PDA

View Full Version : North Korea tests nuclear weapons and missiles


LaraLuvrrr
26-05-09, 08:08
This is starting to be alarming... North Korea tested a nuke underground on Monday and now today tested 2 short range missiles. And they plan to test more missiles soon.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear

Can one of these missiles reach California? :eek:
And it seems like the U.S. and really the rest of the world is just condemning them and putting more sanctions on them. North Korea has made it clear they wont stop no matter what sanctions are placed on them so idk but this is turning out to be kinda scary...

woody543
26-05-09, 08:45
Im not too worried to be honest, I believe our governments will definitley have protocalls in place. I mean I was suprised at how our government (the uk) was prepared for a flu epidemic, when Swine flu became a level 5.

Goose
26-05-09, 08:46
Can one of these missiles reach California? :eek:


No, and we cant reach them, thats why we use nuclear submarines to transport them close to targets.

They could hit Japan, and are probably retarded enough to hit South Korea aswell.

Mokono
26-05-09, 08:53
Useful information, but unuseful derivation thought. They had no reason, as long as i know, to attack the US. Why California? It could be Russia as well. And there are more countries to be worried about; from a foreigner point of view, i would be worried about the US, as well as to any nuclear superpower (not just commies). As far as i know, noone sanctioned Israel for civil bombing; i mean, casualties of war.

"North Korea's repeated nuclear tests posed a grave challenge to international nuclear nonproliferation," it said. "Japan, the only nation to suffer atomic attacks, cannot tolerate this." Japan is considering tightening sanctions against North Korea, the statement said.

What about international nuclear dismantling? It's not fair to say stop making them, when you have an entire arsenal.

I would be, however, concerned about people in South Korea, as they have problems with North Korea.

In Beijing, the defense chiefs of South Korea and China were holding a security meeting Tuesday, South Korean officials said.

China? Wow, this gives me the creeps!...

LaraLuvrrr
26-05-09, 08:56
Useful information, but unuseful derivation thought. They had no reason, as long as i know, to attack the US. Why California? It could be Russia as well. And there are more countries to be worried about; from a foreigner point of view, i would be worried about the US, as well as to any nuclear superpower (not just commies). As far as i know, noone sanctioned Israel for civil bombing; i mean, casualties of war.



What about international nuclear dismantling? It's not fair to say stop making them, when you have an entire arsenal.

I would be, however, concerned about people in South Korea, as they have problems with North Korea.



China? Wow, this gives me the creeps!...

To be honest I only said California because one of the most famous psychics in the U.S. which I follow had said North Korea was planning to shoot a nuclear weapon through an underwater long range missile to the coast of California. I'm not saying I believe it... it just makes me wonder..

Goose
26-05-09, 08:58
Useful information, but unuseful derivation thought. They had no reason, as long as i know, to attack the US. Why California? It could be Russia as well. And there are more countries to be worried about; from a foreigner point of view, i would be worried about the US, as well as to any nuclear superpower (not just commies). As far as i know, no-one sanctioned Israel for civil bombing; i mean, casualties of war.


What do you mean? Taepodong 2 cant reach California, infact it has a range of like 3,500 miles, or in the hands of professionals, a good amount more, but north Korea's one fell just off the coast of Japan.

Could hit Alaska with there longest range one, but even then that would be a perfect shot for it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_93cJ41OdraI/ScoBq72td-I/AAAAAAAAAzE/rtkn-lT43k8/s400/north+korea+missle.jpg

Mokono
26-05-09, 09:01
What do you mean? Taepodong 2 cant reach California, infact it has a range of like 3,500, or in the hands of professionals, a good amount more, but north Korea's one fell just off the coast of Japan.

I never meant that it wasn't a serious threat.

To be honest I only said California because one of the most famous psychics in the U.S. which I follow had said North Korea was planning to shoot a nuclear weapon through an underwater long range missile to the coast of California. I'm not saying I believe it... it just makes me wonder..

If a famous psychic says so :rolleyes:...

Soviet Union planned that too. Did it happen? I don't hink so.
Remember cuban missile crisis?

Anyway, i'm not trying to sound harsh.

Goose
26-05-09, 09:12
What about international nuclear dismantling? It's not fair to say stop making them, when you have an entire arsenal.


