Support NeoGAF

[explodet]

Not...anymore unfortunately.

I mean they have a history and yes they are the same race, but even the language has slowly changed and I don't really think North Korean Pop has really caught on yet. :lol

Oh it's easy - they just take South Korean songs but replace "baby" with "Dear Leader".

 

[farnham]

Are you implying that war is not useless when you are of a different race, culture or language?

indeed wtf

a lot of wars have been fought between the same race, culture and language.

and those have been just as fierce

 

[nubbe]

America is heading toward a new civil war.
Socialist vs. Religious fanatics

 

[Mully]

America is heading toward a new civil war.
Socialist vs. Religious fanatics

Huh?

 

[Fireblend]

Huh?

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

I wonder how a war against NK would look like. I guess a lot like Iraq, right? Weeks of bombing, before even one allied soldier puts his feet on NK soil.
And then, with no chance of winning, Kim Jong-Il and some generals will detonate a nuke...

They are a nuclear power with the one of the worlds largest Armies, it would be NOTHING like Iraq.

 

[Deku]

With North Korea, the military option needs to remain on the table, not because of any hawkishness on my part, but because the North Korean state is based around maintaining a strong military to deter an attack.

The minute you take it off the table, there is nothing left to negotiate.

Naturally war with NK won't be easy, but the option itself shouldn't be some smoke and mirrors double talk, but a real credible plan. Because North Korea could try to invade the south tommorrow or do any numbe rof things to get its point accross.

 

[AlexMogil]

America is heading toward a new civil war.
Socialist vs. Religious fanatics

oh ok

 

[Monocle]

America is heading toward a new civil war.
Socialist vs. Religious fanatics

Do you have a newsletter, good sir?

 

[iamaustrian]

I wonder at what point a Seoul evacuation plan takes effect?
is there even any? somehow it would be pointless/impossible, I guess.

 

[Sealda]

How did North Korea get nukes in the first place?

In the 80s, most warzawa pact countries wanted nukes or had it already. So did North Korea, it was the cold war. They still wanted it after the fall of USSR. USA said to North Korea "Hey, let us give you normal nuclear reactors if you stop preparing to get nukes". Well USA never held their promise so North Korea said, well, since you did not give us any normal reactors we will continue with our nukes.

North Korea wants nukes so that USA and west takes them seriously, that way they have a better opportunity to negotiate with USA.

 

[I <3 Memes]

Countries want nukes because it their only way to guarantee they wont be invaded by the U.S. Even without the capability to launch them at the U.S. they can be used against neighboring countries that are U.S. allies. If they have the delivery system Iran would nuke Isreal if the U.S. tried to invade them. Likewise there is the threat of N. Korea lainching nukes at S. Korea if the U.S. were to try to invade.

They serve their greatest use by keeping an invading army off of their soil. Do you think that if the U.S. were invading and overrunning North Korea's defenses that they would hesitate to nuke their own country if it meant hitting the U.S. troops that were invading? It's a bitter pill defense but it's one that I think any country would use if they were losing to an invading army.

It's just an uncomfortable truth that once a country has nuclear weapons they can no longer be invaded. That's a hell of a motivation to acquire them.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Countries want nukes because it their only way to guarantee they wont be invaded by the U.S. Even without the capability to launch them at the U.S. they can be used against neighboring countries that are U.S. allies. If they have the delivery system Iran would nuke Isreal if the U.S. tried to invade them. Likewise there is the threat of N. Korea lainching nukes at S. Korea if the U.S. were to try to invade.

They serve their greatest use by keeping an invading army off of their soil. Do you think that if the U.S. were invading and overrunning North Korea's defenses that they would hesitate to nuke their own country if it meant hitting the U.S. troops that were invading? It's a bitter pill defense but it's one that I think any country would use if they were losing to an invading army.

It's just an uncomfortable truth that once a country has nuclear weapons they can no longer be invaded. That's a hell of a motivation to acquire them.

Exactly. The focus on these states is as if they have no moral right to have these weapons; and the lead singer of this song is the only country in the world to actually have nuked (not once but twice) civilian populations.

 

[Deku]

Exactly. The focus on these states is as if they have no moral right to have these weapons; and the lead singer of this song is the only country in the world to actually have nuked (not once but twice) civilian populations.

Right. It's so easy to pontificate in our hipster world because none of us has known any real suffering and the the only evil thing is about as epic as the epicness of the last great thing you liked.

Really, I didn't mind USA nuking Japan, or we'd have North and South Japan now in addition to North and South Korea.

