^ Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of the word "invasion." Read my posts again please.

5/28/2009 12:40:26 PM

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word "irrelevant."

5/28/2009 12:41:06 PM

^ No, he doesn't:

5/28/2009 12:45:01 PM

This thread makes my head hurt.

5/28/2009 12:52:09 PM

I think the best argument to not do a tit for tat is the obvious mouth foaming of people like hooksaw

that when the shit hit the fan and the crazies go KILL 'EM ALL, KILL 'EM ALL, cooler heads need to step up to the plate and take leadership

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2009 1:17:42 PM

Quote :

"If they used Nuclear weapons, then I think it would be paramount that we respond in kind. Not doing so would send a pretty clear message that we will not use nuclear weapons when they are used against us, thus eliminating the point of having them (deterrence)."

No, simply no. The point is that any group of people who decide to carry out a nuclear strike is brought to justice.

What would discourage further violations of the NPT, leveling all of North Korea, or just having Kim Jong-il at the end of a rope? What if he launched a nuclear weapon and at the same time fled the country (yes, the very one he rules)?

I understand your rational of "a nuke for a nuke", but you fail to draw a line between a regime's actions and the welfare of a nation. That was a part of the lesson of WWI. North Korea would be a valuable asset to the free world as a productive and prosperous nation and a liability as a crater. Unlike some other defiant nations (cough, Iran), it is in a region with stable and productive neighbors. The thing that holds it back and poses a security threat to the world is its leadership. Why should we target anything else? I understand they have a powerful and indoctrinated military, but the matter of "turning around" this nation after a regime collapse would be more similar to Germany after WWII than it would be to Iraq of 2003.

Military use of a nuclear weapon by NK needs to result in trial and certain death of Kim Jong-il and everyone surrounding him right now. The nation itself should be treated with great compassion.

5/28/2009 3:18:30 PM

Just FYI concerning our obligations:

1953 Mutual Defense Treaty

http://tinyurl.com/km63cl

5/28/2009 4:04:32 PM

seriously the solution to the problem with NK is the same as the solution to the Iran problem and to the China delimma.

Open access to free internet porn.

Once they realize what their leaders have been denying them, they'll wonder what else is out there and revolt. Then we hit them up with fast food chains and walmarts.

5/28/2009 4:19:32 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0hk9vaqWUg

5/28/2009 4:23:26 PM

It's funny how often some people in this thread are equating any sort of retaliation with a nuclear strike... or who are essentially saying "if we're not nuking them, we're just letting them do whatever they want"

Quote :

"And it has been understood for years that the United States would attack North Korea with nuclear weapons if it ever invades South Korea. -hooksaw"

This is nothing short of utterly insane. Why would the US use nuclear weapons against a nation whose invasion could be repelled easily though the combined conventional military of the US and SK?

Not to mention that even if NK were actually confirmed to be a nuclear threat (and hadn't launched), we still wouldn't even need nuclear weapons. In this day and age we've got missiles that are accurate to a single room. Current military technology has the power to limit destruction to whatever we need destroyed with very little collateral damage, so there's really no point to nuking unless you just really enjoy seeing innocent civilians burn (besides the psychological damage... and frankly every major government and military building in the country getting blown up at once with surgical precision would likely have the same effect without all the civilian casualties). It would be trivial to take out whatever launch sites NK might have, and I highly doubt they've got any sort of decent missile detection capabilities, and certainly not a working missile defense system.

The US military (especially combined with SK and whatever UN nations join us) has more than enough strength to completely crush NK if it needs to, and all this talk of nukes being the only option, or it's nukes or nothing, or if x happens we must nuke, is nothing short of complete certifiable insanity or a complete misunderstanding of current military capabilities.



The only situation in which a nuke would even be approaching reasonable is if we knew that NK was prepared to launch, we didn't know where the launch site is, and we thought our nuke could get there before theirs gets out of the gate. And such a situation would mean that our military intelligence had already failed miserably, and besides that, this is reality and not some action movie. In any other situation, even if NK had already attempted a nuclear strike against someone it would create more problems than it would solve.

Throwing out all sorts of "what if" action movie scenarios and posing them as real does nothing but hurt your own point and lower the intellectual level of the discussion taking place.

