Nk is the chesspieces cheenaland use to hodl back US in military sense and keep them occupied. if NK is no more or unit with SK to form a new korea, with SK pouring in their soft culture and ecomony there, while NK maintain and strengthen their military might and forces swayed towards US, this might just give US the jab it neeeds to keep cheena fom having quick thoughts and action about gettig into the billboard top 100 charts asasia's millitary powerhouse.
US dare not attck NK not becasue theor have misslies that can interchange payloads - in fact its a good eason for them to attack in this case. its becasue cheenaland is sitting behind moving their chesspieces as according to the situation, using NK as the bait and knight. US also has to answer to UN.
the last stand is NK. if NK unite with SK, japan, the rest of southeast asia, taiwan all siding US, cheena's plan to be the future powerhouse will be crushed!
Originally posted by isntitobviousstoptokinrot:Nk is the chesspieces cheenaland use to hodl back US in military sense and keep them occupied. if NK is no more or unit with SK to form a new korea, with SK pouring in their soft culture and ecomony there, while NK maintain and strengthen their military might and forces swayed towards US, this might just give US the jab it neeeds to keep cheena fom having quick thoughts and action about gettig into the billboard top 100 charts asasia's millitary powerhouse.
US dare not attck NK not becasue theor have misslies that can interchange payloads - in fact its a good eason for them to attack in this case. its becasue cheenaland is sitting behind moving their chesspieces as according to the situation, using NK as the bait and knight. US also has to answer to UN.
the last stand is NK. if NK unite with SK, japan, the rest of southeast asia, taiwan all siding US, cheena's plan to be the future powerhouse will be crushed!
South Korea have a lot to lose in these war. Big cities, like Seoul when hit by a missile, can have many causalities and the economy will plummet. The north would have already dug some underground cities/bunker/hangar and even if the North Korea was hit by a nuke, it won't damage the underground cities. Of course, this place would need to be as discreet as possible.
When the war breaks out, Pacific Asia economy will be greatly affected and economy will take a punch. Singapore will be greatly affected as MNCs pull out, leaving Singaporeans jobless and possibly, hungry.
North Korea, is getting increasingly frustrated with US, after all, it takes two hands to clap but a hand to slap. USA, with it's highly-publicized game with NK, like sanctions and flying some jet over the South, is doing nothing but provoking NK to make the first move. South Korea, on the other hand, has a really stupid and naive government and shouldn't allow the US to take care of it's military affairs. (Obviously South Korean government knows that NK hates the US right?)
After all, USA doesn't really aims to promote world peace(look at Africa, who cares about the warlords?) and democracy, they are only serving their own interest. Asia, who has been prospering and developing so fast and US is afraid that it might fall from their positions as the world top economy.
After the war, only the Koreans (both South and North) suffers the most devastating effects and their innocent lives getting ripped apart by war, and even if Asia didn't fully participate in it, their economy will take a down-turn, and once again, glorifying the most hypocritical nation in the world, the USA, who owned the most number of nukes then the world combined, who killed the Red Indians, enslaved the blacks, and still dares to talk about NK human rights and nukes. It's like having a teacher, who smokes and beats up people, and tell me not to smoke and beat up people. This feels a lot like the repeat of LON(league of nations), where France invades Germany, and the League did not take actions against them. If US interferes in the Korean war, I will never support their side nor the other side. They only want to benefit their own economy, by selling weapons, at the cost of Koreans citizens. And at the end, who benefits from this?
The USA. They do need to lose civilians in this war, (like the war in Iran) and they get all the economical benefits.
People, brainwashed by the media, (look at the above google search), gets all hyped up by the fear being invaded by China, NK, Russia, etc My hope is that one day, even if NK didn't reunite with SK, will open it's borders one day have take part in the World Trade, which can drastically improve his citizen's quality of life. It's that line dividing between me and them, the borders, which have stunningly different effects.
http://teengirlandpolitics.blogspot.sg/2013/03/north-korea-declares-war-but-didnt-do.html
Originally posted by Summer hill:For all the noise coming out of North Korea it is clear to virtually every intelligence agency that they currently pose no threat to the US mainland, regardless of what they claim. Although South Korea faces real and serious threat if there is war, the military leaders in Pyongyang have to be aware they have no real chance at victory. This is all big show so the new leader can maintain power over his repressed people and to position North Korea to receive more aide when they “willing” come to the negotiation table in the future, after “easing tensions”.
Although all out war is unlikely even if a military action against North Korea is taken, destabilizing that region would devastate US/China relations. That in itself is a much larger concern than Pyongyang’s grandstanding.
oh, summer hill , is this post by you. from what i read in your other posts you don't sound like you will write this kind of ......... are you really summer hill?
Originally posted by Summer hill:
South Korea have a lot to lose in these war. Big cities, like Seoul when hit by a missile, can have many causalities and the economy will plummet. The north would have already dug some underground cities/bunker/hangar and even if the North Korea was hit by a nuke, it won't damage the underground cities. Of course, this place would need to be as discreet as possible. When the war breaks out, Pacific Asia economy will be greatly affected and economy will take a punch. Singapore will be greatly affected as MNCs pull out, leaving Singaporeans jobless and possibly, hungry. North Korea, is getting increasingly frustrated with US, after all, it takes two hands to clap but a hand to slap. USA, with it's highly-publicized game with NK, like sanctions and flying some jet over the South, is doing nothing but provoking NK to make the first move. South Korea, on the other hand, has a really stupid and naive government and shouldn't allow the US to take care of it's military affairs. (Obviously South Korean government knows that NK hates the US right?)
