ForumsWEPRNorth Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

164 106775
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,991 posts
Scribe

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
9,427 posts
Jester

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.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

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&quot

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?)
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

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.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
Shepherd

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&quot

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.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

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.

So because the top political leader (who is also the top military leader) made the final call, it's a political decision? What did Hitler's blitz on England's industrial cities count as? Was it done to stop their enemy's production, or to show the rest of the world their capabilities, or both at once?

And stop saying "it wasn't necessary". That's irrelevant. Conventional warfare anywhere by any side wasn't necessary either. The entire war wasn't necessary, nor the war before it. No war is truly necessary. It's a choice. A choice of people with opposing ideals to show their strength/power. When has any of it ever been necessary?

But this relies on the Japanese heeding the warning of the U.S. (which showed they did not wish to do).

Only about 40000 of 380000 were evacuated by Japan's government.

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

If they were told directly, they'd think it's a trick.

then why did usa fly by whit a plane to begin whit?

It didn't matter. The first plane was to check the weather, another that came later was for pictures. Japanese defenses saw all 3 B-29s on their radar an hour before the bombing, determined 15 minutes before the bombing that there weren't many planes coming in, and figured, "No need to keep the alarms on for that."

japan would have known it had no option of peace on their terms and they would have surrendered already.
JAPAN KNEW IT LOST ALREADY.

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 knew they lost when the invasion began, yet they said they'd rather go down fighting, not surrendering.

but by that time russia would already have invaded.

Again, how would there be less bloodshed in that outcome? The Soviets killed more Japanese in their first invasionary battle alone than were immediately killed by the Hiroshima bomb. How many more if it lasted for months?

it's no attack it's a nuke. nukes are just more easy then a attack.

And a gun is easier than a sling. A grenade is easier than a rock. A tank is easier than a wagon. What's your point? How is it less of an attack?

now tell me how are you going to defend against a nuke strike that youve never seen or heard of befor?

Japan had it's own nuclear program. They knew to some degree what a bomb could do. They were warned to evacuate their cities. They refused (or at least were very inefficient at it). They could've surrendered. They refused.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

Not helpless. More like shooting a man in the head because if you got close he would stab you.

dont come close then. let him him get worse untill he no longer stabs. and let him come to you asking for help.

You made the analogy of the gun yourself.

i went to his stand point here. as he said befor in the topic. asking if this was the case. (as i dont fully know anymore who said what. kinda me vs all again. )

but holding a lost line when seeing an entire city become ashes and bones was ignorant and stupid.

but the line was not lost to them. they thought the talks whit russia went well. seeing a future of peace on the terms of japan. and there was 1 thing that the usa didn't want.
the japanese emperor had to stay on his seat as head of the country.
everything els was negotiable.
only when that line whit russia was lost. (for them) and they knew that every option was gone. they toke the last and worst (for them) option whit the usa.

You have one wee link

i had 1 wee link in that doomsday thread last year aswell.
you dont need more then 1 wee link is it's a good source.

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.

except that it isn't a wiki page as you guys used. it's the washington blog.
yes, a usa source. you wouldn't have guessed that do you?
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,991 posts
Scribe

[That moment when you had a ****-ton typed out..and accidentally exited the effing page]

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


Please don't place my words in a blender. We cannot necessarily justify nuclear warfare because there are many more much effective ways that nations can act

also..please keep in mind all of what I said
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

ow hack, just read what i said to emp


What Emp said backs up the idea that it was a military decision

there was non. so you justify a political lie.


Just because -you- don't see a military decision..doesn't mean there wasn't one

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


Japan is in their home territory..where they can provide themselves with crops and survive. The U.S. (since they are creating a blockade) are not able to be so self-sufficient. That is the threat of a defense that you do not enter

they could maybe keep it up for 2 or 3 months max.


2 or 3 months of troops and supplies being wasted just waiting for Japan to surrender. Or..the process could be effectively sped up and those troops and supplies used to efficiently help in other parts of the war efforts as they did

thats no reason to not justify it.


That's a perfectly good reason to not justify it..as it would be an impact that would affect them immediately in the same war. Unlike the Cold War..which was a separate war.

Also..where are you finding that the nukes had an impact on the cause of the Cold War. From what I can find..the only effects the nukes had with Russia was Stalin himself stating himself that he hopes the U.S. would use the nukes on the Japanese (he also was quite calm about the U.S. creating nukes)..and the reason he protested was not for their usage...but due to the Soviets offered little influence in occupied Japan
Source
(Specific location - Potsdam Conference and defeat of Japan)

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.


Attacking with a nuke is attacking nonetheless. Just because it is a more powerful bomb doesn't give it a higher distinction as an attack.

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

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.


So you are just assuming their thoughts?
That is Argument of silence and an argument of ignorance
Again..I restate..they were given plenty of warning with the use of the flyer droppings that were made months before. If they had heeded the warning..the alarms would not have been needed

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.


Again..I restate..because I don't think you are grasping the concept. The U.S. gave sufficient warnings to the people of Japan that they were going to be attacked. Nuke or not..they knew that their city was to be attacked..and they chose not to heed the warning.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

Partydevil, I'm just going to poke my head in for a moment.

It seems to me that your reasons for being opposed to the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan are very simple. It was the U.S.A. that dropped them.

From your arguments, I highly doubt that you would be saying the same things if it had been any other nation.

Especially when your reasons are, "they were too proud to surrender" and "they should have had a 45 minute air raid warning." As if that changes anything at all.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

it's the washington blog.

I trust a .org, .edu, and .gov over a .com any day.

What Emp said backs up the idea that it was a military decision

Forgot to mention Out of some 70,000-80,000 people killed, 20,000 were soldiers.

Only about 40000 of 380000 were evacuated by Japan's government.

Clarification: That's throughout the war, not at the last minute.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

It seems to me that your reasons for being opposed to the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan are very simple. It was the U.S.A. that dropped them.

no if japan would try peace whit usa and russia drooped them i still not justify it.
but most of all that it wasn't needed anymore.

I highly doubt that you would be saying the same things if it had been any other nation.

it might interest me less indeed. but i wouldn't have a other definition of what is right and wrong.

Especially when your reasons are, "they were too proud to surrender" and "they should have had a 45 minute air raid warning." As if that changes anything at all.

i'm getting pretty tired of saying the same all the time.
to bad it's to much for some people to handle/understand.
i dont think i'll keep doing this.

ty for showing that i made my point and everything more is not needed. i keep answering the same things all the time.

back to nk vs usa.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
Shepherd

i'm getting pretty tired of saying the same all the time.
to bad it's to much for some people to handle/understand.
i dont think i'll keep doing this.


It must be tiring being wrong all the time.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

It must be tiring being wrong all the time.

wrong.. like when i said it was wrong to hand out free weapons to the rebels in libya? (they are in al-qaeda's hands now)

i might not always share the general view. but that doesn't make me wrong.
it's a different point of view.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
Shepherd

i might not always share the general view. but that doesn't make me wrong.
it's a different point of view.


Supposed differences in moral opinion is one thing. Turning a blind eye to factual reality is another. Maintaining your own ignorance in order to preserve your anti-American dogmatic beliefs.has only turned you into the cardinal fool of your own religion of stupidity.
CyrusWheats
offline
CyrusWheats
7 posts
Blacksmith

Hehe... North Korea's nuke can't even reach us. It's not powerful enough. But still, we should do something about it, perhaps we should kick them out the U.N.? Then we could go to war with them causing a WWIII

CyrusWheats
offline
CyrusWheats
7 posts
Blacksmith

Their nukes aren't powerful enough to reach us. But we should still do something.

Showing 76-90 of 164