ForumsWEPRNorth Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

164 106249
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
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

people are not going to sit in a shelter for 5 days.

They had 5 days to move to the countryside. Heck, they had months.

many people stay where they are

Thus, they didn't heed the warning. Don't spout BS about how "The people didn't know what was coming." Few nations tell their enemies' civilians about attacks in advance. Did Japan send warnings before Pearl Harbor? How is it unfair?

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

Wouldn't that make a tsunami, potentially killing more? And if they didn't believe a freakin' city was destroyed, or that the US could do it again, how would a blank test demonstrate anything? They'd likely call it a hoax, a smoke-and-mirror trick. Why would they surrender to something they don't think is lethal/destructive?

not really i was more pointing to wards yamato-damashii code

The point is Japan had already frequently used outlawed chemical weapons during the war, against international regulations/treaties. Why fight fair with an enemy that cheats?
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

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

From what I've heard, Hiroshima hadn't been bombed much, if at all, but planes frequently went over the city during the war, going to other cities further inland. Few listened to the alarms anymore. Very few went into shelters. Anyone worried enough to go to the shelters every few hours would've left the city a long time ago.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

Oh, one more thing:

you guys act like japan had still full power.

You still haven't answered. If they were as weak and defeated as you say they were, why didn't they surrender until after the 2nd bomb was dropped?
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

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

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

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"

same could be done outside a city.

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

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. starting the cold war.
how is this not a political decision?

They had 5 days to move to the countryside. Heck, they had months.

and lose everything in their lifes? beside does the code say to stand brave and not show fear. that was part of their culture for over 800 years. you can't just change that mentality.
(well.... seems like you can whit a huge enough bomb and a betraying allie.)

Don't spout BS about how "The people didn't know what was coming."

quote me where i said this plz.

Did Japan send warnings before Pearl Harbor? How is it unfair?

they were a hour to soon. they didn't count for the time zones.
they have learned their lesson there. now everything in japan go's right on time. even the trains run on time 99% of the time. =P

Wouldn't that make a tsunami, potentially killing more?

nhaa. at most some coast villages. they could drop it outside the territorial waters even (at 7 miles) and it would have been clearly visible for them.

Why would they surrender to something they don't think is lethal/destructive?

if you think that after the shockwave of that thing that go's on for hundreds of miles. it isn't lethal there sure is a problem on their head. but there was no problem there. they already knew they lost and tryed to surrender whit russia. whit the term that the emperor would keep his seat as leader of the country. the usa didn't want this. so japan couldn't surrender to the usa. they hoped to do so whit russia. then in 1 day they get betrayed by 1 and nuked by the other. then japan knew that their lost option of keeping the emperor on it's seat was gone.

sure it would not have made them surrender. (neither are the bombs the reason why they did.) but if they didn't drop it then russia would have invaded japan. so the saving of 2 million man is a straight out lie anyway.
russia would have defeated the last major enemy in ww2. and i think usa couldn't bare this thought. it would give them to much credit. (and they needed to get back on pearl harbor ofcours)

The point is Japan had already frequently used outlawed chemical weapons during the war, against international regulations/treaties. Why fight fair with an enemy that cheats?

didn't everyone cheat in ww2? but a cheat for a weapon unlock is different from a cheat like god mode. there are levels in cheating. usa used the most ultimate cheat at a point where no cheating was needed anymore.

Anyone worried enough to go to the shelters every few hours would've left the city a long time ago.

here is your reason why they stayed.

If they were as weak and defeated as you say they were, why didn't they surrender until after the 2nd bomb was dropped?

i did. do i have to say again they tryed to whit the russians because the usa didn't want to except some of the japanese terms?

they didn't surrender because of the 2nd bomb but because russia betrayed them that same day.
now i can also say again why they didn't surrender to the bombs and that is because of the code that has been part of the culture for over 800 year.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

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.


