North Korea Tests Nuke

[yeahwho]

More than just a claim (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/ustqab.php#details).

It has to be Clintons fault somehow.

[fucktopgirl]

intense shit!

You know when they do they nuclear test , it damage the air , ocean, soil, animal and human that received the backdrafts of thoses explosions.

JUst fucking pissing me off!


When the fuck human will understand the stupidity of nuclear weapons?

[Echewta]

But does he have WMD? I certainly dont want the terrorist to get it. Luckily, we have a president who will stay the course and preemtive strike North Korea.

[fucktopgirl]

^ hopefully , you are being sarcastic!

[Whatitis]

This isn't a place for sarcasm. :rolleyes:

[Echewta]

I'm being partial sarcastic. If this current President truely believes the course he is taking in Iraq and everything he says, we need to regime change in North Korea ASAP. That leader has done everything that Saddam has done but more. Kim isn't with us so he must be against us. Lets do this.

[sam i am]

Absolutely not!

Can't POSSIBLY have sarcasm when North Korea just tested a nuclear explosion sucessfully.

[abcdefz]

WASHINGTON (CMN) -- President Bush on Monday said North Korea's claim that it has tested a nuclear weapon is a threat to international peace and said the world "will get back to you shortly."

[yeahwho]

WASHINGTON (CMN) -- President Bush on Monday said North Korea's claim that it has tested a nuclear weapon is a threat to international peace and said the world "will get back to you shortly."
(y)

Will maybe now Kim Jong II will not feel so ronely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkHDkmS-nr8). In an official statement coming out of North Korea the nation said, "It's great leap forward in the building of a prosperous powerful socialist nation."

The United States responded with a warning that the test would likely trigger a severe reaction from the U.N. Security Council (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQYsE_Qwec).

I noticed something, the newspapers and politicians in it do act surprised. But then again, these people trusted intelligence with regards to Iraq's WMDs, so I'm not surprised.

Next month, Iran will do the same and become the 9th nuclear power. This is how you become a player in the world, at the nuclear table.

[Echewta]

It keeps the U.S. away from you.

[backwoods]

Let's nuke those guys, before they nuke us!

[sam i am]

(y)

Will maybe now Kim Jong II will not feel so ronely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkHDkmS-nr8). In an official statement coming out of North Korea the nation said, "It's great leap forward in the building of a prosperous powerful socialist nation."

The United States responded with a warning that the test would likely trigger a severe reaction from the U.N. Security Council (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQYsE_Qwec).

I noticed something, the newspapers and politicians in it do act surprised. But then again, these people trusted intelligence with regards to Iraq's WMDs, so I'm not surprised.

Next month, Iran will do the same and become the 9th nuclear power. This is how you become a player in the world, at the nuclear table.

^^^

Those are FANTASTIC links, BTW (y) Is that Adam Sandler singing the "I'm so ronery" song?:p

Realistically, at this time, it appears they may have a successful chain reaction, but the ability to weaponize what they've got is the real key. It took the US a while to do that after successful testing in the early 1940's before employing a workable bomb in '45 against the Japanese.

The ability to detonate is a BIG step, but the fact remains that N. Korea is still a ways away from an actual workable defensive or offensive capability in regards to nuclear technology.

Iran, from all indications, is even further away.

Now, the REALLY scary thought is if Hugo Chavez or Morales in Bolivia gets some of this from somewhere....

[Schmeltz]

Now, the REALLY scary thought is if Hugo Chavez or Morales in Bolivia gets some of this from somewhere


Why? Unlike Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, Chavez and Morales have fairly good relations with their neighbours, or so I thought (with the exception of Nicaragua, I suppose). They don't run severely oppressive theocracies or cultivate radical personality cults like the above, and I've never heard anything about any links between terrorist movements and Chavez or Morales.

I wonder what you think these men would do with this weaponry if they had it? Even Iran and the DPRK are likely to employ them as a deterrent rather than offensively - I doubt they want to see their own societies completely levelled in a counter-response. Still not a good idea for anybody to have them at all - that's why, to me, the REALLY scary thought is about all those thousands of missiles sitting right next door with Georgie's finger on the button.

[D_Raay]

^^^

Those are FANTASTIC links, BTW (y) Is that Adam Sandler singing the "I'm so ronery" song?:p

Realistically, at this time, it appears they may have a successful chain reaction, but the ability to weaponize what they've got is the real key. It took the US a while to do that after successful testing in the early 1940's before employing a workable bomb in '45 against the Japanese.

The ability to detonate is a BIG step, but the fact remains that N. Korea is still a ways away from an actual workable defensive or offensive capability in regards to nuclear technology.

Iran, from all indications, is even further away.

Now, the REALLY scary thought is if Hugo Chavez or Morales in Bolivia gets some of this from somewhere....
Where was the approach taken with this nut, with the other nut? The much less dangerous nut at that.

[Drederick Tatum]

they'll never use it. just like Saddam, Jong is far more concerned with holding onto power in his own country than influencing anything international.

[sam i am]

Well....

Seems like N. Korea would still like to reunite the Korean peninsula. Having the "threat" of nuclear retaliation if the US intervened beyond platitudes is a good way to force the DMZ troops out and "integrate" the two nations (a la Vietnam).

