N Korea threatens to turn Japan into 'nuclear sea of fire'

[quaoar]

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=313145

Friday, September 24, 2004 at 07:16 JST
SEOUL — North Korea threatened Thursday to turn Japan into a "nuclear sea of fire" if the United States attacks it with nuclear weapons, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported, quoting a North Korean newspaper report.

Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of North Korea's Workers Party of Korea, said U.S. military bases in Japan would come under its attack in the event of a nuclear war.

"If the United States ignites a nuclear war, the U.S. military bases in Japan would serve as a detonating fuse to turn Japan into a nuclear sea of fire," the paper said in an article, according to Yonhap.

< snip >

The threat comes as Japanese and U.S. reconnaissance information indicate that North Korea may be preparing to test-fire either a Rodong or a Taepodong ballistic missile or conduct a missile engine combustion test, Japanese government sources said Thursday.

[gospelized]

1. and they think

bush gives a shit about japan?

he doesn't even care that he's killing americans. much less the japanese.

[Carla in Ca]

37. It is rumored that China is to become the

"super power" of the planet...they will care.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. Why do you think the Chinese will care what happens to Japan?...

I would think that after the atrocities committed by the Japanese that China would be more than happy to see Japan take it on the chin. Additionally, Japan is an economic competitor to China in the area...that would be one way to eliminate them without lifting a finger.

[Carla in Ca]

83. That is what I meant

I think China would take over Japan and Taiwan.

[Massacure]

2. Japan is expendable.

Or at least it is in Bush's fantasy world.

[fishnfla]

3. Jesus

I think we've been looking for WMD's in the wrong place

[UCLA Dem]

30. Definitely

[VegasWolf]

4. I still can't figure out how N. Korea made the Axis of Evil ---

I didn't think that there was any oil there.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. Incendiary statement, but the context is a conditional phrase:

North Korea threatens to "turn Japan into a nuclear sea of fire" IF the US launches a nuclear attack on the North, and only because of the American bases in Japan.

[Radius]

8. No They really hate the Japanese..

since they fucked them over in ww2. They have kidnapped them and shot their big dong ill missiles over their country with no notice.

[Minstrel Boy]

22. I know all that.

But if context means anything, let's pay some attention to the wording of the statement.

[codegreen]

6. no no no no no no no no no! i fucking hate what is happening to the world!

this shit has got to stop! Bush is nuts, Kim Il is nuts, and Japan does NOT need to EVER be hurt like that again!!!!!
i am so full of rage at this...

[nodehopper]

81. well NK always says shit like that, that's how their propaganda works

I wouldn't cry Apocalypse yet on the basis of this alone.

[Radius]

7. Translation

can you hook us up with some food and other welfare because our whole communism thing has gone tits up since the USSR stooped propping us up.

IF they were attacked first with nukes, which we don't do, they would all be dead. Japan would need to be more concerned about the wind direction than a NORCOM response.

Hopefully the dear leader will get some bad fugu and do everyone a favor...

[bpilgrim]

10. "which we don't do"

"IF they were attacked first with nukes, which we don't do, they would all be dead."

NEWS FLASH: we're the ONLY ones who HAVE struck first with NUKES, TWICE against a defeated, ready to surrender nation's cities filled with Innocent civilians, men, women, children, young and old.

and now there's this 'NEW' policy called the BUSH DOCTRINE which he reserves the right to NUKE first with 'MINI NUKES'

or were you auditioning for a strange-love remake or somtin :shrug:

peace

[DS1]

14. Yeah, News Flash and all

This debate has been done before.

[Radius]

15. Mini nukes?

We do not posses such a device. B-61 mod 11 "bunker buster" is far from mini.

The Japanese were nuked twice and still didn't sign an unconditional surrender. If any one deserved it they did. We were killing 90K a day in conventional strikes, the nukes saved lives. They weren't going to surrender shit.

This is a topic in its self and I will be glad to discuss in general or lounge.

Haven't nuked anyone else since have we?

[Maple]

18. No one should ever be 'nuked'

It did NOT save lives.

And the US was the country that cut off Japan's oil supply in the first place, leading to Pearl Harbor.

It's this kind of thinking that gets you into so much shit in the world.

6 billion other people on the planet ya know...it ain't yours to dick around with as you choose.

You are only one of 191 countries on this world...mind your Ps and Qs.

[Radius]

21. Jesus PC Christ

The Japanese invaded China and killed millions. So we cut off their oil. They were on the move YEARS before we cut off their oil.

They and the Nazis were out of control and there is no way to gloss it or spin it. If we had the bomb in 44 we would have nuked Berlin to win the war.

How old are you, ask someone who was alive in ww2 about your opinion, and then thank God they are to old to beat you for sheer stupidity.

They got exactly what they deserved, on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Dresden.

You can not view history through your PC lens. It is a fundamental logical fault.

[Minstrel Boy]

24. Ask Truman's military leadership

about the value of incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The war was over. There would not have been a land invasion of the Japanese homeland.

They were the opening salvos of the Cold War. You should know that.

"They got exactly what they deserved" :eyes:

[Radius]

72. No Russians in Japan...Like I said Berlin would have got it too.(NT)

[Minstrel Boy]

84. Well there you have it.

As I said above, it was the opening shot of the Cold War, and not about the Japanese "getting what they deserved," as you put it.

