What to do about North Korea?

[he_who_is_nobody]

To say the US is basically the same shows a total lack of judgment.

I wonder if anyone at this forum is so lacking in reason as to be fooled by this strawman.

I doubt it.

Well, dandan/leroy is part of this forum.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well, dandan/leroy is part of this forum.

Ah yes. As you were then!

 

[Tree]

A chap unable to tell what's morally problematic about dropping nuclear bombs on civilian sites simultaneously believes he's in a position to instruct others about how those funny foreigners are really, really super bad, like badderer than us good guys, and that's fer shur.

This is exactly how atrocities are committed in the first place.

Better than a chap who's morally confused about which is the least bad:

1. killing Japanese
2. killing MORE Japanese + losing an additional number of Allied troops and dragging on the war for years to come

You still haven't explained if Allies were equivalent to Nazi Germany or somehow not in a position to lecture Nazis because their bombings (conventional weapons) also killed many civilians. War is shit, what can I say.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Arguments have been made that the US could have invited the Japanese to the testing of the atomic bomb as a demonstration of what they'd suffer if they didn't come to the table for peace-talks - Japan wouldn't have had to surrender in such circumstances.

Regarding the original post...

I think it's too late to do anything about NK's having nuclear weapons.

The main problem was the lack of any coherent sanctions policy - it tended to be open-ended, until NK backed-down, and the sanctions were on non-critical things.

What should have been done was to have a clear escalation policy - a day, a week, two weeks, a month, three months, six months, and a year.

The sanctions could then have been on critical things - fuel deliveries, and access to international finance - for those set periods.

After the one day sanction, NK would have realized that if it broke "the rules" a second time, it would have faced a full week of no fuel deliveries or access to international finance.

They might have still gone ahead in the (mistaken) belief that, if they then gave in during the week, the international community would lift the sanctions. However, it would have been important for the international community to stick with it for the full week.

China would have been more willing to go along with such a system since it would have been clear-cut, rather than the open-ended sanctions that have been used historically.

Their main concern being that, with open-ended sanctions, NK might collapse with violent consequences.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Tree]

Declaring war after being attacked is not world policing, that is simply warfare. Equivocating the two will get you nowhere. Since I was talking about the U.S. learning its lesson about being the world's police while talking about the Iraq War, it seems obvious that I am talking about taking military action against another state preemptively.

I'm not sure you understood me then because I'm not saying that a military option against North Korea must happen. Though I believe that just tolerating NK getting ICBMs capable of hitting the US with nukes is probably worse than doing something about it.

It's something I wouldn't leave off the table, but if there's a non-military action, I'd take that.

Or perhaps a military option by China should be explored too where China takes NK or NK voluntarily agrees to be an autonomous region of China (as long as Kim has no nukes, China guarantees NK security instead).

Part of why Kim wants to be able to hit US is because he thinks that's the only way to not end up like Gaddafi or Saddam. If China however assumed that role... who knows.

Why is/was that something we should have wasted U.S. money or lives over?

Well was because the spread of communism first of all was bad for the world. There was nobody else that could have matched the toxic influence of Soviet subversion.

Is because NK conquering SK would impact legitimate business interests with SK being an ally and trading partner with the US and other nations. You destabilize SK - it's going to cause a shock wave on global markets. And if you think that's going just going to affect the rich, no, it won't, the rich will be fine, it's employees of companies who lose contracts who are going to be the losers, it's people investing in the stock market to save for their retirement.

Besides, I've already been experiencing minor drops in stock prices immediately following some negative story about NK so already some investors seem to be pulling out.

With that said, I don't favor the draft, I prefer a professional army. Nobody is getting sent to the army involuntarily anyway. They know the risks, they have accepted the rewards. I'm not saying they should be needlessly put in harms way, but that's the price you pay for having a more stable world. A world where communist totalitarianism can run amok and do whatever it wants just because it's not within your border is still an unacceptably dangerous place to live.

Besides the thing that is causing global problems now, it all worked out. Right... Besides, the failure of communism is what stopped the Soviet Union. Of course a system that cannot work will always end in failure.

It won't necessarily end just because it fails because a brutal enough dictator (like the Kims) can simply sacrifice countless lives to make it appear to "work". Millions starving? No problem, let them die and you won't have any more starvation, problem "solved". Oh people aren't free or happy? No problem. Force them to smile and those who don't play along just send to labor camp + their kids and parents to be safe. People don't love the dead leader? Kill them. Then only those who do remain and you get a 100% approval rating. That's how these degenerates think.

