North Korea goes Nuclear

TimeTraveler

10-09-06, 02:53 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6032525.stm

i hope war now isn't inevitable, if south korea does respond i sincerely hope we dont go in to back them up

North Korea would be a difficult war, but they are doing this because they must have some sort of alliance with Iran. It's a very sensitive situation, because North Korea has nukes and Iran may get nukes, and neither of these countries like us much. There is a chance that we could end up going to war with both of these countries, at the same time even, and this is something I'm afraid of, I think Iran is no Iraq, and North Korea has millions of troops, and not ordinary troops, but psycho mind controlled troops that are EXTREMELY loyal. If you look at the videos, their troops are so organized it's ridiculous.

At the same time, what are we supposed to do? Let them keep building up more and more troops? North Korea could tip the balance of power drastically in favor of China, you may not realize it, and while it seems that China does not want North Korea or Iran having nukes, you also have to be aware of the balance of power on the world scene, when new countries get nukes. The nuclear club thing is real, and while America has way more than nukes and North Korea is basically harmless with their nukes, that does not mean they cannot harm South Korea, or Japan. Japan is the second largest economy on planet earth next to ours, or maybe the third if China is second, Japan is essential to Americas economic interest.

spuriousmonkey

10-09-06, 03:19 AM

You don't understand world/global politics. When you have a new guy in the room, and not just a new guy, but a thug, and a poor thug, and that thug happens to pull out a gun and shoot it into the air saying "Look at me, I've got a gun now bitch!", well, it's not going to make anyone in the room happy, especially when everyone in the room has uzis and this new guy has a pistol.

In what way doesn't this make them hipocrites?

I think North Korea just made a huge mistake. I think under any other President this gamble might have paid off, but President Bush is no ordinary President. If we had President Clinton, MAYBE there would be diplomacy. I don't think North Korea knows exactly which America and which President they are dealing with, they think we are the same America we were under Clinton.

North Korea has nothing to lose. The US has. If the US attacks north korea the north koreans can easily retaliate by striking at one of the highest military concentrations in the world. The border between north and south korea. I don't know their missile capabilities, they have some long range missiles based on 'scud' techology, but maybe they will manage to get a nuke through to Seoul. kabang. A major trading center gone!

This will have a major effect on the world economy. North Korea isn't really part of that. It's already at the bottom. The US will be hit hard. Indirectly and directly.

TimeTraveler

10-09-06, 03:23 AM

In what way doesn't this make them hipocrites?

Security isnt about being fair. Figure it out.

This will have a major effect on the world economy. North Korea isn't really part of that. It's already at the bottom. The US will be hit hard. Indirectly and directly.

North Korea has nothing to lose. The US has. If the US attacks north korea the north koreans can easily retaliate by striking at one of the highest military concentrations in the world. The border between north and south korea. I don't know their missile capabilities, they have some long range missiles based on 'scud' techology, but maybe they will manage to get a nuke through to Seoul. kabang. A major trading center gone!

North Korea has a lot to lose.

mountainhare

10-09-06, 03:27 AM

spurious:

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032577.stm

What a buch of hypocrites.

If these nuclear powers are so opposed to nuclear weapons they should start dismantling their own. All of them. The USA, France, Brittain, Russia, China.

I agree 100%. I'm more worried about the U.S, China and Russia possessing nukes, than a little piddly state such as North Korea.

If North Korea uses a nuke, everyone will kick their asses from here to the moon. If the U.S uses nukes, I doubt anyone will have the capabilities to retaliate.

vincent28uk

10-09-06, 03:30 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032577.stm

What a buch of hypocrites.

If these nuclear powers are so opposed to nuclear weapons they should start dismantling their own. All of them. The USA, France, Brittain, Russia, China.

I really dont know how u compare the north korean insane pygmy with the above countries, in 50 year of us having nukes have we used them?

We use our nukes as a deterrent against land wars, the pygmy will be using them as bargaining chips.

North korea will be threatening anyone & everyone if they dont give them aid or money, & who can say no if they point a nuke at london or new york, you are talking about a absolute basket case owning nukes, he makes hitler look totally sane.

Please open up your eyes stop thinking left wing, & use all your brain for a change.

TimeTraveler

10-09-06, 03:31 AM

spurious:

I agree 100%. I'm more worried about the U.S, China and Russia possessing nukes, than a little piddly state such as North Korea.

If North Korea uses a nuke, everyone will kick their asses from here to the moon. If the U.S uses nukes, I doubt anyone will have the capabilities to retaliate.

If North Korea uses a Nuke the only country capable of dealing with them is America, and maybe Russia, but likely going to be America. So your point?

America has way more than nuclear weapons. We have laser weapons, we have biological and chemical weapons, we have electro magnetic pulse weapons, we even have some weird weather devices like HAARP which I don't even know what it does, but look it up. There are so many weapons that America has, that even most Americans don't even know what we have.

vincent28uk

10-09-06, 03:37 AM

spuriousmonkey

10-09-06, 04:09 AM

I really dont know how u compare the north korean insane pygmy with the above countries, in 50 year of us having nukes have we used them?

Yes. And these countries have tested them extensively.

Zakariya04

10-09-06, 04:16 AM

Hi all

i suppose the US's response will be in line with how muich it cares about innocent people!!

#########

take care
zak

Nikelodeon

10-09-06, 04:19 AM

America has way more than nuclear weapons. We have laser weapons, we have biological and chemical weapons, we have electro magnetic pulse weapons, we even have some weird weather devices like HAARP which I don't even know what it does, but look it up.
Wow I feel safer already....

Zakariya04

10-09-06, 04:25 AM

Hi

basically nothing can be done

Military action wont be taken , nor will sanctions have any affect..

###########

take care
zak

phonetic

10-09-06, 04:39 AM

It would be a very gritty war if that's what it came to. Seoul is extremely close to the N. Korea border and N. Korea have missiles that will easily reach it. They've threatened to level Seoul before and I reckon they'd give it their best.

One of the big problems is the level of inodoctrination of the people. If Jong Il says jump, the population will jump.

I'm interested to see what happens next. I'm a little bit worried, because I'm planning to go to Seoul for a year around 2008. Things should probably have blown over by then though.

Zakariya04

10-09-06, 04:42 AM

I think even their long range artilery is in range of souel so it will be completley levelled if the US is not careful

skywalker

10-09-06, 05:58 AM

Iran and Syria have tested a N device not N. Korea guys, right?

skywalker

10-09-06, 05:59 AM

And pray, what of the exploding mountain a few years ago? Was that not nuclear?

Also, I doubt the US would hesitate to use nukes in a war, either.

What war? there won't be any war.

phlogistician

10-09-06, 06:32 AM

even have some weird weather devices like HAARP which I don't even know what it does, but look it up.

HAARP is NOT a weather weapon. Take off the tinfoil hat, please.

Why do people harp on (pun intended) about HAARP? It is just one such facility, the USA operates several, there's at least one on Russia, and another in Norway. The latter I know is for peaceful purposes because I used to know guys that did research there.

RickyH

10-09-06, 06:49 AM

It all comes down to who would you rather have the nukes..

America (along with ever changing allies)

or

N. Korea (no comment)

Let's give some people time to think about this one.

Baron Max

10-09-06, 06:58 AM

It all comes down to who would you rather have the nukes.. America (along with ever changing allies) or N. Korea (no comment)

Well, I think I'd choose America ....who has had working nukes since 1945 and has never used them since Hirosima and Nagasaki ...even in war time, like the Korean War or the Vietnam War or the War in Afghanistan or the War in Iraq. We have them, but we don't use 'em ....only as a deterrent.

Or would you prefer a nation that has openly made threats of war against it's closest neighbor? A bully who has vowed to take South Korea back into it's domain? A nation who has maintained a standing army while it's people starve to death? A nation who spent billions on the nuke programs, even as it's people starved?

Not a tough decision for me.

Baron Max

phlogistician

10-09-06, 07:02 AM

Well, I think I'd choose America ....who has had working nukes since 1945 and has never used them since Hirosima and Nagasaki ...

That's one way of saying it, or you could say 'America, the only nuclear power to use it's nuclear weapons, and then against a civilian population, not in a theatre of war'. You could add something about America allowing Israel to become a nuclear power contrary to the NPT, and that America is a frikking hypocrite when it comes to deciding who to make sanctions against.

If North Korea, or Iran develop viable nukes, maybe America will have to learn diplomacy, instead of pistol whipping nations into submission?

Baron Max

10-09-06, 07:06 AM

If North Korea, or Iran develop viable nukes, maybe America will have to learn diplomacy, instead of pistol whipping nations into submission?