The morality of bombing Japan was crossed long before the bombs were dropped. The allies crossed it by allying themselves with Stalin's murderous regime. Then in 1943 and 1944, the line was crossed again with The carpet bombing of Dresden, and the fire bombings of Tokyo and other axis cities in lieu of a lack of a land invasion that Stalin wanted.

Each of these caused more deaths than the two atomic bombs combined.

Just because they were nuclear weapons doesn't immediately put them in a different category. They are quite tame.

 

[Tristam]

Exactly. The focus on these states is as if they have no moral right to have these weapons; and the lead singer of this song is the only country in the world to actually have nuked (not once but twice) civilian populations.

The use of nuclear weapons by the United States in the past doesn't invalidate the imperative of prohibiting rogue states from developing nuclear weapons.

 

[ZZMitch]

Exactly. The focus on these states is as if they have no moral right to have these weapons; and the lead singer of this song is the only country in the world to actually have nuked (not once but twice) civilian populations.

One of the best decisions they ever made too.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Exactly. The focus on these states is as if they have no moral right to have these weapons; and the lead singer of this song is the only country in the world to actually have nuked (not once but twice) civilian populations.

You're also judging with hindsight and modernity. You need to take the situation for what it was at the time.

In World War II bombing civilian populations was not only accepted, but was practiced by everyone.

After the first nuke was dropped on Japan, Japan still refused to surrender, they even told their population it was nothing more than a natural disaster, hence the second nuke, and plans for a third. Japan HAD to be forced into surrender their mentality of the time was completely against it.

Then there is the fact that Japan was also in a race to use nukes against the U.S.

Taking a high and mighty approach to events that took place at the end of World War II without discussing them in context is absurd, you're actually arguing AGAINST keeping nukes out of less than stable countries, which makes no sense.

Regardless, the global economy is a larger reason for nations to avoid war and invasion, it's a far greater deterrent than MAD, want an example? Look at China today.

 

[Deku]

Japan was nowhere close to a nuke. They had completely lost the ability to project power by the end of 1944.

The real disaster, had the Atom bombs not been dropped was Stalin was scheduled to Join in with a land invasion. With McArthur moving up from the south and the Russians from the north, Japan would have been split.

In fact, Russia immediately declared war,ahead of the agreed schedule, when the bombs were dropped, and promptly occupied the northern Kurile islands. The same islands that made recent headlines when President Medvedev visited, indicating Russia had no intention of returning them to Japan.

 

[Joel Was Right]

You're also judging with hindsight and modernity. You need to take the situation for what it was at the time.

In World War II bombing civilian populations was not only accepted, but was practiced by everyone.

After the first nuke was dropped on Japan, Japan still refused to surrender, they even told their population it was nothing more than a natural disaster, hence the second nuke, and plans for a third. Japan HAD to be forced into surrender their mentality of the time was completely against it.

Then there is the fact that Japan was also in a race to use nukes against the U.S.

Taking a high and mighty approach to events that took place at the end of World War II without discussing them in context is absurd, you're actually arguing AGAINST keeping nukes out of less than stable countries, which makes no sense.

Regardless, the global economy is a larger reason for nations to avoid war and invasion, it's a far greater deterrent than MAD, want an example? Look at China today.

Right. It's so easy to pontificate in our hipster world because none of us has known any real suffering and the the only evil thing is about as epic as the epicness of the last great thing you liked.

Really, I didn't mind USA nuking Japan, or we'd have North and South Japan now in addition to North and South Korea.

The morality of bombing Japan was crossed long before the bombs were dropped. The allies crossed it by allying themselves with Stalin's murderous regime. Then in 1943 and 1944, the line was crossed again with The carpet bombing of Dresden, and the fire bombings of Tokyo and other axis cities in lieu of a lack of a land invasion that Stalin wanted.

Each of these caused more deaths than the two atomic bombs combined.

Just because they were nuclear weapons doesn't immediately put them in a different category. They are quite tame.

One of the best decisions we ever made too.

There are some that agree with it, and there are those that don't. I am one of the latter. I'm aware of the logic applied to it, for someone who is generally disgusted by war, I cannot accept it as anything but an appalling stain on human history

 

[ClosingADoor]

There are some that agree with it, and there are those that don't. I am one of the latter. I'm aware of the logic applied to it, for someone who is generally disgusted by war, I cannot accept it as anything but an appalling stain on human history

Welcome to reality. We have done fucked up things over and over again. Dropping a nuke on Japan isn't even the worst thing on the list.

Was it a good thing to do? No. Was it needed? Yes.

