Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

Posted Mar 19, '13 at 6:15pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Maverick, enough flaming. You aren't adding anything, you're only throwing around insults now.

 

Posted Mar 19, '13 at 6:34pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

Forgive me if I strive to defend my own nationality.

 

Posted Mar 19, '13 at 6:55pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,544 posts

Forgive me if I strive to defend my own nationality.

Defending your nationality is fine and dandy..but adding the insults isn't necessary and can be counter-productive

 

Posted Mar 20, '13 at 8:31am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

Partydevil, I'm just going to end this all right here. Let's review what you've said since page 5. I'll thoroughly review your given reasons for why you're condemning the use of the atomic bombs.

oke let's see, i just reply by saying if your conclusion is correct. yes or no, and if not, why not.

You're arguing for over 10x the deaths caused by the bombs,

yes. but it a "fair" way.

on the assertion that everyone will suddenly start nuking everyone. No nukes have been used in war since Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Thus, your assertion is invalid.

everyone will start nuking if we all use the logic that pang tong used.
"it's more easy to nuke them then to attack them"
it's not that i think this will happen, because luckly not everyone uses that logic.

You are saying that there was no reason for the bombs because Japan was trying to surrender to Russia.

hmm yea, ive said a few posts back that i should't have said that they tried to surrender to russia. but rather that they tried to come to peace whit the help of russia.
however did the usa not know this. russia is to blame here that they did not tell usa about the talks.

Asserting that Russia would have accepted Japan's surrender, even when it already clearly wasn't. You've previously said multiple times that Japan would have fought to the last man.

well as explained above. they didn't wanted to actually surrender to them. but i was thinking about that latter in the topic. not at that moment.

and ive never said japan would fight to the last man.
i only said that the code describes this. but there is a difference in reality and the code that got used for propaganda.
hell they had only ammo for 30 divisions while they had 65. leave alone the other millions of people. xD they were unable.

Asserting that Russia would have accepted Japan's surrender

russia would never. they wanted to stab them in the back to get the war spoils agreed on in yalta.

Russia was never an option to begin with

it was from the japanese point of view.
and i think this is where you guys lose me.
on 1 side it was a option on the other side it was not a option. depending on who you asked.

Thus stands your entire argument self defeated, because apparently it would have been all good to drop the bombs as long as Japan kept their alarms on 15 minutes longer.

tbh do i find that part of the debate kinda useless.
yea they got out 5 mins to soon and no1 is to be blamed for it. and it wouldn't have mattered anyway if they didn't come out to soon.
on the other hand it might be good they came out to soon. that way they died instantly instead of a long time of pain.

Direct contradiction to earlier statements that Japan would fight because of their honor code.

you mean your missing the point where the japanese 1st had hope whit russia. but then lost this hope when the russians turn there back to them.

the japanese would keep fighting till the end if it were just the allies they fought against. but then they became all alone and betrayed.

it's very delicate to say what they thought when. and i dont blame anyone for not understanding it. but then plz. dont talk like i'm by definition wrong. thats just stupid.

Of your reasons, 1 and 2 contradict

1. yea i used the wrong words. they did not try to surrender to russia they tried to get peace whit the help of russia. by dividing the allies so they call a armistice and then get peace from out of there.

2. atleast not to their main enemies. uk, usa.

3) The bombs did not need to be dropped on populated cities to demonstrate power.

thats right.

It would have been okay to drop the bombs if the sirens had been on for 45 minutes.

ive never said this and i never mend to say this somehow in a any way anywhere.
i do not justify any kind of warfare. why the hell would i be oke whit this if such small silly thing as a few mins air alarm change that? especially whit the knowlets that it wouldn't change a single thing? except that less people would have died instantly. but more would die from the after effects.

Of your reasons, 1 and 2 contradict along with 3 and 4.

seems like i do not contradict. people make the conclusion that a contradict while i aint.
so i have to say again. if you dont understand it, plz. dont reply to it. i wouldn't neither. except to ask questions.

Fear of escalation in future due to same reasoning.

no fear of escalation. only if we would all use the logic that pang tong uses here.

Number six has been proven false because of your previously statements on Japan's honor code

and as said like a million times. they were unable to let a 100mill people fight. they hadded had enough resources for half the army they already had.
also did i not say less deaths then the bomb but less deaths then the 2 million that usa lied about. (especially because the usa wouldn't had to attack japan. usa losses would be nihil.)

but most importend factor here is that it would mean that people are going to die that have choosen to die in this war by joining the army. and not just a ****load of civilians.
i have no problem if soldiers die. they know the risk and they take the risk. it's part of the job. i do however have a problem when civilians die.