Mea culpae on NATO being in Iraq. However, note that many NATO countries were in the Coalition.

From the NATO website:

These countries develop cooperation with NATO in areas of mutual interest, including emerging security challenges, and some contribute actively to NATO operations either militarily or in some other way. Individual global partners choose the areas where they wish to engage with NATO, as well as the extent of this cooperation, in a spirit of mutual benefit and reciprocity.

Over recent years, NATO has developed bilateral relations with each of these countries. Global partners now have the same access to partnership activities as other partners. Activities range from joint exercises and joint operations, to strategic-level training, and information, intelligence as well as technology exchange.


SK is a Global Partner of NATO, and as such is a recipient of the same benefits as any other member nation. But I don't really see why we're arguing this; NATO intervened in the Korean War, which I might add, is still *technically* ongoing, meaning that NATO is still *technically* participating. Think of the last 60 years as a really long half time.

Isn't it a macro-foreign policy? The foreign policy of the vast majority of the member nations agrees that a nuclear-capable NK is bad, and that NK attacking SK is bad. Without going into details, it isn't all correct to paint them with a fairly broad brush.

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


A nuclear Pyongyang may be of a slight benefit to China in the short term, but Beijing stands to lose out the instant the world reacts. It's a matter of the bird in the hand being worth the two in the bush. Beijing would rather have the migraine of a virulent and non-nuclear NK than have to deal with the nightmare of a unified Korea knocking on it's door. China can serve to lessen the affects of UN sanctions, but the US will not tolerate nuclear weapons on the peninsula. That much is clear.

Besides, Kim just has to bang the war drums (gongs?) and the fervor will rise as it always does. A parade here, an appearance there, and all the time being lauded by the state media.

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)


Yes; Japan has given up the right to belligerency. As their Defense Force's name implies, Japan maintains a military for *defensive* means. So if attacked by China over their islands, or by NK, that would place them under attack, and thus, on the.defensive. Combined with the US' nuclear umbrella over their hands, Japan just has to wait for NK or China to hang themselves.

Japan's constitution merely prohibits it from firing the first shot. With any war, the response after fighting off the first attack as the defender is to wage a counter attack to consolidate your position and weaken your opponent. Thats base strategy.

When we look at this with the understanding that the Japanese government has a history of looking at Article 9 with a very liberal/ambiguous approach, a regional conflict with Japan providing at least auxiliary support in the event Japan is attacked is to be expected.

In short, Article 9 merely prevents Japan from initiating a conflict. It says nothing, and in fact implies, that Japan will defend itself if ever attacked.

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".


Article 9 in Japan's Constitution merely prohibits the creation of an armed force for use in offensive and belligerent warfare. Japan has, and has always had, the right to maintain a force with which to defend itself. That has been clear from the start. How such a force is classified in Japan is immaterial; what matters is that they have the right to do so. You're completely misinterpreting this as if to imply that Japan has no right to maintain even a defense force!

As for China's lack of an official NFU policy, it's a matter of putting your money where your mouth is. It would be akin to the US telling Canada it has no intention of violating the Rush-Bagot treaty, and then start building large fortifications and military installments right on the border.

You don't need state-of-the-art technology to send a warhead around the world. China already has the capability. Why, then, if they insist they have an NFU policy, do they go and start upgrading their capacity to make war? It's completely contradictory to do so, and you'll forgive me if I remain suspicious of their intentions.

hey didn't surrender because of the 2nd bomb but because russia betrayed them that same day


USSR had been against Japan since USSR had been betrayed by Hitler. USSR only began a major offensive into Manchuria pursuant the aggreement at Yalta, which had the USSR invading occupied China in between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To suggest that Japan losing an outer territory ended the war when the US had liberated Japanese soil is ludicrous.

