Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 11:59:59 GMT
Are you going to go with him
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 15, 2017 12:05:53 GMT
I'm east of Helsinki right now - in Porvoo - only one country between me and North Korea. Shall I go to the border and wave my fist a bit?
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Apr 15, 2017 12:46:02 GMT
Whilst generally I am anti our stupid politicians engaging in regime change NK is a slightly different proposition. Currently they have a very limited stock of nukes but they lack a reliable delivery system. However with their ballistic missile testing ongoing and their continuing efforts to create more nuclear weapons it will not be long before they are in a position to threaten way beyond their local area. One way or another they need to be stopped before that far more dangerous scenario occurs. The window of opportunity for dealing with NK is small and closing fast. It could be argued that it should have been done before now but China failed to deal with it. However bad it is in the short term a nuclear armed NK with reliable ballistic missiles that can be delivered worldwide is far more of a concern. Hopefully Iran will see the error of their ways too if NK is dealt with and proceed no further with their own nuclear program.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 12:58:49 GMT
Why would North Korea be more likely to use Nuclear weapons offensively? They are a deterrent or so our great leaders tell us Seems to me the world would be a safer place if all states had a deterrent. I don't believe the americans have the appetite for another war so it'll probably settle down after a bit. Possibly targeted assassinations of top scientists may happen like Mossad did in Iran.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 15, 2017 13:00:50 GMT
They're only a deterrent for normal leaders of normal governments
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 13:07:01 GMT
They're only a deterrent for normal leaders of normal governments History says something different to that. Only one country has actually used nuclear weapons against another country. Enola Gay, you should have stayed at home yesterday. I can completely understand why a country would wish to have a deterrent against the one country which has already used these horrific weapons to fry people.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Apr 15, 2017 14:17:29 GMT
Well this is going well. Does anyone understand why the US are over there with their war machine celebrating the 150th anniversary of North Korea's existence having dropped their biggest non-nuclear bomb on an underground complex on the way to demonstrate their underground complex bombing muscle? As I understand it, if the NK's get any sign of something heading their way, particularly towards their nuclear stuff, they will obliterate 10M people in Seoul with said nuclear missiles. Why oh why does the USA want to start a nuclear war in far East? Because NK has developed missiles with longer range and are now working on one capable of reaching the USA. If NK succeed would they use it first???
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Apr 15, 2017 14:55:56 GMT
Are you going to go with him piss orff!
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 15, 2017 17:10:25 GMT
They're only a deterrent for normal leaders of normal governments History says something different to that. Only one country has actually used nuclear weapons against another country. Enola Gay, you should have stayed at home yesterday. I can completely understand why a country would wish to have a deterrent against the one country which has already used these horrific weapons to fry people. Did the USA start that war? no I dont think they did, it is a bit of justice in a way, like Pearl harbour, it just came out of the blue! From the allies point of view it was also payback for the appalling way the Japanese treated the POWs, a complete turnaround from the way they treated German POWs in the first world war.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 17:37:32 GMT
They're only a deterrent for normal leaders of normal governments History says something different to that. Only one country has actually used nuclear weapons against another country. Enola Gay, you should have stayed at home yesterday. I can completely understand why a country would wish to have a deterrent against the one country which has already used these horrific weapons to fry people.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Apr 15, 2017 17:48:19 GMT
History says something different to that. Only one country has actually used nuclear weapons against another country. Enola Gay, you should have stayed at home yesterday. I can completely understand why a country would wish to have a deterrent against the one country which has already used these horrific weapons to fry people. About 25 years ago I worked with some older Japanese and it was quite obvious from talking with them that there is no way Japan would have surrender without the Americans demonstrating an overwhelming military strength, so overall many more would have died in the pacific region. That said the first bomb was maybe fully 'required' to demonstrate their strength, but I suspect the second bomb using fission/fusion technology was more a test and harder to justify. But as the Americans won, they were not required to justify anything. War is dirty.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 15, 2017 18:10:21 GMT
Well this is going well. Does anyone understand why the US are over there with their war machine celebrating the 150th anniversary of North Korea's existence having dropped their biggest non-nuclear bomb on an underground complex on the way to demonstrate their underground complex bombing muscle? As I understand it, if the NK's get any sign of something heading their way, particularly towards their nuclear stuff, they will obliterate 10M people in Seoul with said nuclear missiles. Why oh why does the USA want to start a nuclear war in far East? Because NK has developed missiles with longer range and are now working on one capable of reaching the USA. If NK succeed would they use it first??? What motive would there be for North Korea to fire a nuclear missile at the USA?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 15, 2017 18:33:56 GMT
They're only a deterrent for normal leaders of normal governments History says something different to that. Only one country has actually used nuclear weapons against another country. Enola Gay, you should have stayed at home yesterday. I can completely understand why a country would wish to have a deterrent against the one country which has already used these horrific weapons to fry people. Please don't take this personal but I think that is the daftest statement I have seen from you. The regime of the Empire of Japan was not one that could have been described as normal. The United States did not start the war with Japan, they attacked the U.S. The number of Japanese killed by conventional bombing was greater than the number killed by the atomic bombs If you don't believe me go check the death toll from bombing of Japanese cities (over 80,000 in Tokyo in one raid) It took "horrific weapons" to make Japan surrender, nothing else had worked and the cost in lives for an invading force would have been appalling. Even then it was more the shocking fact that it only took one plane and one bomb to destroy a city that made them surrender. The death and destruction and horror perpetrated by the Japanese empire over the whole of Asia was incredible, the Chinese casualties alone ran into millions. With a military controlled ethos such as existed in Japan, total surrender and complete regime change was essential and conventional invasion would have probably have cost even more lives.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 15, 2017 18:40:53 GMT
Yes, but although there are questions about human rights issues in North Korea, they have no history of waging warfare against other countries, whereas the United States seems to be incapable of existing without bombing one god-forsaken third-world country after the next, and has done for as long as I have been around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 18:48:08 GMT
History says something different to that. Only one country has actually used nuclear weapons against another country. Enola Gay, you should have stayed at home yesterday. I can completely understand why a country would wish to have a deterrent against the one country which has already used these horrific weapons to fry people. Please don't take this personal but I think that is the daftest statement I have seen from you. The regime of the Empire of Japan was not one that could have been described as normal. The United States did not start the war with Japan, they attacked the U.S. The number of Japanese killed by conventional bombing was greater than the number killed by the atomic bombs If you don't believe me go check the death toll from bombing of Japanese cities (over 80,000 in Tokyo in one raid) It took "horrific weapons" to make Japan surrender, nothing else had worked and the cost in lives for an invading force would have been appalling. Even then it was more the shocking fact that it only took one plane and one bomb to destroy a city that made them surrender. The death and destruction and horror perpetrated by the Japanese empire over the whole of Asia was incredible, the Chinese casualties alone ran into millions. With a military controlled ethos such as existed in Japan, total surrender and complete regime change was essential and conventional invasion would have probably have cost even more lives. I hate daft. I disagree with you. Nuclear weapons are useful for defensive purposes but if a country decides to use them offensively that changes the game, regardless of the circumstances. Obviously the US wanted to win the war. I imagine Japan did as well. (Should mention that I'm not a CND hippy btw)
|
|