|
On March 28 2013 06:07 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 05:00 ConGee wrote: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.
In response to your point about dropping atomic bombs on uninhabited areas, it's pretty clear from the deadlock in the Japanese general's meeting after the two atomic bombs and the Soviet declaration of war that Japan would not surrender. Adding into the fact that they, at the time, believed an erroneous account that the United States had about 100 atomic bombs and were targeting Kyoto and Tokyo if the Japanese surrendered shows how futile bombing uninhabited areas would be.
I'm not too familiar with the military side, but there were plenty of scientists in the Manhattan project who were strongly against the use of the bomb.
I never argued that the way the weapons were deployed were done well. There was a ton of spite and hatred that went into the decisions of which cities to bomb. It seems to be a little known fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the first targets to be chosen. The initial target that the Americans designated for bombing was Kyoto. Do you know why? Because Kyoto was considered a sacred and culturally significant city to the Japanese. They relented because a general who had had experience with Japanese knew they would never forgive the Americans should they had targeted Kyoto.
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's not anywhere near common sense. Point 1 is a blatant lie. The terms of Japan's surrender were put out in the Postdam Declaration and the Allies made no attempt to make the terms of surrender even more favorable, that's what the Japanese were trying to do.
Point 2 is partially true, but it wasn't a main reason. It was more of a "Oh, and it'll do this too" objective. Saying that it's one of the sole reasons the A-bomb was used is terribly unsubstantiated.
|
Seriously? Japan wouldn't surrender, and it would be a bloody war with millions of casualties? They had basically no standing army left by the time nukes were bombed. Majority of Japanese troops were stationed in Manchuria and around the Pacific, and they were crushed by that point. They had barely any fuel for what few operating warships and aircraft they had left, food supply was a major issue, and there were no reserves to be called upon. I'm sorry but I'm not going to give you any 'sources' on this because it's not something I just looked up on wikipedia or whatever stupid website just now to prove how valid my argument is. But hey, I'm sure they'd put up a glorious defence with like, ninjas and shurikens.
User was temp banned for the "I'm too cool for sources" bit.
|
Don't get how we went from discussing NK and their aggressive policies to whether the nuke dropped on Japan was "justified".
Obviously the horrendous loss of life was in no way right, but I can understand the decision. 6 years of world war for europeans, 4 for the allies. Most of the Americans who served in the ETO stated that even after German surrender, immediately plans were drafted up to send these troops to the PTO rather than to send them home. Estimates put the war as going to last atleast another year, possibly two or three, and as we know all too well ,the Japanese had made it pretty clear that when they are backed into a corner, they whip out their swords and die fighting. Personally I think sacrificing a few hundred thousand people in 2 explosions and making the Japanese see that there was only surrender or death was a lot more humane than just continuing to bomb their major cities and to invade, which would have cost SO MANY more lives on both sides...
Edit: on topic now. ok cool. Just want to state that I hope we just continue to embargo NK to the point where their civilization collapses. Because eventually the people in the country will become hungry/fed up enough to fight back. And that is the only way we can truly take care of the North Korean issue.
I just hope that when the day comes and the NK dynasty is in ashes, the South Koreans can play the humane role in helping North Koreans rebuild and integrate. I mean the people in the country are probably technologically in the stone age(I have read articles about NK refugees who stood no chance in SK because they didn't possess the basic knowledge of what modern society is like to truly feel a part of it) so it's going to take a long time to fix the damage these selfless dictators have done.
|
On March 28 2013 07:09 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
Don't get how we went from discussing NK and their aggressive policies to whether the nuke dropped on Japan was "justified".
Obviously the horrendous loss of life was in no way right, but I can understand the decision. 6 years of world war for europeans, 4 for the allies. Most of the Americans who served in the ETO stated that even after German surrender, immediately plans were drafted up to send these troops to the PTO rather than to send them home. Estimates put the war as going to last atleast another year, possibly two or three, and as we know all too well ,the Japanese had made it pretty clear that when they are backed into a corner, they whip out their swords and die fighting. Personally I think sacrificing a few hundred thousand people in 2 explosions and making the Japanese see that there was only surrender or death was a lot more humane than just continuing to bomb their major cities and to invade, which would have cost SO MANY more lives on both sides...