Why would I have to explain that? Again, you are a fan of the tu quoque.

It is not a tu quoque to kill someone who is trying to kill me and initiated the aggression. Or my friends for that matter, I don't have to sit idly by and allow thugs to beat my friends to death just because it doesn't happen to me (or should I say not yet). Or even steal my property. That is also justifiable self-defense.

Now back to the context, if the Soviet Union was engaging in communist subversion of other nations, then I see no problem with helping those countries resist it.

Seeing as how the Soviet Union were never on U.S. soil, as you say, what exactly were we taking?

I'm saying the US has legitimate business interests abroad. When a communist or other totalitarian regime takes over a country and institutes a dictatorship, every US company that does business with that country will be hurt financially. Assets on that country's soil may even be seized. Why should the US tolerate that? That's all I'm asking.

Now let's give you a more clear example from today.

Let's say you have a multi-million dollar contract with Samsung (South Korea based) and Kim Jong Un conquers South Korea and makes it communist. You relied on that contract to pay your employee's salaries, pay your debts, pay your utilities. Your business is now fucked because Samsung no longer exists (or no longer exists in its previous form and now plays by totally different rules and Kim has no interest in honoring or continuing that contract). Who knows, maybe during the invasion Samsung HQ is blown up entirely and you definitely don't have that contract now. Is that fair? Why should we tolerate it?

Yet, the Lame Donald Duck campaigned on being isolationist to some extent, yet keeps trying to provoke the Little Rocket Man. Those to things are in conflict.

How has the diplomacy of the last 3 presidents worked out btw? You know Trump didn't have to inherit this mess.

The only reason the military option is so hard now is because it wasn't done sooner before they had 38 nukes pointed at SK and Japan. I did warn you these preemptive strikes are not all bad. There are so may points in history where a calculated preemptive strike could have prevented worse outcomes. Like let's say you could go back to the Russian Revolution in 1917 and defend the Tsar and kill the commie rebellion, who made up a very tiny percentage of the population by the way, you'd have no Soviet Union and no communist subversion of countless nations.

Why would world powers want to do this?

Reduce American power / extort more money perhaps?

Than the allies can handle the tiny rogue states. Our allies can ask for our help if they need it after the tiny rogue states initiates the conflict.

I'm not sure you understand how this works.

Let's say NK invades SK today. SK will suffer, but NK cannot win. The US has enough CONVENTIONAL weapons to reduce NK to ash if it wants to.

Now imagine NK invades SK not today but later after they get ICBMs. Now they can invade SK AND also threat the US into not interfering because they have ICBMs pointed at every major American city. You still think under those circumstances the US can come to the aid of SK without risking a total nuclear world war?

The similarities are what I emphasised in your above statement. Is the intent of one man enough for the U.S. to act? North Korea does not have ICBMs, just like Iraq did not have WMDs. Beyond that, as I said earlier, this seems like Japan et al. problem to handle. Why should the U.S. waste any time, money, or lives over the intent of one man?

We trade with Japan also. Japan gets fucked, it hurts the west. Companies lose contracts, downsize, people get fired or have salaries cut, they can't pay mortgages, banks lose money, fire their employees and so on. The idea that you can be fully isolationist or only take action when they start firing rockets into your friends is naive in my view. By then the damage is done.

Just like they are planning on getting ICBMs? Again, just another Republican boogyman.

It's not a boogyman, they make no secret of it. There is no disagreement on this and they've already tested rockets, flying 2 over Japan. I guess the Japanese all imagined that somehow and it was just a dream...

I did ask a stupid question. The real question should have been, how could North Korea do that? So, Kim plans on getting ICBMs and wants to conquer South Korea. Thus, based on this man's plans and wants we are supposed to step in? At best, this seems like a war between two nations that has nothing to do with the U.S. in the first place.

Again they can bully the US into not interfering to defend South Korea by pointing the missiles towards US mainland.

Who is to be the judge of that? The U.S. does not seem like it would be a good one, it has toppled many democratic nations and put into power dictators or dictators come into power from the chaos that was created. Again, this comes back to who made the U.S. the world's police in the first place?

The list contains 10 cases of intervention in Latin America - not all of them democracies - not all of them involving actual US troops and many involving toppling communist-aligned figures during the Cold War.

