North korea makes statement to the US and Japan

[GreersElbow]

What?

Oh that old age reply...

 

[Triggaaar]

It makes no sense for NK to nuke for the sake of it

Agreed.

but the US will be able to justify going in hard and heavy all day long.

The point is whether or not it would work. The US can't destroy NK's military capability before NK could launch missiles that would kill millions.

 

[Marshy]

Deplomacy is the only route depsite how hard that may be.

ideally he needs to be over thrown from within, there must be a few sensible people knocking around in NK !

 

[Triggaaar]

Oh that old age reply...

I genuinely couldn't work out what you were trying to say. Fine, I'll go through each point explaining why I don't understand.

Diplomacy.
Diplomacy.
If they fire a nuke at another country, NK may not be there the next day.

Yes it would.

If NK launch a nuke, I can't see the US or the target just taking it on the chin and watching their citizens die, and hoping there's not another. I would expect an enormous retaliation that destroyed much of NK. Why do you disagree?

I don't know if you hadn't noticed, but diplomacy hasn't worked.

Diplomacy hasn't stopped NK developing and building more weapons, but nowhere has been nuked yet and diplomacy is ongoing.

It's called ignoring the pathetic nation and leave sanctions in place so to leave it to rot among itself.

What is called ignoring them? Are you saying that's what we are doing, or what we should be doing, or what?

 

[brighton fella]

Totally agree with this. Why can't people just get on with their lives and try make this a better world. f** knows there are huge problems
we need to solve.

Because mate far too many sad gits revel in human suffering, most likely the tw@ts were starved of any form of action at school hence their desperation today to make up for lost time f*ck knows. The sad gits need to grow up.

 

[brighton fella]

Deplomacy is the only route depsite how hard that may be.

ideally he needs to be over thrown from within, there must be a few sensible people knocking around in NK !

More to the point there must be at least a few sensible people knocking around in the USA , whatever was i thinking it's never their fault is it.

 

[Triggaaar]

Do you really think an Allied invasion of Japan would have been the best option? Many more would have perished. IMO the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan was a necessary evil.

Dropping one was probably necessary, dropping two was a criminal waste of life IMO.

Nice idea but it still took two bombs for them to surrender!

How many days and how much diplomacy between the two bombs again?

 

[happypig]

Surely the SAS can fly in and take him and his cronies out pretty quickly ?

Yeah, four blokes from Hereford would blend right in.

 

[Boys 9d]

How many days and how much diplomacy between the two bombs again?

Didn't the USSR declare war on Japan (as agreed at one of the "Big Three" conferences) and invade Japanese controlled Manchuria.
The bombs were more a warning to Stalin than a threat to Japan who had already offered to surrender subject to the post war position of the Emperor. In fact the Emperor's position post war was as the Allies had failed to guarantee in the surrender terms demanded.

 

[essbee1]

Yeah, four blokes from Hereford would blend right in.

Those *******s can shoot someone from a mile away.

 

[Triggaaar]

Didn't the USSR declare war on Japan (as agreed at one of the "Big Three" conferences) and invade Japanese controlled Manchuria.
The bombs were more a warning to Stalin than a threat to Japan who had already offered to surrender subject to the post war position of the Emperor. In fact the Emperor's position post war was as the Allies had failed to guarantee in the surrender terms demanded.

I didn't know all that, I'm not that knowledgeable on it all, but I don't think you need to be to know that the second bomb just a few days after the first was not necessary. Diplomacy could have failed and it could have become necessary, but it certainly wasn't at the time.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

it just needs the russians and chinese to tell kim jong un that he's been a very naughty boy. Trouble is they won't. I think they just like sitting back to see what happens and take advantage as appropriate.
Any country that has its massed ranks of troops parading up and down with a bunch of rockets suitable for firing nuclear warheads is dangerous - thank god hitler didn't have any or none of us would be here and we wouldn't be in the premier league!

V2 rocket
regards
DR

 

[symyjym]

Didn't the USSR declare war on Japan (as agreed at one of the "Big Three" conferences) and invade Japanese controlled Manchuria.
The bombs were more a warning to Stalin than a threat to Japan who had already offered to surrender subject to the post war position of the Emperor. In fact the Emperor's position post war was as the Allies had failed to guarantee in the surrender terms demanded.

