ForumsWEPRNorth Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

164 106368
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

North Korea has vowed to nuke the U.S.A.

Feel free to discuss the subject. Do you think they'd follow through? What do you imagine the result would be? What results could come about from this vow? etc

  • 164 Replies
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

so they can "justify" it this way the next time again.
if we all use this logic then we would all be dead already.

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: Just because I justify an American war decision does not make me American. Nice going, hotshot.
B: The President was presented with the facts that he would lose at least two million men, not to mention civilian casualties would actually be bigger than an attack on their key supply cities (Note that they did not attack Osaka or Tokyo)
C: America knew that if they did not crush the Japanese, there would be an extended and hideously bloody war. The Japanese were a highly honorable people, and their military was known for 'sparing civilian honor' by killing civilians. The military ran on a mock-Bushido code, with the idea of fighting to the last empty cartridge being considered an honorable death. Combine this with the 9-million strong military, all willing to hold their position and fight, and millions of lives of soldiers and civilians would be lost.
Not to mention even after the bombs were dropped, many of the generals considered their loss dishonorable and committed suicide. If these men were willing to kill themselves after such a loss, how do you think they would defend their country? With a huge amount of blood spilled on the turf of Japan.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

i have a problem whit your point B.
the cost of 2 million lives should be choosen. if we all just drop a huge bomb on every place we dont like because it's more easy then having a war then we all are dead.
thats not a way to fight. i understand the generals to suicide after such weak attack that you can't defend against. the japanese had honor during a fight. and get beaten by monkey's whit a huge gun... -.-' they are responsible for their man. and if they die in such way, then he has failed his duty.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

@pang tong
that warning is from after hiroshima
and nice thye gave a warning 30 mins befor the bomb. be seriously would that have cared? they knew of the after effects. and that after 25mins the alarms stop and people come out 5 mins to soon isn't going to help either. a bit better communication could be done there.
any japan was almost out of oil and the sea blockade was effective enough.
japan was already defeated and they tryed to surrender to russia. who refused because it had agreed whit the usa to get alot of land in east asia after japan and china were gone. these agreements were made in the yalta conference.

the bomb was unnecessary.

Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

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.


1) Japan was actively training their own citizens to be used to repel a potential allied invasion. They weren't as innocent as you make them out to be.

2) Japan themselves murderedfar more noncombatants and prisoners of war than the allies did.

3) The alternative to Fat Man and Little Boy was an all out invasion of Japan. Given the IJA's proven record of fighting to the last man, an exponentially greater number of lives, on all sides, would have been lost in an invasion like Operation Overlord. Allied estimates run over 1 million Americans alone would die simply taking over the main islands.

4) It's also important to note that no one in the world really knew the true powers of atomic weaponry. The US and the USSR didn't begin to understand the affects and persistence of radioactive fallout until subsequent tests in the 50s and 60s.

All in all, dropping the bombs was the best descision because, ultimately, it was the lesser of all evils. In an ideal situation, there never would have been any need to drop the bombs in the first place; WWII never would have occurred.

are you seriously here?


Yes, I am "seriously" here as I am occupying a specific point in time and space.

so this is how/why the usa sticks their nose in all the business they are not part of.
saying that if half the world is attacked then you automatically attack the usa aswell? thats retarded. even if it's true, it's still retarded.


Perhaps you ough to fully research something before you pass erroneous judgement on it. The purpose of such an agreement between SK, Japan, and the US serves to provide regional stability. I'm sure you aggree when I say that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. And the aggreement works to stop nuclear proliferation: the US provides for the defense of SK and Japan, and SK and Japan don't pursue nuclear weaponry. Its a win-win for everyone.

it try's to.


If it trys and fails, it doesn't Not that it ever did to begin with. So whats your point, exactly? Or is this as worthless as everybing else you've so far said?

see it as a theist-atheist thing.
as a theist try's to glorify it's believe. then many atheists blast it back in their face.
i do the same whit the usa. you want to glorify the usa. but all it actually is, is a young pubertal country. whit only war and violence. and beside california there is nothing good coming out of your country.


I'll just nod and pretend that this is relevant and makes sense, so as to not hurt your feelings.

i have a problem whit your point B.
the cost of 2 million lives should be choosen. if we all just drop a huge bomb on every place we dont like because it's more easy then having a war then we all are dead.
thats not a way to fight. i understand the generals to suicide after such weak attack that you can't defend against. the japanese had honor during a fight. and get beaten by monkey's whit a huge gun... -.-' they are responsible for their man. and if they die in such way, then he has failed his duty.


This would be laughable if you weren't so serious. I'll address the only coherent point you make by pointing out your blatant hyprocrisy: You slam the US for killing a few people with a bomb, then openly state that the best choice is the annihilation of an entire generation in two countries and the inevitable loss of more lives. Your gringophobia seems to be clouding your judgement.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,412 posts
2,730

that warning is from after hiroshima

Warnings had been dropped for months recommending evacuation.

and nice thye gave a warning 30 mins befor the bomb. be seriously would that have cared? they knew of the after effects. and that after 25mins the alarms stop and people come out 5 mins to soon isn't going to help either. a bit better communication could be done there.