So let's see who were fought and what the article says:

1. Cuban (communist) aligned Maurice Bishop who came to power through revolution not election
2. Salvador Allende - democratically elected yes, what you forgot to mention is that he was a communist ally and it wasn't US troops that deposed him, but a group of Chilean citizens backed by the CIA
3. plan to depose Cuban dictator Fidel Castro - not democratically elected
4. Arbenz was democratically elected, he also fucked with the business interests of a US company operating on Guatemalan soil

Now you can see this as no big deal, but like it or not, it is an act of aggression to just take by force 40% of a company's land. If your country purposely mistreats US citizens or tries to rob US companies of their assets when they're operating on your soil, what do you expect the US to do? Stand down and take it? Not very realistic.

Not to say everything was perfect, it wasn't, things could have been handled much better, but let's not pretend the other side was innocent or that no part of it was justfiable.

Geopolitics are more brutal than they seem and you need to be strong to thrive and protect your interests.

Me too, and not a moment before the aggression from North Korea starts and South Korea asks us to honor our alliances.

Which again won't be feasible if they bully us with nuke packed ICBMs to stand down while they rape and pillage all they want.

You should check and see where that crystal ball you are using was manufactured at. Again, that sounds just like what the W. Bush administration predicted about Iraq. They also did not think that there would be a radical state in Iraq. Hidesight is always 20/20 though.

It's not a crystal ball, this is nothing but solipsistic nonsense that claims you can't know anything about anything.

I mean, I'm no expert myself and ultimately not my decision to make, but I know a few things, and it shouldn't be too hard to hire a Korean culture expert to guide you through it in extensive detail if you want it so badly. This idea that you can't make any judgement about what NK might be like post-Kim Jong Un if that comes to pass is silly.

Why would a Korean ISIS-style regime arise? Let's think about this. 1. They don't follow Islam and therefore aren't influenced by Islamic militarism either. They could be influenced by a similar militaristic ideology, like Juche, but it's unclear how many North Koreans truly believe that ideology, since so far those who flee to the west want absolutely nothing to do with Juche or Kim Jong Un.

2. NK is culturally homogenous, only Korean, Iraq has a least 3 main opposing factions that don't get along. There is a historical Korea, Iraq is literally a made up country drawn by world powers after the fall of the Ottomans, it cannot be stable without either a dictator or permanent US troops stationed to ensure security.

3. There wouldn't be a power vacuum like in Iraq because South Korea would simply annex (or should I say reclaim, there is a history of a united Korea) North Korea in the event of Kim Jong Un being removed from power. There was no country to annex or reclaim or anything when it came to Iraq.

4. Even if we "radicalize" enough Koreans to hate us, there's no obligation for us to take them in. Let South Korea integrate them into a larger Korea if it comes to that. There is no obligation on any country's part to accept millions of refugees where they don't know their loyalties. Remember, they can't bomb you if they can't get in.

Why wouldn't NK be able to be a democracy if SK can? It's the same culture. One half was just beaten into submission.

And even Iraq could have been somewhat of a success if cultural realities were not ignored so blatantly. First, the country should have been split so the 3 main groups who don't get along don't live in the same borders. Sunni Arab, Shi'ite Arab, Kurd. 3 countries. Similar to how Yugoslavia was split and you haven't had war since. That would tone down a lot of the strife. Second, the country needed a secular constitution. Third, troops were withdrawn too soon. Just because you went it on mistaken premises doesn't mean leaving it will fix it. It was wrong for Bush to go in, it was wrong for Obama to leave too early, both can be true. None of these happened.

What can I say? Hire better analysts in Washington, preferably those who haven't had their brain eroded by regressive left propaganda of all cultures being equal so you can't find any patterns in different cultures and come to sensible conclusions about them.

Equivocating war with preemptive military action will get you nowhere.

Some of those examples technically speaking were not military actions, they were covert CIA operations aiding foreign military. US troops didn't always have to be involved.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Better than a chap who's morally confused about which is the least bad:

So you say, but the only person exhibiting moral confusion appears to be you. Unable to do anything other than apologize for and obfuscate about the murder of around 200,000 civilians purportedly to save military lives.

This is what happens when you emote rather than think.

You still haven't explained if Allies were equivalent to Nazi Germany or somehow not in a position to lecture Nazis because their bombings (conventional weapons) also killed many civilians. War is shit, what can I say.

You still haven't explained why it is that you need to keep making up positions for me rather than responding to what I write.

 

[Sparhafoc]

http://members.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

Victory makes morality, at least for morally stunted apologists who don't really give two hoots about morality in the first place - just a veneer of justification for their utilitarian disdain for the lives and well-being of the conquered.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Greetings,

Arguments have been made that the US could have invited the Japanese to the testing of the atomic bomb as a demonstration of what they'd suffer if they didn't come to the table for peace-talks - Japan wouldn't have had to surrender in such circumstances.