5/28/2009 5:02:09 PM

Quote :

"that when the shit hit the fan and the crazies go KILL 'EM ALL, KILL 'EM ALL, cooler heads need to step up to the plate and take leadership"

lets apply this to NK and get Il out of power and let cooler heads step up and run the country...oh wait, how the fuck are we supposed to do that

5/28/2009 5:19:18 PM

^Well, we could assassinate him, but then NK could consider that an act of war and start trying to actually attack someone, and suddenly they'd have a good reason for it. As nice as it would be to be able to just remove the guy, doing so is basically asking for an NK/SK war.

We could wait for him to die... obviously not a great option, but it could work. Depends on how much crazier he gets and how much longer he has.

There's probably another option involving some degree of espionage... set up deals with various elements that would like to see Kim dead... but I really don't know how plausible this is because I don't know that much about the internal workings of North Korean politics.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 5:36 PM. Reason : V agreed.]

5/28/2009 5:27:02 PM

its a delicate situation...i wish he would just have a heart attack and die

5/28/2009 5:33:02 PM

Quote :

" No, simply no. The point is that any group of people who decide to carry out a nuclear strike is brought to justice. What would discourage further violations of the NPT, leveling all of North Korea, or just having Kim Jong-il at the end of a rope? What if he launched a nuclear weapon and at the same time fled the country (yes, the very one he rules)? I understand your rational of "a nuke for a nuke", but you fail to draw a line between a regime's actions and the welfare of a nation. That was a part of the lesson of WWI. North Korea would be a valuable asset to the free world as a productive and prosperous nation and a liability as a crater. Unlike some other defiant nations (cough, Iran), it is in a region with stable and productive neighbors. The thing that holds it back and poses a security threat to the world is its leadership. Why should we target anything else? I understand they have a powerful and indoctrinated military, but the matter of "turning around" this nation after a regime collapse would be more similar to Germany after WWII than it would be to Iraq of 2003. Military use of a nuclear weapon by NK needs to result in trial and certain death of Kim Jong-il and everyone surrounding him right now. The nation itself should be treated with great compassion."

What world do you live in? How do you suggest we capture the leaders of NK after they nuke Toyko (or wherever)? You think they are just going to surrender? "Oh, Sorry we nuked you and killed millions of people, you can hang us now." You even posted about Japan and the use of nukes saving 100's of thousands of American lives (not to mention Japanese lives). This is in fact doing the same thing. If they were to nuke an ally then we would either have to invade (exposing our troops to nuclear/chemical/biological attack) and be drawn into a major full scale war in rugged terrain that would probably cost countless lives of Americans, British, Japanese, South Koreans, etc. Or we could obliterate NK and save our own citizens lives. Yeah, it sucks ass for Joe Schmoe NK peasant, just like it sucked for German and Japanese civilians, but that is what happens when your country to ruled by wankers.

A nuke is just another weapon. How many people did we kill in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and how many people did we kill in firebombing Toyko? Which one had a higher death toll? Limited use of nuclear weapons is response to a nuclear attack is critical, because it sends the message that we will fuck your shit up if you mess with us or our allies and it does so with a minimal loss of life on our side, and probably less loss of life on their side as well.

5/28/2009 5:57:08 PM

^Nuking a major North Korean city (say, Pyongyang, the largest) would kill more people (2.2 million, over a tenth of the country's total population) than there are North Koreans currently serving in active military duty (1.17 million, http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea).

Sure, if the only goal was to make a statement, the US could nuke a smaller city, but Kim is a crazy person. If he ever goes far enough off the edge to actually attack SK or anyone else, he's not going to end a war just because he's losing entire cities. This is a leader who doesn't care about the lives of his people, unlike the leaders of WWII Japan. Besides that, the US Air Force is vastly more powerful than anything North Korea has at its disposal.

Unless we made the mistake of trying to occupy the country for years to come (I'd hope we would have learned something from how long the Iraq cleanup has taken), I don't know why you'd think we would go about fighting a ground war at all in the event the US chose to invade NK. It would be difficult and unnecessary. This isn't the early 1900s, and our armies no longer have to go trudging through jungles to push forward a front line. Yes, we'd need to get soldiers into the cities at some point in the conflict, but they wouldn't be walking (or driving) to get there.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 6:55 PM. Reason : 1.17, not 1.7]

5/28/2009 6:49:14 PM

It would be pretty tough to try and evacuate the NK citizens if it we had too, because any TV or radio or Internet format information we tried to give them would be censored by KJI

5/28/2009 6:54:35 PM

Quote :

"Well, we could assassinate him. . . ."

tromboner950

Quote :

"On December 4, 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333 on 'United States Intelligence Activities.' Section 2.11 of the order provides: 'Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.' Section 2.12 of the order prohibits indirect participation in activities prohibited by the order, stating: 'Indirect participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.' E.O. 12333 is still in force."