Where's this 30min claim coming from? It was 5 days.

any japan was almost out of oil and the sea blockade was effective enough.

Doesn't change their psychological resilience/morale. Even after the first bomb was dropped, they didn't surrender. If they were truly as desperate as you say, why didn't they?

the japanese had honor during a fight

Chemical weapons are honorable?
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

the bomb was unnecessary

you guys act like japan had still full power.
these bombs were not a military or scientific decision. but a political. showing the ussr what the usa could do. people can see these attacks as the start of the cold war.

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.

Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

i have a problem whit your point B.
the cost of 2 million lives should be choosen. if we all just drop a huge bomb on every place we dont like because it's more easy then having a war then we all are dead.
thats not a way to fight. i understand the generals to suicide after such weak attack that you can't defend against. the japanese had honor during a fight. and get beaten by monkey's whit a huge gun... -.-' they are responsible for their man. and if they die in such way, then he has failed his duty.

Tell me, were you a soldier in WWII? A soldier condemned to slaughter by an opponent that would never give up until everything was gone?
WWII was not an honor war. No wars of this age were honor wars. Nobody fought honorably, they fought to win. Don't be so naive, the Japanese were not an honorable opponent, they were just a brave opponent. America gave ample warning, the government ignored the warnings and condemned their people to being killed.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

Warnings had been dropped for months recommending evacuation.

whit the sea blockade in place there wasn't really anyware they could go.

Where's this 30min claim coming from? It was 5 days.

people are not going to sit in a shelter for 5 days.
the usa flew by whit a other plane 30 mins befor the bomb fell to warn the people it was coming. the air alarms went on people went into their shelters (wich doesn't matter, they would be dead anyway and the usa knew that)
but after 25 mins the alarms stopped and people started to come out. saw a clean city and were happy. then BOOM!! 72.000 people instantly vaporized.

Doesn't change their psychological resilience/morale. Even after the first bomb was dropped, they didn't surrender. If they were truly as desperate as you say, why didn't they?

they tryed to whit the russians.
russia and japan had a long history, starting in 1905, when russia lost a war with japan, and then its port in china.
after japan invaded manchuria, it later moved troops up to the russian border to gauge the reaction. the russians attacked and badly defeated the japanese army. after that, before Hitler invaded russia, the two signed a non-aggression agreement so that each could concentrate its forces elsewhere.
japan tried in 1945 to use russia as a means of dividing the allies and may be negotiating a peace treaty in its interest. It didn't know that at the yalta meeting in 1944, the allies agreed that russia would attack japan after germany's defeat. russia was given rights to certain northern island possessions of japan, occupation of parts of china/manchuria/mongolia, and some of the spoils of defeating japan itself.
the russians pretended to have "talks" with japan until august 1945. russia suddenly declared war on japan and sended its army into manchuria and then in to the kurile islands. russia declared war on 8 august, the same day the second atom bomb landed on nagasaki. together, these events eliminated the last fantasies in tokyo of peace on its terms.

Chemical weapons are honorable?

not really i was more pointing to wards yamato-damashii code that comes from the samurai bushido code.
monkeys being the respectles enemy. (i'm looking from their point of view there)
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

but after 25 mins the alarms stopped and people started to come out. saw a clean city and were happy. then BOOM!! 72.000 people instantly vaporized.

Maybe their government should have warned them to get out the city or just have surrendered. Not America's fault that the Japanese government didn't believe in human life.
whit the sea blockade in place there wasn't really anyware they could go.


You are not very bright, are you? The 'Evacuation' here does not mean 'Flee the Country' it means 'Get the helloutta the city'
not really i was more pointing to wards yamato-damashii code that comes from the samurai bushido code.

Honor isn't honor if the weapons and methods carried out for honor were not honorable. The code wasn't for honor, it was like that inspiring speech leaders gave to their men before they were ran down by the enemy.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

Not America's fault that the Japanese government didn't believe in human life.

who dropped the unnecessarily bombs?
--.--'

The 'Evacuation' here does not mean 'Flee the Country' it means 'Get the helloutta the city'

yea keep running. that is going to work. many people stay where they are, it's like that in all wars.
if the usa really didn't want to kill people why they didn't drop it a few miles of coast to SHOW it. why drop it on a city?