Well it doesnt help to sit by and watch more enter the world either does it.

No-one is scared of a nuclear armed Briton/Russia/US, because we've had them for so long people know there only a deterrent.

Dismantling is just that, Dismantling, then placed in storage. Nuclear weapons cant disappear, and the more parts there are floating about the more likely it is that people with an agenda will be able to get there hands on one.

LaraLuvrrr
26-05-09, 09:14
I never meant that it wasn't a serious threat.



If a famous psychic says so :rolleyes:...

Soviet Union planned that too. Did it happen? I don't hink so.
Remember cuban missile crisis?

Anyway, i'm not trying to sound harsh.

The missiles in the cuban missile crisis were submersible? I thought they were aerial... oh well I never liked history too much lol. And like I said I dont believe what the psychic says but because of my history with following her and even speaking to her I keep her predictions in the back of my mind.;)
And no you're not sounding harsh. As long as you don't take a stab at me personally I don't mind your differing opinion or wut not.

scoopy_loopy
26-05-09, 12:16
I think if they wanted to really hit the western world, they'd go for Darwin - since its a capital city.

Its been bombed before :p

BL for being so far North!


But seriously, I wouldnt worry. The whole world will know before they even fire the weapon, and will have time to prevent it from actually hitting anywhere inhabited by humans.

I do feel sorry for Japan though, it is unlikey they'd nuke STH Korea - that would be just backward (although... ), Im sure their media is up in arms about it. Must be more annoying than even the dreaded Swine Flu :shock:

Goose
26-05-09, 12:21
I think if they wanted to really hit the western world, they'd go for Darwin - since its a capital city.

Its been bombed before :p

BL for being so far North!


But seriously, I wouldnt worry. The whole world will know before they even fire the weapon, and will have time to prevent it from actually hitting anywhere inhabited by humans.

I do feel sorry for Japan though, it is unlikey they'd nuke STH Korea - that would be just backward (although... ), Im sure their media is up in arms about it. Must be more annoying than even the dreaded Swine Flu :shock:

Well theres a large American Garrison there to, there the ones who patrol the border between North and South with the South Korean Army, so if the North messes with the south, there messing with the US and anyone else the US drags along.

Catapharact
26-05-09, 12:23
I am just waiting for these guys to put up their given demands from international aid agencies now.

I say its so ironic that most military regimes always follow their lame thought process; What the hell are you gonna use to maintain a full fleged offensive military force if you don't have the economy to back it up?! Spend everything on military supplies, give the people nothing and watch your infrastructure crumble.

*Sigh...* They never learn.

Mad Tony
26-05-09, 13:03
I wouldn't worry too much about it. The North Korean's know they'd get their ass kicked in a war with South Korea and as Cat said, they don't have the economy to back their military up anyway. I'm more worried about the situation in Pakistan at the moment.

Catapharact
26-05-09, 13:08
I'm more worried about the situation in Pakistan at the moment.

The main concern there is about the civilans and unfortunately, no military force in the world with all the guided munitians and armor can do squat. Its simply down to good old fashion infantry fight. Given the fact that Pakistani Commandos have officially been classified as the third best special forces in the world, I would say they have it going good in thisfire fight. IMO what they need is a strong intel. network. Their logistical system is so third world. That... and they need to be armed properly.

Goose
26-05-09, 13:17
The main concern there is about the civilans and unfortunately, no military force in the world with all the guided munitians and armor can do squat. Its simply down to good old fashion infantry fight. Given the fact that Pakistani Commandos have officially been classified as the thid best special forces in the world, I would say they have it going good in thisfire fight. IMO what they need is a strong intel. network. Their logistical system is so third world. That... and they need to be armed properly.

Who came first and second if Pakistan's 3rd?


I say its so ironic that most military regimes always follow their lame thought process; What the hell are you gonna use to maintain a full fleged offensive military force if you don't have the economy to back it up?! Spend everything on military supplies, give the people nothing and watch your infrastructure crumble.

They are using military equipment left over from the cold war, South Korea is using the same sorts of armament as any good European country is. A ground offensive just wouldn't work for North Korea.

Catapharact
26-05-09, 13:22
Who came first and second if Pakistan's 3rd?

