North Korea's Threats
-
Originally posted by JoeRaj:
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.
1) The bombing DID kickstart the cold war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
A arms race is like, in simpler terms, I own a kitchen chopper, you a bit scared of me, you go and buy a parang.
2) A nuclear bomb devestate the region even after it was long dropped there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
We can survive and rebuild a place after it's being bomb by TNT, but not a nuke. And also, Virtually everyone within two miles of ground zero would perish, while those farther out would be extremely likely to suffer significant injury, radiation poisoning, etc.
3) I don't quite understand this point.
4) Japan is an island nation; just simply destorying their navy and aircraft and cut off trade, they(USA) could have waited until a surrender was necessary by lack of supplies - Japan was almost empty of resources and in it's isolation would have eventually had to surrender.
4) Why do they need to invade Japan? It's not a defensive move but rather an invasive one. Like what I said above, CUT OFF THE TRADE! The reason why Japan invaded Singapore is for the resources. Japans didn't go as far as the Americans, at least they didn't drop sooo many bombs on Singapore.
http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html
5) How do you know if that President made a very agonsing decision to kill his enemies? He actually felt compassion for they people he killed? WOW.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 1941:
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?
Watch the show lah.Singapore can make money by repairing their fighter jet/planes/warship or refilling their ships. We can also sell weapons.
-
Japan never would have surrendered just through isolation. By war's end, Japan was still holding on to many territories including Singapore, Taiwan etc. Japan would have continued the policy of kamikaze pilots and constructing its war machines because that's their psyche. The 2 atom bombs compelled the emperor to force his military to seek terms i.e. surrender. Those are the facts. It was also because the Japs did not know that the US only had 2 atom bombs and Roosevelt threatened to carry on atom bombing the Japanese cities. Without the emperor's intervention, the military was prepared to continue the war indefinitely (or so they said). In a way, the atom bombs, despite their devastation, freed Singapore earlier. The atom bombs killed far less people than the B-29 bombings and fire raids did but the latter did not force the emperor to seek peace.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Japan never would have surrendered just through isolation. By war’s end, Japan was still holding on to many territories including Singapore, Taiwan etc. Japan would have continued the policy of kamikaze pilots and constructing its war machines because that’s their psyche. The 2 atom bombs compelled the emperor to force his military to seek terms i.e. surrender. Those are the facts. It was also because the Japs did not know that the US only had 2 atom bombs and Roosevelt threatened to carry on atom bombing the Japanese cities. Without the emperor’s intervention, the military was prepared to continue the war indefinitely (or so they said).
In a way, the atom bombs, despite their devastation, freed Singapore earlier. The atom bombs killed far less people than the B-29 bombings and fire raids did but the latter did not force the emperor to seek peace.
The blockade was working. Japan has never had the resources on the home islands to feed her people and fuel her industries. The people were slowly starving and industrial complexes had all but shut down. Even if Japan still had the will to fight, she lacked the ability. To be sure, plans for Operation Downfall (for the invasion of the Japanese home islands) had been prepared. Casualty estimates that ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous and been forecast. It is common sense to draw up battle plans and contingencies. It is another matter entirely to put them in motion. The Germans had plans for the Invasion of Great Britain but they never seriously considered going forward with Operation Sealion. The US had continuously revised the Rainbow Five, but no one in the Pentagon thought for a moment that the US would invade Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland or India. Likewise, no one believed for an instant that the invasion of Japan would ever come to pass. It simply wasn't going to be necessary. -
Fight lah.............knn NK had better fire all of its missiles, bombs and rockets before they are all destroyed :lol:
-
-
:lol::lol::lol: Fire! Missiles away! :lol:
-
Originally posted by Summer hill:
1) The bombing DID kickstart the cold war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
A arms race is like, in simpler terms, I own a kitchen chopper, you a bit scared of me, you go and buy a parang.
2) A nuclear bomb devestate the region even after it was long dropped there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
We can survive and rebuild a place after it's being bomb by TNT, but not a nuke. And also, Virtually everyone within two miles of ground zero would perish, while those farther out would be extremely likely to suffer significant injury, radiation poisoning, etc.
3) I don't quite understand this point.
4) Japan is an island nation; just simply destorying their navy and aircraft and cut off trade, they(USA) could have waited until a surrender was necessary by lack of supplies - Japan was almost empty of resources and in it's isolation would have eventually had to surrender.
4) Why do they need to invade Japan? It's not a defensive move but rather an invasive one. Like what I said above, CUT OFF THE TRADE! The reason why Japan invaded Singapore is for the resources. Japans didn't go as far as the Americans, at least they didn't drop sooo many bombs on Singapore.
http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html
5) How do you know if that President made a very agonsing decision to kill his enemies? He actually felt compassion for they people he killed? WOW.