This seems to be the revised historical understanding of what happened. It makes some sense that the US were getting hit hard despite winning battles and the USSR were winning their own battle against Japan. Dropping the bombs gave the US total victory for their heavy losses and it stopped the USSR in their tracks. Two birds one stone.

 

[essbee1]

I didn't know all that, I'm not that knowledgeable on it all, but I don't think you need to be to know that the second bomb just a few days after the first was not necessary. Diplomacy could have failed and it could have become necessary, but it certainly wasn't at the time.

Er - no - don't think so. Japan failed to surrender after the first - so the second came as a direct result of that. Then they surrendered.

 

[Triggaaar]

Er - no - don't think so. Japan failed to surrender after the first - so the second came as a direct result of that. Then they surrendered.

They failed to surrender within a few days. In that time they wouldn't even have known the extent of the devastation in Hiroshima, what with communications out etc. The US was under no great threat in those few days, they should have given Japan time and used diplomacy to persuade Japan to surrender or more bombs would be dropped.

Perhaps it is as suggested above, the US just wanted to use the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians as a message to Russia. Nice.

 

[essbee1]

This seems to be the revised historical understanding of what happened. It makes some sense that the US were getting hit hard despite winning battles and the USSR were winning their own battle against Japan. Dropping the bombs gave the US total victory for their heavy losses and it stopped the USSR in their tracks. Two birds one stone.

I don't think USSR were consulted about the Japan bombs.

 

[essbee1]

They failed to surrender within a few days. In that time they wouldn't even have known the extent of the devastation in Hiroshima, what with communications out etc. The US was under no great threat in those few days, they should have given Japan time and used diplomacy to persuade Japan to surrender or more bombs would be dropped.

Perhaps it is as suggested above, the US just wanted to use the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians as a message to Russia. Nice.

But Trig - to say they wouldn't have known the extent of devastation is ludicrous.

 

[Triggaaar]

But Trig - to say they wouldn't have known the extent of devastation is ludicrous.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but my understanding is that the first bomb disrupted communication and Tokyo didn't know the full extent. Obviously many of the deaths would happen over the following months, due to poisening. It would also take some time for it to sink in.

Why is it that they surrendered after the second bomb, what changed exactly? It didn't prove anything that hadn't already been proven. What excuse is there for not giving Japan more time, and making sure they were fully aware of what would happen if they didn't surrender? The first bomb was on the 6th, the second on the 9th. The second presumably left bass less than 3 days after the first bomb landed. 2 days of diplomacy before sending the second bomb! Unbelievable.

 

[essbee1]

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but my understanding is that the first bomb disrupted communication and Tokyo didn't know the full extent. Obviously many of the deaths would happen over the following months, due to poisening. It would also take some time for it to sink in.

Why is it that they surrendered after the second bomb, what changed exactly? It didn't prove anything that hadn't already been proven. What excuse is there for not giving Japan more time, and making sure they were fully aware of what would happen if they didn't surrender?

Well, the Japan view at the time and of the army/navy was that surrender was worse than death. The US did give time between the two bombs - not enough I agree.
The US received no communication from Japan after the first. They **could** have surrendered, but didn't. That was the sign to the US.

The Japanese caved in after the second - i guess the death of a nation was at stake.

 

[Triggaaar]

Well, the Japan view at the time and of the army/navy was that surrender was worse than death.

I know that was the traditional view, but the US obviously didn't believe it or both bombs were unacceptable, as their whole purpose was to kill civilians and make Japan surrender.

The US did give time between the two bombs - not enough I agree.

I don't know what time the second left the US, or how much and how quickly Japan learned about the first, but I guess we're talking 2 days ish.

The US received no communication from Japan after the first.

I didn't know that. So the US made no attempt at all at diplomacy between the two bombs? Holy shit.

They **could** have surrendered, but didn't. That was the sign to the US.

Yeah that's not acceptable IMO.

The Japanese caved in after the second - i guess the death of a nation was at stake.

Yes it was, it was at stake after the first. The second bomb did nothing that other than prove the US had more than one bomb, but I don't see how that's relevant.