According to JSDT ranking, U.S. Navy Seals and British SAS are tied for first place (Including SASR as well because of their pathfinders.) And you'll be glad to know that the GRU operatives (Spetnaz) came not that far behind in ranking ;).

scoopy_loopy
26-05-09, 13:28
According to JSDT ranking, U.S. Navy Seals and British SAS are tied for first place (Including SASR as well because of their pathfinders.) And you'll be glad to know that the GRU operatives (Spetnaz) came not that far behind in ranking ;).

I dont think it really matters on ranking (although I think Australia is up there :D :tea: ), because there would be a co-operation effort anyway.

Goose
26-05-09, 13:30
According to JSDT ranking, U.S. Navy Seals and British SAS are tied for first place (Including SASR as well because of their pathfinders.) And you'll be glad to know that the GRU operatives (Spetnaz) came not that far behind in ranking ;).

I havnt heard of JSDT before, But US navy seals are more like the SBS, the SAS and Delta force are a similar unit, im glad Spetsnaz is on there! There training is pretty much equal to the west, but there numbers make them a formidable force.

The Iraqi special forces are going to be the best in the middle east i would say, i mean i believe more in combat experience then propoganda, people like North Korea have none.

tampi
26-05-09, 13:37
These things do me feel really unhappy.
Not only is the test itself. Know it future. Israel said that Bolivia and Venezuela are supplying Iran with uranium.
Again we will have a 2nd cold war? :confused::(
The worst thing is that the leaders of these countries seem completely out of the reality of their own icitizens. Most countries are mired in misery and poverty. Governed by egoistic dictatorships. If they do that with its citizens, what colud they do the citizens of other countries? :confused:
U.S. shows a hand and gets a slap

scoopy_loopy
26-05-09, 13:38
All they have on their side is what the government tells them, theyre living in horrible conditions.

Outside of Pyongyang, North Korea hardly exists. Its a 3rd world country, with an all powerful leader. I saw an undercover documentary on the living conditions, and it was really quite sad. The whole of N. Korea provides for the needs of Pyongyang and lives in poverty. Citizens are not allowed to settle within the city, without a formal invitation - once youre in, there's no leaving either. I feel sorry for any N. Koreans that have any clue of the realitive luxury, security and ease in which we live... I really do hope the country can undergo some severe changes.

But I understand its all a complicated political mess, so I dont see anything happening - unless N. Korea forces something to happen. Like lauching a Nuke, or discovering oil beneath their soil :D

Dennis's Mom
26-05-09, 13:40
North Korea doesn't frighten me. Who North Korea sells its stuff to frightens me. I don't think of the launch as a threat so much as an advertisement.

Goose
26-05-09, 13:47
All they have on their side is what the government tells them, theyre living in horrible conditions.

Outside of Pyongyang, North Korea hardly exists. Its a 3rd world country, with an all powerful leader. I saw an undercover documentary on the living conditions, and it was really quite sad. The whole of N. Korea provides for the needs of Pyongyang and lives in poverty. Citizens are not allowed to settle within the city, without a formal invitation - once youre in, there's no leaving either. I feel sorry for any N. Koreans that have any clue of the realitive luxury, security and ease in which we live... I really do hope the country can undergo some severe changes.

But I understand its all a complicated political mess, so I dont see anything happening - unless N. Korea forces something to happen. Like lauching a Nuke, or discovering oil beneath their soil :D

Yea i think its funny, Korean war and the Vietnam one aren't very different (other then the media getting more involved), if America had won we could have seen a South Vietnam like South Korea, but obviously alot of people in the west think people in places like North Korea and Vietnam actually deserve the way of life thats forced on them.

Love2Raid
26-05-09, 13:52
I don't think (and hope) they will actually use all this stuff for massmurder and -destruction. It's just a tool to show off their so-called power, to intimidate the rest of the world. 'See what we are capable off, fear us'. It's typical, really. :rolleyes:

But the fact that there is enough crap on the planet to blow it up over a hundred times (or something like it) does make me shiver when I think about it.

scoopy_loopy
26-05-09, 14:06
I don't think (and hope) they will actually use all this stuff for massmurder and -destruction. It's just a tool to show off their so-called power, to intimidate the rest of the world. 'See what we are capable off, fear us'. It's typical, really. :rolleyes:

But the fact that there is enough crap on the planet to blow it up over a hundred times (or something like it) does make me shiver when I think about it.