Like I said dont believe everything you read, even wikipedia which is essentially user input and edited. Even a respected source will always have the author's slant. But I'm not here to argue with view, just engage in exchange your views, which I will respect even if I disagree.
1) I will concede the point to you based on your simple explanation, what I said was that 1945 wasnt the start, but as you put it, yes it was the trigger.
2) You are right on point 2 as well. Not much was done to study the long term effects as opposed to the immediate damage it could caused.
I will come back later or tomorrow to answer points 3-5
-
Originally posted by Summer hill:
The blockade was working. Japan has never had the resources on the home islands to feed her people and fuel her industries. The people were slowly starving and industrial complexes had all but shut down. Even if Japan still had the will to fight, she lacked the ability. To be sure, plans for Operation Downfall (for the invasion of the Japanese home islands) had been prepared. Casualty estimates that ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous and been forecast. It is common sense to draw up battle plans and contingencies. It is another matter entirely to put them in motion. The Germans had plans for the Invasion of Great Britain but they never seriously considered going forward with Operation Sealion. The US had continuously revised the Rainbow Five, but no one in the Pentagon thought for a moment that the US would invade Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland or India. Likewise, no one believed for an instant that the invasion of Japan would ever come to pass. It simply wasn't going to be necessary.
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/ch13.htmThe Joint chiefs including MacArthur were prepared to invade Japan. In particular, one should consider MacArthur's 3 options which covered the scenarios discussed plus invasion (read link above, pp 397-398) and pertinent to note MacArthur's preferred option was to invade rather than bomb/blockade. It was Truman who decided to go ahead with the atom bomb after Okinawa showed how many casaulties could be caused by an invasion. The C-in-C has the last say.
-
Originally posted by Summer hill:
1) The bombing DID kickstart the cold war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
A arms race is like, in simpler terms, I own a kitchen chopper, you a bit scared of me, you go and buy a parang.
2) A nuclear bomb devestate the region even after it was long dropped there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
We can survive and rebuild a place after it's being bomb by TNT, but not a nuke. And also, Virtually everyone within two miles of ground zero would perish, while those farther out would be extremely likely to suffer significant injury, radiation poisoning, etc.
3) I don't quite understand this point.
4) Japan is an island nation; just simply destorying their navy and aircraft and cut off trade, they(USA) could have waited until a surrender was necessary by lack of supplies - Japan was almost empty of resources and in it's isolation would have eventually had to surrender.
4) Why do they need to invade Japan? It's not a defensive move but rather an invasive one. Like what I said above, CUT OFF THE TRADE! The reason why Japan invaded Singapore is for the resources. Japans didn't go as far as the Americans, at least they didn't drop sooo many bombs on Singapore.
http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html
5) How do you know if that President made a very agonsing decision to kill his enemies? He actually felt compassion for they people he killed? WOW.
Point 3: After victory in Europe, it was basically left to 2 armies to fight Japan in the East, the US and the USSR. The Soviets were playing a waiting game, consoladating their gains in Eastern Europe and then amassing troops in the East near Japan, but they would let the Americans do the bulk of the fighting.
Point 4; The invasion of Japan had to happen, because their was no way just to cut of supplies and hope they bleed, it would take too long plus Japan was still occupying parts of Asia including Singapore, if you remember. They still had planes and some ships.
While the Japanese did not bomb the shit out of Singapore, just ask any relatives who lived thu the era, how cruel they were. They were a very viscious occupier especially in China and the Koreas.
They refused to surrender and was still mobilising men to fight.
Truman had to make the decision, lose hundreds of thousands of men or use the bombs and bring Japan to it's knees.
Had he gone for the former, dont forget by the time victory was achived, the US would be extremely vulnerable to any Soviet plans to occupy all the places Japan had abandoned or lost.
-
US tme today Boston explosion - could it be some hadly work of the north?
-
Originally posted by isntitobviousstoptokinrot:
US tme today Boston explosion - could it be some hadly work of the north?
you really need to do something to your english, simple one sentence like that also cannot write properly.
-
Originally posted by JoeRaj:
Point 3: After victory in Europe, it was basically left to 2 armies to fight Japan in the East, the US and the USSR. The Soviets were playing a waiting game, consoladating their gains in Eastern Europe and then amassing troops in the East near Japan, but they would let the Americans do the bulk of the fighting.
Point 4; The invasion of Japan had to happen, because their was no way just to cut of supplies and hope they bleed, it would take too long plus Japan was still occupying parts of Asia including Singapore, if you remember. They still had planes and some ships.
While the Japanese did not bomb the shit out of Singapore, just ask any relatives who lived thu the era, how cruel they were. They were a very viscious occupier especially in China and the Koreas.