[Radius]

90. No

It served a dual purpose. It ended the war before russia could split japan and before we had to lose god knows how many people invading.

It stopped the war.

and they deserved it.

[Voltaire99]

34. LOL at General Patton here

How old are you, ask someone who was alive in ww2 about your opinion, and then thank God they are to old to beat you for sheer stupidity.

Wait...Is yours the crusty voice heard on those awful History Channel repeats?

His point blew you out of the water, ol' Iron Sides: the U.S. is the only nation to have incinerated human beings with nukes, which you foolishly claimed "we don't do."

It's you who need a basic dose of history--and a lot more insight--if you want to be taken seriously here.

[Radius]

75. Given the vast number of chances

to use nuclear weapons in conflicts including Korea and Vietnam and them not being used, makes a point.

The context is first strike. We were at war with Japan. There was no magical special rules applied to nukes in 45. It was a new weapon and we used it. We are not in an open, hot , war with N. Korea. We will not make a first (nuclear) strike against N. Korea or Iran.

Get a clue, the context kind.

[illuminaughty]

35. Please view "Fog of War"

Not only does the info come from the mouth of our former sec. of defense but the documents (not forged) are there to back it up.

We fire bombed 67 cities in Japan killing as much as 80% of the population in those cities. The Enola episode was just to see "what if"

for info on mini or "baby" nukes
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

[ze_dscherman]

42. You better watch what you say

I think you urgently need to apologize about what you wrote:

"They got exactly what they deserved, on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Dresden"

The Tokyo, Hiroshima and Dresden bombings were attacks against CIVILIANS. Had they been committed by the loosers in WWII, everyone would have declared them as war crimes.

The Dresden bombings had NO military purpose, and they were done to a city full of refugees. They did not cut short the war - the Germans were already loosing it (which I am glad for, although I am German!).

These women, children and old people who were burnt to death did NOT deserve that.

[Almost_there]

45. But the Jews, Gays, French, Belgians, British, Poles deserved it?

I am sitting here wondering what the hell your argument is about? He should "watch what he says"? Oh, crap, soon, Germany, Japan, Italy are going to be a bunch of Hari Krushnas, just trying to hand out there peace flowers to the other nations.

What position are you attempting to take? I am so utterly clueless here. Really. Yes, the people of Dresden were law abiding citizens, just trying to earn a buck and raise their family. HOWEVER, they also happened to follow the biggest nut job in history, who happened to eradicate 21,000,000 Russians, SEVEN MILLION OF WHICH WERE CIVILIANS!!! And SIX MILLION JEWS!!! SIX MILLION POLISH CIVILIANS! ONE MILLION FRENCH! HALF A MILLION BRITS! Do you want EVERY country that lost CIVILIANS in WWII?? Here's a site for you http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/Casualties.htm

I can't believe you're defending these positions. I guess the tens of thousands in Dresden and the hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are much more important than the FORTY MILLION (let me try that again

FORTY MILLION - 40,000,000

killed in WWII. So, in order to end this disaster, was it necessary to drop the bombs in Dresden, to bring Fat Man and Little Boy to Japan, KNOWING they were civilian targets? I don't know what the alternatives would be. Lose millions MORE civilians and soldiers fighting door to door until we took every nook and cranny of Japan? Sorry, but, Germany and Japan get about as much victim status as a the husband who beats his wife because dinner was late. Please don't forget that WWII wasn't started by the allies, it was a response.

~Almost

[Nihil]

50. You were right with one sentence anyway

> I am so utterly clueless here.

You showed that with the rest of your post, especially the delightfully gung-ho example below:
> Oh, crap, soon, Germany, Japan, Italy are going to be a bunch of
> Hari Krushnas, just trying to hand out there peace flowers to the
> other nations.


The best bit was this line though ...

> ... they also happened to follow the biggest nut job in history,

You do realise that this is exactly the same "justification" that
will be used by any "terrorist" that attacks mainland USA?

The numbers of civilian deaths caused around the world by your
glorious leader obviously justifies the massacre of innocents in
whichever US city draws the short straw next time?

All's fair in love & war eh?

> ... WWII wasn't started by the allies, it was a response.

Right. And when you read a little bit more real history (as opposed
to Encarta summaries) you might ease off on ze_dscherman & co.

Nihil

[Almost_there]

62. "To the victor go the spoils"

I didn't realize I had plagerized Encarta so thouroughly, glad you caught me there. So, Germany struggling under the oppressive economic forces created as a result of WWI is the fault of everyone else EXCEPT Hitler and his regime for wanting to rid the earth of Jews, Gays, Gypsies, Poles, the French, and the list goes on.

Obviously, Hitler was simply getting even with those meanies from WWI for making things so tough on Germany during the 20's, since what did they do in WWI but just invade a few countries? No big deal there, right?