Im not really worried, unless the American or European Governments dissolve in 10/20 years and some radical political party gets to the stash and launches it all.Then we can worry.

N. Korean playing with a few crappy rockets is almost comical.

Goose
26-05-09, 14:21
Im not really worried, unless the American or European Governments dissolve in 10/20 years and some radical political party gets to the stash and launches it all.Then we can worry.

That almost happened in Pakistan, parts of the country were under Taliban control, all it took was one regions stockpile to be taken and there would be a terrorist group with nukes.

scoopy_loopy
26-05-09, 14:24
Yes, but with all the surveilance that goes on the world - it would be impssoble not to notice nuke's being launched.

Im not very versed in modern warfare - but arent nuke's able to be stopped before they reach their destinations... something to do with lasers or something very James Bondesque?

Catapharact
26-05-09, 14:28
Im not very versed in modern warfare - but arent nuke's able to be stopped before they reach their destinations... something to do with lasers or something very James Bondesque?

And he is an actual soldier in training ;).

It all comes down to stopping the detonation chain and removing the focusing and firing ring. Essentially, you need to stop the fission reaction before it has a chance to start. However, even if the firing and focusing lense is removed, there is still tons of explosives in the nuke warhead as well the fact that the nuke itself now became a "dirty bomb."

scoopy_loopy
26-05-09, 14:33
And he is an actual soldier in training ;).

It all comes down to stopping the detonation chain and removing the focusing and firing ring. Essentially, you need to stop the fission reaction before it has a chance to start. However, even if the firing and focusing lense is removed, there is still tons of explosives in the nuke warhead as well the fact that the nuke itself now became a "dirty bomb."

Awe, how realistic. I wanted to hear about some satelight that vapourises them like in Civ 4 - Way to spoil my fun :D

Goose
26-05-09, 14:39
And he is an actual soldier in training ;).

It all comes down to stopping the detonation chain and removing the focusing and firing ring. Essentially, you need to stop the fission reaction before it has a chance to start. However, even if the firing and focusing lense is removed, there is still tons of explosives in the nuke warhead as well the fact that the nuke itself now became a "dirty bomb."

Exactly, i mean who knows how old Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is, or North Koreas for that matter, they seem to create the weapon, then focus on how to deliver it.

Inter continental balistic missiles arent of any use to the Taliban so really proliferation of them isnt that bad, i mean it costs millions to create a place to launch them. But a Fat man, although not even nuclear would be devastating in the hands of a terror group, and all the patriot missile systems in the world couldn't stop one, its a bomb that is dropped like any other from the passed 70 years.

touchthesky
26-05-09, 15:14
If I sit down and think about nucleur weapons they make me awfully angry and scared, so I don't any more.

They are a dumb invention.

If they want to test them, they can test them...Just don't hurt any one whilst doing so, plz.

Mad Tony
26-05-09, 15:29
They are a dumb invention.I wouldn't say that. Perhaps nuclear weapons, and their use in 1945 was what stopped America and Russia going to war in the first place.

jackles
26-05-09, 15:33
One of the things that I found interesting was that they picked up the recent test via seismic activity.

Draco
26-05-09, 15:33
Frankly, let them destroy themselves internally.

Exactly, i mean who knows how old Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is, or North Koreas for that matter, they seem to create the weapon, then focus on how to deliver it.

Inter continental balistic missiles arent of any use to the Taliban so really proliferation of them isnt that bad, i mean it costs millions to create a place to launch them. But a Fat man, although not even nuclear would be devastating in the hands of a terror group, and all the patriot missile systems in the world couldn't stop one, its a bomb that is dropped like any other from the passed 70 years.

The only bomb we need 'fear' is one carried by a single person.

scoopy_loopy
26-05-09, 16:01
One of the things that I found interesting was that they picked up the recent test via seismic activity.

Scary...