Regarding the original post...

I think it's too late to do anything about NK's having nuclear weapons.

The main problem was the lack of any coherent sanctions policy - it tended to be open-ended, until NK backed-down, and the sanctions were on non-critical things.

What should have been done was to have a clear escalation policy - a day, a week, two weeks, a month, three months, six months, and a year.

I would add to this. We need to stop playing zero sum games, particularly where atomic warfare is the stakes.

Every single line of justification for a nation like the USA, Russia, or other nuclear nations possessing these weapons is exactly the same justification for any other nation possessing them.

The mere fact of any nation possessing such weaponry creates an imperative for other nations to possess them in order to have any hope of maintaining their sovereignty. We act as if it's outlandish that the nations we publicly dislike and rattle our sabers at have the temerity to want to possess the only deterrent available against nuclear-armed nations.

The cat was let out of the bag in August 1945.

I think we need to try something different. I think we need to work on incentivizing rather than penalizing, because the threats of sanctions intended to damage an economy and cause hardship for the populace actually provides rational for possessing nuclear weapons to protect the nation from the outside clear and immediate threat.

Given the common refrain that capitalist trade and international relations have caused a cordial entente, then we need to extend this to pariah nations in the aim of converting them to this pacifistic horn of plenty. If it's supposedly working for us, why don't we try using it to pacify them too?

Regardless, N Korea already has nukes, and even if it can't hit the USA now or in another decade, it can still target 'our' allies in the region. So do we keep threatening and provoking the despotic loon until the shit hits the fan and then clear it up, regardless of the dramatic cost in lives and welfare of huge numbers of people, plus the damage to an already critically precarious environment.... or do we perhaps try and ensure that N Korea never uses nukes, never feels pressured into using nukes, and a soft approach to slowly drilling away at this bastion of deranged lunacy to bring it and its people into the modern fold?

For me, there's no contest here. A nuclear strike by anyone is a loss for everyone, and potentially a far greater loss than we can predict.

 

[Tree]

Victory makes morality, at least for morally stunted apologists who don't really give two hoots about morality in the first place - just a veneer of justification for their utilitarian disdain for the lives and well-being of the conquered.

It is not utilitarian to say that actions committed under duress make you less or not culpable.

It is also not utilitarian to notice that principles that work for a nation during peace time do not apply during war time.

I don't think you have a right to rob Bill Gates to give to the poor, but I do think war time has different rules. Until you come up with a way to win a war with 0 civilian casualties, you're not bringing anything to the conversation. It's easy to virtue signal before you're actually put in an extreme situation with none of the outcomes being good.

Given the common refrain that capitalist trade and international relations have caused a cordial entente, then we need to extend this to pariah nations in the aim of converting them to this pacifistic horn of plenty. If it's supposedly working for us, why don't we try using it to pacify them too?

This would require good will on their part and they haven't earn this trust. They have done everything in their power to destroy that trust.

It's also interesting how isolationist pacifists who are fine with NK getting nuke tipped ICBMs are usually the ones for gun control for regular citizens....

And how do you justify an absolute degenerate like Kim Jong Un having nukes but not say the mafia or Bob down the street having nukes? Do you think either of those are worse than Kim?

How about isolated communities run by cultists? There are some compounds like that on US soil.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Victory makes morality, at least for morally stunted apologists who don't really give two hoots about morality in the first place - just a veneer of justification for their utilitarian disdain for the lives and well-being of the conquered.

It is not utilitarian to say that actions committed under duress make you less or not culpable.

Err, we we forced to load atomic bombs into planes, forced to fly them over Japan, and forced to drop them onto civilian centers?

I don't know if such wet-wankery genuinely constitutes your honest belief, but it's pathetic Tree to be exhibiting it in public in a forum dedicated to reasoned discourse.

It is also not utilitarian to notice that principles that work for a nation during peace time do not apply during war time.

And straight back to the irrelevances.

Let me write it in crayon for you so that perhaps you grasp the elementary notion.

Any and all justifications you can make for the possession of nuclear weapons for our nations are the exact same justifications they are making for the possession of nuclear weapons in their countries. Worse, our possession creates an imperative in rational terms.

Can you follow this yet, or do I need to draw diagrams?

I don't think you have a right to rob Bill Gates to give to the poor, but I do think war time has different rules. Until you come up with a way to win a war with 0 civilian casualties, you're not bringing anything to the conversation. It's easy to virtue signal before you're actually put in an extreme situation with none of the outcomes being good.

And it's easy to declare the deaths of those funny foreigners a necessity while simultaneously whinging piteously about the treatment of a single individual of your own group.... it's called vacant prejudice.

This would require good will on their part and they haven't earn this trust.

Says the overblown utilitarian desperate to bomb them because he's been led around by the nose through propaganda.

They have done everything in their power to destroy that trust.

You contradict yourself in a matter of 2 sentences. They don't have our golden trust because they haven't earned it, but are also working hard to destroy that trust which they never had. Do you even think before typing?

It's also interesting how isolationist pacifists who are fine with NK getting nuke tipped ICBMs are usually the ones for gun control for regular citizens....

It's exceptionally interesting how you've failed to capitulate correctly a single instance of anyone else's argument, in this thread or others. Even random chance would suggest that, by now, you'd have alighted chaotically on a correct capitulation. That suggests, to me, intent. You're doing it as a discursive strategy - a barrage of fallacies of irrelevance and strawmanning rather than engaging in reasoned discourse about the topic you presumably wish to do discuss?

Perhaps you should tell everyone here I'm a pedophile too, and we all know that pedophiles are terrible people whose arguments therefore cannot be trusted.

It would be exactly as effective here as all your other posts in this thread.

And how do you justify an absolute degenerate like Kim Jong Un having nukes but not say the mafia or Bob down the street having nukes? Do you think either of those are worse than Kim?

How do I justify KJU having nukes?

I don't, as anyone with even half a functioning brain who's read this thread could tell you.

In the same way that I don't claim that the Allies were equivalent to Nazi Germany, or that the US is morally equivalent to North Korea... or any of the other numerous iterations of bullshit you've manufactured and pretended are my position.

If you lack the competence to process other peoples' arguments, it might explain why you're failing at making your own. But it becomes more problematic when you think you're in a position to repeatedly tell people they're wrong when your position is so clearly lacking any actual thought behind it.

Stop emoting and start thinking.

How about isolated communities run by cultists? There are some compounds like that on US soil.

How about Wednesday at the fish market where cod is cheap?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Until you come up with a way to win a war with 0 civilian casualties, you're not bringing anything to the conversation.

If you are unable to process the vapid prejudice that holds that nuking 200,000 civilians to save military lives is a necessity while simultaneously pretending that the mere possession of nukes is sufficient cause to war... you're not thinking, you're emoting. But it's certainly useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Incidentally, if you want to believe you're in a position to manufacture hoops necessary to jump before one is permitted to participate in a conversation - you might want to try crafting hoops that are actually logical.

 

[Sparhafoc]

it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

Combatant and noncombatant men and women, old and young, are massacred without discrimination by the atmospheric pressure of the explosion, as well as by the radiating heat which result therefrom. Consequently there is involved a bomb having the most cruel effects humanity has ever known ... The bombs in question, used by the Americans, by their cruelty and by their terrorizing effects, surpass by far gas or any other arm, the use of which is prohibited. Japanese protests against U.S. desecration of international principles of war paired the use of the atomic bomb with the earlier firebombing, which massacred old people, women and children, destroying and burning down Shinto and Buddhist temples, schools, hospitals, living quarters, etc ... They now use this new bomb, having an uncontrollable and cruel effect much greater than any other arms or projectiles ever used to date. This constitutes a new crime against humanity and civilization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead

The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true

the widespread image of the Japanese as sub-human constituted an emotional context which provided another justification for decisions which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands

Every generation has these Useful Fools who emote their way to justifying hatred and despicable treatment of those funny foreigners while decrying that treatment enacted upon their own.

While such vacuous hypocrisy exists, we will never know true peace.

 

[Tree]

Wow, talk about someone who can't engage the arguments being said...

Until you come up with a way to win a war with 0 civilian casualties, you're not bringing anything to the conversation.

If you are unable to process the vapid prejudice that holds that nuking 200,000 civilians to save military lives is a necessity

This is a misrepresentation of my position since the argument was made for military AND civilian lives and you have to be pretty naive to think a ground invasion would have cost less than 200k lives of civilians. Almost ALL the 50 million deaths in WW2 were non-nuclear related. Figure it out.

And equally, you have to be naive to think air supremacy would do it. They were very stubborn during that time and only a display of overwhelming force would have done the trick.

while simultaneously pretending that the mere possession of nukes is sufficient cause to war... you're not thinking, you're emoting. But it's certainly useful.