Whatever history you wish to revise, please, do so. I simply don't think that revising WWII history to sugar coat this, or make Germany the victim of WWI policies or the depression, justifies what happened as far as genocide in WWII. We seem to forget that the concentration camps didn't open in '41, they really began in the early 30's (Dachau in 1933 as the first "official" extermination camp http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holocamp.html) But again, you may revise history, and turn the allied forces into bad people for bombing Dresden, which I AGREE was horrible. Fire bombing innocent civilians was a tactic that turned the stomachs of thousands of military people.

And the thinking of Truman and the bomb isn't summed up in a few lines from MacArthur or anyone else. The atomic bombs were dropped on smaller cities, nestled in mountains for a reason. Again, if you've been to Japan and visited the museums, you will understand immediately why those cities were chosen. They had a population base of a few hundred thousand, but, they were isolated, nestled in mountains to keep the blast actually limited, considering we had no idea how these things would act, and they were ports with navy, as virtually every port had.

This thread isn't about WWII or Japan, Germany, Hitler, or concentration camps. I know Japan is nervous as hell about Kim Jung Il, as are S.K., China, Russia, and I hope the bushys. I abhor nuclear weapons, but, I don't think it is possible to argue on the side of Germany or Japan or to simply say well, they didn't deserve what they got. There is so much more to World War II history than a few snippets of second thoughts and perceptions. So, dig away at my "Encarta knowledge" of history all you wish. I don't want to see history in SE Asia repeat itself EVER.

~Almost

[Media_Lies_Daily]

64. And your subject line says all we need to know about the way you....

...think, doesn't it?

What's your next line? Is it "Winners write the history books"?

And no, innocent civilians NEVER deserve what they get no matter where they live.

[Almost_there]

85. Perhaps you missed the "quotes"

The reason I used "quotation marks" was to emphasize the fact that I can toss around a thousand quotes from MacArthur, to Truman, to FDR, Tojo, Barney Fife, and others supporting or denouncing both positions on the Japan nuclear bombings.

My subject line tells no one what to think, however, you're opinions are you're own, and you are free to think whatever you'd like. As to "the winners write the history books", uh.. yeah, sure. There are things known as "facts", Media, which I would loosely define as information beyond reproach, with backup material, not based upon opinion. It is MY OPINION that Nuclear war is an evil vile thing, and I think you and everyone here would agree. It is FACT that 40,000,000 died in the second World War. It is FACT that Germany, allied with Japan and Italy began a war of agression, seeking to expand their borders and to break out of the economic crisis they were mired in.

It is a FACT that Dresden was bombed. It was NOT a military target, though in times of "general" war, a city may be a target of value to demoralize, destroy, and hurt the "enemy", be they civilian or not. That is NOT a fact, that is my OPINION.

The number of dead in Dresden as you put it at what? 600,000? 350,000? Where did you find those "factoidal tidbits"? I see no link, so, I'll give you a few to chew over, then dismiss since they don't agree with what you WISH the "facts" to be. That is know as "The Nile", which ain't just a river in Egypt. (Sarcasm..)

<snip>

In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.

On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

<snip>

The Dresden Bombing came about as a result of a tactic used during World War Two by Royal Air Force and United States Air Force was "Firestorms". Incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals, were dropped in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air rushed in at ground level, and people were sucked into the fire.

1945, Arthur Harris decides to target a firestorm for Dresden. 13th February 1945: 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. Over the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to bomb Dresden. Dresden was almost totally destroyed. More then 135,000 were killed during the Dresden Bombing.


http://www.paralumun.com/wardresden.htm

<snip>

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/001.html

It is now the 50th anniversary of the terror bombing and burning of the non-military cultural center of Dresden, Germany. Somewhere between 35,000 and 135,000 civilians were killed in the Feb. 13-14, 1945 attack.

The Bonn government is attempting to use the commemoration of the Dresden bombing to expand German imperialism's diplomatic and military reach. Working-class and progressive German groups are protesting this misuse of a great tragedy. They correctly point out the responsibility of German capitalism and the Nazis' own war crimes for the destruction of German cities during the war.

The crimes of Nazi Germany, however, should not prevent the U.S. working-class movement from re-examining the aims of U.S. and British imperialism's vicious bombing of Dresden's civilians as World War II drew to a close.

Now, looking at these sources, I'd put the number realistically somewhere between 35,000 and 135,000. Let's be crazy, and toss logic out the window and say 150,000 (higher than any of these sources, yet, shockingly! less than 1/3 of your LOWEST source.) Hmm. So, perhaps your moniker IS in fact a good one! Media DOES lie daily. (Sorry, that's a personal dig, but, I couldn't resist.. No offence).

Seriously, I despise what happened, I also think that taking little bits and pieces of the "truth" and "facts" simply go and undermine a point, and don't emphasize it. The truth in this thread is that Kim Jung Il is a dangerous man, WWII was horrendous, but, was not begun as a war of aggression by Europe or America, and I've never read a book or a source to hint otherwise. I must be a war mongering Marine to think that the Hitler was just looking to bring peace and prosperity to Europe, and Japan wanted to start free trade with China and those countries just took it the wrong way.

I am more worried about North Korea "flexing their muscle" with a nuclear warhear as a display tool than Dresden, Nagasaki, or Hiroshima right now. They are history, but, we must learn from those events, or we will be doomed to repeat them.