SamReeves
26-05-09, 16:04
Same old story. DPRK rattles the saber every once in a while to get people to notice their government. They rattled it with President Bush and got taken off the terror sponsors list. Now they are rattling it with a weaker President like Obama, and are hoping to get more concessions. The best way to deal with DPRK is don't. Cut them off, let them dry up, and blockcade any weapons shipments.

tlr online
26-05-09, 16:20
Anyone find it kind of ironic that countries with histories of invasions are preaching to a country looking to build up its own nuclear deterrent.

Goose
26-05-09, 16:22
Anyone find it kind of ironic that countries with histories of invasions are preaching to a country looking to build up its own nuclear deterrent.

Deterrent of what?

The warmongering south?

tampi
26-05-09, 16:26
Anyone find it kind of ironic that countries with histories of invasions are preaching to a country looking to build up its own nuclear deterrent.

Are you talking on a self protection system??? :confused:

There are other methods not so daunting/intimidating

Mad Tony
26-05-09, 16:30
Deterrent of what?

The warmongering south?Agreed. I wouldn't put it past North Korea to fire nukes at Japan or South Korea. The thing that worries me most is the fact that they are a very poor country. What's to stop Kim Jong from selling nuclear material on to terrorists for large sums of money?

SamReeves
26-05-09, 16:32
Deterrent of what?

The warmongering south?

LOL. The Korean War never ended, it's just been on a 50 year break.

In any case I'll take the "imperial" United States over some two bit socialist nation any day. :vlol:

Goose
26-05-09, 16:54
LOL. The Korean War never ended, it's just been on a 50 year break.

In any case I'll take the "imperial" United States over some two bit socialist nation any day. :vlol:

Yea but a jump to nuclear isnt in anyway helping the North, Americas has its armed forces over there patroling the buffer zone, an attack on the south is an attack on America, and everything that comes with it.

SamReeves
26-05-09, 18:28
Yea but a jump to nuclear isnt in anyway helping the North, Americas has its armed forces over there patroling the buffer zone, an attack on the south is an attack on America, and everything that comes with it.

That's why I say the U.S. ought give the Japanese their teeth back. They'll keep DPRK and China both in check! ;)

Ward Dragon
27-05-09, 04:05
Isn't Kim Jong Il dying? This weapons test is probably meant as a show of power so that the next ruler isn't seen as weak.

violentblossom
27-05-09, 04:28
Isn't Kim Jong Il dying? This weapons test is probably meant as a show of power so that the next ruler isn't seen as weak.

Is he really?

Ward Dragon
27-05-09, 04:29
Is he really?

I've been hearing for around a year now that he had a stroke or somesuch. I don't know, I just got the impression that he wasn't long for this world :o

Catapharact
27-05-09, 04:31
Isn't Kim Jong Il dying? This weapons test is probably meant as a show of power so that the next ruler isn't seen as weak.

There is just one confirmed case of a stroke according to International Intelligence Agencies. There might have been more but its all speculation right now.

Ward Dragon
27-05-09, 04:32
There is just one confirmed case of a stroke according to International Intelligence Agencies. There might have been more but its all speculation right now.

Thanks for clarifying that :)

scoopy_loopy
27-05-09, 08:49
That's why I say the U.S. ought give the Japanese their teeth back. They'll keep DPRK and China both in check! ;)

I agree, I think Japan has well and truly earned the trust of the West... besides they no longer have a crazed Shogun incharge of the military :p

(I would hope Japan is trustworthy anyway... they own a very good portion of Australia and its industries afterall...)

Goose
27-05-09, 08:54
I agree, I think Japan has well and truly earned the trust of the West... besides they no longer have a crazed Shogun incharge of the military :p

(I would hope Japan is trustworthy anyway... they own a very good portion of Australia and its industries afterall...)

There trust worthy because we created them, after it lost world war 2 it was put under allied administration, and also had alot of sanctions put on its military. Possibly why its so much more advanced then alot of countries who waste billions on war technology.

scoopy_loopy
27-05-09, 08:59
Er yeah, I know what happened to Japan after WWII. Im just saying, its not like their government wouldnt have alot of power if those restrictions were suddenly taken off. But I rather like Japan as a country, Im pretty sure they'd stand with the West against China anyway. If/when it comes to anything... :tea:

Goose
27-05-09, 09:35
Well im sure they would to, it was Japan who gives us all the info on there rocket and bomb tests. The US has military bases on Japan, also Japan had sent aid and personnel to Iraq to help out us and America, taking part in the rebuilding of vital areas, power, water and things, but after some beheading's public opinion told them to leave Iraqi's to it.

