Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

Posted Mar 15, '13 at 10:19pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

I inferred it from your claims of how the US warning was poor:
that warning is from after hiroshima
and nice thye gave a warning 30 mins befor the bomb... a bit better communication could be done there.
The communication wasn't necessary in the first place. It's not an enemy's job to tell their opponent where and when they'll attack. It's the government's job to warn and defend its own people.

yes.

i was taking a look from the usa side here. if they really didn't want to actually hurt people then the communication had to be better.

No other nation used chemical weapons. Germany made some and the allies transported some preparing to retaliate, but only Japan actively used them.

didn't knew that. i thought germany did aswell.
you know, gas chambers and all that. ;)

It's not cheating if there's no rule against it.

i would guess a moral rule of not killing 144.000 people. 72.000 instantly/72.000 in the 15 year after. especially when it's not needed anymore.

They certainly intended to fight to the death against the invasion. They didn't plan to surrender at that point.

maybe ive used the words a bit wrong sofar.
i said all the time they wanted to surrender to russia. i think this should have been. they wanted to come to peace on their terms whit the help of russia. that would be more their idea.

Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the United States had made one, they could not have many more.

a extra reason why they didn't surrender after the 1st.
ty

Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation

they knew the lost.
but still that he said this and played along doesn't make the bombing itself just. it could be done whitout, and russia was your guy.

but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

and if we justify these bombs then there sure is a other time and other place where it will again be seen justified. and then it does end the human civilization.

 

Posted Mar 15, '13 at 11:54pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

didn't knew that. i thought germany did aswell.
you know, gas chambers and all that. ;)

Of course, but not on the battlefield.

i would guess a moral rule of not killing 144.000 people. 72.000 instantly/72.000 in the 15 year after. especially when it's not needed anymore.
and if we justify these bombs then there sure is a other time and other place where it will again be seen justified. and then it does end the human civilization.

I'd equate that with WWIs chemical warfare. Now that we know the effects, we can say it's bad and ban it. Back then, the effects of radiation were almost completely unknown and it was considered to be just another bomb, but bigger. Heck, Operation Downfall included plans to send in US troops after nukes are dropped, with recommendations that they wait a minimum of 48hrs before occupying the area. Now we know that it takes many years before it's even reasonably safe.

it could be done whitout, and russia was your guy.

You mean by their invasion? The invasion that would be met by the hundred millon honorably suicidal guerrila fighters, 28 million of them armed and ready? Win or lose, how is there less bloodshed in that? It would've been like 50 Vietnams. You've said many times that their refusal to surrender was heavily ingrained. It wasn't even seriously considered as an option without the bomb threat.

 

Posted Mar 16, '13 at 6:59am

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

(it's early in the morning, i'n unable to think straight atm)

You've said many times that their refusal to surrender was heavily ingrained.

but they are not stupid, they wont fight if they knew they lost. (look at how japan toke their defead in 1905 on the russian border) it was this hope of peace on their terms that kept them from surrendering. they could resist the urge to surrender after the 1st bomb because of this code. and they could do so again if they kept the hope of peace on their terms. however was that no longer a option because russia betrayed them.

 

Posted Mar 16, '13 at 2:40pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,277 posts

same could be done outside a city

Nowhere near as effectively though..and as Emp stated

just that you justify the use of such weapon makes me not trusting you whit it. killing 144.000 innocent people just to show what you can do

party..keep in mind..I am a huge military/war strategy buff. I am not justifying the death of innocent people..I'm justifying a military's strategic decision to use the nuke.

The nuke was a completely effective way to end the war swiftly with Japan (keep in mind..there is still a war going on with other countries..so there is not much time to wait for a surrender) as well as to show the capabilities of the U.S. in case of future wars.

On top of this..bombing of civilians was a normal practice during WWII. The U.S. did nothing out of the ordinary, other than warning the people that they were bombing..and using a stronger weapon.