~Almost

[bpilgrim]

87. "though in times of "general" war, a city may be a target of value"

"It is a FACT that Dresden was bombed. It was NOT a military target, though in times of "general" war, a city may be a target of value to demoralize, destroy, and hurt the "enemy", be they civilian or not. That is NOT a fact, that is my OPINION."

OBL agrees with you...

"The reason I used "quotation marks" was to emphasize the fact that I can toss around a thousand quotes from MacArthur, to Truman, to FDR, Tojo, Barney Fife, and others supporting or denouncing both positions on the Japan nuclear bombings."

RUSH agrees with this STRAWMAN...

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought,
but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." --Albert Einstein



peace

[Radius]

88. War distilled..WW2 was not fought with modern trappings.

Germans grew food, worked in factories, contributed to the system and were targets under ww2 rules.

Your concept oc PC, no civillians targeted was not a thought process applied when ww2 was fought from the air.

The dead germans have hitler to blame not the allies.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. Depending on the source you choose to believe, approximately....

...300,000 to 600,000 civilians died in the Dresden firebombing including the elderly, women, and children. Evidently you seem to be just fine with that masterpiece of unnecessary Allied bombing.

To be honest, your post says more about your personal make-up than it does about anything else. You're far from "clueless"....IMHO, you're just another arrogant individual who thinks they have all of the ansers.

[paulk]

68. where did you get those numbers?

I've never seen numbers for Dresden higher than 135k, and most sources cite less. If you're going to post outrageous numbers, at least back them up, "Media Lies". Let's keep this discussion within the bounds of reality.

[ze_dscherman]

61. Two wrongs don't make one right

I never said, nor did I intend to, that it was right for the Germans to attack Poland or to start the Holocaust. I am glad that I don't have to live in a world where Hitler had won.

But I stand to the point that the dropping of bombs in Dresden didn't do anything to stop the war. It served no military purpose, and it happened in a time when the German army was already running home.

There is no excuse for what Germany has done - the (IMO) war crime of the bombing of Dresden does not make the war crimes of Germany any smaller.

And I'm pretty sure the same is true about the Nagasaki bombing. Even if Hiroshima had been necessary to terrify the Japanese into surrender - what purpose would the bombing of Nagasaki have had?

[Radius]

71. WW2 was fought

differently by both sides. The axis bombed allied cities and received the same treatment in return. Germany set the tone, there was no restraint by the Germans and they received none in return.

You should not look at ww2 with your PC lens. WW2 is not Iraq or Vietnam. Different war, different time, different rules.

BTW Dresden was a British operation.

[Almost_there]

44. Anyone here been to Nagasaki & Hiroshima?

Well, I'm going to take the unpopular side of this argument and completely agree with you Radius. The first time I was at the Nagasaki War Memorial, after touring the plain square museum and standing in the "Peace Garden" by the Buddha with his finger cast upwards towards the epi-center of where the bomb went off, I said "I'm so sorry. You must hate America" to my guide, who was actually someone from the company I was there working with.

He looked at me and said "excuse me?" I replied "I'm sorry we ever dropped the atomic bomb. It killed so many" To which, he smiled, and said "You're sorry? No. You cannot be. America can never be sorry. Japan was misguided. This memorial is to remind Japanese of what we did wrong."

He went on to say about how the people simply followed the leaders with no regard for if what they were doing had a purpose. MILLIONS of Chinese were killed, China was known as the "Northern Resource Zone", Austral-Asia was the "Southern Resource Zone". Japan at the time was a total imperial power, bent on taking over the WORLD. Hence "World War II".

"The war was over"? I LOVE hearing blather like that. The Japanse DID NOT surrender. Who ever said the war was over? What revisionist makes up that crap? The Japanese soldier fought tooth and nail over every square inch of anything. Do you think Kamikaze pilots happened at the ONSET of the war? NO!! They came about towards the END of the war. Why? Because they were running low on resupplies, and that was what they had. Would YOU fly your plane into a ship, military AND civilian if you were told you had to in order to protect the "Resource Zones"? Give me a break.

The bombs did not go to Germany because there were too many allies on the ground, the cities had pretty much been obliterated, and guess what? V-E Day was in MAY! V-J Day was in August! Europe had fallen, America, Russia and Britain were having lunch in Hitler's bunkers for MONTHS and Japan HAD STILL NOT GIVEN UP.

JAPAN REFUSED MULTIPLE REQUESTS FOR SURRENDER AND PEACE. So, what did Truman do? Well, in lieu of sending in the marines to clean up Tokyo, killing our own soldiers, he had enough of American's death. We sit here and point out the 55,000 killed in Vietnam and the 1,020+ killed in Iraq, we lost THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND TROOPS 300,000 in WWII. Russia lost TWENTY-ONE MILLION people, China lost ELEVEN MILLION. China's 11,000,000 people, more people than live in New York and Chicago, probably, were almost ALL CIVILIAN!!! DEAD FROM THE JAPANESE!!!! The Japanase leadership didn't WANT peace! They wanted ROOM TO GROW!

