N. Korea Warns of 'Merciless' Nuclear Offensive

[Formaldehyde]

I think given the likelihood of massive casulties attacking Japan, and imagining that they would probably not surrender (they never do) I think it came down to whether the US valued Japan's people or its soldiers more, and they thought that saving their own lives came before anything else, which if nothing else is symptomatic of a good attitude towards your soldiers. I wouldn't approve of a government who had that sort of option and threw the army into a bloodbath.

That's the common misconception. But as the article I posted shows, it simply doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

 

[Gooblah]

With the aggressive and arrogant American jingoism displayed here by some participants, it is hard not beginning to root for the North Korean underdogs.

Yeah, cuz everyone knows that a state threatening a nuclear offensive on generally peaceful nations in order to compensate for their dear leader's Napoleon complex is so much superior to American arrogance.

 

[Flying Pig]

The Japanese would certainly have lost, but the invasion would have been incredibly expensive. It would have at least taken a battle (and a lot of blood) for them to officially concede defeat.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's just it. There would have been no invasion. The war was already effectively over.

 

[cardgame]

That's just it. There would have been no invasion. The war was already effectively over.

We would have killed more people through starvation by the end of it than we killed with the bombs...

If it was already over, why didn't they surrender?

 

[Aegis]

I find it funny that several of those Generals/Admirals, etc. reference MacArthur saying it was a mistake to drop the bombs, when MacArthur later wanted to drop them all up and down North Korea and China (which led to his dismissal). Also, those expecting Japan to surrender after a week or two of blockade were underestimating the Japanese resolve. They didn't even surrender after the first bomb went off, and they think Japan would have surrendered after being blockaded for fourteen days? o.O

I'm not saying that I agree with the dropping of the bombs, only that I find those reasons to be amusing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If it was already over, why didn't they surrender?

They were trying to do so and discussions were well underway.

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

The Potsdam Declaration or the Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender was a statement issued on July 26, 1945 for the Surrender of Japan. The Potsdam Declaration was issued by United States President Harry S. Truman, United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and President of the Republic of China Chiang Kai-shek that outlined the terms of surrender for the Empire of Japan as agreed upon at the Potsdam Conference. This ultimatum stated that if Japan did not surrender, it would face "prompt and utter destruction." The Potsdam Conference did not originally start with the nuclear bomb.

Japan's initial rejection of the ultimatum, by promulgating the condition that they be allowed to keep their emperor, and the impending Russian entry into the war[dubious – discuss], led directly to Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9. Whether the ultimatum was intended to be acceptable without recourse to use nuclear weapons has been subject to considerable debate.

The declaration was one of Churchill's final official acts as Prime Minister before leaving office the following day in favour of Clement Attlee.

The mere fact that the bombs were dropped when they were is a testament that they had nothing to do with a possible invasion at some later date.

I find it funny that several of those Generals/Admirals, etc. reference MacArthur saying it was a mistake to drop the bombs, when MacArthur later wanted to drop them all up and down North Korea and China (which led to his dismissal).

That is because he thought they had an actual military purpose in that context.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Moderator Action: Take discussions of the US atomic bombings of Japan to a different thread.

 

[Aegis]

There was a military purpose in dropping them on Nagasaki & Hiroshima, as well:

To immediately end the war. Who knows how long it would have taken Japan to surrender. The Japanese publicly broadcasted that:

"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."

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

They planned to defend their home island from invasion with Operation Ketsugo. There were a small number of Japanese forces throughout the Pacific who refused to surrender until many months/years after the war ended. I highly doubt their opinion that the Japanese would have surrendered with a simple blockade.

It was also a very strong display of power to show the Russians and keep them in check.

The mere fact that the bombs were dropped when they were is a testament that they had nothing to do with a possible invasion at some later date.

The Allies had plans to invade Japan, called Operation: Downfall. Japan also rejected that call for surrender, which is what prompted the dropping of the bombs.

[Edit:] Sowwy, I didn't see the notice until after I posted.

 

[Cutlass]

That's just it. There would have been no invasion. The war was already effectively over.

The war was effectively over in 1943. Yet they were still fighting in 1945. It took a lot more than having lost to convince them to make peace.

 

[boogaboo]

@Formaldehyde -

All your responces are plain wrong and twisting what I said.

In your first responces to my post, you kept talking about GWB and the US as if I was speaking on their behalf or was on "their side". Well, no! They are hypocritical, like most other nations, and GWB is a monkey. There are not many "good" countries, and only a minority of "good" people. That is a big problem, but there is a difference between not doing the right thing and totally enslaving your nation... you know not all is black and white, but that's no reason to say everything black is ok!

In your second responce, you quoted me as if I supported destroying N.Korea, where the quote said I'm for destroying their regime and leader. BIG BIG difference.

I hope other people can see between your propaganda for the twists in logic.

 

[MobBoss]

Here's a link : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525501,00.html

Now... what is the first missile taget? Is it :
A. Los Angeles
B. South Korea
C. Japan
D. Radioactive monkeys in it's bunkers plotting against the regime

I don't know if they have the capability to reach LA, but if they do I'd think they would. Let's just wait and see... since I think that's exactly the world's policy...

Oh, and gl to Iranians on their Friday elections.. if they choose wrong, we could... NOT WAIT !!

Since the NK does not have a method to deliver is baby-step nuke I would say they would have to explode it on their own soil and then potentially have some of the fallout come down on Japan or West Coast USA/Canada.

 

[Formaldehyde]

All your responces are plain wrong and twisting what I said.

In your opinion...

There are not many "good" countries, and only a minority of "good" people.

Then who exactly are these "good" countries and "good" people who are supposed to properly identify and overthrow the governments of "bad" countries? To kill all the "bad" people if not the US as it typically tries to do? Israel?

That is a big problem, but there is a difference between not doing the right thing and totally enslaving your nation... you know not all is black and white, but that's no reason to say everything black is ok!

Sorry, I can't decipher that one. Can you please rephrase it?

In your second responce, you quoted me as if I supported destroying N.Korea, where the quote said I'm for destroying their regime and leader. BIG BIG difference.

That is nothing but rhetoric and semantics. You are advocating the destruction of the legitimate sovereign government of their country which will inevitably result in massive civilian casualties and economic chaos in both countries. GWB tried exactly the same rhetoric when it came to Iraq. You can't separate the two like that. It simply doesn't work. He didn't hate all Iraqis, just the ones who opposed his illegal invasion and occupation of their sovereign country and thought he was an idiot for doing so. In other words, just about all of them except for the Kurds and a few select Shia he tried to push into power.

And how about all the Muslims who advocate the overthrow of Israel? Do you think they are trying to destroy your country or merely your current rulers and government? So what's the difference? That you are "good" and they are "bad"? The result will obviously be the same either way...

I hope other people can see between your propaganda for the twists in logic.

My "propaganda" because I merely disagreed with what you stated? Try my opinion.

 

[amadeus]

Since the NK does not have a method to deliver is baby-step nuke I would say they would have to explode it on their own soil and then potentially have some of the fallout come down on Japan or West Coast USA/Canada.

I was wondering something similar, like if they put one of these bombs on a cargo ship and sent it to Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Seattle and explode it in the harbor.

Or, they could find a way to get their hands on some artillery piece capable of launching it... we deployed similar things in the 50s, although I honestly don't believe the North Koreans have that anything "advanced" (designed to those specifications.)

 

[MobBoss]

I was wondering something similar, like if they put one of these bombs on a cargo ship and sent it to Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Seattle and explode it in the harbor.

Or, they could find a way to get their hands on some artillery piece capable of launching it... we deployed similar things in the 50s, although I honestly don't believe the North Koreans have that anything "advanced" (designed to those specifications.)

Their program (allegedly) is not even as advanced as what we had during WWII. Yet.

So their 'nuclear' threat is pretty much just an exaggeration.

As for the harbor thing......I imagine most major ports of the world would be able to detect such a nuclear device prior to it entering the harbor.

 

[Camikaze]

Look, if I said this to a neigbour's kid: "if you cross the fence into my garden, I'll slap your and take you to your parents", it would be a warning appropriate to the offence you want him to be scared of doing.

