North Korea

[ChicagoBlue]

Inchy,

Not sure you fully understand the U.S. motives for the use of the A Bomb.

The war with Japan was close to the end, i'll accept it may have been used to speed up Japan's surrender, and possibly save lives.
Thing is, this was dropped on your everyday citizen and was done purely for shock value and to say "look what we can do if you don't comply"
I may be way out and if so please enlighten me.

However please answer me this,

Why drop the second one?

I think that if you check the dates, you will find the answer for yourself, and a modicum of research would show you that Japan was neither close to surrender, nor was it ever envisaged using traditional negotiating or warfare. In short, Japan was going to have be literally beaten into submission.

If I was a smart arsed misogynist, I would quote the 'joke' "Why did the wife have two black eyes?" "She obviously didn't listen the first time!"......but I'm not!

Accordingly, after the devastation wrought taking Pacific Island outposts, the cost in human life of an invasion of Japan itself was almost incalculable.

I dont believe it was a the "look at my dick!" matter.

For a more sanguine, and possibly political, viewpoint, THIS ARTICLE, by the guy who recently wrote the Steve Jobs book, might provide a scintilla of greater insight than you might believe from me.

 

[Skashion]

The second thing he is trying to do is bring the US to the negotiating table for lifting century old sanctions so that he has access to more resources to improve the well being of the people. This is an intelligent and planned move. They wont attack anyone. The rhetoric and nuclear weapons is just to serve as a deterrent. Once he feels that it has achieved its purpose, he will back down and concentrate on improving the economy. The current ruler is much more modern than his father. Do not for one moment think that these are the ramblings of a mad ruler.

If he is as intelligent as you suggest, he will realise the biggest internal threat to his hegemony is the rising living standards of the people of North Korea.

George Orwell summed it up nicely when he wrote "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" within 1984:

. . if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would learn to think for themselves, become politically conscious and so depose the ruling oligarchy; therefore. . . in the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. Given that large-scale, mechanised production could not be eliminated once invented, the Party arranges the destruction of surplus goods – before that makes the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent". Hence the perpetual war

I'm always suspicious of people who like Orwell.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The second thing he is trying to do is bring the US to the negotiating table for lifting century old sanctions so that he has access to more resources to improve the well being of the people. This is an intelligent and planned move. They wont attack anyone. The rhetoric and nuclear weapons is just to serve as a deterrent. Once he feels that it has achieved its purpose, he will back down and concentrate on improving the economy. The current ruler is much more modern than his father. Do not for one moment think that these are the ramblings of a mad ruler.

If he is as intelligent as you suggest, he will realise the biggest internal threat to his hegemony is the rising living standards of the people of North Korea.

George Orwell summed it up nicely when he wrote "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" within 1984:

. . if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would learn to think for themselves, become politically conscious and so depose the ruling oligarchy; therefore. . . in the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. Given that large-scale, mechanised production could not be eliminated once invented, the Party arranges the destruction of surplus goods – before that makes the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent". Hence the perpetual war

I'm always suspicious of people who like Orwell.

People with the surname Blair are always men of integrity.

 

[CTID1988]

I'm flying to S. Korea (Inchon) on Friday, so I'll let you know if I see any missiles in the air. I will be about 20 miles from the DMZ!

It can be a Bluemoon exclusive!

Seriously, I'll "take the temperature" of the situation while I'm there and let you know firsthand what people who hear this shit regularly all think about it!

My mate is in Seoul now, over there teaching for a year. I spoke to him the other day and he said nobody really gives a shit! Koreans are big on saving face so they arent saying anything really. This kind of thing happens all the time but because Un is relatively new its getting more media attention.
I told him about it being on the news over here and he is genuinely suprised how much media attention its getting, i mean, the missiles are actually pointed at south korea and there is more on the news in the UK about it.
Its probably down to our media really, they love getting overexcited

 

[Skashion]

The second one, whilst more morally questionable, was not dropped wantonly imo.

When the Hiroshima bomb was dropped the US expected Japan to surrender immediately. They did not and in the hours and days that followed were procrastinating at best and playing brinkmanship at worst. It is possible that they thought that US would not drop another bomb or did not have one. They were also overly fixated on the fate of the Emperor who they still saw as a god. Truman made a decision to have another show of strength, because he concluded that the first bomb had not been sufficient to properly concentrate Japanese minds. In fairness to him, thousands of lives were being lost on both sides every day as the war continued and an invasion of the mainland, which was feasible at that point, would have been an absolute bloodbath.