Hmm, and aren't you exactly the same guy who was arguing about wanting to take away guns from the people because of one lousy little shooting incident? Yet, here, you seem to be arguing that all people should be equally armed? Interesting conflict for you, ain't? How do you reconcile those two differing views about arms?

Baron Max

spuriousmonkey

10-09-06, 07:14 AM

Hmm, and aren't you exactly the same guy who was arguing about wanting to take away guns from the people because of one lousy little shooting incident? Yet, here, you seem to be arguing that all people should be equally armed? Interesting conflict for you, ain't? How do you reconcile those two differing views about arms?

Actually it seems to be you who has trouble reconciling your own view on the right to arm yourself with Koreans right to arm itself.

It all comes down to who would you rather have the nukes..

America (along with ever changing allies)

or

N. Korea (no comment)

Let's give some people time to think about this one.

Dunno. The US has used nukes before on civilian targets. Is the right answer Korea?

Baron Max

10-09-06, 07:33 AM

Actually it seems to be you who has trouble reconciling your own view on the right to arm yourself with Koreans right to arm itself.

Can't answer my question, Spurious????

As to my own view, we're the good guys and wear white hats, the Koreans are the bad guys and wear black hats. See? It's simple for me.

Now ...please answer my question to you!

Hmm, and aren't you exactly the same guy who was arguing about wanting to take away guns from the people because of one lousy little shooting incident? Yet, here, you seem to be arguing that all people should be equally armed? Interesting conflict for you, ain't? How do you reconcile those two differing views about arms?

Baron Max

cyco.rEal

10-09-06, 09:12 AM

We Chinese dont want see North Korea with its nuclear weapens.I also think it's a huge mistake.All China needs is the TIME without wars,especially the war next to us.I think US will never let North Korea have their nuclear weapens,Japen neither.If North Korea got nuclear weapens in their arsenal,Japen just got its reason to have a REAL ARMY.And it's the time to have the war.If that becomes a fact,China will have to protact North Korea against US or Japen.We DONT want our men lost in Korea again.It's not 1950's.We China has much more important problems to deal with.And if North Korea is a peoblem,it will never be the important one.Actually I think the one who most don't wanna North Korea gets their nuclear weapen is China!North Korea just wants the ability to have a nuclear missle and it can still have its chance to talk to US.

I dont want Korea wars!!!!!

mountainhare

10-09-06, 09:20 AM

Ricky:

Originally Posted by Ricky Houy
It all comes down to who would you rather have the nukes.. America (along with ever changing allies) or N. Korea (no comment)

Neither. Nukes are too deadly a weapon to be owned by ANY group of elitists.

However, if someone must own nukes, I'd rather that all nations own them. At least then, every nation would be reluctant about using their own nukes against another nation, which could retaliate with a nuclear strike.

JDawg

10-09-06, 09:38 AM

I don't understand why we haven't threatened military action against Iran or N. Korea yet. I mean, we had faulty intelligence saying Iraq had WMDs, and we ran in like gangbusters...and yet, North Korea has been shouting from the rooftops that they were developing them, and we do nothing? Same with Iran.

Isn't that hypocritical? I mean, I understand that China is the North's main ally and supporter, but why should that matter? If the US is so against rebel states having WMDs, why did we sit back and let this happen? Why did we jump down Saddam's throat, and yet simply watch while this reclusive sociopath builds his arsenal? Is it that we knew Iraq was weak?

I hate to say it, because I saw no real benefit of going to war with Iraq, but if we have shown the world that we are going to treat nations that are seen as potential threats with extreme military force, then we have to do it with all of them. We can't level Iraq and then NOT level North Korea or Iran. It just can't work that way. Especially since it has turned out that Iraq was the LEAST capable nation, of the three in question, of producing those kinds of weapons.

I don't know. This whole thing is so suspect to me. It's just too much contradiction for my taste.

JD

spidergoat

10-09-06, 09:47 AM

I am really curious as to what Americans will think about this and how it will effect our congressional elections?
I blame Bush for alienating North Korea and withdrawing from diplomatic relations.

- Will the WH and GOP be blamed for diverting our attention with the wars we’re losing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Not for that reason, it doesn't take troops to have diplomatic relations or a program of inspections, as we had under Clinton.

I don't understand why we haven't threatened military action against Iran or N. Korea yet.
They have a real army, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan and we cannot fight on three fronts.

spuriousmonkey

10-09-06, 09:51 AM

Can't answer my question, Spurious????

I can answer all questions.

I propose we all follow the islandic model.

Now answer the question why not all countries should have the right to have nukes and only some? Especially the one country who seems to be rather aggressive and invade sovereign nations for oil.

Buffalo Roam

10-09-06, 10:02 AM

spuriousmonkey, then answer it.

John99

10-09-06, 10:50 AM

The could be looking to extort money, like all the other ball busters.

lixluke

10-09-06, 11:11 AM

Is there any validity in this?
Years ago, Bush mentions Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea to be the axis of evil.

Now that Iraq has been mutilated, N Korea is all of a sudden supposedly doing nuclear tests. Perhaps it is a lie.

spidergoat

10-09-06, 11:19 AM

They did it precisely because Bush named them evil and stopped direct negotiations. They also saw Bush invade Iraq, which didn't have nukes, and they felt like they had to offer a deterrent.

Baron Max

10-09-06, 12:03 PM

I blame Bush for alienating North Korea and withdrawing from diplomatic relations.

You'd blame President Bush for your damned ingrown toenails!!

Baron Max

Baron Max

10-09-06, 12:07 PM

I can answer all questions.

But you still haven't answered mine! Why not?

Here it is again:
Hmm, and aren't you exactly the same guy who was arguing about wanting to take away guns from the people because of one lousy little shooting incident? Yet, here, you seem to be arguing that all people should be equally armed? Interesting conflict for you, ain't? How do you reconcile those two differing views about arms?

Now answer the question why not all countries should have the right to have nukes and only some?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it's for the same reason that you don't mind criminals having handguns, but want to take mine away?! But let's see your answer to my question above, then we can talk about your question.

Baron Max

spidergoat

10-09-06, 01:06 PM

You'd blame President Bush for your damned ingrown toenails!!

Baron Max
So, the leader of the world's only superpower has nothing to do with US-N. Korea relations?

Baron Max

10-09-06, 01:09 PM

So, the leader of the world's only superpower has nothing to do with US-N. Korea relations?

Sure! But just like your ingrown toenail, it started a looooonnnngg time ago! Blaming the current leaders is nothing but ....well, your hatred showing through your usual better sense.

Baron Max

crazy151drinker

10-09-06, 02:48 PM

Yes the US has nuclear weapons and we used them to prevent the Soviets from taking over the rest of Europe.

That is a far cry from "Give me money or I'll Nuke South Korea" or "Death to Isreal" that the other loonies want their nukes for.

crazy151drinker

10-09-06, 02:50 PM

I wonder how many additional wars would have occured if there were no Nukes?

Vega

10-09-06, 02:56 PM

Have N.Korea turn over its nukes in return for total rule over S.America!

spuriousmonkey

10-09-06, 02:59 PM

But you still haven't answered mine! Why not?

Here it is again:
Hmm, and aren't you exactly the same guy who was arguing about wanting to take away guns from the people because of one lousy little shooting incident? Yet, here, you seem to be arguing that all people should be equally armed? Interesting conflict for you, ain't? How do you reconcile those two differing views about arms?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it's for the same reason that you don't mind criminals having handguns, but want to take mine away?! But let's see your answer to my question above, then we can talk about your question.

Baron Max

Learn to read fucking troll.
I can answer all questions.

I propose we all follow the islandic model.

Now answer the question why not all countries should have the right to have nukes and only some? Especially the one country who seems to be rather aggressive and invade sovereign nations for oil.

spidergoat

10-09-06, 03:37 PM

Baron Max

10-09-06, 06:28 PM

I agree it started long ago, but Bush is the one that gave them the proverbial finger.

Hmm, and that was after Kim Jong Il gave the finger to the Clinton administration ....or don't you like to talk about that part????

It was also after Kim Jong Il gave the finger to Russia and China, too!

Oops, and I forgot ...he gave the finger to Japan, also.

Or did you convienently forget that part, Spider???

Baron Max

spidergoat

10-09-06, 06:32 PM

How so? Because they didn't get a missile agreement? We had freaking cameras in their nuclear facilities.

Baron Max

10-09-06, 06:33 PM

How so? Because they didn't get a missile agreement? We had freaking cameras in their nuclear facilities.

And Kim Jong Il kicked 'em all out ......or did you convienently forget that, too????

Baron Max

spidergoat

10-09-06, 06:41 PM

When?

Baron Max

10-09-06, 06:44 PM

When?

Shit, I don't know ..it's like fuckin' ancient history by now! Are you saying that you don't rmeember that? ...when they yanked out all the cameras and sent the whole inspection team packing?? You don't really remember that?

