North Korea 2nd Nuke Test

[Beckwin]

you don't question why we were even in vietnam (and laos and cambodia)?

I also disagree that being born an American means you willfully endorse everything your country does. That general kind of idea (you live there, therefore you're also to blame) basically justifies every dead civilian in history... it lumps in very gray incidents like the firebombing of Europe and Hiroshima with more black and white events such as 9/11, Laotian bombing/mining/napalming, Nanking, Mai Lai, Gaza, etc. It's too convenient and frankly dishonest.

[HadesChubbs]

you don't question why we were even in vietnam (and laos and cambodia)?

I also disagree that being born an American means you willfully endorse everything your country does.

Then move to canada. Fukka!

[Beckwin]

from the condescension routine to "if ya dun liek it, git out!"

possible troll? idk bro

[HadesChubbs]

from the condescension routine to "if ya dun liek it, git out!"

possible troll? idk bro

Or possible joke? Wtf is that?!

[Beckwin]

which is the joke: "love it or leave it" or "you are personally accountable for everything your country does" ?

plz clarify

[HadesChubbs]

which is the joke: "love it or leave it" or "you are personally accountable for everything your country does" ?

plz clarify

the former, and I didnt say personally, I said "dont expect your government to take the full brunt of everything they decided to do. Their decisions are a result of your voting. Therefore a result of your actions. You (or the majority) took part in deciding how shit will go down.

[archibaldcrane]

ah, the good ol' condescension routine- implying "not getting it" or naivety when justifying massive death counts.

see, you guys just don't get it... there are terrorists out there, and they want to take our freedom. this is war. don't question the deaths of 100k iraqi civilians, or torture, or selectively supporting regimes that are just as bad as the ones we fight but happen to like our money... you just don't understand, get out of la-la bleeding heart liberal land.

The problem is that when you understand all too well how things have been working, you see a lot of problems. There's no reason to accept shit when we're capable of better, however marginally better that may be.

what wouldve been the -better- outcome at the end of WW2? the longer it dragged on, the more cinese civilians died. Even without an invasion, you have a huge body count. Waiting for surrender meant hundreds of thousands dead. Dropping atom bombs meant hundreds of thousands dead. Invading meant hundreds of thousands dead.

Pick your poison.
There was NO solution that prevented the death of hundreds of thousands. Period.

[HadesChubbs]

what wouldve been the -better- outcome at the end of WW2? the longer it dragged on, the more cinese civilians died. Even without an invasion, you have a huge body count. Waiting for surrender meant hundreds of thousands dead. Dropping atom bombs meant hundreds of thousands dead. Invading meant hundreds of thousands dead.

Pick your poison.
There was NO solution that prevented the death of hundreds of thousands. Period.

and such is realist vs idealist. etc. etc. no clue why discussion has gone this far, will be same shit over and over. lets just call a truce?

[Celeste]

and such is realist vs idealist. etc. etc. no clue why discussion has gone this far, will be same shit over and over. lets just call a truce?

Atomic weapons should have never been used in the first place. So, no.

[Plow]

In my eyes there's only 2 *really* fucked up parts:

That Japan was so adamantly against a full surrender that we dropped a 2nd bomb 3 days later, and Russia declared war on them the day the 2nd bomb fell, and they didn't surrender for 6 more days.

And that we were preparing to just utterly rain hell upon them until they did.




The situation now is so much more complex. The people we're dealing with are currently working on becoming capable of simply presenting a nuclear threat. We've spent the last 50 years working on how not to use them.


Not to mention, the fact that we've basically lost a war and didn't use them says a hell of a lot for our judgment and the safety of the world in our nuclear hands, which was, after all, the comment that started this tangent.

[Beckwin]

drop a bomb on a largely unpopulated area first, wait longer after hitting hiroshima. blockade the islands. let russia push japan back further in China, which was a major concern for the japanese. come to the realization sooner that letting them keep their emperor was a worthwhile tradeoff. there are a variety of things that could've been done to avoid dropping 2 bombs on previously untouched population centers.

with that out of the way, keep in mind I was responding to chubbs' generalizations about civilian casualties, which apparently include really blatantly bad-idea territory like Vietnam.

