GreersElbow
New member
Oh that old age reply...
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
North korea makes statement to the US and Japan
- Thread starter Hendrax
- Start date
Oh that old age reply...
Agreed.
The point is whether or not it would work. The US can't destroy NK's military capability before NK could launch missiles that would kill millions.
Marshy
Well-known member
Deplomacy is the only route depsite how hard that may be.
ideally he needs to be over thrown from within, there must be a few sensible people knocking around in NK !
ideally he needs to be over thrown from within, there must be a few sensible people knocking around in NK !
I genuinely couldn't work out what you were trying to say. Fine, I'll go through each point explaining why I don't understand.
If NK launch a nuke, I can't see the US or the target just taking it on the chin and watching their citizens die, and hoping there's not another. I would expect an enormous retaliation that destroyed much of NK. Why do you disagree?
Diplomacy hasn't stopped NK developing and building more weapons, but nowhere has been nuked yet and diplomacy is ongoing.
What is called ignoring them? Are you saying that's what we are doing, or what we should be doing, or what?
brighton fella
New member
- Mar 20, 2009
- 1,645
Because mate far too many sad gits revel in human suffering, most likely the tw@ts were starved of any form of action at school hence their desperation today to make up for lost time f*ck knows. The sad gits need to grow up.
brighton fella
New member
- Mar 20, 2009
- 1,645
More to the point there must be at least a few sensible people knocking around in the USA , whatever was i thinking it's never their fault is it.
Dropping one was probably necessary, dropping two was a criminal waste of life IMO.
How many days and how much diplomacy between the two bombs again?
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
Yeah, four blokes from Hereford would blend right in.
Didn't the USSR declare war on Japan (as agreed at one of the "Big Three" conferences) and invade Japanese controlled Manchuria.
The bombs were more a warning to Stalin than a threat to Japan who had already offered to surrender subject to the post war position of the Emperor. In fact the Emperor's position post war was as the Allies had failed to guarantee in the surrender terms demanded.
Those *******s can shoot someone from a mile away.
I didn't know all that, I'm not that knowledgeable on it all, but I don't think you need to be to know that the second bomb just a few days after the first was not necessary. Diplomacy could have failed and it could have become necessary, but it certainly wasn't at the time.
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
symyjym
Banned
This seems to be the revised historical understanding of what happened. It makes some sense that the US were getting hit hard despite winning battles and the USSR were winning their own battle against Japan. Dropping the bombs gave the US total victory for their heavy losses and it stopped the USSR in their tracks. Two birds one stone.
Er - no - don't think so. Japan failed to surrender after the first - so the second came as a direct result of that. Then they surrendered.
They failed to surrender within a few days. In that time they wouldn't even have known the extent of the devastation in Hiroshima, what with communications out etc. The US was under no great threat in those few days, they should have given Japan time and used diplomacy to persuade Japan to surrender or more bombs would be dropped.Perhaps it is as suggested above, the US just wanted to use the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians as a message to Russia. Nice.
I don't think USSR were consulted about the Japan bombs.
Perhaps it is as suggested above, the US just wanted to use the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians as a message to Russia. Nice.
But Trig - to say they wouldn't have known the extent of devastation is ludicrous.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but my understanding is that the first bomb disrupted communication and Tokyo didn't know the full extent. Obviously many of the deaths would happen over the following months, due to poisening. It would also take some time for it to sink in.
Why is it that they surrendered after the second bomb, what changed exactly? It didn't prove anything that hadn't already been proven. What excuse is there for not giving Japan more time, and making sure they were fully aware of what would happen if they didn't surrender? The first bomb was on the 6th, the second on the 9th. The second presumably left bass less than 3 days after the first bomb landed. 2 days of diplomacy before sending the second bomb! Unbelievable.
Well, the Japan view at the time and of the army/navy was that surrender was worse than death. The US did give time between the two bombs - not enough I agree.
The US received no communication from Japan after the first. They **could** have surrendered, but didn't. That was the sign to the US.
The Japanese caved in after the second - i guess the death of a nation was at stake.
I know that was the traditional view, but the US obviously didn't believe it or both bombs were unacceptable, as their whole purpose was to kill civilians and make Japan surrender.
I don't know what time the second left the US, or how much and how quickly Japan learned about the first, but I guess we're talking 2 days ish.
I didn't know that. So the US made no attempt at all at diplomacy between the two bombs? Holy shit.
Yeah that's not acceptable IMO.
Yes it was, it was at stake after the first. The second bomb did nothing that other than prove the US had more than one bomb, but I don't see how that's relevant.