Just an alternate possibility to the benign statements above.

As for Chavez or Morales, both of them, IMHO, do have cults of personality building up around them. Then emulate Castro in many ways, which is perturbing.

Again, just opinions, but not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

[icy manipulator]

Next month, Iran will do the same and become the 9th nuclear power. This is how you become a player in the world, at the nuclear table.
what are the countries that have nuclear capability? i can only think of 6

[Bob]

from wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation

Five "nuclear weapons states" from the NPT (USA, Russia, UK, France, PRC) Other known nuclear powers (India, Pakistan, North Korea)
States suspected of having possession of, or suspected of being in the process of developing, nuclear weapons (Israel, Iran)

although i could have sworn israel DID have them? that would bring the number up to 9 confirmed nations.

[Guy Incognito]

Here (http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/0,,2,00.html)and here (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006470151,00.html)is how the UK's biggest selling tabloid covered it today. Although they say its a serious situation they seem to play it down as tho he is just some wackjob which I'm afraid to say is probably the opinion of a lot of brits who wont be worried at all but I am.
I dont post much on this part of the board and it probably shows but I just wanted to say as a father of a 6 week old baby, that this really makes me worried. I am probably being really dramatic and over worrying but if the first world war was started with a gunshot.... I know thats taking it to extremes but the whole "world will get back to you"thing could cause rifts and problems about how to deal with this.

[Whatitis]

Even scarier - Ukraine may possess a nuclear stockpile due to a clerical error after the break up of the Soviet Union. If so. Can you imagine the hands that these could/did fall in?

[discopants]

You have to give credit to The Sun for coming up with the headline:

"How do you solve like Korea".

Classic.

[Qdrop]

North Korea would NEVER be a DIRECT threat to the US.
even if they ever did perfect long-range missile capabilities and fired one off on Los Angelas....they'd get one missile off before the US turned North Korea into a glass parking lot.
Kim is insane, but not THAT insane.

the real threat here is that he would attack US allies closer to him (Japan, etc)...or, most importantly, SELL nuclear weapons, info, or material to terrorists, etc.
THAT'S the real threat, here.

part of me says to just carpet bomb every nuclear/military site in North Korea now and get it over with....despite the large loss of life...
but collateral damage aside, that put us in seriously dangerous territory with China (semi-allie of N. Korea)....
we don't want that.

the best option now, with Russia and China finally aboard, is a crippling run of materials/military sanctions on Korea...as well as general sanctions.
we could cripple thier industry in less than a year....as well as send them into even deeper famine....they would crumble quickly.
the sad part is that, with sanctions, more people would likely die from starvation than from possible collateral damage if we just carpet bombed half the country.

[Tone Capone]

intense shit!

You know when they do they nuclear test , it damage the air , ocean, soil, animal and human that received the backdrafts of thoses explosions.

JUst fucking pissing me off!


When the fuck human will understand the stupidity of nuclear weapons?

You should post on one of north korea's many message boards and let them know that too(y) That way, we aren't the only ones that get to read your feelings on this! (y) hurry up, do it now before they test again(y)

We're counting on you (y)

[QueenAdrock]

*packs bags and leaves DC*

[Pres Zount]

North Korea would NEVER be a DIRECT threat to the US.
even if they ever did perfect long-range missile capabilities and fired one off on Los Angelas....they'd get one missile off before the US turned North Korea into a glass parking lot.
Kim is insane, but not THAT insane.


You don't think nuking LA should be considered 'threat' worthy?

[fucktopgirl]

You should post on one of north korea's many message boards and let them know that too(y) That way, we aren't the only ones that get to read your feelings on this! (y) hurry up, do it now before they test again(y)

We're counting on you (y)

Yes, just turn my post into derision man! Truth is that nuclear armement is just negative and should not be uses by any country. NUclear test has been done by a lot of countries and they should be punished for that. They are doing harm to the environnement and human that coexist in it.


wich country use the nuclear bomb already?
I kinda have a blank right now, i think it was on hiroshima and nagasaki...was it ethiopy? Or maybe bangladesh....Oh that right USA and they are the one getting all pissed off because Other country want to get that freaking poison candy too. Its is Just non sense. And i think that usa it one of the most guilty in term of "testing" nuclear weapons.

Ok ,i admit North korea prime minister seem to be a macavelic personnage , its not good that he has some nuclear weapons BUT Bush is as macavelic and insane as him and he got a lots of them nuclear firecrackers.

So , when I think about the fact that USA has a LOTS of nuclear bomb, that scare more the shit out of me then north KOrea!

[QueenAdrock]

We may have a shitty government, but we're not going to use nukes. It's silly to be afraid of the US having nukes. We've used them once in history, to stop an enemy who refused to stop. It may have been the only way to end the war - it had to be massive in order to get the other side to back down.

We wouldn't use it unless we were in that sort of situation again. And Iraq does NOT count. I don't see us getting in that sort of situation again, unless we were posed with an actual threat that refused to back down.