Well, I'm not bothered by Britain nukes so that's a lie. Another misrepresentation of my position, but keep talking about how you run on reason not emotion.

It's not mere possession by a country, it's possession by a country that cannot be trusted on any level because it doesn't have the slightest checks and balances.

There's also the issue of proliferation. If you can justify KJU having nukes, then that gets you a nuclear arms race and the probability of conflict rises when there are 200 countries with nukes vs 7. If you can't contain KJU you won't be able to make the case for any other country either since NK is the worst.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Wow, talk about someone who can't engage the arguments being said...

Yes, I was talking about that.

If you are unable to process the vapid prejudice that holds that nuking 200,000 civilians to save military lives is a necessity

This is a misrepresentation of my position since the argument was made for military AND civilian lives and you have to be pretty naive to think a ground invasion would have cost less than 200k lives of civilians. Almost ALL the 50 million deaths in WW2 were non-nuclear related. Figure it out.

And you respond with yet another complete failure at addressing the argument. Go on, slice off another part of the sentence and respond to it. While you're at it, emote at me some more.

Also, more red herrings. Look over there! See? That guy killed himself by falling on a spoon, therefore bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't that bad at all!

And equally, you have to be naive to think air supremacy would do it. They were very stubborn during that time and only a display of overwhelming force would have done the trick.

Back to Tree and his magical crystal ball.

As I've cited - the Japanese had already made overtures for peace long before the bombs were dropped, but don't let reality get in the way of your yarn about how it's morally just to drop nuclear bombs on civilian centers while simultaneously touting propaganda about how we're supposed to be scared of the possibility of a state dropping nuclear weapons because, as we all know, they're terrible people who would commit exactly such an atrocity.

Oh wait, but when we do it - it's just, let's not forget that!

I am grateful that you keep doubling down on this hypocrisy because otherwise people might have thought I was being unfair.

while simultaneously pretending that the mere possession of nukes is sufficient cause to war... you're not thinking, you're emoting. But it's certainly useful.

Well, I'm not bothered by Britain nukes so that's a lie.

Not a lie, and I've already explained why - because you're led around by your nose and you don't think, just emote.

You weren't told to be scared about the UK having nukes - they're 'our' side, the good guys - you're told to be scared about those nations which won't play ball with us. And the UK was wholly complicit in bombing the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - you only need to read Churchill to see how few shits he gave about Japanese civilians if it saved American, British and Commonwealth military lives.

It's not mere possession by a country, it's possession by a country that cannot be trusted on any level because it doesn't have the slightest checks and balances.

Cannot be trusted because it has used nuclear weapons before?

Yeah, we're back to where we started and yet you still haven't bothered to think for so much as a moment.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Oh and the 'by murdering 200,000 civilians we saved civilian lives' is a truly boggling level of idiocy. I'm surprised you are in possession of sufficient brain activity to even type if that's what constitutes thought in your grey matter.

 

[Tree]

Here with go again with the bad faith arguments.

Oh and the 'by murdering 200,000 civilians we saved civilian lives' is a truly boggling level of idiocy. I'm surprised you are in possession of sufficient brain activity to even type if that's what constitutes thought in your grey matter.

It's you who doesn't have enough grey matter to understand what I already explained before. 200k deaths would have been surpassed by a land invasion of Japan. EASILY.

Remember, a lot of them were willing to jump into planes and turn themselves into weapons against you. Kamizake. You really think conventional arms would persuade them otherwise? The only thing that stopped them is fear of their entire civilization ending.

As I've cited - the Japanese had already made overtures for peace long before the bombs were dropped

Alright let's see these gems:

it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Why?

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts,

What facts?

and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved,

You're taking testimony from the opposing side's leaders as reliable? They had the chance to surrender on July 26th.

Did the atomic bomb bring about the end of the war? That it would do so was the calculated gamble and hope of Mr. Stimson, General Marshall, and their associates. The facts are these. On July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Ultimatum called on Japan to surrender unconditionally. On July 29 Premier Suzuki issued a statement, purportedly at a cabinet press conference, scorning as unworthy of official notice the surrender ultimatum, and emphasizing the increasing rate of Japanese aircraft production. Eight days later, on August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; the second was dropped on August 9 on Nagasaki; on the following day, August 10, Japan declared its intention to surrender, and on August 14 accepted the Potsdam terms.