Japan would have continued to fight in hopes that the cost was deemed too high.

for the usa.
at this point they still had talks whit russia. when russia betrayed them they knew they couldn't make the cost to high. they knew they lost, they knew they had to surrender.

You have admitted that Russia is the "spider in the web" and thus would not have accepted Japan's surrender, because of their agreement with the USA. You have admitted that the Japanese were trying to keep the emperor on the throne and did not want to surrender if that was not in the cards.

and i agree again.

Japan would have continued to fight Russia and the USA as they invaded

well here you are doing the same. you make the assumption that japan has the same ideals after russia betrayed them as they had befor.
that is not the case. what kept japan going after losing the axis as allies. was that russia was still "on there side" when they lost them, they had no allies. and no hope.

The bombs provided a large enough form of intimidation that it made Japan forget the idea of resistance

that is 1 side (the usa side) the other side (japanese side) say that they forgot the idea of resistance because the russians turned against them and they dont had hope left of peace under there terms.
(see how i look at different sides while those 2 other guys only blindly follow what the usa say. how am i close minded then? hahaha.)
(and yes i know they did surrender to the bombs according to the surrendering message. but that is just a political game to acknowledge usa where they want to. (better agree, even when you disagree, point of view))

it's also known that the usa is the only country that had used a nuke against innocent people.
i can't trust a nation on this field when they have done such a thing.

in reply to a quote that usa can be trusted. (it always starts of whit glorification of the usa.)

i throw out the mud to cover the loving-usa bs that the americans are spreading out over the world.

you stop glorifying the usa. i stop throwing mud.

you killed innocents whit that attack. not people that chooses to die in the war.
you are/were the 9/11 for them. but then a thousand times bigger.

a example to bring it closer to your home. i could also say the missle waves over iraq a few year ago. but that wouldn't be close enough to the usa home. and so my point wouldn't be able to make the wanted effect. (showing how bad it actually was)

and i really gotta laugh at the way you guys try to justify a nuclear attack.
but when 1 is aimed for you then you cry like a baby.
i justify nk to nuke the usa. it's much easyer for them to just nuke you then to attack you.

here i used pang tongs logic. it's more easy to nuke then to attack.
so by using that logic i justify everyone that wants to nuke anyone to just do it.
using the usa in my example to bring it closer to your home (and the topic in this case)

reason why i can't trust them.
+ they started the cold war. well done.

not singly about the usa. but more about the topic.
these bombs can be seen as the start of the cold war. (not my words but a words of a high officers of the usa army of that time (if you want i'll check the link and give you his name))

this justifies nk to nuke the usa.
but let me guess. your not behind that.

i have to use a example. why not the example this topic is about?
would be wierd to say "this justifies russia to nuke georgia" since this topic is about nk wanting to nuke usa. and the fact that i have a bounce of americans trying to chop me down. xD

Then, there's this statement which pretty much proves there's a bias.

the amount of interest i have in a topic has nothing to do whit my definition of what is right and wrong.

In conclusion, all of your reasons have been either debunked or shown to be contradictory.

if you misunderstand them, then yea they are.

Your continued assertions that it was wrong/unnecessary have been proven incorrect by various sources and quotes.

sources showing 1 side of the picture yes.

and even if so, then that doesn't mean that i have to take the idea that it was right aswell. and for the unnecessary part, i have enough sources that say it was unnecessary. most even usa sources from that time or the decade after that event.

At this point, you appear to only be fixated on the subject because it was the USA that dropped the bombs.

and that is your view/conclusion. not mine.
your free to think that. and if you keep bringing it up all the time, then after some time, yes your right. but i was busy whit the topic when master and mavric (or w/e) started to try to chop on me by saying these assumptions.
i can't help it that people come shout that bs to me. then i do "throw mud back to cover this bs" (because their bs smells much worse then my mud =P )

I'm not saying that you are arguing that it's wrong because it was the USA, but that you are unwilling to accept all the provided information because the USA would no longer have committed an unnecessary action that resulted in ~144k deaths.

