North Korea Conducts Nuclear Test

[dave0293]

Hadn't they had already sued for peace? Many state that the war would have ended with or without the atomic bomb:

 

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

 

 

 

[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . .

 

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

 

 

 

Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE):

 

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war.

 

On the flip side, lets say that even if it was "used to break the back of Japanese resistance and prevent the need for a mainland invasion," what's the point of Nagasaki? Aren't we just trying to find excuses to justify the lives that were sacrificed as a part of the politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union?

[mmmcannibalism]

Hadn't they had already sued for peace? Many state that the war would have ended with or without the atomic bomb:

 

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

 

 

 

[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . .

 

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

 

 

 

Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE):

 

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war.

 

On the flip side, lets say that even if it was "used to break the back of Japanese resistance and prevent the need for a mainland invasion," what's the point of Nagasaki? Aren't we just trying to find excuses to justify the lives that were sacrificed as a part of the politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union?

 

 

 

To a small extent yes, and indeed the Nagasaki bombing is a lot less cut and dry the Hiroshima. I would have to really look into it for specifics, but the nuking of Nagasaki reaffirmed that the Americans could do as much damage as needed, and removed any hope of a succesful resistance.

[1_man_army]

[hide=]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon!

 

 

 

Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing?

[/hide]

 

 

 

The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended.

 

 

 

Let's not have the whole 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified' argument for the millionth time on tip.it - that wasn't my intention. My point is the the United States cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile, it's hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue.

[Dizzle229]

Tbh the justification argument does work here in some small way. We nuked Japan to end WWII, but is there ANY, repeat, ANY reason for any country on earth to be nuked right now?

 

 

 

The US is the current world police because noone else seems to be doing it. Besides, I think almost every country on earth will agree that NK doesn't need them and shouldn't have them.

 

 

 

You say we should have no authority to say so because we are the only country to use nukes outside of testing. For a goddam good reason. We saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run. That was an absolute necessity.

 

 

 

Currently all major world powers have nuclear weapons, which has been a major prevention of WWIII. Now what benefit could NK posession of WMD's have for the world?

 

 

 

Gah, this is hard for me to explain. You know like, on a test or something, when you know what you want to say, the idea you want to get across, but you don't know how to say it? This is one of those times for me. I'll post later when I have my thoughts together.

[MirageOfDeath]

They carried out another missile test on Tuesday. :?

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

[hide=]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon!

 

 

 

Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing?

[/hide]

 

 

 

The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended.

 

 

 

Let's not have the whole 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified' argument for the millionth time on tip.it - that wasn't my intention. My point is the the United States cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile, it's hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Agreed, lets avoid that debate. The only remaining thing that I will say is that the US has a right to talk about nuclear responsibility because we have clearly shown restraint(such as in Vietnam and Korea).

[magekillr]

[hide=]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon!

 

 

 

Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing?

[/hide]

 

 

 

The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended.

 

 

 

Let's not have the whole 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified' argument for the millionth time on tip.it - that wasn't my intention. My point is the the United States cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile, it's hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue.

 

 

 

But it's not just the US: it's Japan, it's China, it's Russia, it's the UN.

 

 

 

I'm not worried about North Korea having the capacity of launching a nuclear war head. The worry comes down to them selling the information to other countries for money. There's evidence of this already happening in Syria. Syria supplies money to Hezbollah, and sorry, but I'd rather Hezbollah not have nuclear capability. Not to mention they could just go straight to the terrorist groups and ignore Syria altogether.

 

 

 

I'm not really that worried about Iran having the capability because I don't think they're after bombs; it just doesn't make sense with the evidence at hand besides Israel's distrust.

 

 

 

Nonetheless, every country needs to work to reduce their stock piles, and the US and Russia should be the first.

[EGmaestro]

In recent years, the whole world has hated the US and the UK because Tony Blair was licking George Bush's [wagon]. Obama has the capability and the power to change that, maybe?

 

 

 

But what does that have to do with NK?

 

 

 

absolutly nothing. it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it was a downright stupid thing to say. im not gonna get into that cause its not on topic..

 

 

 

anyway, if things really start to get bad, (which it probably wont, cause nk has to realize they'l never get away with it, no matter how crazy they are,) we should just keep politics out of our wars (which will probly never happen) and let the U.S military do what it does best.. a big reason vietnam and iraq didnt go over so well was cause of the web of politics entangled around them, and to some extent in the iraq war, the media coverage.

[nickeley102]

Isnt it amazing that in todays 'information age' it can still take a whole country over 60 years to catch up with such major advances in technology

[RichieMcD]

Isnt it amazing that in todays 'information age' it can still take a whole country over 60 years to catch up with such major advances in technology

 

 

 

NK is a hermit, it has only 1 ally being China, but now China are ridiculing their recent Atomic tests so it's quite possible they'll be without allies if this continues. I'm surprised it's not taken them longer considering in the last 10-20 years the 1st world countries aren't trading with them in certain things, like methods how to create new weapons, improve their military etc.

[Marco]

Pretty worrying development this morning. North Korea has threatened to take military action against South Korea if they make true on their decision to join a US led coalition of countries stopping a searching NKorean ships to look for nuclear weapons, claiming that the act would be considered an "infringement on our sovereignty"

 

 

 

This news is especially important as NK have taken the un-precedented action of abandoning the truce with SK which the two countries have shared since the 1950s.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 069457.stm

[1_man_army]

 

But it's not just the US: it's Japan, it's China, it's Russia, it's the UN.

 

 

 

 

They need to take a leading role in convincing North Korea to not go down the path they're going down at the moment. China and Russia particularly have to make a bigger effort because they still have a close-ish relationship with North Korea. NK is content to ignore and antagonise the US, Japan and the UN. The problem for China is that they don't want to do too much and end up with a bigger humanitarian crisis in NK that'll potentially lead to millions fleeing to China.

[i_love_burritos]

Let's not have the whole 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified' argument for the millionth time on tip.it - that wasn't my intention. My point is the the United States cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile, it's hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue.

 

 

 

I agree with you, but seriously what is this babble ?

 

 

 

1.)" Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Firstly this was never an issue and a element to this thread. Whoever brought it up should piss off.

 

 

 

2.) "cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them" again irrelevant. Alothough it may decrease the believability and validity of the argument, it doesn't make it wrong. On a global scale what happened over half a century ago, may be relevent it different spheres but here the only thing at hand is NK's use and development of nuclear weapons and its intentions to utilize them. Why cant it lecture, bad for the "international image". No.

 

 

 

2.) "the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile" Application is entirely different to intention. This massive stockpile argument has no good argument.

 

 

 

3.) "the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue" Why ? I can't see why. Explain more clearly.

 

 

 

What you're saying is that the US should keep its mouth shut because it has a better postion [or worse if you see it in that light] in terms of commenting on NK's nuclear technology. It's an extraneous argument because firstly it says that ones in postions of power have no right to say anything because of this, which is in a way postive discrimination. And secondly equating matters of world peace and securityto pre - cold war notions is well - stupid. IT HAS NO RELEVANCE. Bah, I'm bad at conveying my thoughts transparently. Posessing nuclear weapons gives you no lesser or greater right to comment on anything. Except the NPT which is a pile of [cabbage].

 

 

 

EDIT: Spelling

[1_man_army]

Let's not have the whole 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified' argument for the millionth time on tip.it - that wasn't my intention. My point is the the United States cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile, it's hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue.

 

 

 

I agree with you, but seriously what is this babble ?

 

 

 

1.)" Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Firstly this was never an issue and a element to this thread. Whoever brought it up should piss off.

 

 

 

2.) "cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them" again irrelevant. Alothough it may decrease the believability and validity of the argument, it doesn't make it wrong. On a global scale what happened over half a century ago, may be relevent it different spheres but here the only thing at hand is NK's use and development of nuclear weapons and its intentions to utilize them. Why cant it lecture, bad for the "international image". No.