The evidence points to a combination of factors. (1) Some of the more informed and intelligent elements in Japanese official circles realized that they were fighting a losing battle and that complete destruction lay ahead if the war continued. These elements, however, were not powerful enough to sway the situation against the dominating Army organization, backed by the profiteering industrialists, the peasants, and the ignorant masses. (2) The atomic bomb introduced a dramatic new element into the situation, which strengthened the hands of those who sought peace and provided a face-saving argument for those who had hitherto advocated continued war. (3) When the second atomic bomb was dropped, it became clear that this was not an isolated weapon, but that there were others to follow. With dread prospect of a deluge of these terrible bombs and no possibility of preventing them, the argument for surrender was made convincing. This I believe to be the true picture of the effect of the atomic bomb in bringing the war to a sudden end, with Japan's unconditional surrender.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/

it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Why?

Explain.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

Actually, their response was to mock the American demands and ramp up their military production.

 

[Tree]

Not a lie, and I've already explained why - because you're led around by your nose and you don't think, just emote.

You weren't told to be scared about the UK having nukes - they're 'our' side, the good guys

Yes, I can sleep well knowing that whoever comes to power in the UK will not be crazy enough to fire nukes because they woke up in a bad mood and there's nobody else who can reasonably stop him because he controls everything.

You want another example? Russia. I think they're incredibly corrupt, I can't say I'm pleased with them having nukes, but they're not unhinged. They won't fire their nukes at us if we don't fire ours. And they're not exactly a full dictatorship. Putin would be quickly dealt with by others if he became as unhinged as Kim.

- you're told to be scared about those nations which won't play ball with us.

If by not playing ball you mean attacking South Korea and fucking us over, no, I don't have to tolerate that. I don't have to tolerate a global market crash that affects everyone negatively because some asswipe decided to fire rockets in Seoul to impose communism.

You still haven't addressed the issue of why a company with a multi-million dollar contract with Samsung should be fucked over and their employees lose their salaries or be fired because some degenerate decided to invade and impose communism? Self-defense include the right to defend your friends from aggression too.

North Korea doesn't have to play ball. It just needs to mind its own business and respect their neighbors. Give up ICBM, give up claims on SK, stop threatening SK or the US.

And the UK was wholly complicit in bombing the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - you only need to read Churchill to see how few shits he gave about Japanese civilians if it saved American, British and Commonwealth military lives.

Listen loser, even if I agreed with you, every single person in the American administration that was ever involved with nuking those 2 cities is dead. No other nuke has been used since then, while the same degenerate family who wanted to conquer all of Korea and make it a dictatorship is still there, still in power, still being a prick.


Speaking of Churchill, yeah, this is true, governments care more about the lives of their citizens and citizens of allied nations than citizens of non-aligned or hostile nations.

This was universally true in the 40's for all world leaders so I still fail to see your point, other than singling Churchill out to somehow benefit your pro-NK propaganda rant. This is nothing but Soviet style ideological subversion, your posts are textbook example of the kind of propaganda that ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov warned about. You make up lies, exaggerate or single out America or the west and you're not giving any real constructive criticism, you're just spouting propaganda that benefits a rival nation.

 

[Tree]

You know it's amazing how all these loony regressives who think allowing Kim Jong Un to have nukes+ICBMs is fine are usually the same ones calling for strict gun control.

It's amazing about how they will cry that the environment is getting polluted badly but have no problem with nuclear tests over the Pacific.

How about some gun control for the world's number one douche at least?

 

[Steelmage99]

Not a lie, and I've already explained why - because you're led around by your nose and you don't think, just emote.

You weren't told to be scared about the UK having nukes - they're 'our' side, the good guys

Yes, I can sleep well knowing that whoever comes to power in the UK will not be crazy enough to fire nukes because they woke up in a bad mood and there's nobody else who can reasonably stop him because he controls everything.

That is exactly how I think about President Trump.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Here with go again with the bad faith arguments.

Empty shit-stirring.

At no point have you previously claimed or identified any 'bad faith arguments'.

The further this goes along, the less and less competent you appear to be at holding any form of reasoned discourse.

Sure, you've got an opinion, but you are under the misapprehension that your opinion is a fact.

It's you who doesn't have enough grey matter to understand what I already explained before. 200k deaths would have been surpassed by a land invasion of Japan. EASILY.

1) You asserted it. I don't give two hoots about the fact you can string together verbs and nouns into syntactic conglomerations - the mere act of doing so does not add validity to the ensuing meaning of the sentence.