[fucktopgirl]

We may have a shitty government, but we're not going to use nukes. It's silly to be afraid of the US having nukes. We've used them once in history, to stop an enemy who refused to stop. It may have been the only way to end the war - it had to be massive in order to get the other side to back down.

Oh , because you just use it once in history no need to be afraid?
He, i think your government will do it once again, they are freakypsycho.
There is no excuse to what they did, so much damage and suffering cannot be excuse. Did you think about all the secondary effect that it did?
How people life over there is messed up right now? How much newborns are diformed and unhealthy. Water and soil is poison and cancer is high.
PLus the cancerous radiation spread further then just thoses two city....



And Iraq does NOT count

Why the fuck irak does not count? Because it is not a Big BOOM?
The DU drop in the middle east is as much damageable then the nuclear bomb, Uranium is use in both .


I don't see us getting in that sort of situation again, unless we were posed with an actual threat that refused to back down.

BAck down...why dont YOU guys back down first. WHo are you, the fucking center of the world? Get rid of your nuclear weapons first, like i said USA is not in a position to tell other what to do!


ANyway they is no justification whatsoever to use nuclear weapons and especially the A bomb. Everybody around the world is suffering because of them at one extent. WE are the collateral damage, it is sick man!

[Pres Zount]

Let's not get into a "justification of Hiroshima" debate, instead does anyone really think that it is likely that ANY country will use nuclear bombs? Fucktopgirl, I really don't think it is. George W isn't actually insane, you know.

Like Q said, the bigest threat is terrorists getting hold of them. But I think they have more of a chance buying them from disgruntled Russian generals than they do from Kim Jong Il.


Queen is saying that Iraq does not count as a war that the US would use a nuke in. Where would they drop it? On themselves?

[fucktopgirl]

George W isn't actually insane, you know.


Are you sure? I think he is fucking dumb and this is dangerous.


Like Q said, the bigest threat is terrorists getting hold of them.

There ya go, USA got hold of them ...

Queen is saying that Iraq does not count as a war that the US would use a nuke in. Where would they drop it? On themselves?

HUmmm , well they do drop DU on themselves , so why not!
Do you know how much soldiers are sicks right now because of that? So, if it was needed, the USA admisnistration would indeed drop a Abomb even if americains soldiers would be presents. BUt we gotta wait for the history to unfolded to be sure at 100%.

[Pres Zount]

Dumb doesn't equal Insane. He's not actually going to give an order to just drop a bomb, and they wouldn't do it even if he did. It's really not funny to say that he is insane. Or he is Hitler. It's not a very credible thing to say, it's just an easy way out.

Yes, you got me on the US=terrorist thing, so I suppose I meant to say Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.




HUmmm , well they do drop DU on themselves , so why not!
Do you know how much soldiers are sicks right now because of that? So, if it was needed, the USA admisnistration would indeed drop a Abomb even if americains soldiers would be presents. BUt we gotta wait for the history to unfolded to be sure at 100%.
DU is easily covered up and discredited (in the eyes of the right). A nuclear explosion isn't. Maybe not in the 40s and 50s, but there are consequences to nuking your own troops, nowadays.

Why would the US use a Nuclear bomb when they have MOABs and no need to level an entire city?

[fucktopgirl]

Dumb doesn't equal Insane. He's not actually going to give an order to just drop a bomb, and they wouldn't do it even if he did. It's really not funny to say that he is insane. Or he is Hitler. It's not a very credible thing to say, it's just an easy way out.


Why are you defending him? He is a major insane moron, that is just a fact.



Yes, you got me on the US=terrorist thing, so I suppose I meant to say Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

Yea , so any sort of extreme extremist that got the nuclear weapons is not good.




DU is easily covered up and discredited (in the eyes of the right). A nuclear explosion isn't. Maybe not in the 40s and 50s, but there are consequences to nuking your own troops, nowadays.

Like? Thet knew the effects of DU on humans was terrible since day one, yet they still denied it and refused to hear and acknowledge soldiers who suffer from differents weird illness after their mission in the middle eats. Wifes and kids suffers too from it but silence is happening on the top of the pyramid. So consequences , my ass!

Why would the US use a Nuclear bomb when they have MOABs and no need to level an entire city?

I dont know, maybe they would not use it , maybe they would. We just dont fucking know!

And what are the propriety of THis super bomb?

[Pres Zount]

GW is not insane. Why do you seriously think that he is? Does he froth at the mouth? Does he scratch his arms constantly, trying to clean away the lies that his mother tells him while he sleeps? Or maybe you are just exagerating, because it's easier to place the blame for alot of the worlds problems on one person and call them insane than it is to actually look deeper?

you discredit people who share some of your stances, with your simplistic views.

Like? Thet knew the effects of DU on humans was terrible since day one, yet they still denied it and refused to hear and acknowledge soldiers who suffer from differents weird illness after their mission in the middle eats. Wifes and kids suffers too from it but silence is happening on the top of the pyramid. So consequences , my ass!

I don't think we are understanding each other. I am certainly not understanding you.

What I am saying is it is easier to cover up/ not worry about the effects of depleted uranium (which the military have done succesfully) than it is to cover up a nuclear explosion. They still use Du, but, nobody cares. I think people would care about a nuke. It has the ability to attract attention.