I'd like to draw your attention to this graphic. You find that, of all the deaths in WWII, 58% were Allied Civilians. Only 4% were Axis Civilians.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/World_War_II_Casualties2.svg/550px-World_War_II_Casualties2.svg.png

As for the honorable Japanese, here's a page detailing all the honorable things they did during WWII. They're pretty modest today though, since factions in the Japanese government today deny all the honorable things they did back then.

No evidence of war crimes here, folks.

now i can also say again why they didn't surrender to the bombs


They actually did surrender to the bombs, as you put it. Hirohito broke tradition and actually spoke at a cabinet meeting, reading out a haiku and asking for surrender to the Allies after citing the destruction caused by the atomic bombs. And in the Gyokuon-hoso, or the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, Hirohito directly cites the A-Bomb: "...the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable... ". He later says that it has the power to obliterate the entire Japanese nation.

In fact, historians around the world cite the Atomic bombs as ending the war in the pacific. You stating otherwise not only doesn't change things, but shows me you're close minded and in denial of reality!
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

Bleh, didn't mean to submit.

I'll also point out that in Hirohito's speech, he doesn't make any mention of the Soviet invasion into Manchuria.

QED

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

quote me where i said this plz.


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.

didn't everyone cheat in ww2?

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

usa used the most ultimate cheat at a point where no cheating was needed anymore.

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

beside does the code say to stand brave and not show fear. that was part of their culture for over 800 years. you can't just change that mentality.

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

From Wiki:

After considering the impending invasions, "the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded:
We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.


they didn't surrender because of the 2nd bomb but because russia betrayed them that same day.

The invasion didn't seem to spook them too much. The bomb was a bigger threat.

From Wiki:

After Hiroshima, At first, some refused to believe the United States had built an atomic bomb. The Japanese Army and Navy had their own independent atomic-bomb programs and therefore the Japanese understood enough to know how very difficult building it would be. 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. American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda's, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, to convince the Japanese that the U.S. had a large supply.

After knowing about the Soviet invasion around 4am (it started around midnight, but communication took a while), "The senior leadership of the Japanese Army began preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Korechika Anami, in order to stop anyone attempting to make peace."

The Supreme Council met at 10:30...In the middle of the meeting, shortly after 11:00, news arrived that Nagasaki, on the west coast of KyÅ«shÅ«, had been hit by a second atomic bomb (called "Fat Man" by the United States). By the time the meeting ended, the Big Six had split 3â"3.

About 12hrs before surrender, The full cabinet met on 14:30 on August 9, and spent most of the day debating surrender. As the Big Six had done, the cabinet split, with neither TÅgÅ's position nor Anami's attracting a majority. Anami told the other cabinet ministers that, under torture, a captured American B-29 pilot had told his interrogators that the United States possessed 100 atom bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto would be bombed "in the next few days".

In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:
Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.


Quotes from here and here.
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,372 posts
24,395

SK is a Global Partner of NATO, and as such is a recipient of the same benefits as any other member nation. But I don't really see why we're arguing this; NATO intervened in the Korean War, which I might add, is still *technically* ongoing, meaning that NATO is still *technically* participating. Think of the last 60 years as a really long half time.

Er no. NATO did not intervene in the Korean War, but was galvanised by it to transform into a more concrete military organization. The Korean War was fought under the banner of the UN. I am arguing about it, because it's a misguided view of NATO involvement, and possible NATO intervention.

They might feel generally the same way about NK, but that doesn't translate to direct policy. Syria is judged to be a sore ulcer yet the world is divided over it. Libya was considered a danger in general, yet quite a few of the larger powers stood out in their determination not to engage it.

A nuclear Pyongyang may be of a slight benefit to China in the short term, but Beijing stands to lose out the instant the world reacts. It's a matter of the bird in the hand being worth the two in the bush. Beijing would rather have the migraine of a virulent and non-nuclear NK than have to deal with the nightmare of a unified Korea knocking on it's door. China can serve to lessen the affects of UN sanctions, but the US will not tolerate nuclear weapons on the peninsula. That much is clear.