So, was using a nuclear weapon the right choice? I don't know. It is a horrible thing, raining death and destruction upon men, women, children, ANYTHING indiscriminately in its path. But, let's not make Japan out to be the martyr in 1945. I agree with you, Radius. People simply see the pictures of Hiroshima, they see the outlines of people as gray in the blackened siding of a building, children with no parents, their skin blistered, I've seen pictures of a girl's lunchbox, totally unharmed, and she was vaporized because the lunch was in her cubby, she was in the yard at recess.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so worried about rewriting history, as we should be worried that there is a TRULY insane man in Kim Jung Il who waves his nukes around like a toy gun, threatening the world with it. This is the same guy who has Bert & Ernie collections, who said golf is so easy, he got 11 hole-in-ones the first time he played, who said he was born on a mountain and raised by wolves, or sheep, or dung beetles, whatever. I hate to say it, but, compared to this nut, Bush is almost coherant! And THAT is scary!!

~Almost

[TX-RAT]

53. Well said.

[bpilgrim]

54. I have

and we NUKED a defeated, ready to surrenders nation's cities filled with innocent men, women, children, young and old, TWICE and every military leader in theater at that time says it was NOT necessary.

<snip>
There is a long-standing debate about whether or not General Eisenhower--as he repeatedly claimed--urged Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson (and possibly President Truman) not to use the atomic bomb. In interviews with his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, he was insistent that he urged his views to one or another of these men at the time. (THE DECISION, p. 358 n.) Quite apart from what he said at the time, there is no doubt, however, about his own repeatedly stated opinion on the central question:

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 4.)

* Eisenhower made similar public and private statements on numerous occasions. He put it bluntly in a 1963 interview, stating quite simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (THE DECISION, p. 356.) (Several of the occasions during which Eisenhower offered similar judgments are discussed at length in THE DECISION (pp. 352-358).)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm
"Hiroshima is the 2nd most horrid word in the american lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI" - kurt vonnegut

[Charley_Dog]

55. I'm with you and Radius as well...

History is a harsh teacher. Yet we find that the same lessons must be learned, again and again.
The invasion of Japan would have happened. It was all set to go. The loss of American lives was projected at better than 50%. That was unacceptable for a mission that was not guaranteed to get the job done.
Those who believe Truman was a raving nutter ought to hone their reading comprehension skills a bit more.

[bpilgrim]

56. Only a FOOL would have invaded Japan vs Accepting their 1 condition

good thing the chimp wasn't our 'leader' then...

* 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:

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. . . .

n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

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

peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. IMHO, what's REALLY "scary" is your attitude toward civilian deaths....

You really don't care that millions of German and Japanese civilians died a horrible death due to Allied fire-bombing and our dropping of the two nukes, and that's pretty sad, to be perfectly honest.

Most of those people had absolutely no bearing on the policies of their respective governments, just as the vast majority of Americans have absolutely no input on the policies of the NeoCon Junta. Most of the Afghan and Iraqi casualties have been innocent men, women, and children. If they were alive to speak today, they would tell you that they had no clue why we dropped bombs on them instead of the terrorists FratBoy stated that we were going to pursue.

IMHO, instead of being concerned about North Korea, we should be worried instead about ANOTHER "TRULY insane man" who currently occupies the White House "who waves his nukes around like a toy gun, threatening the world with it".

[Aidoneus]

47. should London & Paris have been nuked?

Their reign of terror over the world for hundreds of years before "WWII" is well documented, do/did they deserve the same treatment?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. LOL!! We could not have cared less what happened to China...

...prior to our entry into WWII.

We forced Japan to take action by following the recommndations outlined in the 8-point McCollum Memo. Here's a link to the memo:

McCollum Memo - October 7, 1940
<http://www.rationalrevolution.net/mccollum.htm>


By the way, on a more personal note, you are a rude, arrogant individual with absolutely no concept of history changing over time as new information is uncovered. You should be beaten for exposing your rampant ideological rigidity which could be confused for outright stupidity.

My Dad fought in WWII, and he has no problems looking at history as it really took place and not how winners portray it. Take your blinders off and start doing some real research.

[SeekerofTruth]

65. So you support Bush attacking Iraq?

Saying a 'memo' is what forced Japan to attack the U.S. is as flimsy an argument as * gave for attacking Iraq!

[Surf Cowboy]

51. Hear, hear.

This PC bullshit is contributing to the backlash against Dems. Granted, the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't deserve to be cooked in a minute, but then again, neither did our boys in Pearl Harbor. Incidentally, when you start a fight with a sucker punch and the other guy finishes it with a blunt object, whose fault is it? We didn't ask for the war---hell, we were trying to talk our way out of it. They took advantage of our peaceful nature and hit us. Fuck them if they can't finish the fights they start. Had we needed to continue conventional bombing followed by a ground war, the war in the Pacific would have drawn on at least 2 if not 4 more years, and God knows how many Japanese and American lives would have been lost.

There's a saying we have in the country--when you fuck with the bull, you get the horns.