The consequences of dropping a nuke on your own troops would be losing the election. I'm talking about consequences that the US govt would care about, not deaths, contamination, radiation, etc.

[Drederick Tatum]

you discredit people who share some of your stances, with your simplistic views.


yeah, no kidding. quit making the left and Quebec look retarded.

[D_Raay]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html


The two faces of Rumsfeld

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change




Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.

[fucktopgirl]

GW is not insane. Why do you seriously think that he is? Does he froth at the mouth? Does he scratch his arms constantly, trying to clean away the lies that his mother tells him while he sleeps? Or maybe you are just exagerating, because it's easier to place the blame for alot of the worlds problems on one person and call them insane than it is to actually look deeper?

BUSH is insane and stupid and all his admisnistration as well... IT is a bunch of fucking lunatics in the pusuit of $ without caring about human conditions.



you discredit people who share some of your stances, with your simplistic views.


I discredit nobody as i am only speaking for myself and my views are just find the way they are. If you dont like them, then go fuck yourself!



They still use Du, but, nobody cares. I think people would care about a nuke. It has the ability to attract attention.



HUmm , yes indeed , it is hard to hide a nuclear bomb. BUt tell me, what is the difference between nuclear bomb and du? One is more acceptable then the other because it is smaller and more discreet? IT is still a crime what the usa is doing to their army right now and people should rise up .


The consequences of dropping a nuke on your own troops would be losing the election. I'm talking about consequences that the US govt would care about, not deaths, contamination, radiation, etc.
[/QUOTE]

Oh ok, i tough you where talking about consequenses in term of punishement for their cruels acts/war crimes , like being put in jail or maybe death penalty.

No you were talking about the facts that they would lose their elections, right... People would still fucking vote for them because they are blind , the administration would make up a story and people would swallow it!

[fucktopgirl]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html


The two faces of Rumsfeld

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change




Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.

How ironic !

[Qdrop]

You don't think nuking LA should be considered 'threat' worthy?

my point was that his country would be turned into a glass parking lot if he did so....
so obviously he WOULDN'T do so.

he's not suicidal.

[QueenAdrock]

Oh , because you just use it once in history no need to be afraid?
He, i think your government will do it once again, they are freakypsycho.
There is no excuse to what they did, so much damage and suffering cannot be excuse. Did you think about all the secondary effect that it did?
How people life over there is messed up right now? How much newborns are diformed and unhealthy. Water and soil is poison and cancer is high.
PLus the cancerous radiation spread further then just thoses two city....


So how would YOU have stopped the war then? How do you stop a war where people won't back down, are willing to kill themselves in kamikaze missions against you? These are people who were found on islands in the 1950s, still fighting for Japan because they had no idea the war was over. Now, I hate the fact that so many people died too, but I do believe that casualties would have been more if it had not been done. Americans are under the impression that we can win all wars - that war was a close one, and it was not "inevitable" that we win. We didn't just go trigger happy and press the big red button - it was much more complicated than that, there was a long process that had to be gone through in order to have the bombs dropped, and it was an absolute last resort. If we felt there was any other way to end the war, we would have done it. There was none. Unless you have any ideas we looked over?



Why the fuck irak does not count? Because it is not a Big BOOM?
The DU drop in the middle east is as much damageable then the nuclear bomb, Uranium is use in both .
Iraq doesn't count because we would never use a nuclear device there. End of story.




BAck down...why dont YOU guys back down first. WHo are you, the fucking center of the world? Get rid of your nuclear weapons first, like i said USA is not in a position to tell other what to do!


ANyway they is no justification whatsoever to use nuclear weapons and especially the A bomb. Everybody around the world is suffering because of them at one extent. WE are the collateral damage, it is sick man!

What the fuck are you talking about, we should back down? I'M SPEAKING IN HYPOTHETICAL, NOT THIS WAR. I said we'd use it ONLY if we had an enemy that refused to back down, if it was another Japan. I'm not talking about Iraq. But you're right. We should get rid of our nukes before North Korea or other countries that way they'll have the upper hand and we'll be safer. Just because WE have it doesn't mean we'll use it. The reprocussions and political fallout would be astounding. Do you really think that a President with a 30% approval rating would be that STUPID to drop a nuke? If for anything else, his precious party would be kicked out of power because the American public would NOT approve of such a thing.

It's simple logic.

[D_Raay]

You're quite right Queenie except giving the whole Bush team the benefit of the doubt.

[Drederick Tatum]

So how would YOU have stopped the war then? How do you stop a war where people won't back down, are willing to kill themselves in kamikaze missions against you? These are people who were found on islands in the 1950s, still fighting for Japan because they had no idea the war was over. Now, I hate the fact that so many people died too, but I do believe that casualties would have been more if it had not been done. Americans are under the impression that we can win all wars - that war was a close one, and it was not "inevitable" that we win. We didn't just go trigger happy and press the big red button - it was much more complicated than that, there was a long process that had to be gone through in order to have the bombs dropped, and it was an absolute last resort. If we felt there was any other way to end the war, we would have done it. There was none. Unless you have any ideas we looked over?

using the atomic bomb on Japan was totally unecessary. the war wasn't even close by 1945. Japan was essentially surrounded and the Soviets were about to declare war. it was inevitable.

the Japanese economy and military were nearly completely finished and the US was already bombing the shit out of Tokyo throughout 1945.

Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

[fucktopgirl]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WIL20061012&articleId=3464

JUst tough that this article was an interesting view on the north korea "conflict"!

[Bob]

using the atomic bomb on Japan was totally unecessary. the war wasn't even close by 1945. Japan was essentially surrounded and the Soviets were about to declare war. it was inevitable.

the Japanese economy and military were nearly completely finished and the US was already bombing the shit out of Tokyo throughout 1945.

Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

this is one of those polarizing issues where there are very convincing arguments on both sides, but everybody feels super strong about it one way or the other (i'm on the "it didn't need to happen" side if you were wondering but i don't wanna get into it).

the catch though is that argue all you want, you can neither really prove nor disprove what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb. personally, i'm convinced that they would have surrendered eventually anyway, but of course i can't actually prove that because time unravelled itself in only one way.

[QueenAdrock]

It's true that we were ahead in 1945. The soviets were winning on the western front, but if they had to fight a two-front war they'd be stretched thinner. How long would it have been drawn out, and how many would have died? I do think that we would have won *eventually* since we were a stronger power at the time, but the Japanese were not backing down. They weren't open to negotiations at all. Even after the first bomb, there wasn't a surrender. Thus Nagasaki 3 days later.

You're correct in that we could have won other ways, what I meant to say is if we had an as effective way to end the war, we would have done it. It needs to be emphasized just how stubborn the Japanese were. There's other ways to stop fighting, but what would the casualties have been by the end of the war, without the bombs? I still don't think we did it "just because," I feel as though we did it because we wanted a speedy way out of the war and was the best choice. Some say it may have saved lives in the long run. Hell, the Battle of Okinawa was worse than the immediate results of the bomb. The population of Hiroshima was 255,000 on the eve of the bombing, whereas that single battle resulted in an upwards of 150,000 civilian deaths, 125,000 Japanese military deaths, and over 72,000 American troops killed. Almost 350,000 people in that battle alone.

Some (Secretary of State James Byrnes) said that without the bombing, 500,000 American lives would have been lost altogether, and triple that amount wounded. However, the worst case scenario would be 1,000,000, since we didn't factor in Japanese strength gathering for an upcoming battle.

Either way, it's debatable. The bombs may have not been necessary for a surrender, but when one sees the absolute stubbornness of the Japanese government and military, it would have taken a longer time and had more casualties in the long run (from battles, concentration camps, etc).

[Bob]

It's true that we were ahead in 1945. The soviets were winning on the western front, but if they had to fight a two-front war they'd be stretched thinner. How long would it have been drawn out, and how many would have died? I do think that we would have won *eventually* since we were a stronger power at the time, but the Japanese were not backing down. They weren't open to negotiations at all. Even after the first bomb, there wasn't a surrender. Thus Nagasaki 3 days later.


i don't think that's entirely accurate. i swear i read in a book somewhere that after the first bomb was dropped, japan offered a conditional surrender, but we went ahead and nuked them again anyways. granted, we wanted an unconditional surrender, but i think the fact that they offered anything at all implies that their will was pretty much broken.

i don't buy this whole "they never would have surrendered" thing, because hey, they did surrender. everyone has a breaking point, evidently japan did too, and i'm just not convinced that it had to take a nuke to get them there. turns out, they WERE willing to accept surrender before death

[QueenAdrock]

I know that after they were bombed, they "failed to respond" to the Potsdam Declaration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration), which outlined the U.S.'s conditions of their surrender. I haven't heard anything about Japan offering a conditional surrender in return.

They weren't willing to surrender before death, seeing as how they had kamikaze pilots in their air force. They were willing to surrender before massive amounts of death. Everyone has their breaking point, a point where they'd HAVE to surrender or face complete annihilation of their country and Japan wasn't about to give up before it got to that inevitable point of a downfall of their society.

I'm just wondering how many more battles it would have taken, how many more people would have had to die in order to stop them if we hadn't used the bomb.

[HAL 9000]

It's true that we were ahead in 1945. The soviets were winning on the western front, but if they had to fight a two-front war they'd be stretched thinner. How long would it have been drawn out, and how many would have died? I do think that we would have won *eventually* since we were a stronger power at the time, but the Japanese were not backing down. They weren't open to negotiations at all. Even after the first bomb, there wasn't a surrender. Thus Nagasaki 3 days later.

You're correct in that we could have won other ways, what I meant to say is if we had an as effective way to end the war, we would have done it. It needs to be emphasized just how stubborn the Japanese were. There's other ways to stop fighting, but what would the casualties have been by the end of the war, without the bombs? I still don't think we did it "just because," I feel as though we did it because we wanted a speedy way out of the war and was the best choice. Some say it may have saved lives in the long run. Hell, the Battle of Okinawa was worse than the immediate results of the bomb. The population of Hiroshima was 255,000 on the eve of the bombing, whereas that single battle resulted in an upwards of 150,000 civilian deaths, 125,000 Japanese military deaths, and over 72,000 American troops killed. Almost 350,000 people in that battle alone.