[HadesChubbs]

drop a bomb on a largely unpopulated area first, wait longer after hitting hiroshima. blockade the islands. let russia push japan back further in China, which was a major concern for the japanese. come to the realization sooner that letting them keep their emperor was a worthwhile tradeoff. there are a variety of things that could've been done to avoid dropping 2 bombs on previously untouched population centers.

with that out of the way, keep in mind I was responding to chubbs' generalizations about civilian casualties, which apparently include really blatantly bad-idea territory like Vietnam.

hind sight is 20/20. What could have been done? X may have worked. Y may have worked. Z MAY HAVE WORKED. But what the fuck we did, worked. It cost 300k civilians, but it worked. Why argue about the past? We CLEARLY disagree on what has happened. Why not bicker about NK's silly ass? That has not yet been decided. Who knows what will happen!

Tired of saying same shit. Plz new stuff.

P.S. My reference to nam was to say I have experienced loss to war, and its not pretty. I didn't experience the losses personally... but their losses have effected the people I know today (my dad, my uncle, my grandpa, etc.).

[archibaldcrane]

drop a bomb on a largely unpopulated area first, wait longer after hitting hiroshima. blockade the islands. let russia push japan back further in China, which was a major concern for the japanese. come to the realization sooner that letting them keep their emperor was a worthwhile tradeoff. there are a variety of things that could've been done to avoid dropping 2 bombs on previously untouched population centers.

you act like waiting wouldve saved lives. It would've maybe saved JP lives at the expense of Chinese lives. Why are JP lives more valuable?

I hope you realize that the only reason Hiroshima was 'previously untouched' is because america spared it as a potential nuke site, right?

[Plow]

I hate to put it this way, but it's the most simple and direct way to put it:

It has already been thoroughly proven that we were absolutely correct that Russia was going to badly fuck up anything it held control over after the war.

Looking back, did we not do an ok job with Japan?

I mean, at what point are you trying to put a mathematical value on raw quantity of people?

At what point *should* you put a mathematical value on the raw quantity of people lost in one situation versus another? Does or does not someone have to take that into account, and if so, to what extent?

It's too hard to "weigh the options" trying to look back 60+ years, after unheard of advances in technology and communications.

There's also the question of how does it affect the concept of "their civilians' lives need to be valued over your own soldiers" when because of the level of your opponent's atrocities, you're deep into drafting, meaning your own soldiers are every eligible man in the nation?


I mean, if we were sending our sons over the day they turn 18 because we wanted to rule the world, that would be one thing, when we're doing it because they want to rule the world, that's an entire different scenario altogether.

[HadesChubbs]

I hate to put it this way, but it's the most simple and direct way to put it:

It has already been thoroughly proven that we were absolutely correct that Russia was going to badly fuck up anything it held control over after the war.

Looking back, did we not do an ok job with Japan?

I mean, at what point are you trying to put a mathematical value on raw quantity of people?

At what point *should* you put a mathematical value on the raw quantity of people lost in one situation versus another? Does or does not someone have to take that into account, and if so, to what extent?

It's too hard to "weigh the options" trying to look back 60+ years, after unheard of advances in technology and communications.

There's also the question of how does it affect the concept of "their civilians' lives need to be valued over your own soldiers" when because of the level of your opponent's atrocities, you're deep into drafting, meaning your own soldiers are every eligible man in the nation?


I mean, if we were sending our sons over the day they turn 18 because we wanted to rule the world, that would be one thing, when we're doing it because they want to rule the world, that's an entire different scenario altogether.

Their Argument: Waaah. Civilians. This is circular.. I already asked for a truce, and to move on, and was denied. These retards are asking to continue this circular argument that doesn't effect a god damn thing, as it was before ANY of us were born.

[Plow]

Their Argument: Waaah. Civilians. This is circular.. I already asked for a truce, and to move on, and was denied. These retards are asking to continue this circular argument that doesn't effect a god damn thing, as it was before ANY of us were born.

It actually has implications you're not thinking of:

The first people to get it, did it. Others since have prepared to do it.