They refused to surrender and was still mobilising men to fight.
Truman had to make the decision, lose hundreds of thousands of men or use the bombs and bring Japan to it's knees.
Had he gone for the former, dont forget by the time victory was achived, the US would be extremely vulnerable to any Soviet plans to occupy all the places Japan had abandoned or lost.
it is impossible to cut off supplies in the occupied lands, If japan didn't surrender, their soldiers in the occupied land would vow to fight till the end. imagine the american had to fight to liberate Singapore....imagine the jap forced Singaporean to fight against invading, or liberating alllied soldiers....the bombs had to drop in Japan, should have been dropped in Tokyo.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
it is impossible to cut off supplies in the occupied lands...
cut off supplies to homeland can already wah. You mean they care more about occupied lands than homeland?
The Soviets were playing a waiting game, consoladating their gains in Eastern Europe and then amassing troops in the East near Japan, but they would let the Americans do the bulk of the fighting.
It's the other way round. Soviets did the bulk of the fighting and suffered the most losses in WWII.
How large were German losses on the eastern front?
Answer
It is generally accepted that of the total German military combat deaths in WWII, which numbered about 3.4 million, about 75% and possibly 80% were on the eastern front. Additionally, up to June 1944 (Normandy) the percentage was even higher since there was little combat elsewhere that generated large casualties.
German material losses on the eastern front were also huge representing over 80% of artillery, tank and truck losses. Aircraft losses were about 50/50 on the eastern and western front. Of course, naval losses were almost exclusively in the west, even including defensive actions taken against Soviet attempts to massacre civilians on the open seas late in the war in the Baltic.
It is said that, 9 out of 10 German soldiers killed in World War II were on the Eastern Front.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_large_were_German_losses_on_the_eastern_front
-
Originally posted by Summer hill:
The blockade was working. Japan has never had the resources on the home islands to feed her people and fuel her industries. The people were slowly starving and industrial complexes had all but shut down. Even if Japan still had the will to fight, she lacked the ability.
That is correct. That's why they invaded Indonesia to grab the oil.
-
The irony is that starvation might have killed more civilians esp children than bombs would. This esp when food always goes to soldiers first. And the top who makes the decisions end up always getting fed.
Its easy to see things with hindsight. But in 1945, the US was looking for the quickest way to end the war. Starvation could have been a significantly longer process. I remember reading that an operations analyst commitee working for the joint chiefs calculated it might have taken 2 years from 1945 to force Japan to surrender thru blockade alone. Not everyone would know in 1945 how much impact the blockade would have had on Japan. People know now the blockade was working but did people know in 1945 that the blockade was working? Fog of war.
-
the a boobs was a right decision. japs back then were stroing in the minds - some call it sick actually. they will starve and fight to death until end of time. onlyh a boobs can wake up their stubborn mind becasue it sis like very easy for enemies to drop boobs and kill their pople and country with the enemy lossing nothign but the fuel and boomb price and paycheck to soldiers and pilots during teh joyride.
end the thing and start afresh.
-
Originally posted by isntitobviousstoptokinrot:
the a boobs was a right decision. japs back then were stroing in the minds - some call it sick actually. they will starve and fight to death until end of time. onlyh a boobs can wake up their stubborn mind becasue it sis like very easy for enemies to drop boobs and kill their pople and country with the enemy lossing nothign but the fuel and boomb price and paycheck to soldiers and pilots during teh joyride.
end the thing and start afresh.
wth?
boobs? lol.
-Juliane Pulset
-
All Hail Hitler! :lol: :lol::lol::lol:
-
Originally posted by Mr Milo:
All Hail Hitler!
Don't say this Germany, I did it and I was arrested.
-Juliane Pulset
-
ok :lol: he's dead anyway :lol:
-
Lets not say Nk agst USA. Agst south korea, the north stands ZERO chance. The south has an economy capable of sustaining a protraced war, an airforce tens of times bigger and more advanced than the paper planes the north boasts, a navy ten times larger and more advanced than the sampans north koreans have.
MOST IMPTLY, the south has far better combat engineering units than the north. Think of it this way: for every hundred tanks put out of action, the south can bring back 90 easily within 24 hours. The north's poor, stick thin engineers manage ten.
That and the fact the us army is already stationed in the south. Will the north dare? Dont forget the north's relations with china are at their worst.
In a war with the south, the north's tiny tiny economy will collapse in a matter of months, that is if the south doesnt crush the ant army of the north first of course.
-
Originally posted by narkiz:
Lets not say Nk agst USA. Agst south korea, the north stands ZERO chance.
What if North Korea launch nukes? Will there be chance?
-
Wow, if the North launches nukes, there will be interesting firework display to watch. :lol: