North Korea's Threats

last SG · 2013-04-13T13:50:14+00:00

Wow, if the North launches nukes, there will be interesting firework display to watch.

Dalforce 1941 SG

Summer hill, if North Korea and U.S. fight, should other countries pick one side and join in the fight or should they just sit back, see show and watch the two fight?

JoeRaj SG

It's doesn't matter if you think that North Korea owning nuclear bombs is good or bad, it seems to me that a strong military is the only way to deter a warfare. Nuclear weapons have prevented more wars than it created,( eg The Cold War and WW2. ), even they are generally dangerous, the one thing that's making it worse is going to war.

http://teengirlandpolitics.blogspot.sg/2013/04/usa-should-not-be-part-of-korean-war.html

I am sorry but clearly you are missing a few points and facts in your history lessons:

a) The bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki did not spark the nuclear race.

Rather the nuclear race had already begun a few years earlier, with Nazi Germany engaging in serious efforts to build the A Bomb. The idea was to get it before them. The Russians also had already started its own programme towards the end of WW2.

The bombing of the 2 cities did not spark the race, the race was already under way and would have continued nonetheless between the Soviets and the Americans.

b) Killing of innocent civilians is abhorrent to all decent people the world, however in a war, they are always gonna be killed in far higher proportion than military personnel. That is an unavoidable fact, with or without the use of nucear weapons.

c) After victory in Europe, the US still had to fight the war in Asia, with their Allies, many of whom were already a spent force. Britain, France etc all had to deal with a post war Europe and the task of rebuilding. The Soviets had become very dominant and now unchallengable in the East and Baltic States. It was really up to the US to defeat the Japanese on it's own.

d) The Japanese were determined to go down fighting to the last men and to scorch earth. There were very brutal and devasting battles in the pacific before the lead up to July 1945. It was clear to the Americans that the Japanese despite knowing they were losing would make them fight for every single inch.

e) The decision facing President Truman in July 1945 was plain after Japan refused to surrender despite warnings. Invade Japan with a full force and fight sqaure mile after square mile and lose maybe 2-300,000 American soldiers, (also probably millions of Japanese citizens) or drop the bomb? An invasion would probably drag the war for another year, by the time it was done, the Soviets would then be the dominant power and a new threat to face all over again.

It was a decision he agonised painfully over before finally giving the go ahead to General LeMay.

JoeRaj SG

The closest the world came to nuclear war was in 1962 during the Cuban Missile crisis. Only cool heads in the White House and the Soviet Commnader in Cuba prevented it.

I grew up in the 80s thinking nuclear war would be inevitable, fortunately now, it looks quite unlikely unless by rogue state which would then be swiftly destroyed.

Dalforce 1941 SG

Invade Japan with a full force and fight sqaure mile after square mile and lose maybe 2-300,000 American soldiers, (also probably millions of Japanese citizens) or drop the bomb?

Actually that is U.S propaganda, a blockade without invasion would have finished the Japanese off.

After it was all over, Director of Military Intelligence for the Pacific Theater of War Alfred McCormack, who was probably in as good position as anyone for judging the situation, felt that the Japanese surrender could have been obtained in a few weeks by blockade alone: "The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock, and their fuel reserves were practically exhausted.

We had begun a secret process of mining all their harbors, which was steadily isolating them from the rest of the world. If we had brought this operation to its logical conclusion, the destruction of Japan's cities with incendiary and other bombs would have been quite unnecessary.

But General Norstad declared at Washington that this blockading action was a cowardly proceeding unworthy of the Air Force. It was therefore discontinued."

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/16.html#61

It was really up to the US to defeat the Japanese on it's own.

The U.S. made a deal with Stalin at Yalta summit in Feb 1945 that the Soviets would enter the war against Japan 3 months after Germany was defeated. But after the A bomb was tested in July, the americans changed their minds and wanted to block the Soviets from entering the war.

They didn't want the Soviets to occupy parts of northern China or Japan and thus increase Soviet influence and control of those areas. They felt that the bomb would finish Japan off before the Soviets could enter.

You can check out the story in below book:

The American Occupation of Japan: The Origins of the Cold War in Asia

http://bookos.org/book/1038038/ec615b

The book also details the american strategy in asia and south east asia that is rarely admitted publicly. And that is that U.S strategy was not only about containment of China and USSR during cold war but also Japan. In order to do so, U.S. had to made sure that south east asia had to be free from communism and had to be secure to supply Japan with raw materials and also as a market for Japanese exports.

They had to play this role, otherwise Japan would look towards the USSR for markets and raw materials and U.S. would lose their influence with Japan.

This is the real reason why U.S fought the Vietnam war.

Or better yet, listen to this interview:

Peter Gowan interview on U.S. foreign policy since 1945

https://archive.org/details/PeterGowanInterview2009

Everything that U.S. does in the world becomes clear after you listen to it. I am very impressed with Peter Gowan's analyst of U.S. foreign policy.

isntitobviousstoptokinrot SG

can't you all see. all countries around NK are afraid that out of the nortj's funny way of wirshipping and honoring their war faring leaders - dead and life ones. they instead of voyeur or closed door makin love, they instead of buying a ccake and blow out candles, they sinstead choose to nuclear fir missiles. and US SK JP being technology highg contries fear that in teh haste to celebrate and lack of technical knwohow the north's missai will go haywoire of course of drop halfway at SK JP or some US far far away camps. like that is die very ugly killed by stray bullets. actually if not like that who cares about NK and their lion wannabe car roar, puppy whinning wannabe dog barks!?

JoeRaj SG

Yeah yeah WW2 Japan would have surrendered without a fight or compulsion, tell me about it.

Tell the people of Nanking about it, tell the Filipinos about it, tell the peoples of Malaya about it.

Yeah yeah propaganda

isntitobviousstoptokinrot SG

Actually that is U.S propaganda, a blockade without invasion would have finished the Japanese off.

But General Norstad declared at Washington that this blockading action was a cowardly proceeding unworthy of the Air Force. It was therefore discontinued."

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/16.html#61

Dalforce - you underestimated the japs in the days of the imperial rule. they were taught to hold their pee if ordered to by the emporer. so they will fiht to the last men., food or no food, weapons or no weapons. Aboobs was the only best quick and swift solution back then. so japs also moved on later and their economy overtook the rest of the world fast.

isntitobviousstoptokinrot SG

i am worried by SK and NK women, can i sign up and join their MP to help look after the women?

Dalforce 1941 SG

One powerful reason why U.S. dropped the bomb was to display their military power to the USSR.

Once the Soviets saw the power of the A-bomb, they had to move cautiously. They cannot suka suka occupy here and there.

On the other hand, if we had not used the bomb on Japan, we would have been quite incapable of preventing the Soviet ground forces from expanding wherever they were ordered in Eurasia in 1946 and later.

We do not know where they might have been ordered because we do not know if the Kremlin is insatiable for conquest, as some "experts" claim, or is only seeking buffer security zones, as other "experts" believe, but it is clear that Soviet orders to advance were prevented by American possession of the A-bomb after 1945.

It does seem clear that ultimately Soviet forces would have taken all of Germany, much of the Balkans, probably Manchuria, and possibly other fringe areas across central Asia, including Iran.

Such an advance of Soviet power to the Rhine, the Adriatic, and the Aegean would have been totally unacceptable to the United States, but, without the atom bomb, we could hardly have stopped it.

Moreover, such an advance would have led to Communist or Communist-dominated coalition governments in Italy and France. If the Soviet forces had advanced to the Persian Gulf across Iran, this might have led to such Communist-elected governments in India and much of Africa.

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/16.html#61

isntitobviousstoptokinrot SG

today they fire missai already?

Summer hill SG

I am sorry but clearly you are missing a few points and facts in your history lessons:

a) The bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki did not spark the nuclear race.

The bombing of the 2 cities did not spark the race, the race was already under way and would have continued nonetheless between the Soviets and the Americans.

It was a decision he agonised painfully over before finally giving the go ahead to General LeMay.

1) The bombing DID kickstart the cold war.

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

A arms race is like, in simpler terms, I own a kitchen chopper, you a bit scared of me, you go and buy a parang.

2) A nuclear bomb devestate the region even after it was long dropped there.

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

We can survive and rebuild a place after it's being bomb by TNT, but not a nuke. And also, Virtually everyone within two miles of ground zero would perish, while those farther out would be extremely likely to suffer significant injury, radiation poisoning, etc.

3) I don't quite understand this point.

4) Japan is an island nation; just simply destorying their navy and aircraft and cut off trade, they(USA) could have waited until a surrender was necessary by lack of supplies - Japan was almost empty of resources and in it's isolation would have eventually had to surrender.

4) Why do they need to invade Japan? It's not a defensive move but rather an invasive one. Like what I said above, CUT OFF THE TRADE! The reason why Japan invaded Singapore is for the resources. Japans didn't go as far as the Americans, at least they didn't drop sooo many bombs on Singapore.

http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

5) How do you know if that President made a very agonsing decision to kill his enemies? He actually felt compassion for they people he killed? WOW.

Summer hill SG

Summer hill, if North Korea and U.S. fight, should other countries pick one side and join in the fight or should they just sit back, see show and watch the two fight?

Watch the show lah.

Singapore can make money by repairing their fighter jet/planes/warship or refilling their ships. We can also sell weapons.

weasel1962 SG

Japan never would have surrendered just through isolation. By war’s end, Japan was still holding on to many territories including Singapore, Taiwan etc. Japan would have continued the policy of kamikaze pilots and constructing its war machines because that’s their psyche. The 2 atom bombs compelled the emperor to force his military to seek terms i.e. surrender. Those are the facts. It was also because the Japs did not know that the US only had 2 atom bombs and Roosevelt threatened to carry on atom bombing the Japanese cities. Without the emperor’s intervention, the military was prepared to continue the war indefinitely (or so they said).

In a way, the atom bombs, despite their devastation, freed Singapore earlier. The atom bombs killed far less people than the B-29 bombings and fire raids did but the latter did not force the emperor to seek peace.

Summer hill SG

The blockade was working. Japan has never had the resources on the home islands to feed her people and fuel her industries. The people were slowly starving and industrial complexes had all but shut down. Even if Japan still had the will to fight, she lacked the ability. To be sure, plans for Operation Downfall (for the invasion of the Japanese home islands) had been prepared. Casualty estimates that ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous and been forecast. It is common sense to draw up battle plans and contingencies. It is another matter entirely to put them in motion. The Germans had plans for the Invasion of Great Britain but they never seriously considered going forward with Operation Sealion. The US had continuously revised the Rainbow Five, but no one in the Pentagon thought for a moment that the US would invade Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland or India. Likewise, no one believed for an instant that the invasion of Japan would ever come to pass. It simply wasn't going to be necessary.

Mr Milo SG

Fight lah…..........knn

NK had better fire all of its missiles, bombs and rockets before they are all destroyed Laughing

the Bear SG

Mr Milo SG

Laughing

Fire! Missiles away! Laughing

JoeRaj SG

1) The bombing DID kickstart the cold war.

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

A arms race is like, in simpler terms, I own a kitchen chopper, you a bit scared of me, you go and buy a parang.

2) A nuclear bomb devestate the region even after it was long dropped there.

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

3) I don't quite understand this point.

http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

5) How do you know if that President made a very agonsing decision to kill his enemies? He actually felt compassion for they people he killed? WOW.

Like I said dont believe everything you read, even wikipedia which is essentially user input and edited. Even a respected source will always have the author's slant. But I'm not here to argue with view, just engage in exchange your views, which I will respect even if I disagree.

1) I will concede the point to you based on your simple explanation, what I said was that 1945 wasnt the start, but as you put it, yes it was the trigger.

2) You are right on point 2 as well. Not much was done to study the long term effects as opposed to the immediate damage it could caused.

I will come back later or tomorrow to answer points 3-5

weasel1962 SG

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/ch13.htm

The Joint chiefs including MacArthur were prepared to invade Japan. In particular, one should consider MacArthur's 3 options which covered the scenarios discussed plus invasion (read link above, pp 397-398) and pertinent to note MacArthur's preferred option was to invade rather than bomb/blockade. It was Truman who decided to go ahead with the atom bomb after Okinawa showed how many casaulties could be caused by an invasion. The C-in-C has the last say.

JoeRaj SG

1) The bombing DID kickstart the cold war.

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

A arms race is like, in simpler terms, I own a kitchen chopper, you a bit scared of me, you go and buy a parang.

2) A nuclear bomb devestate the region even after it was long dropped there.

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

3) I don't quite understand this point.

http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

5) How do you know if that President made a very agonsing decision to kill his enemies? He actually felt compassion for they people he killed? WOW.

Point 3: After victory in Europe, it was basically left to 2 armies to fight Japan in the East, the US and the USSR. The Soviets were playing a waiting game, consoladating their gains in Eastern Europe and then amassing troops in the East near Japan, but they would let the Americans do the bulk of the fighting.

Point 4; The invasion of Japan had to happen, because their was no way just to cut of supplies and hope they bleed, it would take too long plus Japan was still occupying parts of Asia including Singapore, if you remember. They still had planes and some ships.

While the Japanese did not bomb the shit out of Singapore, just ask any relatives who lived thu the era, how cruel they were. They were a very viscious occupier especially in China and the Koreas.

They refused to surrender and was still mobilising men to fight.

Truman had to make the decision, lose hundreds of thousands of men or use the bombs and bring Japan to it's knees.

Had he gone for the former, dont forget by the time victory was achived, the US would be extremely vulnerable to any Soviet plans to occupy all the places Japan had abandoned or lost.

« Previous Page Next Page »