1st of. good you dont argue that i think it is wrong because the usa did it.
i think it was wrong because i think it was wrong. the nation that did it doesn't matter. but it turns out to be the usa. (i can't help it. the usa dropped it. no1 can deny that.)
2nd. i have not seen a good reason why it wasn't unecessary that is bigger then the reasons i saw that say it was unecessary.
so thinking i deny that because it is the usa is not true. i just havn't seen the info that will change my position on the subject.

It is your motive (from what I can see) to argue that it was unnecessary because it is the USA which dropped them.

i would probably be on the same side if the netherlands dropped it. or canada. or new sealand or if japan dropped them on the usa.
killing so many people for a unnecessary reason is never good. no matter what country. it just turns out to be the usa. and i hate the usa. there is no link between that, it is just a contingency.

Yes..because I totally brought your ideology into the fray

sorry i mend the other 2 guys. master and mavric (or w/e).
i just disagree whit you on the reason why you justify it. no hard feelings go further then that from this side.

Maverick, enough flaming. You aren't adding anything, you're only throwing around insults now.

freak would ban me for a post like that.
but i dont care much about him anymore. i'm not going his way. even tho i'm better in it. xD

 

Posted Mar 20, '13 at 8:38am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

let me put it this way. maybe it will ease of the idea that i only comment because of the usa.

russia is the one to be blamed here most of all.
russia had to be straight whit usa and/or japan. for this to not have happened.
japan can be blamed for not being willing to talk whit the usa.
usa is only to be blamed of the bombs.
usa didn't know what was going on between japan and russia. they thought that russia needed some time to move it's army from europe to asia.

so in overall you can say that i blame russia most of all. not even the usa.
but that doesn't change the fact of who dropped it.

 

Posted Mar 20, '13 at 12:56pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

I'll get back to the rest later, but I need to leave now.

yes. but it a "fair" way.

Other populated cities were firebombed, sometimes killing more than the initial nuke blast, yet you make no outcry against those types of weapons.
Also, what makes it more unfair compared to anything else? Just because the other side didn't have one yet? It's a technological advantage, like when any other weapon is new. A sword is easier than a stick. A gun is easier than a sling. A grenade is easier than a rock. A tank is easier than a wagon.

"it's more easy to nuke them then to attack them"

Misquoted and out of context.
pang's actual related quotes:
With blowing it up in the city, it goes from "look what our bomb looks like" to "look was our bomb can do. And with ease"
And I'm not justifying it because it was easier..I'm justifying it because it was a more efficient and effective action by the U.S. in their war efforts

russia is to blame here that they did not tell usa about the talks.

Japan didn't say anything either, and they were the ones with the most to lose. It's kind of like how some US Civil War battles continued even after the war was officially over, due to slow communication. If no one tells their enemy that it's over or soon to be over, the fighting won't stop.

they were unable.
they hadded had enough resources for half the army they already had.

They had 28 million civilians armed and ready. Mostly poorly armed, but ready to fight to the death with whatever they had. Again, their goal wasn't to win, but to show the world their resilience.

why the hell would i be oke whit this if such small silly thing as a few mins air alarm change that? especially whit the knowlets that it wouldn't change a single thing? except that less people would have died instantly. but more would die from the after effects.

Then why did you mention it?

the other side (japanese side) say that they forgot the idea of resistance because the russians turned against them and they dont had hope left of peace under there terms.
the japanese would keep fighting till the end if it were just the allies they fought against. but then they became all alone and betrayed.

Again, they had a contingency plan regarding war with Russia. It was the same plan of fighting no matter what side was invading.

 

Posted Mar 20, '13 at 1:41pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

what makes it more unfair compared to anything else?

in a fair way i mend, soldiers vs soldiers. not bombs vs civilians.

yet you make no outcry against those types of weapons.

1st of i dont justify any kind of warfare. so also not these kinda weapons.
2nd. if i have to talk about everything then i wont be having time for my actual life.
3rd. they are not the topic.

I'm justifying it because it was a more efficient and effective action by the U.S. in their war efforts

if the reason is "it's more effective" then i keep my point. i can justify any nuke strike whit that logic.

Japan didn't say anything either, and they were the ones with the most to lose.

russia didn't because they wanted to attack japan and get the spoils.
japan didn't because they wanted to divide the allies whit the help of russia.
if japan would say they had talks whit russia then they knew and the allied nations couldn't become divided. japan didn't want that.

Again, their goal wasn't to win, but to show the world their resilience.

Again, their goal wasn't to win, but to come to peace whit the help of russia.

Then why did you mention it?

i never mentioned that i would be oke whit it if the air alarm would be on 5 mins longer.