Maybe your memory is THAT selective, and that's why you can hate America and President Bush so much!

Baron Max

spidergoat

10-09-06, 07:02 PM

I ask when because it's important.

The IAEA’s last inspectors to leave North Korea did not come home empty handed. They brought back all metal seals that North Korean authorities had cut at safeguarded nuclear facilities at the Nyongbyon site in December 2002, in preparation to restart nuclear operations frozen since 1994. Nuclear material under safeguards in North Korea is now left without any Agency monitoring. (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/inspectorsrecall20030103.html)

Michael

10-09-06, 07:05 PM

Sure! But just like your ingrown toenail, it started a looooonnnngg time ago! Blaming the current leaders is nothing but ....well, your hatred showing through your usual better sense.

Baron MaxFact: The NKs started enriching nuclear material during the Presidency of Bush Sr. Fact: During the Clinton Presidency, yes all 8 years, we had dialog and nuclear inspectors in NK and the NK did not enrich any nuclear material. Zero. Fact: We have now elected Bush II – under his leadership NK was labeled as an Axis of Evil, we withdrew from negotiations, NKs enrichment has went up an estimated 800% and now they have built and tested a nuclear bomb.

The Korean War happened half a century ago - no one is blaming Bush Jr. for that war. That said, Bush must take the blame for his failed foriegn policies. The world is not the black and white place where Bush lives – that place only exists in his Head – a place where Xians go to heaven and America is the Blessed Land.

The real world is a very complex convolution of competing interests – I think all would agree with that. For Bush, whose IQ measures just over the average, this hodgepodge of ideas and competeing interestes is simply too much for his small menatal facilities. Again, I think everyone, including Bush Jr., would agree with that. He himself has said he doesn’t like to think nor to dwell to deeply on any one subject. He doesn’t like reading World history and one of his most favored books can be found in the Xian self-help section of Boarders.

By most standards he’s an imbecile. I think he would agree with that too. Had he not had his families money and connections, and were left to his own abilities, he’d be managing a Burger King. Everyone would agree to this.

So yes, I agree we can not blame Bush for the Korean War, which happened a looooooong time ago, however I think we can Blame Bush for the inaptitude he has displayed during his presidency. Two failed wars, lack of leadership during Katrina, spying on American Citizens, censoring of environmental information, watering down of human rights and use of torture during war, and now a nuclear Korea. Hell we didn't even capture Bin Laden.

I can not name 3 good policies he has had? Can you?

Michael

Michael

10-09-06, 07:07 PM

As to North Korea. I wonder, if we were to ramp up the monetary squeeze. I mean really put the clamp down on elicit money counterfeiting and laundering, illegal drug trade, etcetera while simultaneously providing a massive amount of food aid – perhaps that would be a way to get eventually bring NK into the fold? Say oevr the nexy decade?

spidergoat

10-09-06, 07:21 PM

I don't hate America.

Baron Max

10-09-06, 07:25 PM

I don't hate America.

,,,LOL! Yeah, sure ......I believe you, Spider! Yeah, sure I do.

Baron Max

Baron Max

10-09-06, 07:29 PM

I mean really put the clamp down on elicit money counterfeiting and laundering, illegal drug trade, etcetera while simultaneously providing a massive amount of food aid – perhaps that would be a way to get eventually bring NK into the fold?

And perhaps not! As far as I know, NK has been under severe sanctions before and all it did was starve the little people, while Kim what-his-name spend billions on his nuke program.

So now you want to try it again???? ...like you haven't learned from the past fuck up?

Baron Max

Genji

10-09-06, 08:24 PM

And perhaps not! As far as I know, NK has been under severe sanctions before and all it did was starve the little people, while Kim what-his-name spend billions on his nuke program.

So now you want to try it again???? ...like you haven't learned from the past fuck up?

Baron Max :rolleyes:

Michael

10-09-06, 08:31 PM

Zakariya04

10-10-06, 02:32 AM

I don't hate America.
Me too, i dont hate america either

phlogistician

10-10-06, 07:01 AM

Hmm, and aren't you exactly the same guy who was arguing about wanting to take away guns from the people because of one lousy little shooting incident?

Re-iterating a falshood does not make it any more true, Max. Are you saying there has only been 'one' shooting incident in the history of the USA? Or that all the individual tragedies don't add up to more that one tragedy, eben though it's actually tens of thousands of tragedies per year?

Yet, here, you seem to be arguing that all people should be equally armed? Interesting conflict for you, ain't? How do you reconcile those two differing views about arms?

I never said I wanted to take off people Max, that's yet another re-iterated falsehood. Do you never tire of telling lies? I write down my viewpoint, and you don't bother reading, and claim I said stuff I haven't. It gets tiresome debating a dolt like you Max.

Anyway, 'arms' is a rather wide term, wide enough to drive a truck though your hastily constructed and ill considered attempt. If you use a blanket term of 'arms' why not accuse me of saying that I think individuals should have nukes?

Guns and individuals, and nations and nuclear weapons are two different kettles of fish Max. Nations have the right to develop. All nations. We cannot stop them from doing what we have done. That is hypocrisy, whereas what I proposed for the USA was to have the same system as the UK has for licensing, which seems to advocating a level playing field, not introducing a disparity!

Lame attempt Max, you really must try harder.

Baron Max

10-10-06, 07:29 AM

Guns and individuals, and nations and nuclear weapons are two different kettles of fish Max. Nations have the right to develop. All nations.

The principle is exactly the same, Phlog, exactly the same! Oh, you can deny it, you can protest that "it's different", you can call me names, but that don't make it so.

And do nations have a right to develop? ...to develop nukes? Who or what gave them that "right"? We're now a world society whether we like it or not, and a society must some control over it's "citizens".

It's no different, Phlog, to the "right" of an individual to buy and carry a handgun, is it? But on the handgun issue, you want to curtail that right, yet with North Korea, you're in full support of them having nukes. How can you reconcile that difference in thinking?

...what I proposed for the USA was to have the same system as the UK has for licensing, which seems to advocating a level playing field, not introducing a disparity!

Level the playing field? With licensing? Okay, I think that's a great idea. Let's have all of the criminals license their guns, then we can get the law-abiding citizens to license their guns up to and including the "level playing field". Great idea, Phlog, when do we start?

Leveling the playing field? With nukes? So you want the "bad" nations to have as many weapons as the "good" nations? And you don't think, in the case of nukes, that we should even bother with "licensing"? ...just let them develop as many nukes as they want? Without controls?

You want licensing for personal guns in the USA, but you DON'T want some kind of control or licensing for nukes in the world? Wow, you have some extreme conflicts in your philosophy, Phlog ...perhaps you should examine it more closely?

Baron Max

Bells

10-10-06, 07:29 AM

It seems, to me, that it would be hard to spend billions of dollars if one were only given food? The difference between now and then is that China will be on our side. I'd say this makes a huge difference. And also I do not relish the idea of another 3 million people dieing of starvation. When talking about how brilliant the North Korean army is we should also consider that they had to lower the stature, and continue to do so, because North Koreans are so malnourished many are no longer of regulation height.

Anyway, what do you think is a good solution?

Michael
For one thing, not over react. We are dealing with a country who's leader does not care if the population is starving or not. Sanctions in the past have not made the leaders suffer, instead the people. They have not worked in the past and will not work in the future against a country like North Korea.

Do we in the West have the right to demand they do not develop nuclear arms? No we do not, as most countries in the West have them. We are dealing with a country who views sanctions as an act of war and Bush's declaration of placing them in the 'axis of evil' basket has not helped matters much. They have watched other countries referred to as being part of the 'axis of evil' be invaded. To them, they feel that we are at war with them. I will be honest in saying that I am not comfortable with the thought that they have the damn things. But then again, I am not comfortable with the thought of any country having them.

North Korea is led by a true despot. Any action by the world community will most probably be taken as an act of war against them. And when they start spouting comments such as:

In a report sure to send more shivers around the globe, the South Korean news agency Yonhap today quoted an unnamed North Korean official as saying: “We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes.

“That depends on how the US will act.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20554468-2,00.html

Careful steps and caution should be taken. An over reaction could lead to the loon actually using his weapons. This guy is not to be messed with. When you see even his closest ally (China) reacting as they have, it spells out that even they are concerned enough to cancel the leave of their soldiers, then again, caution should be taken.

The Wen Wei Po said Chinese People's Liberation Army troops ranged along the border in northeast China's Jilin province "have had leave totally cancelled" and some forces were conducting "anti-chemical" training exercises.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20555403-38197,00.html

stu43t

10-10-06, 08:23 AM

I haven't heard anyone yet mention the quality of life the North Koreans are enduring - they might as well have a metal barbed wire fence all around NK, no one goes out and no one comes in, I might be pretty close anyway, could already be happening.