 

 

 

2.) "the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile" Application is entirely different to intention. This massive stockpile argument has no good argument.

 

 

 

3.) "the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue" Why ? I can't see why. Explain more clearly.

 

 

 

What you're saying is that the US should keep its mouth shut because it has a better postion [or worse if you see it in that light] in terms of commenting on NK's nuclear technology. It's an extraneous argument because firstly it says that ones in postions of power have no right to say anything because of this, which is in a way postive discrimination. And secondly equating matters of world peace and securityto pre - cold war notions is well - stupid. IT HAS NO RELEVANCE. Bah, I'm bad at conveying my thoughts transparently. Posessing nuclear weapons gives you no lesser or greater right to comment on anything. Except the NPT which is a pile of [cabbage].

 

 

 

EDIT: Spelling

 

 

 

As for your second point, it is relevant whether you agree or not - it is the argument that is used by nations with nuclear ambitions to justify their positions, by painting the US as hypocrites they can get their countries behind them on the issue. This issue therefore gives these nations a logical argument that they can use to justify their position. That is why the US can't pass judgement on the issue - because they've put the nuclear bomb into practice and the North Koreans (and the Iranians) will use that fact to bolster their arguments for having them.

 

 

 

I do think that NK should not have these weapons but I think the case for them not having them and the pressure on NK has to come from others (primarily China and Russia because they're friendlier to NK). The US does have a role to play in this issue but in my opinion they can't take the leadership role because of their use of the bomb and how that fact can and will be so easily exploited by NK.

[Will H]

Let's not have the whole 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified' argument for the millionth time on tip.it - that wasn't my intention. My point is the the United States cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile, it's hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue.

 

 

 

I agree with you, but seriously what is this babble ?

 

 

 

1.)" Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Firstly this was never an issue and a element to this thread. Whoever brought it up should piss off.

 

 

 

2.) "cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them" again irrelevant. Alothough it may decrease the believability and validity of the argument, it doesn't make it wrong. On a global scale what happened over half a century ago, may be relevent it different spheres but here the only thing at hand is NK's use and development of nuclear weapons and its intentions to utilize them. Why cant it lecture, bad for the "international image". No.

 

 

 

2.) "the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile" Application is entirely different to intention. This massive stockpile argument has no good argument.

 

 

 

3.) "the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue" Why ? I can't see why. Explain more clearly.

 

 

 

What you're saying is that the US should keep its mouth shut because it has a better postion [or worse if you see it in that light] in terms of commenting on NK's nuclear technology. It's an extraneous argument because firstly it says that ones in postions of power have no right to say anything because of this, which is in a way postive discrimination. And secondly equating matters of world peace and securityto pre - cold war notions is well - stupid. IT HAS NO RELEVANCE. Bah, I'm bad at conveying my thoughts transparently. Posessing nuclear weapons gives you no lesser or greater right to comment on anything. Except the NPT which is a pile of [cabbage].

 

 

 

EDIT: Spelling

 

 

 

As for your second point, it is relevant whether you agree or not - it is the argument that is used by nations with nuclear ambitions to justify their positions, by painting the US as hypocrites they can get their countries behind them on the issue. This issue therefore gives these nations a logical argument that they can use to justify their position. That is why the US can't pass judgement on the issue - because they've put the nuclear bomb into practice and the North Koreans (and the Iranians) will use that fact to bolster their arguments for having them.

 

 

 

I do think that NK should not have these weapons but I think the case for them not having them and the pressure on NK has to come from others (primarily China and Russia because they're friendlier to NK). The US does have a role to play in this issue but in my opinion they can't take the leadership role because of their use of the bomb and how that fact can and will be so easily exploited by NK.

 

I agree. The US can engage in peace talks, but they cannot demand others to disarm nuclear weapons. Hypocrisy is a very important thing here, as it will severely damage peace talks, even those not relevant to nuclear weapons. Nobody likes to listen to a hypocrite, and the last thing we need is to give NK a solid reason to break the already fragile negotiations with the UN.