Besides, Kim just has to bang the war drums (gongs?) and the fervor will rise as it always does. A parade here, an appearance there, and all the time being lauded by the state media.

Why would a unified Korea under the Kims even be a nightmare? Why would even a Korea under the SK government be a nightmare? Just because the US does not tolerate nuclear weapons matters not a jot to the high command in the DPRK. Beijing in no way stands to lose out the instant the world reacts. NK isn't a puppet to be protected at all costs; China even has emergency contingency plans to invade the North should signs of distress occur at its borders.

Yes; Japan has given up the right to belligerency. As their Defense Force's name implies, Japan maintains a military for *defensive* means. So if attacked by China over their islands, or by NK, that would place them under attack, and thus, on the.defensive. Combined with the US' nuclear umbrella over their hands, Japan just has to wait for NK or China to hang themselves.

Japan's constitution merely prohibits it from firing the first shot. With any war, the response after fighting off the first attack as the defender is to wage a counter attack to consolidate your position and weaken your opponent. Thats base strategy.

When we look at this with the understanding that the Japanese government has a history of looking at Article 9 with a very liberal/ambiguous approach, a regional conflict with Japan providing at least auxiliary support in the event Japan is attacked is to be expected.

In short, Article 9 merely prevents Japan from initiating a conflict. It says nothing, and in fact implies, that Japan will defend itself if ever attacked.


I am not disputing the Japanese right to self-defense, I am disputing your claim that Japan will actively seek to engage in a war if S Korea initiates it as you have seemed to suggest in your earliest post.

You don't need state-of-the-art technology to send a warhead around the world. China already has the capability. Why, then, if they insist they have an NFU policy, do they go and start upgrading their capacity to make war? It's completely contradictory to do so, and you'll forgive me if I remain suspicious of their intentions.

Yes they do! Why would they not? If America can claim that they will only use nuclear weapons against states only in the case of invasion or other attacks against their territory, then why are they still massively upgrading their weaponry? Why can the Chinese not implement longer range missiles to presumably present better retaliatory strikes against say India? They don't have a relation, whether a nation takes an NFU stance, and the modernity of their arsenal.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

USSR had been against Japan since USSR had been betrayed by Hitler.

they were still under their non-agression agreement. russia declared war on august 8 and invaded on august 9.

To suggest that Japan losing an outer territory ended the war when the US had liberated Japanese soil is ludicrous.

whit the sea blockade in place japan knew it couldn't defend anything outside the mainland. it hadn't enough oil to fly to it anymore. they gave up on that, they already knew they lost and so did the rest of the world. now they only wanted to keep the emperor in place as the code describes it.

but your mistaken me here. it's not the attack of russia that broke them. it was the last hope of getting peace on their terms. they thought the talks whit russia went well. hope.

I'd like to draw your attention to this graphic.

ty, good info.

As for the honorable Japanese

i'm starting to think were talking about 2 different honors.
i wouldn't say they are honorable. but if you step in their shoes and look at what their culture was. you see how it was honorable for them.
i will be the last to defend any kind of warfare. (altho the IRA had a good point.)

They actually did surrender to the bombs

oke they did. (jeeez here we go again)
ofcours they had the surrender to the usa now russia betrayed them. russia was no longer a option. uk was never a option and usa had a option but only on usa terms.
so 1 more time:
they hoped to surrender to russia, who pretended to work along.
usa was droping a bomb
japan held on the hope whit russia.
and then russia stabbed them in the back and usa dropped a 2nd bomb.
no option of surrender left except usa.
so ofcourse they did. but it's not everything that happened there. it's not as plain as 1 bomb."oh they didn't give up" 2 bomb. "yea now they did"

but shows me you're close minded and in denial of reality!

you should know by now that i only laugh at lines like this.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

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.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

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.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

(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.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

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.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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
Showing 61-75 of 164