 

[Walshicus]

Was it a good thing to do? No. Was it needed? Yes.

Entirely up for debate. But this shouldn't tangent.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

There are some that agree with it, and there are those that don't. I am one of the latter. I'm aware of the logic applied to it, for someone who is generally disgusted by war, I cannot accept it as anything but an appalling stain on human history

Yeah, I figured you were "one of those."

"I don't care about the logic behind it, I hate it anyway."

Awesome stance you have there champ, sometimes war and the actions in war are justified. One of these days reality is going to smack you square in your bleeding heart pacifist forehead.

 

[CrocMother]

I for one still question NK's ability to actually launch a working nuclear weapon.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

I for one still question NK's ability to actually launch a working nuclear weapon.

They have detonated plenty, and they have rockets, I would imagine it's in the realm of possibility.

 

[Advance_Alarm]

an appalling stain on human history

lol are you serious. Welcome to life, you must be new here

 

[Joel Was Right]

Yeah, I figured you were "one of those."

"I don't care about the logic behind it, I hate it anyway."

Awesome stance you have there.

Civilians have always been targets in warfare, whether officially sanctioned or not. Equally, it's had its critics since its inception. Incidentally, the justification tends to follow the logic of it 'saving future lives'. Oliver Cromwell, for example, personifies Protestant persecution in the eyes of Irish Catholics. But to him and other members of parliament, his disproportionate use of military violence and targeted executions of civilians (irrespective of gender or age), as to "prevent the effusion of blood for the future". And I'm certain you will find similar verses of rationale given throughout history. And the strategic bombings of European cities is candidly similar in the respect that, it followed this attitude of 'if you'll do it, then we'll do it back', but it'll certainly quicken the war by breaking their spirits! So it was said. And yet you'll have any surviving civilian in e.g. London and Berlin tell you that, in defiance their spirits were never higher than before!

Te attempt to hold the enemy in submission by the targeting of innocent people is never morally justified. Call it absurd if you like. I honestly don't mind.

 

[Walshicus]

lol are you serious. Welcome to life, you must be new here

Just because there are other, worse incidents, doesn't mean they weren't attrocities.

We've done this a million times, but the decision to target a civilian city rather than an uninhabited island, a pure military target or a stretch of countryside *first* was one of many evil and unforgiveable acts committed in the 20th century. The decision to drop a second, even as requests for peace were being made, was even worse.

It's not defensible. There was no need to go from 0 to Hiroshima; there was nothing stopping a visible but casualty-free demonstration of the weapon as a first step.

 

[oneHeero]

Yeah, I figured you were "one of those."

"I don't care about the logic behind it, I hate it anyway."

Awesome stance you have there champ, sometimes war and the actions in war are justified. One of these days reality is going to smack you square in your bleeding heart pacifist forehead.

lol. I wouls have stop at "....in ware are justified." :lol

 

[Blackace]

You're also judging with hindsight and modernity. You need to take the situation for what it was at the time.

In World War II bombing civilian populations was not only accepted, but was practiced by everyone.

After the first nuke was dropped on Japan, Japan still refused to surrender, they even told their population it was nothing more than a natural disaster, hence the second nuke, and plans for a third. Japan HAD to be forced into surrender their mentality of the time was completely against it.

Then there is the fact that Japan was also in a race to use nukes against the U.S.

Taking a high and mighty approach to events that took place at the end of World War II without discussing them in context is absurd, you're actually arguing AGAINST keeping nukes out of less than stable countries, which makes no sense.

Regardless, the global economy is a larger reason for nations to avoid war and invasion, it's a far greater deterrent than MAD, want an example? Look at China today.

This is NOT a fact, actually it is dead wrong. Japan couldn't make guns...let alone nukes in 1945...

 

[Deku]

Just because there are other, worse incidents, doesn't mean they weren't attrocities.

We've done this a million times, but the decision to target a civilian city rather than an uninhabited island, a pure military target or a stretch of countryside *first* was one of many evil and unforgiveable acts committed in the 20th century. The decision to drop a second, even as requests for peace were being made, was even worse.

It's not defensible. There was no need to go from 0 to Hiroshima; there was nothing stopping a visible but casualty-free demonstration of the weapon as a first step.

From a utilitarian position it makes no sense. The point of the A bombs was for a surrender, which was secured. Dropping it in an open field would have allowed the militarists to spin their way out. And the US only had 2 bombs. a Third was not ready immediately and the Russians surely would have invaded and grabbed half or more of Japan if the bluff failed. The decision to inflict maximum damage to secure a quick surrender made a lot of sense at the time, and still do.