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21037.pdf

5/28/2009 7:09:06 PM

^And...? We still could do it, just like I could break into my neighbor's house. Because I could do it doesn't mean that I'm going to do it, nor does it mean that it is legal to do it, nor does it make it a good idea.

If we could do something, that means said something is within the realm of possibility. I don't know what other definition of could you are using that makes the above post at all conflict with what I said. I love the complete lack of context, too, since immediately after making that statement I explain why it would not be a good idea.

Also, you really think that the US government never participates in assassinations just because of an executive order? Don't be naive.

--

Also, on a hooksaw-related but not thread-related note, in another thread you seem to support torture (outlawed by the Geneva Convention) as an option to prevent a catastrophe, yet in this thread seem to oppose the idea of assassination (outlawed by Reagan's executive order) to (potentially) prevent a war. Could it be that you are completely intellectually dishonest and alter your beliefs whenever it is convenient to making whatever point you so feel like at the time?

Based upon your track record, I predict that to reconcile this conflict, you will claim that ^ was merely a post to "inform" and does not at all reflect on any opinions you may hold. If that is your excuse, I suggest you start putting such a disclaimer on your informative posts when you post them, instead of declaring it after the fact as a convenient escape maneuver.

Quote :

"Any president who wouldn't do everything in his power to protect Americans from massive loss of life isn't fit to hold the office. Trust me, if faced with such a situation, Obama will dunk those heads--I think the man has a conscience and I don't think he or anyone else could live with the consequences." -hooksaw"

So, would you admit, then, that President Reagan was not "fit to hold the office"?

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 7:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2009 7:21:53 PM

^ Wow, you really contorted yourself there.

1. The parties receiving enhanced interrogation techniques weren't parties to the Geneva Convention--despite related rulings.

2. The intelligence gatherers were operating on legal interpretations provided by attorneys with the Office of Legal Counsel--you know, similar to running something through legal in a private organization. If you ran something through legal, would you just accept it when someone later accused you of doing something illegal?

3. Torture is a word. It is a word that is being used by some in power and elsewhere as a political baseball bat to bash others--this posturing and feigned outrage makes us less safe.

Enhanced interrogation techniques are a necessity--and I think Obama has come to this realization. You see that he has continued--and may even expand--extraordinary rendition, don't you? What do you think happens when the United States apprehends a terror suspect and transfers him to another country, patty-cake?

4. I didn't say I was against assassination of a foreign head of state--I simply posted information. Under certain circumstances, assassination might be a very attractive proposition when compared with other less desirable possibilities.

So, in summary, I fully support enhanced interrogation techniques--call it torture if you like--within strict parameters. In addition, I would have no compunction whatsoever about carrying out such techniques personally.

I also support assassination of a foreign head of state within strict parameters. In certain instances, this could save not only American lives but others around the world, as well.

Does this clear things up for you?

5/28/2009 7:50:52 PM

Quote :

"2. The intelligence gatherers were operating on legal interpretations provided by attorneys with the Office of Legal Counsel--you know, similar to running something through legal in a private organization. If you ran something through legal, would you just accept it when someone later accused you of doing something illegal? "

I don't actually support taking any legal action against the people carrying out the torture... Or "intelligence gatherers" as you call them.

Quote :

"Enhanced interrogation techniques are a necessity"

Torture ("enhanced interrogation" is just words being used by some in power....ect) could potentially be a necessity in a potential situation that I think the US has not yet encountered in the realm of reality. Torture should be the extreme exception to the rule, it should never be officially expressly permitted as an intelligence gathering technique... both due to the moral issues associated with it, the potential for abuse of the policy, and the unreliability of intelligence gained from it.

Quote :

"What do you think happens when the United States apprehends a terror suspect and transfers him to another country, patty-cake? "

He's likely tortured. I don't have a problem with that, it's their country. In that case, we're not the ones endorsing it, they are.

Quote :

"I fully support enhanced interrogation techniques--call it torture if you like--within strict parameters."

I feel the same way, only I don't trust the government nearly enough to hold themselves to their own parameters. Our government should never say that they support torture in any circumstance, even if they specify strict parameters, because our government is full of liars who will abuse every inch of power they give themselves. They would say that it's only to be used when there is an "imminent threat", and then the definition of "imminent threat" would just get broader and broader as time goes on.