If you said "if you cross the fence and step on my carrots, I'll kill your father, rape your mother and sister and then burn them alive in your house, after which I will cut you open, disembowel you, cut off your head and put it on a stick to scare other kids", then you should be taken to a mental institution, no matter if you meant it or not.

But in this place the neighbour is a paraplegic. It would be impossible for them to carry out their threat, which is only exaggerated due to their weak position.

North Koreans should be reminded of their place.

And it is this type of statement that makes me a Devil's Advocate. What place are you talking about? By whom? Whoever unilaterally puts a sovereign nation (however inhumane they are) in their place needs to be put in their place themselves. It's just hypocritical.

Dubious? My claim?

NK has allowed no observers at the trial, it has not given any details and offered no evidence. But you trust them completely, while my assertion is dubious according to you.

This is for a different thread, but there is no shred of evidence in the given case to suggest that the reporters were in China when they were arrested.

Take a good look at your avatar and bear in mind that North Korea is in many aspects much worse than what the swastika symbolizes.

It doesn't make me any less of a Devil's Advocate. I know that North Korea is evil and mean etc. However, I don't agree with what is being said in regards to the destruction of North Korea etc., and so am inclined to argue the opposite.

Besides, it wouldn't make for a very good discussion if I just chalked up another in the let's-bash-NK column.

And how is that not in and of itself evil. You don't seem to get it. It is not just that NK citizens are starving, its that most do not know there is any other way to live. Even Somalis know there is a better world out there, NK citizens believe the outside world is worse than what they experiance in NK.

I'm just arguing semantics. Sure, the actions as a whole of NK are evil, but by itself, considering all other circumstances, the action of inducing a siege mentality in the population is not an evil thing. It is an obvious move.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I read the first few posts and this post is such an obvious troll that I thought I would be captain obvious and point it out.

Excuse me?

Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Obvious, but it was no such thing. Maybe if you are so certain about it, you should report it instead of flinging baseless accusations. Or you might try to figure out why I asked that question before jumping to conclusions.

 

[REDY]

And it is this type of statement that makes me a Devil's Advocate. What place are you talking about? By whom? Whoever unilaterally puts a sovereign nation (however inhumane they are) in their place needs to be put in their place themselves. It's just hypocritical.

I would not have moral problem put violent guys in their places when they will start threatening others. Does it make me hypocritical?

 

[Winner]

I'm not entirely sure that's the case for three reasons:

First, since the two Koreas have different transmission standards, I don't believe that it's technically possible to receive signals transmitted from each others' borders unless they have stations set up in that format. (Allegedly, North Korea runs a propaganda station in South Korea's format in order for people in the South to receive it.)

Second, North Korean telecommunications equipment, before it is sold, is modified to exclusively pick up government-approved stations.

Third, North Korea also regularly jams broadcasts coming in from outside of its country.

I believe the use smuggled equipment bought in the black market. DPRK's grey economy is probably much bigger and more efficient that the centrally-planned state-run economy

The problem is that there is a lot of people in rural areas who are living in medieval-like conditions - these people are probably as ignorant of the world outside North Korea as peasants in medieval England were of Cathay.

In any case, there are other ways - radio broadcasts for example. Sure, the regime is trying to jam foreign broadcast, but the experience of Communist Czechoslovakia tells me they can't be 100% successful. Even a technically advanced and relatively rich commie country as Czechoslovakia was unable to jam most of Western broadcasts, so I doubt that a country like DPRK could be more successful.

The main difference here is that the regime is extremelly repressive and brutal, so the dissenters are most likely isolated, they have no contact with each other and they're too scared to do something against the regime. In commie Czechoslovakia where the regime was soft and tender compared to the North Korean one only a small fraction of people took part in underground activities aimed against the regime, even though majority of people were tired of it. It must be much worse in North Korea.

 

[Camikaze]

I would not have moral problem put violent guys in their places when they will start threatening others. Does it make me hypocritical?

The idea of putting North Korea in their place involves halting their aggressive tendencies, and stopping them from acting bigger than their boots, i.e. more excessively than their sovereignty allows. To do this, a nation would have to act in an aggressive manner, more than their own sovereignty allows. Which would be hypocritical.