The decision may have been influenced in part by racism, and the view of the Japanese as the 'alien' race that must be brought to its knees and by Truman's practical calculations of a re-election and the domestic calculations like rising war weariness w/ the public. But the implications of a divided Japan, which had no precedent at the time as Korea would not happen from another 10 years and Germany was still nominally under occupation and not yet devided into two ideologically opposed states, would have certainly changed history, and I would argue made tens of millions of people's lives a lot worse.

As for your second point. There were no peace offerings. The Foreign minister considered surrender, but wanted to go through the Russians. When the Soviets announced it would invade Japan after Postdam, that was closed.

No one in the cabinet had any authority to surrender, even if they sent feelers. The state of the Japanese war effort required Hirohito to decide to surrender, which he did, after the 2nd bomb. Not before. A lot the hand wringing over this 'they would have surrendered earlier' has little pracrtical validity even if it was tried as they were bound to fail horribly or lead to some fucked up alternate reality where Japan engages in guerilla warfare while the Americans occupied the country-- you know kinda like Iraq., The allies knew full well Japan tried to surrender through the Russians with a whole list of strigns attached, which not only included keeping the monarchy, but maintaining the power of the militarist to prevent them from prosecution.

The suggestion that somehow Japan, which had full plans for guerilla warfare was ready to surrender is proposterous. Some people in the cabinet may have been, but the population and the millions of Japanese troops overseas certainly would not listen to them.

Military coups were a dime a dozen in Japan at this time. In fact, Junior officers attempted a coup to prevent Hirohito from surrendering.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

This is NOT a fact, actually it is dead wrong. Japan couldn't make guns...let alone nukes in 1945...

But it's fun to make shit up and claim it as fact! Especially when it's done to defend a position you hold!

 

[CrocMother]

This is NOT a fact, actually it is dead wrong. Japan couldn't make guns...let alone nukes in 1945...

Most of their advanced technology was given to them by the Germans, unfortunately they didn't give them many engineers so they were unable to mass produce any of it.

 

[Blackace]

Japan was nowhere close to a nuke. They had completely lost the ability to project power by the end of 1944.

The real disaster, had the Atom bombs not been dropped was Stalin was scheduled to Join in with a land invasion. With McArthur moving up from the south and the Russians from the north, Japan would have been split.

In fact, Russia immediately declared war,ahead of the agreed schedule, when the bombs were dropped, and promptly occupied the northern Kurile islands. The same islands that made recent headlines when President Medvedev visited, indicating Russia had no intention of returning them to Japan.

Pretty much this, Stalin was finishing up and ready to join the allies in Japan...

I still am of the mind that Japan would have given up after Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was uncalled for.. People say they didn't surrender but the next bomb was scheduled less than 48 hours after Hiroshima... But was delayed due to bad weather. Then Japan surrenders and we give in to what they wanted anyways..

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Civilians have always been targets in warfare, whether officially sanctioned or not. Equally, it's had its critics since its inception. Incidentally, the justification tends to follow the logic of it 'saving future lives'. Oliver Cromwell, for example, personifies Protestant persecution in the eyes of Irish Catholics. But to him and other members of parliament, his disproportionate use of military violence and targeted executions of civilians (irrespective of gender or age), as to "prevent the effusion of blood for the future". And I'm certain you will find similar verses of rationale given throughout history. And the strategic bombings of European cities is candidly similar in the respect that, it followed this attitude of 'if you'll do it, then we'll do it back', but it'll certainly quicken the war by breaking their spirits! So it was said. And yet you'll have any surviving civilian in e.g. London and Berlin tell you that, in defiance their spirits were never higher than before!

Te attempt to hold the enemy in submission by the targeting of innocent people is never morally justified. Call it absurd if you like. I honestly don't mind.

You're completely missing the point, and still trying to justify your position now based off of events that are not contextually the same. I didn't say bombing civilians is a good thing, nor did I say I agree with it. What I did say is that you are trying to judge the events of World War II with the luxury of hindsight and the ignorance of modernity, you need to view them as they happened in context, and the rational behind them.

You use your backwards logic to justify letting less than stable/rogue nations acquire nukes, and bashing the core nations at the same time acting like the only reason they don't want other nations acquiring nukes is because it's a cool kids club, that wants the nukes all to themselves.

As I said before, MAD isn't even the main deterrent for invasion/war anymore, the global economy is. Keeping nukes out of the hands of nations like Iran and N Korea is about global safety, by limiting radical regimes access to weapons of mass destruction.