Quote :

"I didn't say I was against assassination of a foreign head of state--I simply posted information."

"I predict that to reconcile this conflict, you will claim that ^ was merely a post to "inform" and does not at all reflect on any opinions you may hold. I suggest you start putting such a disclaimer on your informative posts when you post them, instead of declaring it after the fact as a convenient escape maneuver."
...Can I call 'em, or can I call 'em?

Quote :

"Does this clear things up for you?"

Well enough, at least. And at the risk of not turning this thread into a torture thread, I suggest we leave the subject.
...Though you didn't answer the question about Reagan.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2009 8:12:57 PM

5/28/2009 9:53:39 PM

wow, is that picture for real?

5/28/2009 10:02:43 PM

^ 2006 net electricity consumption:

North Korea - 18.18 TWh
South Korea - 365.15 TWh
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electricityconsumption.html

The graph is entirely correct and verifiable. You can also read about famines and other not-so-happy things going on there. An imbalance of this scale is quite typical of the situation there.

5/28/2009 10:19:29 PM

^^^

As dark as a middle ages kingdom, N. Korea must be an environmentalist's dream!

5/28/2009 10:26:18 PM

Quote :

"Open access to free internet porn. Once they realize what their leaders have been denying them, they'll wonder what else is out there and revolt. Then we hit them up with fast food chains and walmarts."

5/28/2009 10:30:27 PM

possibly, if environmentalists dream of land mines and radioactive fallout.

5/28/2009 10:30:52 PM

so how is this playing on cnn/fox news/msnbc?

5/29/2009 12:31:19 AM

Quote :

"NK claims to have 1.1 M active, whereas SK only has 300,000. "

Actually, the South's active duty number is at 680,000. Given their policy of universal male conscription for the last sixty years and the fact that they have over double the population of North Korea, the ROK has more than enough soldiers to repel the North. Throw in a clear qualitative advantage in terms of weaponry, a strong modern military tradition, and over sixty years of preparation for a North Korean invasion, I'm pretty sure the ROK is more than able to handle a Northern invasion especially with the assistance of US Forces Korea.

I said this before, but the only scenario I can think of where the United States would use nuclear weapons is if they've spotted North Korean missiles being fueled on a launch pad and conventional air strikes have failed. Otherwise, there's no tactical or strategic reason to go nuclear against the North.

Quote :

"Obama pledges U.S. support for South Korea's defense"

I don't think this was ever in doubt. Not with a sizable American garrison in the ROK.

Quote :

"Other side of the border, the South Korean forces are largely untested and follow a leadership with historically dubious competence."

Eh... I dunno if I would go that far. The South Korean military is a pretty effective fighting force. The South may have weak political leadership, but their officer corps is solid. Besides, Korean military forces fall under UN (ie. US) control in the event of invasion, so I don't question the competence of the ROK military leadership. As for untested, its true they haven't waged a serious war in about thirty five years, but they were effective in Vietnam, giving the NVA and the VC serious heartburn.

Quote :

"From my understanding, there's an element of this coupled with a generally growing discontent among high-ranking officials with Kim and his inner circle. Supposedly the succession issue was resolved with Kim picking one of his sons, but of course it's hard to say how much that actually fixed. Ultimately, the takeaway point is that the cult of personality is showing some cracks."

Agreed. Some security experts are predicting a clique of military officers and Party leaders to take control upon Kim's death. Sure, they'll elevate the son, but they'll probably use him as a puppet unless Junior proves as politically wily as his father and grandfather. However, talking with these experts, a lot are predicting that the new Northern regime probably won't be all that different from the current leadership policy wise, maybe even more hardline...

Quote :

"His aid from sources other than China has been minimal, the international community is steadily more aligned against him, and one of the reasons we're in the dark about NK's motives is that Kim Jong Il is crazy and you can't predict what crazy people will do."

Depends on what your goals are. If his goals were to try and build a prosperous North Korea, then yes, he's not going about it the right way. However, if his goal was regime survival, then he's playing about as best as he can. All he has to do is buy time, and he can establish himself as a de facto nuclear power, much the way India and Pakistan have done. China will get used to the idea of a nuclear north eventually, and as long as Kim plays cool after that, they'll keep propping him up. The prestige of the bomb also will help give him leverage over domestic critics.