Thing is, those people have no communication with the outside at all no radio,no televisions, no internet and they have been brainwashed into thinking that their way of life is normal. Working the fields all day and starving. It is far from normal, they are a nation of people living well under the poverty line, and they accept this. Well I'm sorry, I dont accept this and these people should not be inflicted upon by that despot any longer. I would personally love to take out that despot myself, but I cant.

I hope one day the people of NK can be liberated (Not like Iraq either) and give them a step up the ladder to the 21st century, and I hope this can be achieved without bloodshed. Unfortunately given the history of liberating countries this is not always an option.

North Korea is in an unfortunate position with its loony leader having a nuke in his posession, this is the worst thing that could have happened to people of NK.
I dont have any answers to the solution, I doubt that the leaders of the world have any either, lets just hope that the despot is taken out soon, and introduce the people of NK to the world of today.

spuriousmonkey

10-10-06, 08:27 AM

The best way to reform is economic development, not economic sanctions.

Zakariya04

10-10-06, 08:37 AM

Buffalo Roam

10-10-06, 08:42 AM

spuriousmonkey, explain how to have economic development in N.Korea, with Shorty in charge, the reason thing are so bad there is that Shorty needs something to keep the peoples minds off him, and on just surviving, did the help that the Clinton Administration gave to the North Koreans help the common people, or was it use to make Shorty feel better about Himself? help his self image?, make him feel self important? Looky I got the BOMB! I'm important, looky at me! The only way to deal with this is Tough Love, take Shorty out and whip his ass, and all his sycophants.

Zakariya04

10-10-06, 08:50 AM

Baron Max

10-10-06, 09:11 AM

We are dealing with a country who's leader does not care if the population is starving or not.
North Korea is led by a true despot.
An over reaction could lead to the loon actually using his weapons.

Interesting that you say those things, yet then say: "...Bush's declaration of placing them in the 'axis of evil' basket has not helped matters much."

Is that to say that you think President Bush should have lied to the nation and to the world? Or are you suggesting that everyone be a fuckin' hippo-crite like you?

Do we in the West have the right to demand they do not develop nuclear arms? No we do not,...

The UN seems to think that we do. And apparently every member of the UN thinks that we do ...and every member of the UN is NOT a "western" nation.

Careful steps and caution should be taken. An over reaction could lead to the loon actually using his weapons.

That's been the basic policy for over fifty years, Bells, and it's only gotten us to the point that we face now. Yet you suggest just more of the same "careful steps and caution"? And what do you think has changed in the last fifty years to warrant such faith in "careful steps and caution"?

I mean, even you say; "(Sanctions) have not worked in the past and will not work in the future against a country like North Korea." Yet you seem to give us no options with your "careful steps and caution" ideals.

I also don't see much difference between Iran having nukes and North Korea having nukes, do you?

Baron Max

Baron Max

10-10-06, 09:12 AM

The best way to reform is economic development, not economic sanctions.

While Kim Jong Il continues the nuke program, you want us to feed his people and develop his nation???? Hmm?

Baron Max

broadandbeaver

10-10-06, 02:29 PM

One thing for sure. There will be no military response from the US. America never has nor will it ever start a war with a country that can fight back. America is just too weak for such a thing. Look at Iraq. What should have been a weekend war has yet to show a sign of coming to an end. No, America is nothing but a bully when it comes to such things.

But when you get right down to it... The powers that be in the USA wanted NK to product this weapon. It was needed to get the next Cold War up and running. Who gives a damn whose in office as long as a healthy Cold War is going on. Money will be made hand over fist...

John99

10-10-06, 02:41 PM

U.S forces took Iraq very easily, anyone could see that.

Do any of No. Korea's neighbor's want it to have nukes?

There will be no military response from the US. America never has nor will it ever start a war with a country that can fight back.

LOL

s0meguy

10-10-06, 03:02 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032577.stm

What a buch of hypocrites.

If these nuclear powers are so opposed to nuclear weapons they should start dismantling their own. All of them. The USA, France, Brittain, Russia, China.

Great idea. Why don't we all just dismantle our nuclear weapons and kick back and watch as countries with insane leaders build a nuclear arsenal. Hey, why don't we just give all our nukes to NK and other countries like Iran, Lebanon and other Palestinian countries right away and save them the hassle of having to build them themselves.

Redefine91

10-10-06, 03:21 PM

Look at Iraq. What should have been a weekend war has yet to show a sign of coming to an end. No, America is nothing but a bully when it comes to such things.

It wasn't a weekend war because of the way we fought it, not the country we fought.

spidergoat

10-10-06, 03:23 PM

You can't really compare Iraq's army to North Korea's. And our army's effectiveness is considerably reduced by our two conflicts.

broadandbeaver

10-10-06, 03:48 PM

U.S forces took Iraq very easily, anyone could see that.

Do any of No. Korea's neighbor's want it to have nukes?

LOL

I don't see where US forces took Iraq. Are you telling me the war is over and that the US has won? Somebody better call Reuters.

It would seem at least one of NK's hoodrats wants them to have nukes. Some of those parts needed to produce a nuke didn't just pop outta thin air.

lixluke

10-10-06, 04:12 PM

Hopefully Iran and Korea will put a stop to Ameriterrorism once and for all. I don't know how well that is going to work out though.

baumgarten

10-10-06, 04:28 PM

I have a bet going. If the Ameriterrorists lose, so do I. Go Amerrorists!

Roman

10-10-06, 04:37 PM

*Waves flag*

Chatha

10-10-06, 05:14 PM

I think we should leave those Koreans alone, only cowards and pawns are now running helter skelter. The authories should have thought about all this before they commissioned the research on the first atomic bomb.

Michael

10-10-06, 06:28 PM

Who really knows what is going on in NK?

Their army is falling apart, the solders are brainwashed but use outdated equipment. If a war started China would cut off all of NKs oil and so they wouldn’t have enough to run their pathetic army for a week.

The problem is that in that short week South Korea could be a bombed-out shell. Or worse - another Asian nuclear holocaust could happen with 100s of thousands of civilians dead.

That is the main problem as I see it.

I have read on Janes military analysis (some time ago) that each year the NK army becomes more decrepit and that if it were to wage a war it would have to be sometime soon – as any time later they may not have enough stable weapons to flatten Seoul - their trumpt card. So having a nuclear weapon is just as well.

Second, it isn’t just Kim Jung il who runs North Korea. He remains the Dear Leader so long as his cronies are VERY well looked after. Ever since the USA cracked down on money laundering, illegal drug running ships, counterfeiting rackets, etcetera… THAT is when NK really felt the pressure because that is when the cronies could no longer afford their life style. I am in 100% agreement that we should maintain this sort of pressure.

But, I also think that we should allow the North Koreans who work in factories for South Korean companies to maintain their jobs and also that we should send in food. Reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. We should also have direct talks where we explicitly state that we will not attack North Korea nor will we attempt to directly change their government. Hopefully, if the people are fed and they have some small jobs in factories slowly the country will open up. That’s probably the best that we can do at this time. Or so I think. Any direct war with NK is risking the lives of millions of South Koreans. So that is a no go.

Any other ideas as to what would be a good policy towards North Korea now that they have a nuke?

Michael

Baron Max

10-10-06, 06:53 PM

The problem is that in that short week South Korea could be a bombed-out shell.

Surely you're just joking, right? I mean, no one on Earth with any military knowledge or experience would make such a statement, much less write it out so it could be read by millions!! That's such a fuckin' joke as to be less than laughable ...it's fuckin' pathetic!

...and also that we should send in food. Reward good behavior and punish bad behavior.

And how can you ensure that it goes to the "good guys" instead of being stolen and used by Kim's army troops?? Which is exactly what he's been doing for years with all of the food and medicines permitted into the nation.

Again, you're just saying shit to hear yourself talk ...with little or no knowledge about the realities of the situation. Liberal bullshit!!

Any direct war with NK is risking the lives of millions of South Koreans. So that is a no go.

The South Koreans have been at risk for over fifty years!! What the fuck has changed? And why shouldn't they be at risk, don't you want them to defend their nation, their way of life, their freedoms?

Baron Max

Michael

10-10-06, 07:50 PM

Surely you're just joking, right? I mean, no one on Earth with any military knowledge or experience would make such a statement, much less write it out so it could be read by millions!! That's such a fuckin' joke as to be less than laughable ...it's fuckin' pathetic!You know Max, you seem happy to ridicule but you don’t seem to offer any solutions or ideas yourself. Which really was the reason I posted in the first place - you know, to hear some new ideas. I am happy for you to critisize my ideas but at least have the decency to also offer an idea or solution yourself.

