about how Japan was just about to surrender and there was no need for bombs, an invasion, or anything else is unfounded. the reason nuclear bombs were used was because, 1. USA wanted to negotiate even more favourable terms of capitulation, quicker, and 2. as a show of power to the rest of the world, USSR in particular. Source? There would not be 'millions' of casualties in a ground-based assault on Japan even if such an assault would in fact take place (it wouldn't). This is exactly what the allies were planning for. In fact, I know people (now dead) who were in the military at the time and were being prepared for an invasion of Japan. They thought they were going to die. In fact, a couple of them, who got a promotion shortly before the end of WW2, got so drunk out of some type of desperation that they were found driving a jeep down the street firing a pistol into the air and had their promotion immediately revoked. Also I'm not sure how you did the forced attrition report or whatever it is and determined exactly how many casualties there would be on each side in the pending land invasion. Saying things like "you are wrong" and omitting any evidence or serious credentials doesn't help. The same thing is happening with much of the discussion in this thread regarding North Korea. I would love to see some actual evidence or credentials of claims regarding exactly what NK is or isn't capable of. Reading a few articles on google news is not really sufficient. edit: here might be a viable use for nukes by the way: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=402807 The entire War was basically an "honorable" coup. The Army was always wrong but extremely power hungry. The other military branches didn't agree with the war or at the least how the war was being fought. Of course the emperor didn't like any of it either, but the Army had the majority of power and were thus manipulating Japan. I'm not sure if this was an attempt to disagree with me or if you were just adding some perspective. Keep in mind that a lot of what we know now about Japan was not common knowledge until after the war ended.
I feel sorry for your people who were in the military at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that a ground based assault was even the slightest bit necessary. The allies during WW2 disagreed with you apparently. It's a good thing you have a tremendous amount of credibility on the topic so I can just believe you over them.
If they would have died in a war that way, I would think of it as an dishonorable death, gone to waste for no reason. Using nukes in that situation makes it clear that the US is either impatient or amateur, or.... terrible people. An all out ground assault REALLY would have made the US look amateur and idiotic. You are making it pretty clear that absolutely nothing can be said to you, and absolutely no facts would be able to change your mind on this issue so there's no more point in discussing it (not that this thread is the ideal place to discuss it anyway, despite it being marginally relevant).
Show nested quote +the reason nuclear bombs were used was because, 1. USA wanted to negotiate even more favourable terms of capitulation, quicker, and 2. as a show of power to the rest of the world, USSR in particular. This tidbit is common sense. If you want a source for that then look it up yourself. If you don't want to believe it, then it's your loss. There isn't a point to researching something that every unbiased knowledgeable person (in the field) knows to be true, just to hand out a source.
No it is not common sense. It is your own personal theory (not that you are the only person who feels this way, I'm sure). Telling me to look up the source proves that you are full of shit.
|
The use of nuclear weapons can't be justified.
Once you allow a nation to execute a nuclear strike against another nation, you open up precedents for other future strikes. It creates the situation of "well, previously country X was allowed to nuke in the same situation, now we country Y should be allowed to do the same".
Nuclear weapons and biological weapons must be banned, but the nations holding such artifacts don't want to give it up either because they believe they are entitled to have their possession or they are afraid that while they do so, the other countries might not, which would put them under an inferior position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