5/29/2009 12:46:37 AM

- Send hillary clinton to negotiate with kim jon il personally
- have her body guards disable the guards in the room, seize kim jon il
- while this is happening, bomb artillery threatening SK cities, send special forces to disable as many as possible
- invade NK, get behind lines, and cause as much havoc as possible. use poison gas, fire bombing, etc to get the NK soldiers to run away
- maybe get forces to the capital and save hillary, steal kim jong il (or not). otherwise, blow up the whole block
- if kim jong il is still alive, make him announce unconditional surrender to all of NK
- pardon all NK military leaders if they GTFO or cooperate
- give jack bauer a medal


[Edited on May 29, 2009 at 2:23 AM. Reason : .]

5/29/2009 2:18:16 AM

Quote :

"NK does not have the capability or the amount of fisible material to warrent attacking them with a Nuke. Conventional warfare would suffice"

I lolled at this, it makes no sense whatsoever. What's enough fisible material to warrent a nuclear strike in your estimation -- mutually assured destruction?

I don't think we should engage in nuclear retaliation or preemption in this scenario, don't get me wrong, but it seems pretty obvious that the only logical time to engage in a nuclear strike is when there's no threat of nuclear retaliation.

[Edited on May 29, 2009 at 3:11 AM. Reason : .]

5/29/2009 3:08:07 AM

Quote :

"Besides, Korean military forces fall under UN (ie. US) control in the event of invasion, so I don't question the competence of the ROK military leadership. As for untested, its true they haven't waged a serious war in about thirty five years, but they were effective in Vietnam, giving the NVA and the VC serious heartburn."

Korean forces fell under our de facto control during the first war, but incompetent and corrupt political and political leadership still made our lives far more difficult than they needed to be. As for their participation in Vietnam -- yes, they were effective. But that was, as you say, 35 years ago, meaning two things:

1) Few of the people involved in that conflict are still in the military. That experience is now useful only in an academic sense.
2) That was more than a generation ago -- and therefore more than a generation further separated from the Korean War. It's natural that the military and popular resolve hardened at that time has worn off a little bit in the ensuing time. Young people in Korea in the 1960's were more likely to be seriously worried about Asian communism. Now they're too busy making money.

The big question is the North Korean resolve. We don't know how hardened their military forces are. For all I know, they'll all surrender at the sound of a string of firecrackers, but they might also fight like mad bastards because they're irreparably brainwashed.

Quote :

"However, if his goal was regime survival, then he's playing about as best as he can."

I'm just not convinced. His regime has been dangling by a thread for some time. It would take much less provocation from him than it would almost any other country (possibly excepting Iran) before the bombers got launched and the regime got changed.

5/29/2009 1:08:53 PM

Quote :

"Liberals often get out ahead of themselves on this issue--just as Jon Stewart did when he called Truman a war criminal"

Somewhat off topic at this point, but Gen. Curtis LeMay once said that had we lost WWII, he would have been convicted of war crimes. And he wasn't even referring to the dropping of the nuclear bombs.


Even if those nuclear attacks weren't war crimes, they, at the very least, meet our current definition of terrorism.

[Edited on May 29, 2009 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ]

5/29/2009 3:14:54 PM

^ And if you had been on a ship headed for a ground invasion of Japan, you would've said, "Three cheers for nuclear 'terrorism!' Now I don't have to go home in a body bag!"

Quote :

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You win it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

--Attributed to General George S. Patton

5/29/2009 4:44:33 PM

Quote :

"It would take much less provocation from him than it would almost any other country (possibly excepting Iran) before the bombers got launched and the regime got changed."

...except that no one really wants regime change in North Korea. Not China, not South Korea, and not the US.

If there's externally driven regime change, who's going to take care of the 24 million refugees?

5/29/2009 5:24:23 PM

Quote :

"Even if those nuclear attacks weren't war crimes, they, at the very least, meet our current definition of terrorism."

There isn't a universally (or even very widely) accepted definition of terrorism, precisely because it's hard to come up with one that distinguishes it from regular combat. It turns out that they both involve violence and scaring people.

One argument against our nuclear attacks being terrorism is that they were launched by uniformed military personnel in a marked military plane, whereas many definitions of terrorism require that it be perpetrated by people outside of a military chain of command and usually not marked as a combatant (some of the same requirements used by the Geneva conventions to differentiate unlawful combatants).

Quote :

"...except that no one really wants regime change in North Korea. Not China, not South Korea, and not the US."

Reunification isn't unpopular in the South. Besides, whether we want it or not, regime change is inevitable. Eventually it will happen internally, unless they do something so stupid that we've got no choice but to go after them.