After all, USA doesn't really aims to promote world peace(look at Africa, who cares about the warlords?) and democracy, they are only serving their own interest. Asia, who has been prospering and developing so fast and US is afraid that it might fall from their positions as the world top economy.
After the war, only the Koreans (both South and North) suffers the most devastating effects and their innocent lives getting ripped apart by war, and even if Asia didn't fully participate in it, their economy will take a down-turn, and once again, glorifying the most hypocritical nation in the world, the USA, who owned the most number of nukes then the world combined, who killed the Red Indians, enslaved the blacks, and still dares to talk about NK human rights and nukes. It's like having a teacher, who smokes and beats up people, and tell me not to smoke and beat up people. This feels a lot like the repeat of LON(league of nations), where France invades Germany, and the League did not take actions against them. If US interferes in the Korean war, I will never support their side nor the other side. They only want to benefit their own economy, by selling weapons, at the cost of Koreans citizens. And at the end, who benefits from this?
The USA. They do need to lose civilians in this war, (like the war in Iran) and they get all the economical benefits.
People, brainwashed by the media, (look at the above google search), gets all hyped up by the fear being invaded by China, NK, Russia, etc My hope is that one day, even if NK didn't reunite with SK, will open it's borders one day have take part in the World Trade, which can drastically improve his citizen's quality of life. It's that line dividing between me and them, the borders, which have stunningly different effects.
http://teengirlandpolitics.blogspot.sg/2013/03/north-korea-declares-war-but-didnt-do.html
when war break out in SK, companies will not pull out of singapore lah. companies may pull out from SK NK so on.
when SK fire their missiles, and confirm is aimed at SK, US or any of its allies, all have to fire missles to intercept it. when you fire ebough missiles to intercept every one NK fire, it will confirm 100% take it down. with combined US missiles, japan, taiwan, SK, we'd see how many missiles NK have and can use. SK will not allow any missiles near it and has been a long time in status quote with NK gurading borders and worrying about status of peace and war. its now than ever for a fight to break out and NK to wake up. stop idot worshipping expecially praying and worshipping a f**king communist war monger and its generations!
once NK unite with SK, or at least walk out of communism ad start building their ecomony, then really china will be like a defeated farmer walking arouund naked waist down with no underwear to hide his p*nis and her v*ginal.
Originally posted by SJS6638:oh, summer hill , is this post by you. from what i read in your other posts you don't sound like you will write this kind of ......... are you really summer hill?
yeah it's by me.
it's because I am trying to attract blog hits and enjoy the attention i am getting.
i am lovin' it! 243 unique vistors! Even one from Pakistan!
Originally posted by isntitobviousstoptokinrot:when war break out in SK, companies will not pull out of singapore lah. companies may pull out from SK NK so on.
when SK fire their missiles, and confirm is aimed at SK, US or any of its allies, all have to fire missles to intercept it. when you fire ebough missiles to intercept every one NK fire, it will confirm 100% take it down. with combined US missiles, japan, taiwan, SK, we'd see how many missiles NK have and can use. SK will not allow any missiles near it and has been a long time in status quote with NK gurading borders and worrying about status of peace and war. its now than ever for a fight to break out and NK to wake up. stop idot worshipping expecially praying and worshipping a f**king communist war monger and its generations!
once NK unite with SK, or at least walk out of communism ad start building their ecomony, then really china will be like a defeated farmer walking arouund naked waist down with no underwear to hide his p*nis and her v*ginal.
Instability in region, must pull out lah.
China affected=We die. China have so many investment in S'pore. What do you think will happen?
Originally posted by Mr Milo:whatever it is, NK’s capabilities to build nuclear weapons and devices must be destroyed completely, even if that means destroying their armed forces to dust
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
Originally posted by Summer hill:yeah it's by me.
it's because I am trying to attract blog hits and enjoy the attention i am getting.
i am lovin' it! 243 unique vistors! Even one from Pakistan!
Your blog? How to access?
Originally posted by SJS6638:Your blog? How to access?
Summer, if really there is war between north and south korea, do you think Samsung products will be affected>?
To buy or not to buy samsung products?
Originally posted by SJS6638:Summer, if really there is war between north and south korea, do you think Samsung products will be affected>?
To buy or not to buy samsung products?
There's not much to worry.
There's 61 Samsung plants worldwide, has more than 211,000 employees and more than enough capacity to weather any disruption at any of its facilities, even the ones closest to its home base
Originally posted by Summer hill:There's not much to worry.
There's 61 Samsung plants worldwide, has more than 211,000 employees and more than enough capacity to weather any disruption at any of its facilities, even the ones closest to its home base
oh yeah. then I will consider samsung
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?
Originally posted by Summer hill:
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.
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.
Originally posted by JoeRaj:
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.
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!?
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
Originally posted by Dalforce 1941: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."
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.
i am worried by SK and NK women, can i sign up and join their MP to help look after the women?
Originally posted by isntitobviousstoptokinrot: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.
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.
today they fire missai already?