 

Posted Mar 20, '13 at 3:50pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

3rd. they are not the topic.
killing so many people for a unnecessary reason is never good.
in a fair way i mend, soldiers vs soldiers. not bombs vs civilians.

The point was that the useless bombing civilians was already common throughout the war, and sometimes in greater number than the nuke. How is it different from conventional weapons by that measure?

if the reason is "it's more effective" then i keep my point.

I'm saying it's about equally as effective as conventional means, not a 'god-mode cheat'.

but to come to peace whit the help of russia.

After Russia turned and invaded, their goal of honor did not change.

they wanted to divide the allies

Wait, did they want peace, or a partner in the war?

i have no problem if soldiers die. they know the risk and they take the risk. it's part of the job. i do however have a problem when civilians die.

What happens when soldiers reside in populated areas? Are they suddenly 'off limits', untargetable?

 

Posted Mar 20, '13 at 5:01pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

How is it different from conventional weapons

the after effects it gives.....

I'm saying it's about equally as effective as conventional means

then use the conventional means. it works just as good.

After Russia turned and invaded, their goal of honor did not change.

ive only seen proof they said that from befor russia did so. not from after.

Wait, did they want peace, or a partner in the war?

divide the allies as in. making russia not wanting the usa to fight japan for whatever reason (i dunno). so that japan had a ally that could put force on the usa. (not literally, but in politics) making the usa to ask for armistice. (thus showing japanese resistance if it worked out)

so a partner in the war that would help them get peace.

What happens when soldiers reside in populated areas? Are they suddenly 'off limits', untargetable?

you have to take them out of there. not simply bomb the entire area.

 

Posted Mar 20, '13 at 5:26pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,544 posts

if the reason is "it's more effective" then i keep my point. i can justify any nuke strike whit that logic.

Actually..no you cannot. And this is why I stated that it seems you do not understand military strategy.

It would not be effective for any nation now to use the nuke because they would immediately receive forceful actions from nations/armies along side of the one they just attacked

Then again..if a nation had the goal of a "suicide attack" (nuke a nation full knowing that they would must likely receive immense repercussions and not have any qualms about their most like eventual demise)..then doing so would be the most effective measure (unless they have technology for a hydrogen bomb..). Luckily..no nation seems to have such desires

yes. but it a "fair" way.

We have already established that the U.S. couldn't have made it any more fair. They dropped flyers..in plenty of time before they were to drop the bombs. That is not a common action in war by any means

russia would never. they wanted to stab them in the back to get the war spoils agreed on in yalta.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

the japanese would keep fighting till the end if it were just the allies they fought against. but then they became all alone and betrayed.

1) That is just an assumption
2) That is also a Fallacy of the Single Cause

i have no problem if soldiers die. they know the risk and they take the risk. it's part of the job. i do however have a problem when civilians die.

For the most part..I feel the same. Keep in mind, however, that war has evolved in many different ways..and what we see as common practice now was once viewed as "wrong"

-Attacking a member of the opposing force that is of high rank
-Attacking a force before they are able to set up their battle array
-Continuing a fight, without allowing a "break" (where the 2 forces might even converse with one another in a friendly manner)
-Attacking a force without first designating a location for the fray
etc

when they lost them, they had no allies. and no hope.

Again..Fallacy of the single cause

(see how i look at different sides while those 2 other guys only blindly follow what the usa say. how am i close minded then? hahaha.)

Appeal to ridicule

you stop glorifying the usa. i stop throwing mud.

Argumentum ad baculum

a example to bring it closer to your home

An example that is also an appeal to emotion

Also..there was no forewarning for 9/11..unlike how there was so with the bombs dropping

so by using that logic i justify everyone that wants to nuke anyone to just do it.

Again..I restate. Please understand my logic before you try to use it against me

also..
and i really gotta laugh at the way you guys try to justify a nuclear attack.
but when 1 is aimed for you then you cry like a baby.

Tu quoque fallacy

2nd. i have not seen a good reason why it wasn't unecessary that is bigger then the reasons i saw that say it was unecessary.

Here's the thing though..we have no clue on what the outcome would have been like had the bombs not have been dropped..nor will we ever know (and claiming to know so would be a Ludic Fallacy).
Now..if we somehow were able to know what the outcome would have been..then showing the necessity would be much simpler and wouldn't rely on assumptions

 
Reply to North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

You must be logged in to post a reply!