Some (Secretary of State James Byrnes) said that without the bombing, 500,000 American lives would have been lost altogether, and triple that amount wounded. However, the worst case scenario would be 1,000,000, since we didn't factor in Japanese strength gathering for an upcoming battle.

Either way, it's debatable. The bombs may have not been necessary for a surrender, but when one sees the absolute stubbornness of the Japanese government and military, it would have taken a longer time and had more casualties in the long run (from battles, concentration camps, etc).


One must remember than 1945 was a completely different era and no one really had much consideration of the concept of collateral damage, indeed civilian deaths were often not collateral but the intended target. For example, Britain’s bombing of Dresden, was basically designed to kill as many civilians as possible.

As time progresses, Zeitgeist shifts and different things become morally acceptable. A liberal of the 40’s may well now be viewed as more right wing that today’s conservatives/republicans.

Richard Dawkins gives the example of Abraham Lincoln who was progressive in his desire for the freedom of slaves and is rightly celebrated as a ‘good thing’. Yet by today’s standard he was an appalling racist who is quoted as saying that blacks are not equal to whites and should never have the vote. Any individuals/nations morality must be viewed in relation to society at the time.

I don’t think there are evil people and good people but that people adopt a position on a sliding moral scale relative to those around them. Same is true of governments. Any person or group actions should only really be judged on how they place on that scale relative to the society of the day.

So whether or not more or less people would have died had the bomb not been dropped on Japan is probably not really that important because it is unlikely to have been a major consideration of the military leaders at the time and I don’t think it is related to the morality of nuclear tactics in todays more enlightened world.

Im still not sure about the above by the way (about examining the morality of historical events) it’s a recent conclusion I have come to, but it seems pretty sensible.

[QueenAdrock]

I don't think America was doing it to save Japanese lives in the long run, but I do believe that they did it to save American lives. They didn't want their troops tied up in a long-drawn out war and having massive amounts of casualties. There was a calling to be isolationist up to and even for some time after the war. No one wanted to get involved, and we weren't being heroic by entering the war...we did it because we were attacked (FDR wanted to join for a long time before that, but knew he couldn't have American society agree to such a thing if it wasn't "their war to fight.").

So in that respect, it was done to save lives (even if it was selfishly just for American lives at the time). In the long run however, I do feel as though it's worked out to save more lives of most of the parties involved.

[QueenAdrock]

No radiation particles in air after North Korea detonates bomb. Hmmm. Weird.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249383/

[Drederick Tatum]

They weren't open to negotiations at all.


I know that after they were bombed, they "failed to respond" to the Potsdam Declaration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration), which outlined the U.S.'s conditions of their surrender. I haven't heard anything about Japan offering a conditional surrender in return.



"January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials....In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end." (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html)

same link, but the info is there.

I just don't buy this 'saving American lives' line. the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, it was only a matter of months or even weeks. but the world was watching and the US decided to flex.

[Bob]

that's pretty much my sentiment too, drederick. although i think queenie kind of framed the debate pretty well:



I'm just wondering how many more battles it would have taken, how many more people would have had to die in order to stop them if we hadn't used the bomb.

and there's just no way to answer that with 100% accuracy, there are arguments to be had on both sides. me, i'm more leaning in the direction that japan would have been ready to surrender eventually, but without a time machine i can't prove it.

one thing i do wonder though, if the bombs hadn't been dropped on japan, would they have eventually been dropped somewhere else? i mean, yeah, we did testing, we knew that they were destructive weapons, but it wasn't until japan that we (or more appropriately, the world) knew just how devestating exactly they were. would it have happened somewhere, sometime eventually anyways? i don't know.

[Drederick Tatum]

that's pretty much my sentiment too, drederick. although i think queenie kind of framed the debate pretty well:


yeah, I just reread some of your posts a bit more thoroughly.

you should do history and learn about sweet battles and murdering and cool stuff.

[icy manipulator]

Even scarier - Ukraine may possess a nuclear stockpile due to a clerical error after the break up of the Soviet Union. If so. Can you imagine the hands that these could/did fall in?
ah, the ukraine are not a rogue state, they're basically part of russia again. there's no chance of weapons being sold onto anyone else. they're not a problem

[Pres Zount]

one thing i do wonder though, if the bombs hadn't been dropped on japan, would they have eventually been dropped somewhere else? i mean, yeah, we did testing, we knew that they were destructive weapons, but it wasn't until japan that we (or more appropriately, the world) knew just how devestating exactly they were. would it have happened somewhere, sometime eventually anyways? i don't know.

Korea.

[baltogrl71]

You should post on one of north korea's many message boards and let them know that too(y) That way, we aren't the only ones that get to read your feelings on this! (y) hurry up, do it now before they test again(y)

We're counting on you (y)

hahaha! Ah I needed a good laugh,thanks.

[QueenAdrock]

"January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials....In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end." (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html)

same link, but the info is there.

I just don't buy this 'saving American lives' line. the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, it was only a matter of months or even weeks. but the world was watching and the US decided to flex.