LaraLuvrrr
27-05-09, 13:40
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090527/ts_nm/us_korea_north

Now North Korea is threatening military action if the South or the U.S. search suspected ships of theirs...
These North Koreans are such idiots... oh and Russia is apparently getting on the offensive now too.

Mokono
27-05-09, 15:31
Well it doesnt help to sit by and watch more enter the world either does it.

Well, they would not be doing an arms race if there wasn't any nuclear weapon out there.

No-one is scared of a nuclear armed Briton/Russia/US, because we've had them for so long people know there only a deterrent.

That's the worst excuse ever. Weapons are not for deterrent, are for offensive, in order to have them, your countries must have tested them as well as N. Korea is doing now. They can use the same argument as you.

Dismantling is just that, Dismantling, then placed in storage. Nuclear weapons cant disappear, and the more parts there are floating about the more likely it is that people with an agenda will be able to get there hands on one.

As far as i know (maybe some semantic differences in spanish for the word dismantling) it means to turn all those weapons into pieces like a jigsaw, then recycle them.

These things do me feel really unhappy.
Not only is the test itself. Know it future. Israel said that Bolivia and Venezuela are supplying Iran with uranium.
Again we will have a 2nd cold war? :confused::(
The worst thing is that the leaders of these countries seem completely out of the reality of their own icitizens. Most countries are mired in misery and poverty. Governed by egoistic dictatorships. If they do that with its citizens, what colud they do the citizens of other countries? :confused:
U.S. shows a hand and gets a slap

yes, it's like a freaking courtain that hides reality. They are stuck in mid 20 century ideological process.

Now, Bolivian minister of economy said furious that they don't produce uranium¹ (http://www.informador.com.mx/internacional/2009/106560/6/bolivia-desmiente-que-provea-uranio.htm) , they produce only tantalita , wich contains small uranium oxide particles. Someone mentioned that war comes along with economy, well... Boliva can't afford massive scale uranium explotation. Israel made that declaration because of the complicated conjuncture. About Venezuela, i can't tell (Hugo Chavez controls the press, so i can barely try too look any source).

Im not really worried, unless the American or European Governments dissolve in 10/20 years and some radical political party gets to the stash and launches it all.Then we can worry.

N. Korean playing with a few crappy rockets is almost comical.

If you compare N.Corea with America or Europe, then yes, it looks comical, but not funny.

Exactly, i mean who knows how old Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is, or North Koreas for that matter, they seem to create the weapon, then focus on how to deliver it.

Inter continental balistic missiles arent of any use to the Taliban so really proliferation of them isnt that bad, i mean it costs millions to create a place to launch them. But a Fat man, although not even nuclear would be devastating in the hands of a terror group, and all the patriot missile systems in the world couldn't stop one, its a bomb that is dropped like any other from the passed 70 years.

Every weapon is made for delivering, for offensive. Now, weapons are not devastating, because they are in hands of Terrorist, but because of being W-E-A-P-O-N-S. You have a very biased point of view, not everything in this world is as dilematic as the good ones or the bad ones, the blacks or the whites, the West or the East. The ways wars had been held is just sad. Armies used to be, in early times, a deterrent, as you said; however, when you create something that is a threat to every world living creature (hello! There are not just humans in here), something went terribly wrong. We have evolved more than ever, but every unwarranted behavior is excused on human nature... Gosh! This situation has proven how useles is the UN to resolve conflicts as an alternative... I condemn you actions! -they say, but we can't stop you... -they moan. I'm not saying there shouldn't be one UN organization, but as long as we determine who's a nation and whi's not, as long as we see the "bad ones" less humans than us at the point they deserve killing. If the 2012 issue has something to do with this, well i'm not afraid, because we're the ones who started all in first place. Wrong thing done for the right reason still the wrong thing. Is protection of few meant to be a punishment for others?

sheepydee
27-05-09, 15:37
yikes im scared :( i dnt wanna get bombed , why are they firin evil missiles like that?