[bpilgrim]

58. from the PC master

were do you think japan learned it's imperial/colonial ways?

the west... we were there first and they thought that wasn't fair and wanted their share in 'their' region, ASIA.

but lets not even go there since its ALL WRONG, but it's a helpful reminder of our common characteristics/goals.

just like i don't support our aggressive imperial moves into the ME i never supported imperial japans moves into asia (GEACPS).

so can we get away from the broad cartoonish strokes of goodguys/badguys and evildoers or worse, please?

now, forget about the NUKES and THINK about the bloody sacrifices at IWO JIMA and OKINAWA and IMAGINE if we didn't need to FIGHT for those two islands because the war was OVER because we accepted their 1 condition as we FINALLY did when they STILL didn't surrender after TWO NUKES and the bear invading.

and THAT decision has stood the test of time to this very day as a WISE decision.

i just wish we would have accepted it EARLIER :'(



IMAGINE

peace

[Radius]

76. They didn't offer

until we nuked them, twice. Even then there was an attempted coup. There was no surrender option on the table before Nagasaki was nuked.

My grandfather would have been involved in the invasion. For my own personal reasons I'm glad they got nuked and surrendered.

I learned to shoot a gun from my father, I'm not out committing murder. The Japanese started a war for their interests, no one is to blame for that except them. Their conduct was vile, they killed millions of Chinese and tortured tens of thousands of prisoners to death.

[Psephos]

36. Ironically, nukes are now the "poor man's nuclear weapon"

"It did NOT save lives."

Maybe, maybe not. You can tell there's no clear answer because of the fury with which people debate it. In other words, the argument depends on which facts you choose, and which you suppress.

I wouldn't have pushed the button, that's for sure. (BTW, I tend to favor the side of the argument that says it did not bring a net savings of lives.)

"the US was the country that cut off Japan's oil supply in the first place, leading to Pearl Harbor."

The U.S. finally disrupted some of Japan's oil supply after seeing what was happening in East Asia. The Rape of Nanking, one of the most brutal slaughters of innocents in modern history (at least 300,000 in Nanking alone), finally brought a few heads from out of the sand. In China alone, millions of peasants (probably ten million) were either directly liquidated, or died from effects wrought by the invading Japanese Army. If you want to understand this part of history better, there is no single-volume source better than Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking, which was a NYT best-seller about five years ago. Prepare yourself: some of the photos rank with the most gut-wrenching I've ever seen.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140277447/qid=1095999620/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9307283-8324115?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

"It's this kind of thinking that gets you into so much shit in the world."

What really gets you into shit in this world is letting bad people get away with literally murder for so long that they feel immune to outside opinion and interference. WWII could have been a much shorter war with millions fewer casualties if the Allies had responded earlier to the regimes in Germany, Japan, and Italy.

"(the world) ain't yours to dick around with as you choose."

Almost every region has its bad actors who feel like the the world IS theirs to dick around with, and who will not listen to people lecturing them not to do it. North America (i.e., US) has them, the EU has them, Asia has them, Africa and the Middle East have no shortages either. I loathe war. I loathe the idea of dicking around with other people's countries, other people's cultures, other people's lives. But most of all I loathe fighting a war that needn't have been fought if its underlying causes had been addressed earlier.

There is a sufi saying: If a wise man points at the moon, a fool will look at the finger.

Wars are like fires. They are extinguished more easily if you pay attention to them sooner. Otherwise, you are sure to get burned as the flames engulf everything and race through the canopy.

No doubt about it, nukes are a classic lose-lose trade. But there are dozens, maybe more, unaccounted-for nukes floating around the world right now. The problem comes when you have people like Kim in RNK who are true psychos, or people like the fringe terrorists of Al Qaeda who have no other goal than to kill people just because they can. In other words, these are the kind of people who aren't afraid of a lose-lose deal. It doesn't figure into their thinking...which means that sad fact must ultimately figure into ours.

[Nihil]

41. Wise comments ...

... and welcome Psephos!
:hi:

[countmyvote4real]

26. Does depleted uranium count as nuclear?

I heard that it was used in the first Gulf war and is even more widespread this time.

[AngryAmish]

31. Depleted uranium is the opposite of nuclear

Extremely radiologically stable. Any radiation that is emitted is harmless alpha radiation. Sunshine is more radioactive. Granite way more radioactive. DU is a toxic heavy metal.

[Sparky McGruff]

82. Alpha radiation is not harmless

when it is vaporized and inhaled into your lungs, or ingested. Alpha particles may travel less than a half inch in the air, but when they are in close contact with your skin, lung tissue, or in your bloodstream, they hit your tissue quite nicely. And, alpha emitters are very effective at causing mutagenic changes in cells.

Sitting through half a dozen mandatory rad safety classes makes sure you don't misunderestimate alpha emitters.

[shraby]

33. Our government has been testing

and building mini-nukes for use in conventional warfare. Read an article about them recently..sorry, but no link. Maybe you can google and find it.

[Radius]

79. They have been trying to fund the project..

The weapon in use now is the b61-mod11 a 250kt thermonuclear bomb that burrows and detonates. Of course this throws thousands of tons of radioactive material into the air. But in a real nuclear war this is not a real concern. Any underground hardened structure near the blast site would be destroyed.

The theoretical stuff uses existing low yield warheads with earth penetrating ordinance. This allows for a massive compression wave to destroy underground structures without blasting fallout into the air.

Sounds good but it blurs the line between conventional and nuclear war. This is a bad thing, IMHO.