Edit: on topic now. ok cool. Just want to state that I hope we just continue to embargo NK to the point where their civilization collapses. Because eventually the people in the country will become hungry/fed up enough to fight back. And that is the only way we can truly take care of the North Korean issue.
I just hope that when the day comes and the NK dynasty is in ashes, the South Koreans can play the humane role in helping North Koreans rebuild and integrate. I mean the people in the country are probably technologically in the stone age(I have read articles about NK refugees who stood no chance in SK because they didn't possess the basic knowledge of what modern society is like to truly feel a part of it) so it's going to take a long time to fix the damage these selfless dictators have done.
Depends on if they are military/elite class or just reg civs. I saw a photo/video of Windows 98/XP machines being used by the higher elites/Kimmy. Even one recently where he was "inspecting" some black box with a logitech track ball+keyboard wired to it. Also as sad as it is to say, most S. Koreans are more afraid of the NK dynasty burning to the ground then millions of people coming looking for hand outs since SK is an economic power house and NK can barely pay to keep the lights on in it's capital city.
|
On March 28 2013 07:17 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 07:09 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
Don't get how we went from discussing NK and their aggressive policies to whether the nuke dropped on Japan was "justified".
Obviously the horrendous loss of life was in no way right, but I can understand the decision. 6 years of world war for europeans, 4 for the allies. Most of the Americans who served in the ETO stated that even after German surrender, immediately plans were drafted up to send these troops to the PTO rather than to send them home. Estimates put the war as going to last atleast another year, possibly two or three, and as we know all too well ,the Japanese had made it pretty clear that when they are backed into a corner, they whip out their swords and die fighting. Personally I think sacrificing a few hundred thousand people in 2 explosions and making the Japanese see that there was only surrender or death was a lot more humane than just continuing to bomb their major cities and to invade, which would have cost SO MANY more lives on both sides...
Edit: on topic now. ok cool. Just want to state that I hope we just continue to embargo NK to the point where their civilization collapses. Because eventually the people in the country will become hungry/fed up enough to fight back. And that is the only way we can truly take care of the North Korean issue.
I just hope that when the day comes and the NK dynasty is in ashes, the South Koreans can play the humane role in helping North Koreans rebuild and integrate. I mean the people in the country are probably technologically in the stone age(I have read articles about NK refugees who stood no chance in SK because they didn't possess the basic knowledge of what modern society is like to truly feel a part of it) so it's going to take a long time to fix the damage these selfless dictators have done. Depends on if they are military/elite class or just reg civs. I saw a photo/video of Windows 98/XP machines being used by the higher elites/Kimmy. Even one recently where he was "inspecting" some black box with a logitech track ball+keyboard wired to it. Also as sad as it is to say, most S. Koreans are more afraid of the NK dynasty burning to the ground then millions of people coming looking for hand outs since SK is an economic power house and NK can barely pay to keep the lights on in it's capital city.
I mean the regular civs. I just feel sorry for them really, they just won't be able to understand what's out there. Imagine the "re-education" we would need. It would take a generation or two to sort these issues.