While SK may not be bombed flat - I for one am not willing to gamble with the lives of South Koreans. I think we can agree many people would die. One can only imagine what contingency plans the NK have in place. Chemical and Biological come to mind. As the Chinese solders along the boarder with NK were refused leave this week and told to make preparations for chemical attack - I suppose that isn’t an unreasonable assumption. Or maybe such an assumption is "such a fuckin' joke as to be less than laughable...":bugeye:

As to feeding the NK – as a US tax payer, I would be more than happy to provide all of Korea (army and civilians) with additional rice. I see no harm in that. We have the rice and they are starving.

So, did you want to offer a solution or suggestion or are you only happy to ridicule? The way you sound it seems like you are what ... advocating war with NK? What exactly are you suggesting?

Michael

PS: Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Buffalo Roam

10-10-06, 08:19 PM

lixluke

10-10-06, 08:25 PM

Are you sure it isn't just another operation false flag?
The boy can only cry wolf so many times before we stop taking anything he says seriously.

Genji

10-10-06, 08:56 PM

Michael

10-10-06, 09:25 PM

Michael, sorry Mike, but not when that rice can give some little bastard the energy to kill American and Allied Troops,

Rule #1, The Enemy, is The Enemy, Kill Them!

Rule # 2 If the Enemy has not Surrendered Unconditionally, Refer Back to
Rule#1Well we are not at war as of yet, so the NK is not an "enemy" is it?

We'll call it rice-diplomacy. It seems better than guns to me anyhow. And I really feel sorry for those poor half starved NK civilians.

Anyway, what do you suggest our responce be? War? Sanctions? Diplomacy?

Clockwood

10-10-06, 09:40 PM

Genji: In each of those wars (though I am hesitant to classify Somalia as a war) we were spending quite a bit of time and energy trying not to kill people on the other side. Civilians were always mixed in with enemy troops who were generally ununiformed thugs. Now things would probably be different if we had just carpet bombed everything within ten miles of any sign of resistence or enemy movement. We have trouble in ground combat because each individual soldier is too precious and has too much invested in him or her to lose to inevitable casualties. In airpower, however, we are god.

In hardly any time at all, America could leave a flaming swath of death incarnate from coast to coast between those two countries. Every port, railroad line, airstrip, radio tower, source of water or power, and governmental hub would be left in ruins.

You see, unlike Iraq or other such places, our intent would not be to seize and reform Korea into a first world nation. It would simply be to break the nation and insure it will be a hundred years before they can be a threat to the rest of the world.

Buffalo Roam

10-10-06, 09:43 PM

Ypu don't have to be at war to recognize the enemy, and if you recognize a enemy, you shurly don't fatten him you so he is in better shape to kill you, as for the little dog, they belong to China, and China better take care of the problem, If I was the ruler of China I would send shorty a present, a Gold Plated , 9mm Parabellum Cartridge, and if he didn't get the message..............
send him the bullet.

Genji

10-10-06, 09:46 PM

Genji: In each of those wars (though I am hesitant to classify Somalia as a war) we were spending quite a bit of time and energy trying not to kill people on the other side. Civilians were always mixed in with enemy troops who were generally ununiformed thugs. Now things would probably be different if we had just carpet bombed everything within ten miles of any sign of resistence or enemy movement.

In hardly any time at all, America could leave a flaming swath of death incarnate from coast to coast between those two countries. Every port, railroad line, airstrip, radio tower, source of water or power, and governmental hub would be left in ruins.

You see, unlike Iraq or other such places, our intent would not be to seize and reform Korea into a first world nation. It would simply be to break the nation and insure it will be a hundred years before they can be a threat to the rest of the world.I'll bite some of your post, the 1st part. But is destroying countries our current administration doesn't like a reasonable policy? So India, Pakistan and Israel can have nukes but you, you, you and You cannot or we will destroy you and turn you into an Afghanistan. Pakistan is a great danger! Does anyone really think their leader will always be pro-US? In a nation FULL of people that detest America & Israel? The policy you advocate is one concocted out of weakness and pure fear.

Clockwood

10-10-06, 09:49 PM

Buffalo: China seems rather hesitant to offer a military solution to this problem because they know that they would have to fight North Korea army-to-army... and that would be costly. It would also cause them to lose face on the matter. Something they never like to do.

They seem to be willing to sit on the sidelines until the matter is resolved, aiding neither our allies or NK. They also seem ready to starve the spikey-haired bastard out, so to speak. Cut off aid, power, and intelligence. North Korea would literally be back to heating Kim's palaces with wood and charcoal.
(Well... not quite. But things would be significantly harder on them.)

Buffalo Roam

10-10-06, 09:57 PM

Yes they seem to have bitten the dog in the ass with this one, no matter what they do they end up with egg on their face.

Clockwood

10-10-06, 10:00 PM

Genji

10-10-06, 10:00 PM

North Korea is a nuke nation. Where is the egg??

Buffalo Roam

10-10-06, 10:13 PM

Genji, having nukes and having effective Nuclear Weapons are two different thing's, and it will be on China's face, because in the end they will have to take Shorty to the wood shed, or they are going to have to step aside and let Shorty face reality alone.

Clockwood

10-10-06, 10:13 PM

Gengi: The egg may refer to radioactive fallout if NK does something stupid enough. It might refer to the fact China will share in NK's scorn from the international community due to being allied with the crazed midget. Or, if NK gets itself flattened, just the loss of a friend (ie: parasite) to watch its back.

However you read it, its bad news for China.

Genji

10-10-06, 10:14 PM

Genji: Pakistan is... pragmatic. They don't like us one bit but are sane enough to know it is in their best interests to at least appear to cooperate with us. If they undergo a civil war, however, all bets are off. At such a point, we would definitely have to step in.

The policy I suggest is also one founded in pragmatism. I know damn well we are not gods. Only gods could walk into a country and kill only those violently opposed to you, leaving the place smelling of roses. I only want the nation neutralized and taken out of play. Sould we try to kill everyone who lives there? No... but we shouldn't let enemy casualties blind us to the quickest and least dangerous way to end the crisis for at least a good couple generations to come.Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Musharraf is wildly unpopular. Taliban and Osama are there and have been there. Wahabbism is the norm. They are not Arabs. There are 10 times the amount of people there as well. The US can't 'step in' and do anything. Hasn't Iraq and Afghanistan shown that? Can we afford a 3rd neocon war on Pakistan? That country is a time bomb waiting to blow. Their scientists in the nuclear field are not trustworthy individuals either. You say "step in" like it's something the US has done successfully before. Not since WW2.

Clockwood

10-10-06, 10:20 PM

Genji

10-10-06, 10:27 PM

As I said: It is in large part due to the fact that some people think that, with enough highly trained groundtroops, we can control land while just killing the bad guys. And, as I said, it can't happen that way. We can control only with great difficulty... but to simply crush the enemy is our forte. That we have no problem with.The problem is I can't recall a time the US operated in the way you describe since Vietnam, and I saw the Americans, including Marines, scampering like rats from a flood, from advancing, victorious communist North Vietnamese troops in Saigon. (On TV) We got our asses kicked. So if you advocate destroying an entire nation do you think the surviving population will be supportive of the US? Will we be able to use them as cheap labor and sex? Plunder their resources? War is not fought this way anymore. It sounds mighty macho but has never garnered results. Even in WW2 we needed the Soviets and the Brits & Aussies to defeat our enemies, who used tactics like you describe.

Buffalo Roam

10-10-06, 10:36 PM

Clockwood

10-10-06, 10:37 PM

Genji

10-10-06, 10:42 PM

Genji, we didn't have any more ground troops in Vietnam when Saigon fell, the troops you saw were embassy personnel and their job was done, the sad fact is you are right, we haven't fought a war in the style of WWII, because the liberals are afraid that some one won't like us, well sorry, I don't care if they don't like us, as long as they are afraid to try and kill us, and that is the lesson of WWII win the Fuckin WAR, then worry about being Mister Nice Guy, pick the loser out of the dirt and make him into a stable government, and you don't have to worry about going to war with them, but you have to Fuckin Fight and Win First, everything else second.And as we create more enemies we build a Big Brother Government, in the name of Security, to protect The Homeland from those that dare disagree with it. We can't afford more of your trillion dollar wars. Are your kids going to die in a foreign land for.....peace & security? If YOU pay for it and only neocons and conservative holy warriors fight the planet then bring it on. The tighter the grip the more that slips through the fingers.

Genji

10-10-06, 10:44 PM

Genji: It is not our problem if the population doesn't support us if we aren't attempting to occupy the country. Our goal isn't to annex NK or transform it into some first world paradise. Only to ensure it won't be a threat for a long long time.