[Edited on May 29, 2009 at 7:05 PM. Reason : ]

5/29/2009 7:01:00 PM

^
I agree with your first point regarding the broadness of the definition; I was specifically referring to the commonality of those definitions pertaining to the use of violence to intimidate and pressure public opinion, which was a major goal of the nuclear bombings.

As for the second point, I was assuming that state-terrorism was a sub-category of terrorism. I see no reason why it wouldn't be. It's wide-spread enough amongst most countries to warrant its own definition.

5/29/2009 8:15:10 PM

Quote :

"Liberals often get out ahead of themselves on this issue--just as Jon Stewart did when he called Truman a war criminal"

I don't think that's an unfair assertion. Truman issued the order to drop not one but two nuclear bombs on a country, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The war itself was basically over. I don't see how those actions can be justified. When you think about the wanton loss of life that occurred on that day, you should feel bad. And not just because people died, but because it was your country that did it.

[Edited on May 29, 2009 at 10:30 PM. Reason : ]

5/29/2009 10:29:39 PM

i loved his drop it right off shore idea

5/29/2009 10:40:48 PM

Didn't the bombing of dresden kill as many or more people? As such, wouldn't FDR be just as much of a war criminal? Or are nukes special?

5/29/2009 11:34:34 PM

^I don't think FDR was in charge of ordering the bombings of Dresden, or even approving them. On the other hand, Truman most certainly made the final call on dropping the nuke. He must have been told what it would do. I think there is something special about a nuke, in that it's a single bomb that has devastating effects. It kills military and civilians alike, indiscriminately.

5/30/2009 12:03:15 AM

conventional carpet bombing with the technology available in 1945 killed indiscriminately too. Sometimes we could be miles off of our intended military target and end up leveling neighborhoods instead. shit happens.

5/30/2009 12:08:02 AM

There's a difference between bombing military targets and missing, and dropping a bomb that you know will most certainly kill everyone in a certain radius. When you drop an atomic bomb directly above a city with absolutely no strategic importance, but with an almost entirely civilian population, how is that "shit happens"? Maximum death of civilians was the intended effect of the bombing.

5/30/2009 12:58:40 AM

Quote :

"There's a difference between bombing military targets and missing, and dropping a bomb that you know will most certainly kill everyone in a certain radius. When you drop an atomic bomb directly above a city with absolutely no strategic importance, but with an almost entirely civilian population, how is that "shit happens"? Maximum death of civilians was the intended effect of the bombing."

Please learn something about history before posting.

5/30/2009 1:06:25 AM

^^ We conventionally bombed civilians on purpose, too. In fact, that was probably the only objective of British bombers.


Anyway, arguing that you shouldn't do something because it hypocritical is a logical fallacy.

5/30/2009 1:23:46 AM

What about my post leads you to think I haven't learned something about history? Refute a specific point. The official bombing survey said that "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population." They were not chosen for any strategic reason. The purpose was, literally, to cause utter death and destruction for the purpose of getting Japan to surrender.

5/30/2009 1:33:57 AM

They were chosen because all the other cities had already been levelled by indiscriminate carpet fire bombing. I would accept an argument against indiscriminately bombing civilians, but it seems silly to differentiate between two types of indiscriminate bombings unless they differed in scale, which they did not.

5/30/2009 1:45:48 AM

Nagasaki was a MAJOR sea port.

5/30/2009 1:51:16 AM

barefoot gen

5/30/2009 2:00:14 AM

^^^^ They were fairly decent sized cities of moderate strategic importance to the Japanese which we had not yet flattened.

Back to the thread, though, now they're threatening to fire an ICBM. This is the first time I've seen the news refer to NK's long-range missiles as an ICBM, though some of their earlier launches may have involved a similar/the same missile design.

If NK hasn't gone and picked a fight now I would guess that they won't in the near future. This administration seems to be taking a bit of a "Look, we're getting tired of your bullshit" stance on it this time, which is spot on I think.

It'd be nice if Kim Jong Il just died and his son was like "Hey, can we just reunify now so the North doesn't have to spend most of its money on this war so our people can eat food and not live in abject poverty any more?"

5/30/2009 2:52:06 PM

Reunification would wreck SK. The per capita income disparity between east and west Germany before the wall came down was 3:1 and their economy is still seeing the effects of reunification.

The disparity between north and south Korea is 15:1.

5/30/2009 5:30:49 PM