But also in there it says "But he [foreign minster of Japan] emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched."

I'd like to know exactly what kind of 'peaceful end' the Japanese had in mind. Does that mean they offered to surrender? And if so, what kind of surrender? Did they want land or naval bases in return? If it didn't seem to be reasonable and what we needed in order to end the war and protect ourselves, I can still understand wanting to use the bomb. If they fully rejected the US's call for an unconditional surrender, and Japan gave a counter-offer that was half-assed and inadequate, I can still see the justification behind the measures we took.

[sam i am]

But also in there it says "But he [foreign minster of Japan] emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched."

I'd like to know exactly what kind of 'peaceful end' the Japanese had in mind. Does that mean they offered to surrender? And if so, what kind of surrender? Did they want land or naval bases in return? If it didn't seem to be reasonable and what we needed in order to end the war and protect ourselves, I can still understand wanting to use the bomb. If they fully rejected the US's call for an unconditional surrender, and Japan gave a counter-offer that was half-assed and inadequate, I can still see the justification behind the measures we took.

Queen - you hit the nail on the head.

The Japanese militaristic government was NOT willing to surrender and have Japan occupied, nor the Emperor seen as not the God-head of the state.

Your above estimate of 1,000,000 DEATHS of American soldiers invading the Japanese home islands of Honshu and Ryuku is accurate and not indicative of the level of wounded (some estimates as high as 3,000,000) in an actual invasion.

Not to mention the level of hostility and unending guerilla warfare that probably would have ensued from the death and/or imprisonment of the Emperor.

As for Russian involvement at the end of the war : the Russians (or, more appropriately, the Soviets) had already finished off the Germans (in May '45) and in August of '45 had transported enough men and material to the Far East to conquer Manchuria, Korea, Mongolia, and the southern half of the Kurile Islands that they hadn't already conquered. It would have taken MUCH longer for the Soviets to take out the Japanese in China proper (even if the Nationalist government of Chaing Kai-Shek had permitted them to do so) let alone to muster enough Navy to go across the Sea Of Japan to attack the Japanese home islands amphibiously.

Soviet involvement in the end of war was negligible compared to what the vast majority of Allied military planners saw as necessary to conquer Japan and force unconditional surrender.

So....Truman made a calculation that the deaths of a couple hundred thousand Japanese was less than the cost of a couple million Japanese (via invasion and conquest) PLUS a couple of million American casualties.

As Bob says above, we'll never know for sure what might have occurred if the US had "blockaded" Japan, but military planners of the time felt it best to force unconditional surrender - thus the bomb, as available.

Finally, Japan DID receive warning that the Bomb was coming, albeit in a much more airy manner : Truman warned of "dire consequnces" and "ultimate annihiliation," but was ignored by Tojo and the other Japanese military/political leaders. Even AFTER the first bomb, they were still releasing speeches stating the Japanese would never surrender.

Ultimate defiance sometimes demands ultimate sacrifice, which Tojo and his cronies got in the form of Nagasaki.

[Tone Capone]

I think my feelings on this matter are disgust. Disgust that we allowed North Korea to develop or aquire these weapons. I never thought I would see the day that it would happen. Say what you want about "what about blah blah blah?" it's just down right disgusting regardless...:(

[Ali]

I know what to do!

Stop selling tanks to N.Korea and invade Iran! /sarcarm

[sam i am]

I know what to do!

Stop selling tanks to N.Korea and invade Iran! /sarcarm

What's "sarcarm?" :p

Selling tanks to N. Korea, eh? Got a credible link or text to refer to?

[Schmeltz]

The Japanese militaristic government was NOT willing to surrender and have Japan occupied, nor the Emperor seen as not the God-head of the state.


Actually, the government was split exactly evenly on the question of surrender and it was Hirohito who broke the deadlock in favour of surrender when his opinion was requested (he was not even consulted on the matter until after the use of the bomb on Nagasaki).

I don't think it's really that productive to hash out whether using the bombs was the correct military decision. What's more pertinent is the Pandora's Box unleashed on succeeding generations. The use of nuclear weaponry has inspired not fear but emulation among the world's least desirable governments. Tone Capone says he'd never thought he'd see the day; I say, what the hell did you expect? That fanatics and ideologues wouldn't sieze their first chance to possess such terrifying power? That cooler heads would prevail and humanity would collectively assign nuclear weaponry to its dustbin of bad, dangerous ideas? Yeah, right.

I wish I could propound some idea about what to do with people who think it's a good idea to develop nuclear weaponry, but I haven't a clue. The only political entity in a position to do anything about it is being run by numbskulls little better than the crazies. Pretty sorry state of affairs.

[sam i am]

I'm asking this in all seriousness, Schmeltz : Do YOU fear the world with nuclear weapons? Do you personally feel threatened?

[Schmeltz]

I'm asking this in all seriousness, sam: Do you honestly think no further than your armchair when you're considering the state of the world?

[sam i am]

I'm asking this in all seriousness, sam: Do you honestly think no further than your armchair when you're considering the state of the world?

Who are you speaking for, then? Are you to be the arbiter of what is best for others worldwide?

How arrogant and megalamanical of you...