And I am not advocating destroying everything in the nation. Just the gears that allow it to exist as a threat. Most of North Korea would only be nominally effected by such an attack due to their Juche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche) philosophy, which makes the average peasant village mostly self sufficient. They wouldn't starve any more than they do now... and possibly less once the fat military is severely diminished.So turn NK into a Haiti? I'm sure the population will embrace you for lowering their already abysmal standard of living. This kind of thinking is what brought 9/11 to our doorstep. No Thanx armchair hawks! Stay out of it! We have enough of a mess. And the voters will be cleaning it up soon.

Gotta finish my work real quick!!!

Clockwood

10-10-06, 10:50 PM

Part 1: What would I do to ensure security? Hmm. Good question.
I will go study up on the Roman Empire and get back to you on that.

Part 2: North Korea practically is Haiti... just with a few more death camps and a million man army.
Plague, famine, oppression. The whole nine yards.

And 9/11 was more spawned by being friends with Israel, a nation that Islamists really don't seem to like, than anything else.

RickyH

10-12-06, 01:50 AM

Dunno. The US has used nukes before on civilian targets. Is the right answer Korea?

Even european soldiers killed innocent civilians in WW2. Just because we dropped the bomb and ended what could have been much worse, doesn't mean we're gonna start dropping the bomb at the flick of a hat. The only reason we really did drop the bomb, is because of the lack of technology of nuclear arms. If we would have known how much damage it would cause, i don't think we would have dropped it, do you?

It was an experiamental bomb, and it was put in on a gamble one time.

So yea, i guess i'd rather have America, with a greater understanding of the bomb over N. Korea.

sorry for the delay, haven't got on sf in 2 days

RickyH

10-12-06, 01:54 AM

Now answer the question why not all countries should have the right to have nukes and only some? Especially the one country who seems to be rather aggressive and invade sovereign nations for oil.

Just taking a chance to double post :D

If 6 people were sitting in a room, and only 1 had a gun. How much more likely is it that you will get into a fight with the gunman?

spuriousmonkey

10-12-06, 01:55 AM

The only reason we really did drop the bomb, is because of the lack of technology of nuclear arms. If we would have known how much damage it would cause, i don't think we would have dropped it, do you?

You are such a humanitarian nation. A test on a few hundred thousand civilians!

I think already back in those days the scientifical ethic code prohibited large scale experiments on people.

And why japanese cities? Could you not have leveled an american city for the sake of science?

RickyH

10-12-06, 01:58 AM

You are such a humanitarian nation. A test on a few hundred thousand civilians!

I think already back in those days the scientifical ethic code prohibited large scale experiments on people.

And why japanese cities? Could you not have leveled an american city for the sake of science?

they did test the bomb on other islands. But i mean the lack of knowledge of nukes that didn't come for YEARS after the bomb. Besides what if we didn't drop the bobm and world war 2 went full scale. Millions more would have died.

spuriousmonkey

10-12-06, 02:02 AM

they did test the bomb on other islands. But i mean the lack of knowledge of nukes that didn't come for YEARS after the bomb. Besides what if we didn't drop the bobm and world war 2 went full scale. Millions more would have died.

No, that is the propaganda line. See the other threads on this topic.

Buffalo Roam

10-13-06, 01:46 PM

spuriousmonkey,

No, that is the propaganda line. See the other threads on this topic.

No it's not propaganda, the propaganda is on the part of the you and other revisionist, history is what it is, and unless it happened the way you surmise that it should have happened, you are indulging in fiction, fantasy, and what if's, for all your postings you can never prove what you claim, so history is the final truth as it happened the way it did, and cannot be changed.

spuriousmonkey

10-13-06, 02:02 PM

Denying someting doesn't make it true.

Japan was on its knees.

Buffalo Roam

10-13-06, 02:10 PM

Then they should have surrendered instead of procrastinating, and you still are facing history, and have only fantasy to post.

spuriousmonkey

10-13-06, 02:16 PM

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn7706.html

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.

Buffalo Roam

10-13-06, 06:29 PM

Still only supposition.

Buffalo Roam

10-13-06, 07:02 PM

spuriousmonkey, do some research,

Aug., 6, 1945- Hiroshima.

Aug., 8, Russia enters the Pacific War.

Aug., 9, 1945-Nagasaki.

August 12, 1945-Hatanaka's rebellion

Doesn't look like there was a full consciences to surrender, and the entrance of Russia into the war wasn't going to stop the military.

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

Late on the night of August 12, 1945, Major Hatanaka, along with Lieutenant Colonels Masataka Ida, Masahiko Takeshita, and Masao Inaba, and Colonel Okitsugu Arao, the Chief of the Military Affairs Section, spoke to War Minister Korechika Anami, hoping for his support, and asking him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would or would not help the young officers in treason. As much as they needed his support, Hatanaka and the other rebels decided they had no choice but to continue planning and to pull off the 'coup' on their own. .............................

By 8 AM, the rebellion was entirely dismantled, having succeeded in holding the Palace Grounds for much of the night, but ultimately failing to find the recordings. Hatanaka, on a motorcycle, and Lt. Col. Jiro Shiizaki on horseback, rode through the streets, tossing leaflets that explained their motives, and their actions.

Within an hour before the Emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11 AM, August 15, Major Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and pulled the trigger. In his pocket was found his death poem: "I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor."

And in the surrender statement the Emporer singles out the Atomic Bomb.

At noon on August 15, the Emperor's recorded speech to the nation, the Imperial Rescript on Surrender, was broadcast:

"... Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
...
The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."
Japan's forces were still at war against the Soviets and Chinese, so managing their cease-fire and surrender was difficult. The Soviet Union continued to fight until early September, taking the Kuril Islands.
On August 28, the occupation of Japan began by Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers led by Douglas MacArthur. The formal surrender occurred on September 2, when representatives from the Empire of Japan signed Japanese Instrument of Surrender in Tokyo Bay. Still, August 15 is considered in English-speaking countries to mark the end of World War II.

Buffalo Roam

10-13-06, 07:07 PM

With many Japanese troops still fighting the Allied troops, often in remote areas, it took until the spring of 1946 for all major units to actually lay down their arms.

Billy T

10-13-06, 07:37 PM

Because I want to say something back on thread, I hope I will not be attacked for not continuing the discussion of last pages about 1945 and US dropping A-bomb on Japan, etc.:D

It is frequently reported that the Korean test was a failure as the yield was less than a kilo ton. I do not follow this logic. Instead, I think that they do not have great quantities of Plutonium to use in tests. A great deal can be learned to validate your models from a small test. You do not need to make a big explosion. In some ways, more can be learned from a little one.

I am not sure he was the first nuclear victim* but a researcher at LASL helping to develp the A-bomb, did die from radiation pulse during an experiment. As I recall, the test was called "Godiva” after the nude lady on horseback protest. Two small (uncovered or nude) hemispheres of some bomb material could be slowly brought closer to each other. One was lower towards the other on guide wires, and something went wrong - they got too close or could not be separated quickly enough and were inducing fission in each other too rapidly. - do not recall the details. Point is that the fast neutrons released by one fission can be scattered and some when slowed down become more likely to induce more fissions, but to calculate all the dynamics is very difficult. The hemispheres were "nude" to make the calculations more simple. - One did not need to consider any scatter from surounding material back into the hemispheres of neutorns that has once escaped. - They were just "lost." (The wires were very thin and back scatter from them was not much error and estimated or neglected.)

In the first nuclear reactor under the football stadium at Un. of Chicago, Fermi was monitoring the build up of the chain reaction as the graphite bricks (the moderator to slow the neutrons down) were added. His calculations / predictions were quite good, considering not all the cross-sections were known, but few are Fermi's equals.

Summary: I do not know of course, but I bet that the low yield Korean test can in no way be described as a failure. If I were in charge and had very limited material and a great perceived need of it for bombs, the test would more closely resemble the Godiva test at LASL that claimed the first nuclear victim. I.e. - I am surprised the yield was as great as it was.

US statements that the test was a failure I think resemble the US claims that most North Koreans are starving to death and have been doing so for last 40 years. - I.e. politically motivated distortions of the truth. (I have no doubt that some N. Koreans do die of malnutrition and many more will if the food aid from S. Korea and China is stopped, but clearly there has not been mass starvation for the last 40 years.)
----------------------------------
* Madam Currie may have that honor. - I think she died of cancer. Her husband, Perrier, died relatively young. - He absently mindedly stepped in front of a carriage whose wheel crushed his skull, spilling his brains in to the muddy street.

Oniw17

10-13-06, 08:05 PM

Maybe N. Korea and Iran have a secret alliance with China, that would be a war.

stu43t

10-13-06, 09:06 PM

Then they should have surrendered instead of procrastinating, and you still are facing history, and have only fantasy to post.

