North Korea 2nd Nuke Test

[Plow]

Sorry, but when you use nuclear bombs to stop the biggest threat to humanity in recorded history, anybody that's trying to make any kind of "but you(we) used nukes once!" argument is just far beyond retarded.

[Vekta]

Sorry, but when you use nuclear bombs to stop the biggest threat to humanity in recorded history, anybody that's trying to make any kind of "but you(we) used nukes once!" argument is just far beyond retarded.

I agree those nukes saved countless lives on both sides, to say that their use was wrong in that case is foolish.

[Celeste]

The USA and Russia are both superpowers. North Korea having nukes is like rednecks in Oregon having nukes (in comparison).

It's not hypocritical to prevent other people from making the same mistakes you did. It's hypocritical to talk about how other countries have nukes and use it as your justification to have them as well when you're fucking insane and brainwashing your people to their deaths.

There is absolutely no comparison to past behavior of the world powers and North Korea's current behavior.

Yes, North Korea is insane. yes, North Koreans may be brainwashed. This is the result of letting a wound fester for decades. We're not doing anything about it. We're just letting the news report, while acting so surprised that it's going on.

We're reaping what we sowed. It's insane to whine about the problems we caused.

I agree those nukes saved countless lives on both sides, to say that their use was wrong in that case is foolish.

It's foolish to say it's okay to fire bomb and nuke civilians.

[Senoska]

Sorry, but when you use nuclear bombs to stop the biggest threat to humanity in recorded history, anybody that's trying to make any kind of "but you(we) used nukes once!" argument is just far beyond retarded.

Actually, Japan was ready to surrender before the nukes were dropped. That being said, they killed more people than they saved.

[kuronosan]

Whether we caused the problems or not they must be rectified. To think otherwise is absolutely retarded. We inadvertantly caused Hitler to rise in power due to negligent thinking after the first World War. Do you think this is any different?

Just because a wound is allowed to fester does not mean you don't amputate when necessary. In this case, while a direct assault is not the most prudent course of action, it may be the most inevitable and effective.

[Kuya]

That person may be trolling, but what he's saying isn't a lie. It really goes down to a "we know better than they do and hence we get to keep nukes while telling others they cannot". Making the argument that "they're clearly crazy so they can't have them" rings hollow to me since that's what we always say. It makes it sound like N. Korea is out to destroy the world or something instead of using the nukes as leverage.

[Athas]

Actually, Japan was ready to surrender before the nukes were dropped. That being said, they killed more people than they saved.

I have several relatives and friends of the family who served in the Navy and Army at the time who believe 100% without equivocation that use of nuclear weapons in WWII saved lives. I'ma take their word over yours kthxbai.

[Celeste]

I have several relatives and friends of the family who served in the Navy and Army at the time who believe 100% without equivocation that use of nuclear weapons in WWII saved lives. I'ma take their word over yours kthxbai.

My mom's aunt lost family in Nagasaki. I'll take her loss as proof that the USA was wrong to nuke Japan. They were ready to surrender. And if they weren't going to, there was no goddamn excuse to do that to civilians. There is never any goddamn excuse strong enough to hurt civilians.

[Izzy]

My mom's aunt lost family in Nagasaki. I'll take her loss as proof that the USA was wrong to nuke Japan. They were ready to surrender. And if they weren't going to, there was no goddamn excuse to do that to civilians. There is never any goddamn excuse strong enough to hurt civilians.

Lets all hold hands and shit rainbows!

[Senoska]

I have several relatives and friends of the family who served in the Navy and Army at the time who believe 100% without equivocation that use of nuclear weapons in WWII saved lives. I'ma take their word over yours kthxbai.

Or you can take history's word?

1. The Japanese government wanted to surrender; its leaders, military as well as civilian, rationally understood that the war was lost. But they had a determined attachment (irrational?) to the emperor. Japan would have surrendered, very possibly as early as June 1945, had its ruling establishment received guarantees of the emperor's personal safety and continuance on the throne. This should have been the first step in an American surrender strategy.