[PATRICK]

12. You are very wrong

Our armed forces are overextended. We are one incident away from nuking a target of blame. The cons have been lusting to do this for some time. The bargaining chip theory as is MADD are both well known too. All these things coexist and the lesser known, that Bushco MUST at some point demonstrate its pushbutton power to follow through on its long term bullying act would grant any paranoid nation legitimacy to react in this way.

Fear, will, deliberate inattention to heading off such a scenario, conscious efforts that lead to such a scenario, a schedule of a troup free domination centralized in the control of a few civilians. If we are to be spared the inevitable from a nightmare of fanatical foolishness- now on both sides!- Bush must go and soon.

Sure NK sounds like Perot ranting about Bushies terrorizing his campaign, like McCain, like us complaining about the dirty tactics that can only come from a determined fraud. What can NK REALLY do about it? Maybe less than Perot, or us- or maybe they would be the lucky ones who get to hit back- as if a nuke among our competitors in Asia and a few more US soldiers killed would matter at all to them. This is not about hating Bushco. It is about KNOWING them. So long as the cowards feel protected no one else is safe. It wouldn't pain Bush much to call their bluff after November.

[frylock]

27. they would be able to get their nukes off before ours detonated..

I would imagine they have methods of tracking any kind of ICBM assault before they were laid to waste.

[quaoar]

29. Not likely we'd atack with ICBMs

More likely cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. NK would probably have about 10 minutes to react.

[PATRICK]

46. Subs too

NK has some of the few old fashioned non-nuclear subs, not as easy to track as Russian subs. There is a rather nasty book about using one of those to deliver a nuclear torpedo. Why rely on shaky rocket technology? That is mostly for chest beating purposes. In any event does Bush really care?

[bpilgrim]

59. cool, so we could trick them into LAUNCHING FIRST

and giving us our PRETEXT - as if we need it these days - to lay waste to them and SHOCK-n-AWE the world, again... the last one has apparently wore off, but don't worry now we have even BIGGER ones :scared:



peace

[Radius]

73. We COULD Kill them all with 0 warning.

B2 f-117 and gravity dropped b-61 b-83 ordinance.

No warning, no counterstrike, 100+ nuclear detonations at the same time would destroy their ability to mount ANY response.

But that will not happen, they just want a handout.

[bpilgrim]

78. we did it before

i'm positive we would do it again though you seem certain we won't... considering who's drivin the bus i would love to know where you find such comfort :shrug:

peace

[Radius]

80. NCA

The release of nuclear weapons follows strict rules. The bus driver can't just wake up and decide to nuke someone.

If you are positive why didn't they just nuke Iraq. Kill 90% of the population and take their oil? Would have been easier. No one is going to nuke anyone, at least we are not going to nuke anyone first.


I'm pretty sure, considering NK's situation, they are looking for a titty to suck. The motherland and China are no longer willing to support them. They can reform and participate in the Asian economy, or collapse. They are a parasite looking for a host.

[Bandit]

66. You don't think Korea has planned for an attack?

Their whole country is all tunnel complexes and there is no doubt that their leaders would be quite safe during any initial nuclear attack and they would release any number of missles that are also underground in silos. You're a complete dreamer if you think any first strike would wipe them out completely. They have been planning for this for over fifty years.

[Radius]

77. B61-mod11

And low cep make their tunnels worth jack shit. A 500kt bomb detonated on top of a hardened silo will blow a hole hundred feet deep and thousand plus of feet across. It will collapse, via shock wave, any tunnel or bunker for at least a mile, at any depth. This isn't theoretical mini nuke stuff, this is real active ordinance.

A massive stealth first strike, followed by a conventional strike from subs and ICBMs would kill them all.

Combining that with zero warning and the disruption of all power and communication other than shielded hard wire or fiber optic with shielded transceivers make coordinating a response a very low probability event. Especially since they have NO confirmed capability. We have been watching them from space and spying on them for 50 years, we know what and where their capability is.


A second strike, if they struck first, would involve, SLBM, ICBM, and air dropped bombs. This is a binary thing, they would all be dead in under an hour.

However this is not going to happen. They want a handout. All sound and fury..

[SoCalDem]

9. Well well, isn't THAT special??

Peace and democracy is breaking out all over the world..:eyes:

[Kierkegaard]

11. More of that good ole' Scrub diplomacy at work...

Yelling "Hey you fuckers, knock it off!" out the oval office window is NOT a foreign policy.

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

16. October Surprise!

What better way than for Bushco to show it's manliness than to attack the missile bases....I nominate Kim Jong-il as the North Korean Chairman of the Re-Elect GWB Campaign...cooler heads would prevail but will just want to 'bow up' to him....Kim is now certainly terrorist.

[DS1]

13. wow, talk about a meaningless threat

If the U.S. nuked any country, and that country had nukes, that country would be expected to respond in a most nuclear fashion

[benburch]

17. Once again...

you distill the matter.

[Radius]

19. The NORCOMS

have no confirmed nukes. They are like a PI who says he has pics if you fucking around on your wife..Pay up or we'll go nuclear.

If they nuke japan they all die. IF we hit them first we could use b-2 and f-117 combined with gravity dropped bombs, hundreds of them, with no warning. They would go offline. They have no ability to detect subsequent ballistic launches and no ability to detect stealth jets. They would just melt. This will not happen.