2) Repeating an assertion doesn't make it true. Your repetition is self-serving. You ignore the fact that Japan was already signalling a desire to surrender. You ignore the myriad of other things that could have happened - the near infinite number of possibilities. You ignore that you cannot predict a past future. All of this is just overblown certainty on your part. Put it away, no one is interested in your internet preening.

3) Your argument is demented, as I've already shown you. According to your supposed justification, if North Korea thinks it would ultimately save lives by dropping a nuclear bomb on the USA - according to you, they are justified in doing so. This is the moral morass you've manufactured for yourself. However, of course, we all can see that you'll just engage in special pleading to attempt to pull yourself out. When we do it, it's good - but if they do it, they so baaaaad.

What you are doing is not thought, Tree. It's all prejudice, bias, and emoting.

Remember, a lot of them were willing to jump into planes and turn themselves into weapons against you. Kamizake. You really think conventional arms would persuade them otherwise? The only thing that stopped them is fear of their entire civilization ending.

You really have no fucking idea at all, do you chap?

Where did you get your information? A racist comic book?

As I've cited - the Japanese had already made overtures for peace long before the bombs were dropped

Alright let's see these gems:

Translation: I was unaware of this, but now I will work overtime to dismiss them.

it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Why?

:lol:

What do you mean 'why'?

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts,

What facts?

You know, the facts collated by the United States Bombing Survey... of course, Tree has his own facts, and presumably we're supposed to put his crystal ball facts over and above an organisation comprised of experts looking at all the data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey was a written report created by a board of experts assembled to produce an impartial assessment of the effects of Anglo-American strategic bombing of Nazi Germany during the European theatre of World War II. After publishing its report, the Survey members then turned their attention to the efforts against Imperial Japan during the Pacific War, including a separate section on the recent use of the atomic bombs.

In total, the reports contained 208 volumes for Europe and another 108 for the Pacific, comprising thousands of pages. The reports' conclusions were generally favourable about the contributions of Allied strategic bombing towards victory, calling it "decisive".

Although most of the Survey's members were military, about one-third of the 1,000-member group were civilians. While the Board was not associated with any branch of the military, it was established by the U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and chaired by a civilian, Franklin D'Olier.

If you really are so egotistical as to believe that others should lend you credence over and above such a board of experts, then you are only in for disappointment here. You'll go from thread to thread asserting your fiction, and yet no one will lend your position credence because the preponderance of data and expert opinion will contradict you. In a forum dedicated to REASON, you might expect this to happen.

Of course, only if you know what reason is, and how it works. You don't, do you Tree?

and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved,

You're taking testimony from the opposing side's leaders as reliable? They had the chance to surrender on July 26th.

What? :lol:

Of course it's fucking reliable - a damn sight more reliable than some schmuck on the internet emoting his prejudice of those funny foreigners.

Did the atomic bomb bring about the end of the war? That it would do so was the calculated gamble and hope of Mr. Stimson, General Marshall, and their associates. The facts are these. On July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Ultimatum called on Japan to surrender unconditionally. On July 29 Premier Suzuki issued a statement, purportedly at a cabinet press conference, scorning as unworthy of official notice the surrender ultimatum, and emphasizing the increasing rate of Japanese aircraft production. Eight days later, on August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; the second was dropped on August 9 on Nagasaki; on the following day, August 10, Japan declared its intention to surrender, and on August 14 accepted the Potsdam terms.

The evidence points to a combination of factors. (1) Some of the more informed and intelligent elements in Japanese official circles realized that they were fighting a losing battle and that complete destruction lay ahead if the war continued. These elements, however, were not powerful enough to sway the situation against the dominating Army organization, backed by the profiteering industrialists, the peasants, and the ignorant masses. (2) The atomic bomb introduced a dramatic new element into the situation, which strengthened the hands of those who sought peace and provided a face-saving argument for those who had hitherto advocated continued war. (3) When the second atomic bomb was dropped, it became clear that this was not an isolated weapon, but that there were others to follow. With dread prospect of a deluge of these terrible bombs and no possibility of preventing them, the argument for surrender was made convincing. This I believe to be the true picture of the effect of the atomic bomb in bringing the war to a sudden end, with Japan's unconditional surrender.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/

it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Why?

Explain.

What are these supposed rebuttals?

Do you even understand the notion of sources?

You realize I am sharing relevant expert opinion from the period after the war? You called them 'gems' in a dismissive way, and all you've done is ask non-sequitur one word questions in response.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

Actually, their response was to mock the American demands and ramp up their military production.

Actually, Tree's response to having his assertion contradicted by fact was to add more assertions, as if stacking up bullshit lends it validity.