Millions would come looking for hand-outs for sure, but that's why I pray that SK take the noble ground of saying "all koreans are alike, we had issues with the leaders not the people. therefore we will help those who are less fortunate". I would also like to hope that if this were to happen, the US, China, Russia, basically all the countries who were part of the dramas that have made NK the problem spot that it is, will not just watch the South Koreans deal with the issue on their own..
|
Dropping nukes is GAY
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/B-29_Enola_Gay_w_Crews.jpg/800px-B-29_Enola_Gay_w_Crews.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Truman_initiating_Korean_involvement.jpg/470px-Truman_initiating_Korean_involvement.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://nuclearsecrecy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Hiroshima.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.pugliantagonista.it/archivio/foto_arch/nagasaki.jpg) Total: 150,000–246,000+ killed
Guys, either end this "justification of nuclear bomb" discussion to get back on topic or make a thread named "United states says/does alarming thing" to keep discussing.
edit: damnit mod must have added their statement about bombing of japan recently sry
|
On March 28 2013 07:44 Hemling wrote:Dropping nukes is GAY + Show Spoiler +Total: 150,000–246,000+ killed Guys, either end this "justification of nuclear bomb" discussion to get back on topic or make a thread named "United states says/does alarming thing" to keep discussing. edit: damnit mod must have added their statement about bombing of japan recently sry
lol quite unnecessary dude im pretty sure hte guy who went madly off-topic got banned...
|
Im still curious as to how they are in terms of technology. Since they are not like China which is insanely ahead in terms of tech and do a lot to research new stuff etc.
Everything that I have seen so far shows a country which is kinda a bit aways away from technology. Wonder how long they can continue to threaten US etc without the tech to back them up.
|
I still wonder why USA bombed Japan cities instead of bombing a unpopulated area which would have the same effect in the surendering of Japan.
|
On March 28 2013 08:47 phANT1m wrote:
Im still curious as to how they are in terms of technology. Since they are not like China which is insanely ahead in terms of tech and do a lot to research new stuff etc.
Everything that I have seen so far shows a country which is kinda a bit aways away from technology. Wonder how long they can continue to threaten US etc without the tech to back them up.
That's what I really want to know. I don't even know if we're able to quantify that but it would, without a doubt be relative information.
I think China is getting fed up with NK at this point. I know I saw a post earlier in the thread about how Obama was starting talks with the Chinese leader so maybe some good will be talked about since China is (as far as I can tell) the closest thing NK really has to an ally.
|
On March 28 2013 08:51 SkelA wrote:
I still wonder why USA bombed Japan cities instead of bombing a unpopulated area which would have the same effect in the surendering of Japan.
I dunno if it would. It -might- have but the tenacity of the Japanese throughout the war meant that they were not going to give an inch. The extreme loss of life from the bomb might have been the only thing but again, that's just speculation.
|
On March 28 2013 08:51 SkelA wrote:
I still wonder why USA bombed Japan cities instead of bombing a unpopulated area which would have the same effect in the surendering of Japan.
Last comment I'm going to make on the topic. Quite frankly, it wouldn't have worked.
After the two atomic bombs, the declaration of Soviet intent to invade, and the belief that the US had 100 more atomic bombs and would target Kyoto and Tokyo, the military council was in a deadlock on whether or not they were going to surrender. They weren't going to surrender because they saw the bombs' destructive power.
|
a very informative attempt to show an objective view of the latest development:
"Pyongyang said its military would put all field artillery units, including long-range artillery units and strategic rocket units, into combat duty position that will target all "enemy objects" in the US, "invasionary" bases on its mainland, Hawaii and Guam.
The rhetoric from North Korea drew more concern from China, Pyongyang's only major ally, which said the situation was "sensitive".
However, the North Korean rhetoric is always highfalutin and threatening, according to Jim Hoare, the former British Charge d'Affaires to Pyongyang from 2001 to 2002.
"The Chinese signed up to the latest lot of UN sanctions, and apparently helped to draft some of them," Hoare told Al Jazeera, adding that much will depend on how China implements those sanctions.
"They're not going to push North Korea into doing anything foolish. What they are saying to everybody is aim off the rhetoric and look at the real issues and calm down."
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/03/2013327151221264924.html
|
On March 28 2013 05:51 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
I'm not saying nuclear weapons should be used, though my personal belief is that in certain extreme circumstances it may be necessary.
(I'm not referring to Japan or going to comment on that specific instance one way or another, as per the mod note)
I truly believe that nuclear weapons have and will continue to save more lives than they have taken and maintain their development has greatly benefited mankind, not hindered it, by saving lives that would have been lost in war(s) fought worldwide over the last 6 decades.