All they want is a handout. Since the motherland folded up they are fucked and want to shake someone down rather than actually compete in the Asian marketplace.

[quaoar]

25. They don't have to nuke Japan

All they have to do is threaten to give a nuke to al Qaeda or Hamas or the Tamil Tigers or the Chechens or... Or put one on a ship, sail it into Tokyo Bay or Pearl Harbor, deny everything and claim it must have been one of those loose Russian nukes.

[Radius]

74. Fingerprints

All nuclear material has a nuclear fingerprint. Rate of decay and mass spec can determine origin of fissile material. We have samples of their fissile material from the IAEA. If their material shows up in japan, they will be wiped out.

[Gregorian]

20. I can't hear youuuu. Call us back when you have OIL.

Besides, Halliburton's busy right now. We got A-rabs blowin' up pipelines. Got money to make. Got democratizin' to do. So you slanty people, just grow some patience, and call back later. Hear?


Psst. Hey George. WAKE UP!!! I think you've started a world war!

[Radius]

23. I fell in to a burnin' ring of fire, norcomms like J. Cash Haha(eof)

[0007]

43. Like no one noticed, 'eh?

[foo_bar]

28. the mutually assured that Japan gets nuked doctrine

Vancouver breathes a sigh of relief.

[eriffle]

32. Sounds like a good idea

Bush wipes out a member of the "axis of evil" and one of our biggest creditors (Japan) in one big fight club-esque blunder. This is crazy, a disarmed Iraq was more of a danger than nuclear North Korea.....jeez....:nuke:

[K8-EEE]

38. Like GWB Says, Why Take The Word of A "Mad Man?"

Actually we only take their word when the mad men don't have shit. When they have shit we go....oh there goes that mad man talking abou this nukes again!

THE WORLD HAS GONE INSANE!

[fujiyama]

39. Kim Jong Il

is obviously a fuckin nutcase, but I don't think the US gives a shit about them having nukes.

If Bush did, he wouldn't have turned a blind eye toward them bartering nuclear know how and materials for missile technology with Pakistan.

Instead Bush went to Iraq, a country that had no WMD....

And people think Bush is making the US safer? God, we're living in bizarro world.

[Princess Turandot]

40. I think he is counting on China stepping up if NK did something..

naughty, since China at this point really doesn't want to be involved in triggering a major conflict ..(after all, it has those 2008 Olympics to present..) and NK is its baby so to speak, or at least was at one time.

Didn't NK, along with Pakiston provide nuclear material to Iran?
And while Bush is a manipulated moron, the Kim Jong family line is truly psychotic and completely unpredictable IMO.

[Almost_there]

52. I wonder how allied China and Kim Jong Il really are...

In looking at how poor NK is, how rampant their poverty and hunger is, how they are constantly clammoring for oil, food, etc, and hell, how on satelite images at night, China, S.K., Japan, and the rest of Southeast Asia is lit up like Times Square compared to N.K., I really wonder what sort of ties the two countries have.

It feels like China saw Kim Il Sung and his nut job son Kim Jung Il, and just sort of said "you're on your own, boys". They really are adding a tremendous amount of instability to a region that should be peaceful and prosperous. Its sad to see how oppressed Kim Jung Il keeps his people, and the terror that they live under.

Bush didn't create this nut, but, he better damn well keep an eye on him. First strike? HELL NO! But, Kim Jung Il likes to rattle his sabre, and that should be making everyone in the world take notice. If he is sanctioned to the point of choking, what might he do? I don't think that he is rational by anyone's standards. There is simply no predicting what a total lunatic might do, especially one sitting on nukes.

China is creeping forward toward freedom, and while they are still back several hundred years behind the rest of the world, they are making some progress. N.K. hasn't even started, and they don't want to start. It is totally baffling to me.

~Almost

[Tommy_Douglas]

70. Threats are made due to desperation.

N.K. is so isolated and poor and Kim basically craves attention. North Korea wants to be part of the world community but they seem to want guarantees as well.

WMD's are the only bartering piece they have, and when you have a guy like Bush in power (another madman....) Well lets just say it seems to put North Korea on alert. With Clinton I think N.K. knew where things stood with Bush they don't. And that's what scares me.

[goodboy]

57. but...we're making good progress in iraq...eom

[paulk]

67. N. Korea shouldn't threaten Japan so lightly

Japan has one of the largest, best equipped, and best trained armies in the region - they are far from patsies. They could take care of Kim on their own, without help from the US.

[doctorus]

69. nuclear threat

the neighbour countries will suffer as well if the catastrophy happen, not only Japan

[Renew Deal]

86. Well, that's nice.

Haven't heard that one before. The NK crew is crazy. Japan can defend themselves with our help. We shouldn't be launching nukes at anyone.

[Radius]

89. We Wont

They are looking for a handout. Since the motherland folded up and the Chinese found the holy dollar with cheap labor the NK's are fresh out of friends.

This is all about a shakedown.

[jdonaldball]

91. Everyone, calm down. China is on top of this, in control

Calm down.
China is on top of this. They are handling it and keeping it under control.
Calm down.
China will not let North Korea go out of control.
So just calm down.