2. Any remaining Japanese reluctance to quit the war would have been quickly overcome by the second step, entry of the Soviet Union in August 1945.



3. American failure to accept and implement this "two-step logic" for an expeditious end to World War II was largely a result of the emerging Cold War and especially American concern over Soviet ambitions in Eastern Europe and northeast Asia.



4. The American public would have accepted some modification of the unconditional surrender policy in order to avoid prolongation of the war. The Washington Post and Time magazine advocated its abandonment; so did some United States senators. Many military leaders and diplomats-British as well as Americanconcurred.



5. President Harry S. Truman seemed inclined to give assurances on the emperor, then pulled back. He did so out of concern with Soviet behavior and with increasingly firm knowledge that the United States would soon have atomic weapons available. Coming to believe that the bomb would be decisive and anxious to keep the Soviet Union out of Manchuria, he dropped modification of unconditional surrender; moreover, he sought to prevent a Soviet declaration of war against Japan by encouraging China not to yield to Soviet demands beyond those granted at Yalta. In so doing, he acted primarily at the urging of James F. Byrnes, the archvillain in the plot.



6. Truman also refused to move on Japanese peace feelers, apparently in the belief that it was necessary to prevent a Japanese surrender before the bomb could be demonstrated to the world, and especially to the Soviet Union. The result was the needless destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and many allied casualties that need not have happened.



7. In subsequent years, the American decision makers of 1945 devoted considerable energy to the construction of a misleading "myth" that attempted to vindicate the use of the bomb by denying Japanese efforts at peace and by asserting grossly inflated estimates of American casualties that would have been sustained in an invasion of Japan.

[Senoska]

I have several relatives and friends of the family who served in the Navy and Army at the time who believe 100% without equivocation that use of nuclear weapons in WWII saved lives. I'ma take their word over yours kthxbai.

Also, knowing someone who fought doesn't make your point valid. History tells otherwise. if we are going to fight that way I'd be happy to show you the war spoils I have as a result of WWII. Many of my family fought and my grand father was a decorated marine. The nuclear weapons killed hundreds of thousands of people when the Japanese were trying to surrender but wanted to keep their emperor in power.

[Demosthenes11]

why am I not surprised seno is taking the side of japan?

[Kuya]

RAR RAR NUKE NORTH KOREA OH WAIT NUKING JAPAN WAS BAD

[Senoska]

why am I not surprised seno is taking the side of japan?

I'm not 'taking the side of Japan' I'm saying that killing hundreds of thousands of people was a bad idea when the country we bombed was TRYING to surrender. but I digress.

[0ni0n]

Knowing all the atrocities imperalist japan done to China and Korea, i am not the least bit sympathetic that they got nuked. What, you think you can kill millions then surrender and be absolved from all the rapes and genocides of civilians committed in other countries? Fuck you.

/took a peak at wiki, the civilian casualties in the second Sino-Japan war was 17+million. 17,000,000+ two nukes were too good.

[Senoska]

Because the only way to protest killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is by killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[0ni0n]

Because the only way to protest killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is by killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I am not going to get into a moral argument. Japan killed millions of civilians in China and Korea not only indiscriminately but also as a form of entertainment. I have seen imperialist Japanese troops leaflet advertising a baby killing contest as a spectacle. Do you think those people would have been held accountable for the crimes they committed? Don't kid yourself. There were also plenty evidence of use of chemical and bio weapon against civilians. If China and korea had the ability to retaliate, the reprisal against japan would have been much worse than those two nukes. If 17million americans civilians were killed, we would have suspended our morals in retaliation.

[HadesChubbs]

Because the only way to protest killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is by killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

half blind

[Senoska]

so punish those troops by punishing someone totally unconnected to it? Sounds great bro.

[0ni0n]

so punish those troops by punishing someone totally unconnected to it? Sounds great bro.

wait, are you talking about 17 million dead chinese and koreans civilicans? I got confused there for a second.