Don't claim they are cheating because their bomb was stronger than the other nation's. That isn't cheating..that is using the resources available to better the chances of victory for your nation.

Also..keep in mind the phrase
All's fair in love and war
As cliche as it is..it stands true..especially for war. Throughout history, you will find many instances where a military's actions may seem unfair..but if you look at it from their standpoint, they are just doing what they can to effectively achieve victory

if they really didn't want to actually hurt people then the communication had to be better.

What do you think they should have done? Keep in mind..this is in the 40's. And during a major war. The flyers should have been actually an extremely effective way to send the message..if the Japanese had heeded the warning

 

Posted Mar 16, '13 at 9:07pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

I'm justifying a military's strategic decision to use the nuke.

and what keeps you from justifying it a next time?

also wasn't it a military decision but a political decision.
many high people in the usa army of that time have said so themself.
in their opinion the bombs were not needed. because japan wouldn't be able to last much longer anyway. they were already unable to operate outside the japanese island.

The nuke was a completely effective way to end the war swiftly with Japan (keep in mind..there is still a war going on with other countries..so there is not much time to wait for a surrender)

if you keep in mind that japan hadn't had much oil and food. and that they had no way of getting more of them imported.
they were unable to effective attack anyone. all they had left was defense of the main country. and even that was coming to a hold when they would be out of oil.
there was no need for the nukes. the sea blockade did it's job already.

Also..keep in mind the phrase
All's fair in love and war

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

What do you think they should have done?

tell them to keep the air alarms on for 45 mins.
easy as that.
even in the 40's long distance communication was available.

 

Posted Mar 16, '13 at 9:35pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,277 posts

and what keeps you from justifying it a next time?

Who says I won't justify it? If I find the decision a proper one in strategy..then I'll give credit where credit is due

also wasn't it a military decision but a political decision.

A political decision that incorporated a military decision

I'm not here to justify the political reasons behind it..but the military reasons. I, frankly, don't care about the Cold War at this point, because it is a separate war that was more of just puffing of the chests

they were unable to effective attack anyone. all they had left was defense of the main country.

Exactly..they could still defend themselves. Even with a dwindling supply of oil..they could still hold themselves out for some time..and that is time that the U.S., at the time, did not want to waste.

Also..what else did the blockade do: It put the Japanese in a corner with nowhere to run. Sun Tzu states in the Art of War (paraphrasing) that a man facing death (as in: in a situation where their is no escape) has nothing they may not achieve. With this blockade..the U.S. could also be potentially strengthening the Japanese in case they decided to go on an all-out attack

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

I'm not behind their decision, of course, because it could affect me..but that does not mean I don't understand their decision or couldn't justify it.

Actually..the reason I won't justify their decision is because the outcome would be terrible for them. Almost every country is against them, and attacking the U.S. would be the equivalent of signing their own death wish

tell them to keep the air alarms on for 45 mins.

But this relies on the Japanese heeding the warning of the U.S. (which showed they did not wish to do). It isn't the U.S.'s fault that the Japanese did not wish to adequately prepare their citizens for the attack

 

Posted Mar 16, '13 at 9:54pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

also wasn't it a military decision but a political decision.

From Wiki:
At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army which commanded the defense of all southern Japan.

tell them to keep the air alarms on for 45 mins.
easy as that.

What good would that do? You've said yourself that shelters were useless.

 

Posted Mar 17, '13 at 7:29am

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

From Wiki:
At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army which commanded the defense of all southern Japan.

the winner prints the history books. if they wanted to let it see as a military operation then that is what it will be called.
reality however is different. most of the high heads in the usa military at that time wasn't even asked their opinion on dropping the bombs by the government. it was all a political game. (source, that link i posted twice "the bombs were unnecessarily")

What good would that do? You've said yourself that shelters were useless.

then why did usa fly by whit a plane to begin whit?
they knew the shelters wouldn't work anyway.

(funny if it isn't all that plain and easy as youve thought all your life, right?)