We get it, you're one of "those" who is against all violence, I wish I could see the day that you get stuck in a situation where violence is the only answer, and in that moment you will fail.

 

[Blackace]

Most of their advanced technology was given to them by the Germans, unfortunately they didn't give them many engineers so they were unable to mass produce any of it.

The Germans weren't even close to making nukes...so where is this race to the nuke?


Edit: and Germany was not sharing much tech with anyone, even their closest ally the Italians

 

[Lonely1]

The Germans weren't even close to making nukes...so where is this race to the nuke?

With the soviets?

 

[Blackace]

With the soviets?

Not close to making nukes..sorry

 

[Lonely1]

Not close to making nukes..sorry

But they still needed something to show of to their 'allies'.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

This is NOT a fact, actually it is dead wrong. Japan couldn't make guns...let alone nukes in 1945...

It's not dead wrong, and it is a fact. Just because they didn't make one, and were stopped doesn't mean they weren't trying to make nukes prior to getting their asses kicked.

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

The U.S even knew of them attempting this, and at the time, there was no way of knowing their progress.

 

[Blackace]

One of the best decisions they ever made too.

Uh... No? Was it the right decisions to end. I could agree with that to a degree. But the best decisions ever made? Now that is just stupid talk

 

[Blackace]

It's not dead wrong, and it is a fact. Just because they didn't make one, and were stopped doesn't mean they weren't trying to make nukes prior to getting their asses kicked.

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

The U.S even knew of them attempting this, and at the time, there was no way of knowing their progress.

Everyone was attempting to make a super weapon, no one had the resources to do.... They couldn't make guns.. They had bamboo sticks in 1945... The Japanese weren't even close to a workable theory, in fact the Germans were closer but were still far off.

Only the US had the resources to create nukes at that time...

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Everyone was attempting to make a super weapon, no one had the resources to do.... They couldn't make guns.. They had bamboo sticks in 1945... The Japanese weren't even close to a workable theory, in fact the Germans were closer but were still far off.

Only the US had the resources to create nukes at that time...

You know that NOW.

 

[Blackace]

You know that NOW.

We that then...we had broken Japanese code well before we even finished the bombs..

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

We that then...we had broken Japanese code well before we even finished the bombs..

They did not know it for a fact back then, no one knew anything for fact back then. That's the nature of war. Counter intel was being given as much as intel was given.

Anyway, I can see this going in circles, so I'm done discussing this individual topic.

The allies knew Japan was materially and economically crippled by late 1944. They knew because they systematically sunk transports delivering goods from east-asia and bombed Japan's industrial cities into dust.

I suggest you read that link I posted, while they were not able to make a nuke, they were still trying to make a nuke in 1945, they failed, but they were still trying.

Now, I'm done.

 

[Deku]

You know that NOW.

The allies knew Japan was materially and economically crippled by late 1944. They knew because they systematically sunk transports delivering goods from east-asia and bombed Japan's industrial cities into dust.

 

[CrocMother]

The Germans weren't even close to making nukes...so where is this race to the nuke?


Edit: and Germany was not sharing much tech with anyone, even their closest ally the Italians

Never said anything about nukes, I meant tanks, guns, etc.

And they didn't share much tech, despite the Japanese asking them for blueprints and licenses the entire duration of the Tripartite pact. A lot of those licenses were owned by multinational companies that while giving them to Hitler, were hesitant to give them free to the Japanese.

 

[Blackace]

They did not know it for a fact back then, no one knew anything for fact back then. That's the nature of war. Counter intel was being given as much as intel was given.

Anyway, I can see this going in circles, so I'm done discussing this individual topic.

The US systemically cut Japan off from all outside supplies. The US also knew what Japan as country in peace could produce because the US was their main supplier, in fact we knew that they could hardly produce steel by the time we entered the war with them, and it was one of the factors for why Japan attacked the US.

We had broken Japan completely wide open by 1943 and had knew that they had zero ability to produce mass quanities of steel or iron...and were starving as a country. It is one of the reasons why historians have battle back and forth about if the nukes were needed or not...

 

[Technosteve]

i think if we continued fire bombing japan would of had the same effect of the nukes.

 

[Lonely1]

i think if we continued fire bombing japan would of had the same effect of the nukes.

But the soviets wouldn't be as impressed/scared.

 

[Blackace]

i think if we continued fire bombing japan would of had the same effect of the nukes.

I doubt it. Would have killed many more people and didn't have the impact. The threat that the US could fly a single bomber over a city and wipe it in seconds was blow like nothing else then...