Your ridiculous scenario of wiping out the entire NK army with less than 50 casualties is laughable to be perfectly honest. How many US troops lost in the Middle East already? Do you think they are just going to walk out into a field for a giant single battle? They won't retaliate against the South?
I was really hoping to hear what other people thought about the first part of my post though, rather than this ranting about nuclear weapons =/
|
The german site Spiegel says in this article that the US sent two stealth bombers (Type B- 2 Spirit) to South Korea in order to warn off the North Koreans, i wonder if all goes well... i fear there will be war soon. North Korea is mad enough to start one.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
nuclear weapon saved lived arguably because they forced people to change behavior.
changing behavior is what saved lives, nukes being only an incidental and not necessary cause of that change.
thus, just stop trying to dominate another player and explore cooperative solutions to problems, save the nuke cost.
|
On March 28 2013 18:51 HolydaKing wrote:The german site Spiegel says in this article that the US sent two stealth bombers (Type B- 2 Spirit) to South Korea in order to warn off the North Koreans, i wonder if all goes well... i fear there will be war soon. North Korea is mad enough to start one.
Yeah, it was part of a military exercise that was happening. Its been speculated to be USA just showing that they are with South-Korea if shit hits the fan.
Interesting to see what North thinks of it.
U.S. B-2 stealth bomber conducts first firing drill in Korea
The United States air force's nuclear-capable B-2 stealth bombers carried out its first-ever firing drill over the Korean Peninsula on Thursday, the Combined Forces Command said, sending another strong warning to North Korea, which has threatened a preemptive nuclear attack on the U.S. and South Korea.
The U.S. Strategic Command sent two B-2 Spirit Bombers for "a long-duration, round-trip training mission" from Whiteman Air Force Base in the U.S. state of Missouri to South Korea in a demonstration of the country's defense of South Korea and to provide "extended deterrence to its allies in the Asia-Pacific region," the CFC said in a release.
The drill was part of the ongoing bilateral Foal Eagle training exercise, which began on March 1 and will run through April 30, to test the combat readiness of the allies.
The B-2 stealth bombers' mission involves dropping munitions and then returning to its base in a single, continuous flight ranging over 6,500 miles, the CFC said.
"The United States is steadfast in its alliance commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea, to deterring aggression, and to ensuring peace and stability in the region," the CFC said in a release. "The B-2 bomber is an important element of America's enduring and robust extended deterrence capability in the Asia-Pacific region."
Yonhap
|
The B-2s are an interesting move. I'm pretty sure this is the last thing NK wants because the whole bark and bluff strategy only works until someone calls your bluff. And sending stealth bombers capable of nuking Pyongyang is calling their bluff pretty strongly. Does Pyongyang have radar anyways? I guess it does but it still brings up an image of sending a professional thief to steal a child's candy. Interesting to see how Kim Jr responds when he realizes the tough guy act is going to be ignored and responded to in force...
|
America flexing their muscles with the B-2's.
I honestly doesn't believe that NK will make serious of their threats. They would be so fucked by the hardware USA are packing. Hoping it doesn't come to that though.
|
On March 28 2013 20:56 calgar wrote:
The B-2s are an interesting move. I'm pretty sure this is the last thing NK wants because the whole bark and bluff strategy only works until someone calls your bluff. And sending stealth bombers capable of nuking Pyongyang is calling their bluff pretty strongly. Does Pyongyang have radar anyways? I guess it does but it still brings up an image of sending a professional thief to steal a child's candy. Interesting to see how Kim Jr responds when he realizes the tough guy act is going to be ignored and responded to in force...
I don't know about you, but my opinion of Kim Jr. is not very well to say the least. With every passing day I start to grow ever closer to the idea that he's a complete and utterly unstable idiot. So, concluding, I doubt he will realize anything logically sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