As I understand it Buffalo - Japan was trying to surrender to Russia in its final days, Japan was already finished. Somehow the surrender message never reached the russians until after the A bombs were dropped - hence keeping the pacific Islands out of Russian hands

kmguru

10-13-06, 09:15 PM

Do you think Kim shot the guy who built the bomb since it was not a bada boom....:D

Buffalo Roam

10-13-06, 10:53 PM

stu43t, if they were trying to surrender to the Russians, then why didn't the Russian accept the surrender?, Why did the Russians go to war with the Japanese, with whom they had a Non-Aggression Pact signed in 1939, and continue to fight with the Japanese even after the surrender was accepted by the U.S.?

http://www.orbit6.com/crisf/text/halh_gol.htm

One factor which is rarely mentioned in the history books is the fact that in the summer of 1939 they tried. In May of that year, Japanese troops crossed the Mongolian-Manchurian border, and had taken up positions.

Zhukov proposed to hold the east bank of the Halhin Gol river with existing Soviet and Mongolian troops (the 57th Special Corps), and to put together a counter-attack, including reinforcements of three infantry divisions, more artillery, a tank brigade, and significant aviation support. In the attack of Aug 20th, Zhukov was able to completely encircle two Japanese infantry divisions, support troops, and a tank brigade. The Japanese attempted a breakout on the 27th, but failed. The battle was over by Aug 31st with the near-complete destruction of the Manchukuo 23rd. By mid-September the Japanese had lost a total of 61,000 men, and were in full retreat. The Japanese then concluded a non-aggression pact with the USSR and reaffirmed the pre-existing borders. (Soviet casualties were around 18,000 men, of whom about 7,000 were killed).

Read the information in the Wikipedia article, it raises a lot of questions about the motives of the Soviets, the Japanese were trying to surrender to the wrong people, and what the Russian did to the Japanese was a double cross, as they took possession of the Kuril Islands, and Karafuto Island, (Sakhalin)

1945
On August 8 1945, denouncing the pact of neutrality between two countries, valid until spring 1946, Russia entered the war against Japan. The Red Army crossed the 50th parallel, frontier between 2 countries in Sakhalin, and went down to the south. On August 15, Japan accepted the declaration of Potsdam to end the war. Feared that the cease-fire line becomes the definitive frontier (they advanced only 100 km in Sakhalin and even worse no Russian in Kuril islands), they continued to bombard Japanese towns and military positions, and even prepared to invade Hokkaido. During this period, several thousand civilians were killed by Russians. The worst case was the attack, by Russian submarines, of the 3 Japanese ships transporting refugees from Sakhalin and made 1700 victims. Finally they stopped to fight, on August 22. Then, 600,000 Japanese, mostly soldiers from Sakhalin and Manchuria have been brought to Siberia's labor camps and 60,000 among them have never returned to the homeland.

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

stu43t

10-13-06, 11:19 PM

Hi Buffalo

I read up it somewhere - couple of years ago now.

It was something to do with a message that the Japs were trying to get to Russia agreeing to surrender after the first ultimate surrender was requested by America, now I'm not sure of all the details, its a bit of a distant memory at the mo. But apparently the message was purposely delayed and America Nuked the two cities and Japan surrendered to America and not Russia.

I will try and find the info and post it to you - if I can find it again, lol!

stu43t

10-13-06, 11:34 PM

Hi Buffalo

This is all I can find at the moment, I'm sure I've read elsewhere in greater detail that the Japs wanted to surrender to Russia and make a deal.

http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm#japrus1

On July 4, 1945, the British agree to the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. On July 16, during the Potsdam Conference, the first A-bomb was successfully tested. A way had been found to end the war quickly and decisively. This was the situation on July 26 when the U.S., Britain and China issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan to surrender unconditionally, "The alternative," said the declaration, "is complete and utter destruction."

On July 25, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the Japanese press that the Potsdam declaration was to be Ignored."

Meanwhile, the Magic Summaries revealed that Tokyo was demanding that Moscow accept a special envoy from Emperor Hirohito, presumably to cement the deal offering to divide Asia between Japan and Russia while Moscow brokered a Japanese surrender with the U.S. and Britain that would be acceptable to Tokyo.

This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan. Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared to surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the only way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear weapons.

Buffalo Roam

10-14-06, 08:26 AM

stu43t, thanks on the information, it parallels the information that I am finding, as it mentions the same thing in the sites that I posted, and again it show's that the Japanese were not ready to surrender, with out more fighting and dieing, and I would also guess that if the Russians had told Tokyo straight forward that they could not and would not broker the deal, maybe the Government of Japan would have got the message that it was time to surrender, but as I expressed earlier it is my belief that the Soviets pulled a double cross, with the intention of grabbing as much territory as they could at the end of the Pacific War, Karafuto Island, is rich in oil and natural gas, and would make a good jumping off point to move south. Russia did show through their history a desire to expand their influence into the Pacific.

Buffalo Roam

10-14-06, 08:33 AM

This is the most intresting part of the site that you posted stu43t'

Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about behind-the-scenes negotiations between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito's blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR . According to the Magic Diplomatic Summaries of July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: "Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world...." The Magic Summaries further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan's militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans.

Propaganda Campaign
But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost immediately; the Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, had begun a world-wide propaganda campaign to brand the Americans as war criminals for using nuclear weapons. Tokyo's goals included keeping Emperor Hirohito from being tried for instigating a war of aggression, and diverting Western attention away from the many Japanese atrocities committed since the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937. "Since the Americans have recently been raising an uproar about the question of our mistreatment of prisoners [of war],'' Shigemitsu instructed his diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary, "I think we should make every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in our propaganda. That propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in the revisionist account of the bombing of Japan.

Yet the evidence is crystal clear. The use of nuclear weapons to end World War II quickly and decisively averted the death or maiming of hundreds of thousands American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. It also saved the lives of some 400,000 Allied prisoners of war and civilian detainees in Japanese hands, all of whom were to be executed in the event of an American invasion of Japan. Above all, it saved untold hundreds of thousands more Japanese-perhaps millions-from becoming casualties of pre-invasion bombing and shelling, followed by two invasions and forcible occupation.

spuriousmonkey

10-14-06, 09:28 AM

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm
But was the use of atomic bombs on Japanese cities necessary to bring Japan's doves to play the Emperor card? The Japanese doves had been working to end the war on the condition of retention of the throne (Butow, pg. 141) before the a-bombs that killed over 200,000 people were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (The Committee For the Compilation of Materials on Damage Caused by the Atomic Bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings, pg. 113-114).

Might the war have been ended sooner, with fewer deaths on both sides, before the Soviets had gotten into northern Korea (thus possibly avoiding the Korean War), before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima frightened the Soviets into putting their atomic bomb program into high gear (David Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb, pg. 127-129, 132), and before an atomic precedent had been set? While there can be no conclusive answer to this question, it is worthwhile to study this topic for whatever insight it may give for future decision-making and the future saving of lives on all sides.

Historian and former Naval officer Martin Sherwin has summarized the situation, stating, "The choice in the summer of 1945 was not between a conventional invasion or a nuclear war. It was a choice between various forms of diplomacy and warfare." (Sherwin, pg. xxiv).

Long-time historian of the atomic bombings Barton Bernstein has taken a cautious view of what might have been: "Taken together, some of these alternatives [to dropping atomic bombs on Japan] - promising to retain the Japanese monarchy, awaiting the Soviets' entry, and even more conventional bombing - very probably could have ended the war before the dreaded invasion [of the Japanese mainland by the Allies]. Still, the evidence - to borrow a phrase from F.D.R. - is somewhat 'iffy', and no one who looks at the intransigence of the Japanese militarists should have full confidence in those other strategies. But we may well regret that these alternatives were not pursued and that there was not an effort to avoid the use of the first A-bomb - and certainly the second." (Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered, Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 1995, pg. 150).

Echoing the concern of Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy and Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Captain Ellis Zacharias that the Allies became overly dependent on military means, Leon Sigal writes, "At worst, withholding force might have prolonged the war for a while at a time when little combat was taking place; it would not have altered the final result. Yet restraint could have significantly reduced the gratuitous suffering on both sides, especially for noncombatants." Sigal concludes, "it could be argued that the United States behaved as if the objective of inducing Japan to surrender was subordinated to another objective - in Stimson's words, that of exerting 'maximum force with maximum speed.' American policy was guided by an implicit assumption that only the escalation of military pressure could bring the war to a rapid conclusion." (Sigal, pg. 219).