The people that did it, and the people that felt it, have spent the entire time since trying to find ways to ensure it never happens again.


The people that are allowed to maintain there arsenals are those that at least understand this, the people that are fucking scary are the ones that are trying to get the shit ready so they can say "we have nukes, do what we say or we use them."


Sure, you can accuse the U.S. of the same, and to some extent, that's the entire principle of mutual destruction deterrence. However, that concept only applies to nuclear weaponry: our philosophy is that nuclear weapons are there to stop other nuclear weapons from being fired.

The entire fighting force of our military's true purpose at this point is basically to prevent ever having to use nuclear weapons again. (or at least it should be, and the social work should be something entirely different, but that's another story)


What you have to ask yourself is what the hell do you think KJI wants to do with nuclear weapons when he gets them? Do you really believe he wants to have them for the purpose of saying "you can't launch a nuclear strike on me because it will be met with the same in return?"


Fuck no, he wants to point one at Seoul and go "neener neener you can't touch me I've got nukes."


I have a feeling a lot of people against extreme pressure to the point of a full on attack if he continues to refuse to cooperate will feel differently about what we "should have done" now the day that comes to fruition.

[HadesChubbs]

Stuff

That midget ass mother fucker wants to launch them bitches and obtain a huge erection while doing so.

[Kisamoo]

you don't question why we were even in vietnam (and laos and cambodia)?

I also disagree that being born an American means you willfully endorse everything your country does. That general kind of idea (you live there, therefore you're also to blame) basically justifies every dead civilian in history... it lumps in very gray incidents like the firebombing of Europe and Hiroshima with more black and white events such as 9/11, Laotian bombing/mining/napalming, Nanking, Mai Lai, Gaza, etc. It's too convenient and frankly dishonest.

I'm not saying willfully endorsing it, not at all.

I just find it funny that people seem to think that by simply not participating in the war themselves they're entitled to the freedom and peace that war brings them; for free. Those morals didn't stop any injustice in the past, nor are they stopping any injustice now. The World isn't balanced and your morals aren't gonna do anything to change that, so stop spouting them like it makes you better. It's alright though, the real problems of the world lie in Scientology and Cancer, right Mistress? :D

[Beckwin]

"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." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion , and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

Yeah, what pair of idealist retards. They just had no clue about how the world works. As I've said before, there is a reasonable enough stance in favor of the bombs (although strictly utilitarian and even more dependent on information unknown at the time of the bombing), however, supposing that it was bar-none the best decision/outcome, or that other options would've definitely turned out worse, or even that there were no other feasible options.... sorry, that doesn't fly. It's not just contemporary 20-something bleeding-heart liberals on internet message boards that can see the other side; the men quoted above were highly successful generals in WWII making those comments. And it's ridiculously /headdesk to see someone basically saying "lol whatever man, it happened and now it's not important. that whole learning from history thing is a crock".

In respect to the numbers game, yes, it is more ethical to kill the fewest civilians as you are able. Each life lost is a tragedy. Instead of looking at it like "well does any reduction really matter if there's gonna be dead civilians no matter what?", approach it from a "each and every life able to be saved is worth saving" angle.

Anyhow, enough about H and N. Plow and Archi, we've had this exact conversation before, haha. Chubbs... at least try to take after those two a bit more.

[Beckwin]

I'm not saying willfully endorsing it, not at all.

I just find it funny that people seem to think that by simply not participating in the war themselves they're entitled to the freedom and peace that war brings them; for free. Those morals didn't stop any injustice in the past, nor are they stopping any injustice now. The World isn't balanced and your morals aren't gonna do anything to change that, so stop spouting them like it makes you better. It's alright though, the real problems of the world lie in Scientology and Cancer, right Mistress? :D

You seem to be under the impression that aggressive military actions including the widespread slaughter of civilians brings us freedom and peace.

Hate to break it to you, but that kind of jingoism is slooowly falling out of favor.

Oddly enough, sentiments counter to that did play a role in ending a conflict and bringing peace in the late 60s/early 70s. Nixon even put to words his fears of massive protest and potential revolts, certainly influencing in some part an end to the Vietnam War.