 

Posted Mar 17, '13 at 7:57am

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

Who says I won't justify it?

so we gonna justify if iraq, nk, iran, israel and cuba are going to nuke the usa.
we justify when india nukes pakistan and visa-versa.
when turkey nukes greece.
when russia nukes georgia
when nk nukes sk

we can justify nuclear warefare by your logic.
if we all think like you then we would all be dead already.

A political decision that incorporated a military decision

the high head of the usa military....... ow hack, just read what i said to emp.
it's not a military decision.

I'm not here to justify the political reasons behind it..but the military reasons.

there was non. so you justify a political lie.

Exactly..they could still defend themselves.

keep the sea blockade in place and they would have no ability to defend anymore. you where shocking them already. there is no need to shoot someone in the head when they are hanging helpless in a strop.

and what kind of thread is defense?
as long you dont enter there is no danger.

Even with a dwindling supply of oil..they could still hold themselves out for some time..and that is time that the U.S., at the time, did not want to waste.

hmm yea from the link i posted befor and also used in the above post. they could maybe keep it up for 2 or 3 months max.
but by that time russia would already have invaded. (so it's not going to be the usa loss) japan would have known it had no option of peace on their terms and they would have surrendered already.

these bombs were unnecessarily and anyone that justifies them is no better then a ****ing ******.

With this blockade..the U.S. could also be potentially strengthening the Japanese in case they decided to go on an all-out attack

for the i dont know how many times now.
JAPAN KNEW IT LOST ALREADY. THEY TRIED TO COME TO PEACE WHIT THE HELP OF RUSSIA.

Actually..the reason I won't justify their decision is because the outcome would be terrible for them.

thats no reason to not justify it.
if they want to do this it is their right to do so. everything that happens after that is irrelevant (like you call the cold war after the 2 nukes is irrelevant)

and attacking the U.S. would be the equivalent of signing their own death wish

it's no attack it's a nuke. nukes are just more easy then a attack. thats why you justify it right? because it's more easy.

But this relies on the Japanese heeding the warning of the U.S. (which showed they did not wish to do). It isn't the U.S.'s fault that the Japanese did not wish to adequately prepare their citizens for the attack

i guess if the usa told them about the 30 mins time then they wouldn't have stopped the air alarms. my guess is that they thought it was 15 mins. but after 25 there still didn't happen anything.
but we would never know the reason why. everyone died anyway.

It isn't the U.S.'s fault that the Japanese did not wish to adequately prepare their citizens for the attack

now tell me how are you going to defend against a nuke strike that youve never seen or heard of befor?
japan can't be blamed here either.

 

Posted Mar 17, '13 at 1:24pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

keep the sea blockade in place and they would have no ability to defend anymore. you where shocking them already. there is no need to shoot someone in the head when they are hanging helpless in a strop.

Not helpless. More like shooting a man in the head because if you got close he would stab you. War isn't a wee gentleman's duel, as your naive self would so love to believe.

it's no attack it's a nuke. nukes are just more easy then a attack. thats why you justify it right? because it's more easy.

You made the analogy of the gun yourself. Isn't a gun cowardly too? It stops a man from fighting with his fists or a melee weapon, or a weapon that has a shorter range or lower chance or death. Let's not pick bones here, partydevil.

now tell me how are you going to defend against a nuke strike that youve never seen or heard of befor?
japan can't be blamed here either.

Yes, it can. Perhaps not for the first bomb, but holding a lost line when seeing an entire city become ashes and bones was ignorant and stupid.

the winner prints the history books. if they wanted to let it see as a military operation then that is what it will be called.
reality however is different. most of the high heads in the usa military at that time wasn't even asked their opinion on dropping the bombs by the government. it was all a political game. (source, that link i posted twice "the bombs were unnecessarily")

You have one wee link, we have a lot more. Also, I would not be surprised if a few Japanese people had edited that Wiki page. It isn't a book, it's a page that everyone can take a pen to.

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

You must be logged in to post a reply!