Regarding claims that the atomic bombings saved lives, Gar Alperovitz has noted, "It has been argued in this connection that using the atomic bomb was less costly in human life than the continuation of conventional bombing would have been. Apart from the fact that accounts which urge such a view commonly leave aside questions concerning [modifying the unconditional] surrender formula and the impact of the Russian attack, by early August 1945 very few significant Japanese civilian targets remained to be bombed. Moreover, on July 25 a new targeting directive had been issued which altered bombing priorities." "Attacks on urban centers became only the fourth priority, after railway targets, aircraft production, and ammunition depots." "...the new directive (as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey noted) 'was about to be implemented when the war ended.'". (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 342).

It didn't take long after the atomic bombings for questions to arise as to their necessity for ending the war and Japan's threat to peace. One of the earliest dissents came from a panel that had been requested by President Truman to study the Pacific war. Their report, The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, was issued in July 1946. It declared, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56).

In 1948 Sec. of War Henry Stimson published his memoirs, ghost-written by McGeorge Bundy. In them Stimson revealed, "It is possible, in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war". Stimson and Bundy continued, "Only on the question of the Emperor did Stimson take, in 1945, a conciliatory view; only on this question did he later believe that history might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war." (Stimson & Bundy, pg. 628-629).

Buffalo Roam

10-15-06, 08:03 PM

The Japanese were trying to go the long way around the Barn, first they did not recognize that the Russian were not allies, and that the Russian were in the process of pulling a Hitler, violating a non-aggression pact for their own purpose's, From what I have been reading over the last two days, I firmly believe that the Russian had the intentions to continue the war in the Pacific, with the purpose of expanding their influence as much as possible, it appears that through the Magic intercept that we new the Russians were going to enter the War in the Pacific anyway, so we invited them in to have some control of the situation, Japan was failing to recognize that it was the Americans with the backing of the Potsdam Agreement that they had to deal with on the question of surrender, and they in and of them selves didn't know what they wanted to do, it is a old axiom that in combat, in confusion, to win you take control, and that is exactly what Truman did, and yes I do believe that their were two purposes to the Bombings, 1: To get Japan off the dime, and make them realizes that the War was going to become very costly to them and them alone, and to send a message to the Russians that the War was over, and they should stand down, and let it end. There was no thought of a cold war yet on the allies part but there was thought on the Russians part to try and take as much of the Pacific as possible on their part.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Document 55: Diary Entry for Wednesday, August 8 [, 1945]:
Source: Takashi Itoh, ed., Sokichi Takagi: Nikki to Joho [Sokichi Takagi: Diary and Documents] (Tokyo, Japan: Misuzu-Shobo, 2000), 923-924 [Translation by Hikaru Tajima]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/55.pdf

spuriousmonkey

10-16-06, 03:27 AM

We clearly established now that I am not talking about one of my fantasies. There is a clear debate going on in historical circles on this topic and clearly the scenario that the nukes were dropped on purpose and needlessly is well supported.

No it's not propaganda, the propaganda is on the part of the you and other revisionist, history is what it is, and unless it happened the way you surmise that it should have happened, you are indulging in fiction, fantasy, and what if's, for all your postings you can never prove what you claim, so history is the final truth as it happened the way it did, and cannot be changed.

That would make you a troll.

Buffalo Roam

10-16-06, 09:05 AM

spuriousmonkey,

We clearly established now that I am not talking about one of my fantasies. There is a clear debate going on in historical circles on this topic and clearly the scenario that the nukes were dropped on purpose and needlessly is well supported.

Really, the debate that is going on is from a point of using only selected parts of the whole history to support a divergent history, when you read all the information the decision is logical and well supported, and it is the History of fact, what you, and the people who are trying to rewrite the decision have, is fantasy and conjecture and Monday Morning Quarterbacking, the War need to end it was over due to end and it was ended, and you can't prove that your way would have ended it any better because it is HISTORY- FACT, AND NOTHING YOU SAY OR DO CAN CHANGE THE FACTS AS THEY STAND!

ps; yes we are talking about one of your fantasies, as there is no historical fact in your supposition,

Billy T

10-16-06, 09:57 AM

This thread has been so completely hi-jack that I feel guilty speaking on N. Korea and recent events. (It now is just 1945 a-bomb on Japan for several pages.)
None the less (even though my prior post 121 failed) Consider:

I have heard that N. Koreans were starving to death for 40 years, yet still see on TV mammoth groups of well coordinated, identically-clad, flag-waving masses demonstrate in ever larger groups each year.

Despite the annual “mass starvations of millions” many other speak of, the CIA thinks:
The population of N. Korea is growing twice as fast as that of S. Korea. - See bold lines below.

The CIA provides recently up dated information on most all countries at:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

N. Korea (5Oct06) from www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html *
Population: 23,113,019 (July 2006 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 23.8% (male 2,788,944/female 2,708,331)
15-64 years: 68% (male 7,762,442/female 7,955,522)
65 years and over: 8.2% (male 667,792/female 1,229,988) (2006 est.)
Median age:
total: 32 years
male: 30.7 years
female: 33.4 years (2006 est.)
Population growth rate: 0.84% (2006 est.)
Birth rate: 15.54 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate: 7.13 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Net migration rate: 0 immigrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)

S. Korea (5Oct06) from www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ks.html *
Population: 48,846,823 (July 2006 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 18.9% (male 4,844,083/female 4,368,139)
15-64 years: 71.9% (male 17,886,148/female 17,250,862)
65 years and over: 9.2% (male 1,818,677/female 2,678,914) (2006 est.)
Median age:
total: 35.2 years
male: 34.2 years
female: 36.3 years (2006 est.)
Population growth rate: 0.42% (2006 est.)
Birth rate: 10 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate: 5.85 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Net migration rate: 0 immigrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)
-----------------------------------------------------
*These direct links may not work. - Go to first general CIA link ad enter the country of interest if that is the case.

spuriousmonkey

10-16-06, 10:51 AM

spuriousmonkey,

Really, the debate that is going on is from a point of using only selected parts of the whole history to support a divergent history, when you read all the information the decision is logical and well supported, and it is the History of fact, what you, and the people who are trying to rewrite the decision have, is fantasy and conjecture and Monday Morning Quarterbacking, the War need to end it was over due to end and it was ended, and you can't prove that your way would have ended it any better because it is HISTORY- FACT, AND NOTHING YOU SAY OR DO CAN CHANGE THE FACTS AS THEY STAND!

ps; yes we are talking about one of your fantasies, as there is no historical fact in your supposition,

Reported for trolling.

Clockwood

10-16-06, 01:23 PM

Buffalo... the comma is not the sum of all punctuation.

Buffalo Roam

10-16-06, 02:43 PM

spuriousmonkey, so you can't win the debate with out running to daddy? Trolling? must be as you are the expert on doing so.

Walter L. Wagner

10-16-06, 02:43 PM

Billy T:

I agree, the thread's been hijacked. I'll try to take it back on course.

You're wrong about the yield not indicating a failure.

Every 'first-test' of an A-bomb has always yielded 12-20 kiloton results, until now. That's because the 'critical mass' for such a test, either by implosion with chemical explosives surrounding the nearly-critical-mass squeezing it tighter to become a critical-mass, or by 'cannon-shot' in which a missing chunk of a 'critical-mass' is shot into the critical-mass at cannon-velocity speed, yields about 12 kilotons minimum, if the Uranium is nearly pure U-235, or the Plutonium is nearly pure Pu-239. Excess impurities serve to rob the reaction of the neutrons, reducing the yield significantly.

A 1/2 kiloton yield means that about 1/24th of the fissile material actually fissioned, and the other 23/24th was scattered (deep in the test hole cavity they created).

There would be no sense in attempting to see how small of a yield they could make, as little useful information is obtained. Instead, the object is to maximize the yield, which also provides the most amount of useful information for subsequent weapons' design.

You are correct about that early accident. A similar accident happened in Japan a few years ago, during a Plutonium mixing for the Plutonium extraction program that Japan has with France, in which they extract the Plutonium from the used fuel rods, and package it anew into new fuel rods, removing the junk fission product waste (which is highly radioactive) which is then separated and isolated as highly radioactive waste.

Apparently, three technicians allowed a critical mass of Plutonium to concentrate in a chemical vat. There was an immediate prompt-neutron event, and rapid-heating/explosion of the vat, terminating the fission. Two of the technicians died weeks later from the excessive neutron radiation exposure (similar to what neutron-bombs are designed to do). I'm not certain if the third is still alive. That is also what happened to that technician at LASL circa 1946, as I recall from my readings, though the configuration was much smaller as he was using two 1/2-critical-mass semi-spheres.

Fermi's situation was much safer. He was making a reactor, not a bomb, and it was the equivalent of a heavy-water reactor, i.e un-enriched Uranium like Candu reactors that use heavy-water. He used graphite as the moderator. To prevent a run-away-reactor event, they had a Cadmium plated "zip" con