 

 

 

Sorry America, you might have good intentions, but we need a leader without double standards.

[magekillr]

The current disagreement is caused by South Korea's decision to join in international efforts to prevent North Korea from importing or exporting nuclear technology. Given North Korea's desperate need for revenue of any type and their aggressive nuclear weapons program (they detonated a nuclear bomb last week), there is no country on Earth more likely to sell nuclear material to a terrorist organization (knowingly or unknowingly). Because Seoul cannot be protected from attack, we cannot take any military action against North Korea unless we are willing to see hundreds of thousands killed on our side alone.

 

 

 

If war broke out not from our choosing, but from some irrational act of the extremely paranoid and potentially unstable North Korean government, we would be woefully undermanned. And it is not unthinkable that any such conflict could go nuclear. The problem of North Korean behavior is not one of our making, but our unpreparedness is a direct result of the decision to wage the War on Terror as a war of invasion and occupation of foreign lands. We cannot wind down Iraq fast enough, and our surge in Afghanistan needs to be carefully evaluated with the threat of North Korea in mind.

 

 

 

Source: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/5/27/141229/276

 

 

 

Yep, exactly, Booman.

 

 

 

Note: I oppose military intervention into Korea, but if they attack the South, we'll have no choice.

[Kiriyama]

Essentially, NK is that fat, smelly, emo kid that sits in the back of the class, never talks to anyone, doesn't have any friends, and would be such an easy target for teasing if everyone wasn't afraid that he would bring in a shotgun and kill everyone.

 

 

 

I thought those people were more Goths than anything.

 

 

 

The emos that we stereotype are the ones who [bleep] about their tragic life, and how no-one understands them. We've all got [bleep]ing problems, just [bleep]ing try talking about them.

 

 

 

But yeah, NK is the kid that feels isolated, bullied and such, and in the end, shoots up the place.

[mmmcannibalism]

Does anyone know what kind of intel we have on North Korea's nuclear program. Ideally, if we know where they are storing their weapons its possible we could merely conduct a small offensive operation if it came to that.

[Kiriyama]

Does anyone know what kind of intel we have on North Korea's nuclear program. Ideally, if we know where they are storing their weapons its possible we could merely conduct a small offensive operation if it came to that.

 

 

 

Yeah, because film plots made good ideas for real combat situations.

[mmmcannibalism]

Does anyone know what kind of intel we have on North Korea's nuclear program. Ideally, if we know where they are storing their weapons its possible we could merely conduct a small offensive operation if it came to that.

 

 

 

Yeah, because film plots made good ideas for real combat situations.

 

 

 

Which movie?

 

 

 

Just a thought I had, I think we all agree a full out war with the north would be disatrous, and Im just curious if we could knock out their nuclear capabilities "safely"

[Kiriyama]

Behind Enemy Lines II

 

 

 

Though honestly, I don't think trying to knock out their nuclear facilities would go unnoticed, and would just serve as provocation, as the country that sent them in would have caused it with the "invasion".

[mmmcannibalism]

Behind Enemy Lines II

 

 

 

Though honestly, I don't think trying to knock out their nuclear facilities would go unnoticed, and would just serve as provocation, as the country that sent them in would have caused it with the "invasion".

 

 

 

Agreed, Im speaking more in the "the war has already started" situations. For the record, I really wasnt thinking of a movie lol.

[Kiriyama]

If the war starts, then I'm betting the first thing NK does is launch as many nukes as it can.

[Dizzle229]

If the war starts, then I'm betting the first thing NK does is launch as many nukes as it can.

 

 

 

Tbh, do we even know for sure if they have a nuclear weapon? Or if they do, can they get one to the west coast? I think Japan and SK have the most to be worried about in terms of a nuclear threat.

[Kiriyama]

All depends on how smart they are I guess.

 

 

 

With a crazy-[wagon] leader, who knows where they'll aim.