North Korea to conduct Nuke Test
- Thread starter Domo
- Start date
Soldato
RaohNS said:
Very unlikely as the Japanese attempted to offer America a peace treaty a week or so before the dropping of the first atomic bomb. The only reason why the bombs were dropped was to show Russia that the US was powerfull, which in turn resulted in the cold war.
Soldato
Visage said:
Re-read my post where my information came from... Factual Channels...
>| Raoh |<
Visage said:
On the Basis that The Japanese Spirit is no to Betray the Country by Surrendering if they got invaded.
Every man and Women would have done there best to kill invading forces, The villages were prepared to jump under the US tanks and blow themselves up if they had to.
If the US invaded there would have been a lot of deaths on each side
Soldato
Soldato
RaohNS said:
Im suprised at that actually, as according to http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp thats not the case. Im not going to argue either way, as both the figures could be flawed for all we know. But if thos are both correct, then there has been some major disarming/rearming going on.
Man of Honour
Visage said:
Nuclear weapons are dangerous, full stop and they cannot be uninvented. The United States were the first country to have them and they do indeed keep a huge stockpile of them.
I do not agree with a lot of US foreign policy, but I also do not see them calling other countries to be wiped off the map or threatening nuclear destruction on other nations as well. I do not see them conducting belligerent missile tests, such as when North Korea fired one over Japan recently.
It is a fact that the United States of America is a responsible nation when it comes to nuclear weapons. They have not fired one in combat since 1945 and considering the conflicts and crises since then such as Korea, Vietnam and the Cuban Missile Crisis, I find restraint in using them shows perhaps a touch of responsibility.
Like it or not, the threat of nuclear devastation was probably the singlemost reason why Soviet armour did not pour over the old Iron Curtain in the earky years of the Cold War.
No, I do not like nuclear weapons and their very nature and what they are capable of scares me. The fact that the Russians have lost nuclear material since the break up of the old Soviet empire and nuclear equipment lies rusting in dockyards and scarcely protected compounds scares me more.
I think the US deserves far more credit that it receives.
Soldato
messiah khan said:
from your site:
So they still exist just aren't included because they are scheduled for disarmament
>| Raoh |<
Hmm so who would be to blame here then I wonder?
2000: Donal Rumsfeld is a director for company ABB which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea.
2002: Donald Rumsfeld declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change.
Remember his handshake with Saddam....
2000: Donal Rumsfeld is a director for company ABB which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea.
2002: Donald Rumsfeld declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change.
Remember his handshake with Saddam....
Zip said:
The reasoning behind that is their fanatical devotion to the Emperor.
When the Emperor said jump, the Japanese said 'How high?'
Following the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings the Emperor announced a surrender and the japanese armed forces *immediately* lay down their weapons.
That is why the bombings were unnecessary. A demonstration (Tokyo Bay was mooted, as it was easily big enough to drop the bomb over, while causing minimal casualties. Its obvious that such a demonstration would have caused the Emperor to surrender - leading directly to the armed forces surrendering also.
Why is it that people always refer to the Japanese sense of dedication when talking of potential casualties, while also ignoring the fact that that self-same dedication would make a surrender absolute?
If they were that dedicated, why did they lay down arms en-masse only when ordered to?
Surely if it was the bombing, rather than the announcement of surrender that caused this, they would not have waited two days ofter Nagasaki to lay down their arms?
Permabanned
RaohNS said:
There were ongoing negotiations for a Japanese surrender; they were also taking the Soviet Union. Bar a few issues such as what the Emperor's role would be, surrender was very close anyway. Bombing Japan was more about a political statement to the USSR, obviously a good reason for a country to have nukes.
Visage said:
Japan Still had some War hungry and very Patriotic Generals that didnt want to Surrender and wanted to keep fighting, Thats why the Japanese would have never Surrendered until they were either wiped out by foot Slogging or hit by Nuclear Weapons.
Now Tell me why you hate every thing the Allied Forces do in every single war they are involved in?
Soldato
Visage said:
your welcome but there is plenty of other places that echo my statement
I've yet to be given one of your links that argues otherwise
>| Raoh |<
Zip said:
I'll say it again. The Japanese were fanatically devoted to their emperor. I he said surrender, they would, without hesitation (as indeed they didi when he capitulated).
So all that was really needed was to persuade one man. It did not need the deaths of hundreds of thousands to do this - indeed surrender negotiations were already well advanced before the first nuke was dropped.
The real problem was that the Soviet Union was about to declare war on Japan and enter the Asian Theatre.
The nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the last acts of the second world war. They were the first acts of the cold war.
Man of Honour
Visage said:
Persuade the Japanese to surrender ? Without the nuclear devastation unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I fear that would have been a nigh on impossibility, even through one man. As distasteful as I fond it and the horrors that the world saw, it was either that or an invasion of the Japanese homeland and islands which would have brought huge loss of life on both sides and the war would have gone on.
The Japanese fighting mentality is unique. Surrender was not a word used lightly.
As for Russia declaring War on Japan, were they both not tied to a Five Year Neutrality Pact signed in 1941 ?
Von Smallhausen said:
Then why were surrender negotiations at an advanced stage?
I disagree.
I disagree.
The Russians had been burnt by that already - they signed a non-agression pact with Hitler (1938?).
They agreed at Yalta to invade Japan.
An excellent book is 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb', by Richard Rhodes. It documents the political considerations of the time in an excellent way.
It also won a Pulitzer Prize - hardly the measure of a work of fiction.
Soldato
Von Smallhausen said:
I think so, but there were pacts all over the shop during the second world war, so I doubt that would be an issue.
Visage said:
In the Process of that there were hundreds of Australians and Americans stuck in Disease Ridden Jungles and POW camps trying to stay alive and getting treated badly and having to fight the Japanese.
The UK didnt see much action against japan so you might not know but the Japanese Soldiers were Cruel and i would say much crueler then the Germans soldiers.
And they wouldnt surrender, They would fight to the death and if they were near Surrender they would commit tha killing they do when they stab themselves.
The Japanese army was a Killing machine and it took a lot of Spirit and Courage to hold and push them back as much as they did.