Whatever you say about its morality per se it completely changed the dynamic of the Japanese and ended the war almost immediately. I must confess that if I'd been the Commander-in-Chief at the time, the Nagasaki bomb, much more so than the one over Hiroshima, would have given me nightmares in the weeks, months and years that followed. He certainly could have waited longer than 76 hours after the first bomb before dropping the second, but otherwise , in those circumstances, I can't in all honesty say, with 100% certainly that I would have done any different.

I think there is very good reason to cast doubt upon your summary of the situation:

I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. 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 taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.

Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.

John McCloy
Assistant Secretary of War

P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.

President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.

J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission<br /><br />-- Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:36 am --<br /><br />

People with the surname Blair are always men of integrity.

Good point that.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The second one, whilst more morally questionable, was not dropped wantonly imo.

When the Hiroshima bomb was dropped the US expected Japan to surrender immediately. They did not and in the hours and days that followed were procrastinating at best and playing brinkmanship at worst. It is possible that they thought that US would not drop another bomb or did not have one. They were also overly fixated on the fate of the Emperor who they still saw as a god. Truman made a decision to have another show of strength, because he concluded that the first bomb had not been sufficient to properly concentrate Japanese minds. In fairness to him, thousands of lives were being lost on both sides every day as the war continued and an invasion of the mainland, which was feasible at that point, would have been an absolute bloodbath.

Whatever you say about its morality per se it completely changed the dynamic of the Japanese and ended the war almost immediately. I must confess that if I'd been the Commander-in-Chief at the time, the Nagasaki bomb, much more so than the one over Hiroshima, would have given me nightmares in the weeks, months and years that followed. He certainly could have waited longer than 76 hours after the first bomb before dropping the second, but otherwise , in those circumstances, I can't in all honesty say, with 100% certainly that I would have done any different.

I think there is very good reason to cast doubt upon your summary of the situation:

I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. 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 taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.

Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.

John McCloy
Assistant Secretary of War

P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.

President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.

J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-- Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:36 am --

People with the surname Blair are always men of integrity.

Good point that.

Given the sources, that's certainly food for thought.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

its dog eat dog over there in korea at the moment

 

[blueonblue]

While the media portray north Korea as the aggressor its worth looking at what set the mad little f*cker off in all this.

A large joint military "Exercise" right on the border is certainly provocative, more so when adding in the threats muttered by the yanks over the last 12 months because the North has dared to develop its nuclear industries.

Either way its now at a point where a single incident can trigger a major conflict that could go nuclear, all it takes now is a lone soldier to misinterpret an act and open fire across the border an off we go.

So thanks America, for once more being the land of the free and the home of the thick, without your constant interference the world would be a far duller place.

 

[BluePurgatory]

The second thing he is trying to do is bring the US to the negotiating table for lifting century old sanctions so that he has access to more resources to improve the well being of the people. This is an intelligent and planned move. They wont attack anyone. The rhetoric and nuclear weapons is just to serve as a deterrent. Once he feels that it has achieved its purpose, he will back down and concentrate on improving the economy. The current ruler is much more modern than his father. Do not for one moment think that these are the ramblings of a mad ruler.

If he is as intelligent as you suggest, he will realise the biggest internal threat to his hegemony is the rising living standards of the people of North Korea.

George Orwell summed it up nicely when he wrote "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" within 1984:

. . if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would learn to think for themselves, become politically conscious and so depose the ruling oligarchy; therefore. . . in the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. Given that large-scale, mechanised production could not be eliminated once invented, the Party arranges the destruction of surplus goods – before that makes the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent". Hence the perpetual war

I'm always suspicious of people who like Orwell.

Animal farm was one of my favourite books.

 

[CTID1988]

If he is as intelligent as you suggest, he will realise the biggest internal threat to his hegemony is the rising living standards of the people of North Korea.

George Orwell summed it up nicely when he wrote "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" within 1984:

I'm always suspicious of people who like Orwell.

Animal farm was one of my favourite books.

I prefer the german film