Draco
27-05-09, 15:40
Japan has more to lose by going back to their old ways than any other nation in the asian continent.

I think they should be given their teeth back, it would be nice for the US to not need to spend so much money there.

Goose
28-05-09, 07:22
Well, they would not be doing an arms race if there wasn't any nuclear weapon out there.
No your missing the point, 30 years ago we loved nuclear weapons, we needed and wanted them, now we dont. An arms race from last millennium created our weapons, now the arms race involved next generation fighters and ground fighting equipment, like it did 100 years ago now.


That's the worst excuse ever. Weapons are not for deterrent, are for offensive, in order to have them, your countries must have tested them as well as N. Korea is doing now. They can use the same argument as you.
These Weapons are ENTIRELY for deterrent we've been in up to 10 conflicts the last 20 years and not even bilogicals were used. Like i said above, we tested them in the 70's and 80's at the height of the cold war, mostly underwater or in places like Bikini Atoll. We dont need to test them now, russia took nuclear weapons to there possible maximum quite a while ago.

As far as i know (maybe some semantic differences in spanish for the word dismantling) it means to turn all those weapons into pieces like a jigsaw, then recycle them.
Nope, impossible, nuclear is nuclear, you cant turn it into a can of coke. Maybe in a 1000 years we will, but like i explained, the weapons and there delivery devices are broken down and the delivery devices parts are usually sold, and the weapons them selves dumped in a base somewhere remote, inert, but still raw material.



Every weapon is made for delivering, for offensive. Now, weapons are not devastating, because they are in hands of Terrorist, but because of being W-E-A-P-O-N-S.
A Nuclear weapon in the hands of the Taliban is one thousand times more devastating then in the hands of the US/Russia/China or the UK, its not really something we need to debate.

Catapharact
28-05-09, 07:30
Given the developement of highly destructive Non-Nuclear ordinance, does a given country even needs Nuclear deterence these days? Saudi Arabia for instance is now in possession of state of the art U.S. MOABs (Over 200 of them to be exact.) Just one of these babies packs enough punch to level mountains. When dropped in succession, these things can do a lot of damage. Plus the given warhead can be delivered using Cruise Missle tech.

Goose
28-05-09, 07:41
I think that's what there working to, but at the moment, like during the cold war the deterrent is based on mutual destruction. If we got rid of nukes and used something abit less destructive, people like china wouldn't play the game, they would still have the power to wipe out every person in any given country, and we wouldn't.

It wouldn't be a mutual deterrent anymore.

The nuclear arms race for developed countries pretty much ended in 1961:
IUIMgbXOmJg

scoopy_loopy
28-05-09, 08:29
^ God Im proud of Australia's anti-nuclear policy.

Goose
28-05-09, 09:19
^ God Im proud of Australia's anti-nuclear policy.

Just because no nukes are in Australia there still part of mutually assured destruction, if China fires nuclear weapons at Australia, Britain and America will fire at China.

This is why theres never up roar from western countries about the amount of Nukes America has, because there by its covered 'insurance' plan.

scoopy_loopy
28-05-09, 14:38
Agreed, but atleast we arent doing our own dirty work :D

Cochrane
28-05-09, 14:49
Given the developement of highly destructive Non-Nuclear ordinance, does a given country even needs Nuclear deterence these days? Saudi Arabia for instance is now in possession of state of the art U.S. MOABs (Over 200 of them to be exact.) Just one of these babies packs enough punch to level mountains. When dropped in succession, these things can do a lot of damage. Plus the given warhead can be delivered using Cruise Missle tech.

I'd say that deterrence is not really based on potential damage, but mainly on psychology. Given same amounts of destructive power, it is far more easy to make an enemy country (and its population) scared of a nuclear bomb than a non-nuclear one. On the other hand, given the same levels of destructive power, it is far more easy to justify using a normal bomb than a nuclear one, so I think both have their place in the modern world, assuming a very cynical view of the modern world.

Goose
29-05-09, 08:35
I'd say that deterrence is not really based on potential damage, but mainly on psychology. Given same amounts of destructive power, it is far more easy to make an enemy country (and its population) scared of a nuclear bomb than a non-nuclear one. On the other hand, given the same levels of destructive power, it is far more easy to justify using a normal bomb than a nuclear one, so I think both have their place in the modern world, assuming a very cynical view of the modern world.

