|
Post by JohnV on Apr 15, 2017 18:52:29 GMT
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. Defensive purposes .... ie using them against someone who attacks you ....... that is what Japan did. Incidentally the last thing the world needed was a triumphant Japan ....... that would have been as horrific for the world as a triumphant Nazi regime.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 15, 2017 18:54:18 GMT
"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." - George Orwell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 19:01:26 GMT
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. Defensive purposes .... ie using them against someone who attacks you ....... that is what Japan did. Incidentally the last thing the world needed was a triumphant Japan ....... that would have been as horrific for the world as a triumphant Nazi regime. If it truly was a response to Pearl Harbour why did it take them so long? I don't know that much about ww2 but it does not seem to me that the US was acting in defense. More like testing some new toys like they did a couple of days ago with the MOAB 10 tonne bomb dropped onto some mountains.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 15, 2017 19:17:03 GMT
Defensive purposes .... ie using them against someone who attacks you ....... that is what Japan did. Incidentally the last thing the world needed was a triumphant Japan ....... that would have been as horrific for the world as a triumphant Nazi regime. If it truly was a response to Pearl Harbour why did it take them so long? I don't know that much about ww2 but it does not seem to me that the US was acting in defense. More like testing some new toys like they did a couple of days ago with the MOAB 10 tonne bomb dropped onto some mountains. I'm sorry but that again is not thought out. why did it take them so long ? ......... it wasn't invented !!! There were no planes that could fly that far until there was airbases captured within range
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 15, 2017 19:28:55 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. I agree I'm not sure if he's a threat to anyone. Has he bet attacked another country. There are a few other countries that have. And all this USA Japan business. Warfare was a different beast back then. Just look how it went in Europe and the Japanese would never let another country take Japan. I do like to think that it was such a new thing then that although they new the initial damage they were not aware of the lasting damage from radiation and if they knew what we knew now, they never would of done it.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 15, 2017 19:31:09 GMT
If it truly was a response to Pearl Harbour why did it take them so long? I don't know that much about ww2 but it does not seem to me that the US was acting in defense. More like testing some new toys like they did a couple of days ago with the MOAB 10 tonne bomb dropped onto some mountains. I'm sorry but that again is not thought out. why did it take them so long ? ......... it wasn't invented !!! There were no planes that could fly that far until there was airbases captured within range A good point and let's not forget how horrific the Pacific war was with the Japanese dug in tunnels and there kamakazi pilots. I'm pretty sure the decision was not one taken lightly.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 15, 2017 19:37:41 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 19:47:09 GMT
Its ok I'll stop digging now
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 15, 2017 19:47:13 GMT
Watch hacksaw ridge its very realistic, it shows how the Japanese fought to hold on to islands that wernt part of Japan, think how many would have died to capture Japan itself? The loss of 2 cities would have been a drop in the ocean and we would have been involved as well. For me it was the safest option for nations that had been made war on
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 15, 2017 20:13:59 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. You mean was forced to use. They were not used to start a war, they were used to end one. You are blaming the US for being attacked by Japan, grow up.
|
|
|
Post by tomsk on Apr 15, 2017 20:27:07 GMT
I hated nuclear brinksmanship when it was conducted by sober, ideologically driven pragmatists.
Nuclear brinkmanship between NK and Trump actually scares the shit out of me because neither of them are in any way predictable and both are 'Cult of Personality' types, steamrollering their way through life through sheer power with little or no understanding or respect for diplomacy.
Trump appears to be a 'results driven, year on year growth' decisive guy, making the tough decisions, backing his gut feel. He is also a bona-fide idiot.
Kim appears to be shit scared and backed into a corner.
I'm worried.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 15, 2017 20:30:57 GMT
I hated nuclear brinksmanship when it was conducted by sober, ideologically driven pragmatists. Nuclear brinkmanship between NK and Trump actually scares the shit out of me because neither of them are in any way predictable and both are 'Cult of Personality' types, steamrollering their way through life through sheer power with little or no understanding or respect for diplomacy. Trump appears to be a 'results driven, year on year growth' decisive guy, making the tough decisions, backing his gut feel. He is also a bona-fide idiot. Kim appears to be shit scared and backed into a corner. I'm worried. The other problem with any confrontation is that China is North Korea's ally.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Apr 15, 2017 20:40:35 GMT
I hated nuclear brinksmanship when it was conducted by sober, ideologically driven pragmatists. Nuclear brinkmanship between NK and Trump actually scares the shit out of me because neither of them are in any way predictable and both are 'Cult of Personality' types, steamrollering their way through life through sheer power with little or no understanding or respect for diplomacy. Trump appears to be a 'results driven, year on year growth' decisive guy, making the tough decisions, backing his gut feel. He is also a bona-fide idiot. Kim appears to be shit scared and backed into a corner. I'm worried. The other problem with any confrontation is that China is North Korea's ally. Although reports state that Chrina has been telling Kim to back off.
|
|
|
Post by tomsk on Apr 15, 2017 21:57:15 GMT
China are a case in point.
Hugely different cultural and political values yet self-confident on the World stage, playing to its strengths, quite prepared and economically able to play the game on its own terms according to a well established set of protocols established since the Opium Wars and not much changed since.
NK is fucking weird and unreadable.
China does not want to upset the apple cart, it's all going too well for them at the moment.
Unfortunately that must lead to NK feeling further alienated and insecure.
Something has to give.
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Apr 16, 2017 0:15:51 GMT
I reckon if NK just shut the fuck up, rest of the world would just continue and ignore them, but oh no Kim has to keep shooting his mouth off and in effect keep offering the whole world out. If he kept his head down nobody would take any notice of NK. Phil
|
|