[Schmeltz]

I don't know where you got that from, but I can spell it out for you if you want: I meant that I don't simply consider my personal circumstances to set the bar for my interpretation of how things might be going. Just because I lead a fairly comfortable lifestyle as a citizen of a first-world country doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about the global state of affairs. Quite to the contrary, it would be arrogant of me to presume so.

You desperately need to work on your reading comprehension, if only to spare my keyboard the extra wear and tear.

[sam i am]

I don't know where you got that from, but I can spell it out for you if you want: I meant that I don't simply consider my personal circumstances to set the bar for my interpretation of how things might be going. Just because I lead a fairly comfortable lifestyle as a citizen of a first-world country doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about the global state of affairs. Quite to the contrary, it would be arrogant of me to presume so.

You desperately need to work on your reading comprehension, if only to spare my keyboard the extra wear and tear.

Sarcasm is really your forte. You oughta write books about it or something. Your intellectual capacity and wordsmithery is dazzling and unassailable in every regard.

Pontificating from on high instead of going off to "get your hands dirty" working for the outcomes for others you so (obviously and earnestly) want is far more arrogant and condescending than myself and the positions I take, where I pay taxes and contribute directly to the ideologies and ideas that I desire.

Preach all you want, little man, but your megalomania is shining through.

[Schmeltz]

Umm... the only point I've made so far in this thread is that I don't think the proliferation of nuclear weaponry is a good idea. How you've managed to interpret that as some kind of "megalomania" is completely beyond me.

[sam i am]

Umm... the only point I've made so far in this thread is that I don't think the proliferation of nuclear weaponry is a good idea. How you've managed to interpret that as some kind of "megalomania" is completely beyond me.

Because, despite your facile and febrile rhetoric to the contrary, I AM capable of reading between the lines and calling you what you are : a proponent of ideology from the ivory tower of your own protected little existence, rather than a true believer who fights in the real world for what he believes in.

[Schmeltz]

So nobody's allowed to have an opinion besides yourself, is the point you're making. Sorry, don't buy it.

[Drederick Tatum]

you've gone off the deep end, sam.

[Schmeltz]

Drederick, I demand you go outside and erect a barricade in the street before you dare post another opinion on this board.

[D_Raay]

Drederick, I demand you go outside and erect a barricade in the street before you dare post another opinion on this board.
That is quite comical...

[Funkaloyd]

I pay taxes and contribute directly to the ideologies and ideas that I desire.
That counts? I should be given an OBE.

[sam i am]

So nobody's allowed to have an opinion besides yourself, is the point you're making. Sorry, don't buy it.

Have opinions all you want...you know what their like.

My point is that without the money or the muscle to back your arguments, your talking in a vacuous void of your own creation, not the real world where decisions are made and actions are taken.

Which, BTW, is where the "powers that be" would most prefer for you to remain.

Fight the power, son!

[Drederick Tatum]

you heard the man, if you're poor or similarly marginalised, don't even bother because all you're doing is being a megalomaniac. especially don't bother yourself with discussion and argument, the only avenues actually open to you, because you're not going to achieve anything. accept the hegemony and move on.

[sam i am]

you heard the man, if you're poor or similarly marginalised, don't even bother because all you're doing is being a megalomaniac. especially don't bother yourself with discussion and argument, the only avenues actually open to you, because you're not going to achieve anything. accept the hegemony and move on.

Wrong again. Words don't mean anything to the eeeevilll entrenched powers you all rail against endlessly. Only when you revolutionize society, remaking it in the glorious imagery of equality and equal outcomes will all be well in the world.

The revolution will NOT be televised.

[fucktopgirl]

fuckign pathetic that sam.....

[sam i am]

you heard the man, if you're poor or similarly marginalised, don't even bother because all you're doing is being a megalomaniac. especially don't bother yourself with discussion and argument, the only avenues actually open to you, because you're not going to achieve anything. accept the hegemony and move on.

I was really only commenting on the megalomania of Schmeltz, not making a generic statement.

[Drederick Tatum]

Only when you revolutionize society

and thats where the discussion and argument come in. see, having more people share your view increases the chances of causing change. in case you hadn't noticed, the internet has proven to be a pretty effective tool for communication.

[sam i am]

and thats where the discussion and argument come in. see, having more people share your view increases the chances of causing change. in case you hadn't noticed, the internet has proven to be a pretty effective tool for communication.

Really?

Hmmm....

Haven't seen the outcome yet, especially with Liebermann leading Lamont in Connecticut. Wasn't Lamont the first great hope of the internet crowd? Oh, wait....that was Howard Dean....and, of course, he was elected President of the US in 2004. :rolleyes:




The "effectiveness" of this tool is overhyped and underperforming, thus far.

[Schmeltz]

My point is that without the money or the muscle to back your arguments, your talking in a vacuous void of your own creation, not the real world where decisions are made and actions are taken.


You are being ridiculous. This is a forum for discussion. The members of this message board visit it in order to discuss ideas. The free exchange of ideas is one of the hallmarks of Western society and the right of any individual to hold an opinion is in no way lessened by their degree of political participation or activism.

What a strange, strange person you are.