Honor isn't honor if the weapons and methods carried out for honor were not honorable.

i guess you didn't read a single link i gave here, did you?
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

Honor does not mean this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Chinese_killed_by_Japanese_Army_in_a_ditch%2C_Hsuchow.jpg
Chinese civilians dropped in a ditch
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/LeonardGSiffleet.jpg/452px-LeonardGSiffleet.jpg
An Australian officer, already defeated, being beheaded Japanese-style
Here, the Wiki page on Japanese war crimes:
Honor
Oh, and the wee sets of experiments on POWs:
Vivisection of POWs is by far the most honorable thing known

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

-.-' your not able to set yourself in the shoes of the enemy i c.

redfan45
offline
redfan45
197 posts
220

Guess what?
It is war.
American GI's beheaded Japanese soldiers as well, and put their rotting heads on their tanks.
Hell assuming most of you are white, then you probably have some Celtic in you. They beheaded the **** out of their enemies, the Irish would have bundles of heads tied to their horses.
Beheading doesn't make you dishonorable at all.
The manor you approach it might is all. The Japanese in WW2 had the idea they were samurai, sadly they were nothing very close to samurai and Bushido.

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,479 posts
24,830

NATO involvement in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, abd Libya, among others, indicates a past record in the last two decades of intervention. Why would an East Asia conflict be any different? An easy clextrapolation because there is grounds for it, unlike yours which would fly in the face of NATO's post-USSR policy.


Iraq was not a NATO operation as stated earlier. NATO entered the Afghan war because the 911 attacks was considered an attack on all member states under Article 5. As for Yugoslavia, reasons of regional security were brought up, justifying itself under Article 4, which allows involved parties to consult together whenever political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened. However, Korea does not necessarily fit under any of these situations, and furthermore, treating NATO as a monolith with a single macro-foreign policy is misleading.


I aggree that China wants to meep the country afloat and avoid refugees, but a nuclear NK would almost inevitably lead to this! As NK proceeds with its nuclear development, it will face more more and sanctions for doing so. This is evident in the UN sanctions recently placed upon it. Sanctions which China voted for. A nuclear NK is NOT beneficial to China, and China clearly does not want a nuclear China!


China's support for Pyongyang ensures a friendly nation on its northeastern border, and provides a buffer zone between China and South Korea, which is home to around 29,000 U.S. troops. This allows China to reduce its military deployment in its northeast and "focus more directly on the issue of Taiwanese independence,". It is clear that China has enormous leverage on NK, but what most people don't realise is that North Korea can pursue a highly independent policy by itself; rendered even more complex by factionalism within the CCP's ranks. China has shown signs of being increasingly frustrated by nuclear brinkmanship, but it knows that a nuclear North Korea that is relatively dependent on it (E.g the growing bilateral trade), can prove useful in times of negotiations. Furthermore, a nuclear program provides the North with a meagre source to rally around with pride, holding the nation together, even if only by the string of their teeth.


May be not. But Japanese involvement in a Korean conflict, whether indirectly or not, is inevitible given the close proximity of Japan to the peninsula. In the Korean War, Japan served as a launching platform for US forces, and such support at the very least will be expected.

As for the islands, Japan considers it soverign Japanese soil. Any action on the islands by China will be seen as an invasion, and would justify their use of force in compliance with Article 9. This is also why I brought up the US' nuclear umbrella, because an attack on Japan is equivalent to an attack on the US.

This is a wrong assumption, because it assumes that Japan will want to attack China/NK, when its constitution forbids it to (Even the name of the JDF reflects its attitude that it has given up the right of belligerency).

The "White Paper" I found was 2011, but thats immaterial really. Sure, but it never denies first use against a nuclear weapons capable state. Spoken policy isn't operational policy, and shouldn't be given equal weights. If China truly maintains an NFU policy, why then are they in the process of modernizing their nuclear arsenal? If actions speak louder than words, this speaks volumns.


Why does not signing an NFU policy not prevent you from upgrading your arsenal? Under Article 9, Japan has been forbidden from actually maintaining any armed forces, leading to the JDF being more or less classified as awkward extensions of the police force; yet it constantly upgrades and imports new materials.

Furthermore, In 2010, the Pentagon concluded that although there is "some ambiguity over the conditions under which China's [no-first-use] policy would or would not apply...there has been no indication that national leaders are willing to attach such nuances and caveats to China's 'no first use' doctrine".

Lastly, an official policy has always been circumvented, one has only to look at NATO to find sufficient example.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

these bombs were not a military or scientific decision. but a political. showing the ussr what the usa could do.


Actually, the bombs were a strategic decision. To show the capabilities of the U.S. and to show that if provoked, they are not going to just lay back and let it happen, they are going to take action and do so with extreme power

if the usa really didn't want to kill people why they didn't drop it a few miles of coast to SHOW it. why drop it on a city?


Because that shows nothing, other than the size of the bomb

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"

It is like someone shooting a person in the leg rather than having the bullet fly 5 feet away from them. (The someone being Japan, and the leg being the two cities hit)

As to your link..it states that the bomb was unnecessary in terms of ending the war. That is not what I'm talking about, however. With the bomb, I don't see it as an "end the war" tactic..but a tactic to show the capabilities the U.S. has, and the readiness that they have with using it if need be
Showing 46-60 of 164