Yea certainly both have there place. Lets say Australia wasnt covered by western nations, and some form of political turn around in China led to war with them, all China would have to do is launch 3 reasonably sized nukes at three major cities in Australia, and they can then really declare victory and move troops into surrounding areas. The seats of government would be gone, along with millions, no one in Australia would be able to fight them. No-one who wasnt a nuclear power in the world would stand up for Australia through fear of the same fate. Thats why America can get away with thousands of nuclear missiles, there the democratic worlds bank for them.

Mokono
29-05-09, 09:15
Yea certainly both have there place. Lets say Australia wasnt covered by western nations, and some form of political turn around in China led to war with them, all China would have to do is launch 3 reasonably sized nukes at three major cities in Australia, and they can then really declare victory and move troops into surrounding areas. The seats of government would be gone, along with millions, no one in Australia would be able to fight them. No-one who wasnt a nuclear power in the world would stand up for Australia through fear of the same fate. Thats why America can get away with thousands of nuclear missiles, there the democratic worlds bank for them.

You're really an alarmist. You are already pointing that China, as well as other same oriented countries, are a threat that must be resolved right? Your example about Australia makes more fear than sense. It's like saying what if France accidentally nukes Southampton. I'm gonna explain this idea better: you are assuming that China would use it's nuclear rockets against Australia if a war between them is declared? So, if it wasn't China, but Russia. You then tell me: Oh, but we're all allies and that just don't make sense at all!, and that's my point. The rocket launch can be executed by every country who has them, not because it's China, or any other Country. But when you say China (a complicated commie), you're trying to persuade people to believe your budgets. You should not be describing facts, you should show them as examples without pushing reality.

North Korea is not that stupid (neither their president), their territory is easy to invade from Russia. Also, they know that their piece of country would be rampaged. And i'm not mentioning the aftermath: We found mass destruction weapons hidden in a small town full of poor people in the surroundings of Pyongyang, let's bomb it to make sure everything it's ok, cause it's always necesary for the sake of freedom and peace! Casualties are unavoidable.

PS: Why do you resurrect this thread everytime it goes to the next page?

Goose
29-05-09, 09:31
You're really an alarmist. You are already pointing that China, as well as other same oriented countries, are a threat that must be resolved right? Your example about Australia makes more fear than sense. It's like saying what if France accidentally nukes Southampton. I'm gonna explain this idea better: you are assuming that China would use it's nuclear rockets against Australia if a war between them is declared? So, if it wasn't China, but Russia. You then tell me: Oh, but we're all allies and that just don't make sense at all!, and that's my point. The rocket launch can be executed by every country who has them, not because it's China, or any other Country. But when you say China (a complicated commie), you're trying to persuade people to believe your budgets. You should not be describing facts, you should show them as examples without pushing reality.

PS: Why do you resurrect this thread everytime it goes to the next page?

Im sorry i confused you so much, but i thought i made it quite clear. I said that 'if china had a political turn around', which clearly means a different government then today. I was merely describing the idea of Americas nuclear umbrella, and how without it, warfare could include the use of nuclear weapons. The only reason i picked china, is that its the furthest away from western ideals, USA, UK, France, Pakistan or India are hardly going to attack Australia. Leaving a choice of example between China and Russia, China being the choice as its still communist and in a different world could take that more seriously.

I didnt mean to offend you by that, if anything, im reassuring people that nuclear deterrent is actually useful. I dont understand how i wait for a page to turn? I cant help people posting whilst im asleep.

I think people missunderstand the use of nuclear weapons in warfare, they are conventional artillery, like the invasion of iraq, we bomb the place then move the troops in. That is what Nuclear weapons were designed for, and without the nuclear umbrella would be used for.

Heres some good examples (not good ideas though) during the cold war of them being used in exercises:
khyZI3RK2lE
H6gy_krPau8

Mokono
29-05-09, 09:51
Im sorry i confused you so much, but i thought i made it quite clear. I said that 'if china had a political turn around', which clearly means a different government then today. I was merely describing the idea of Americas nuclear umbrella, and how without it, warfare could include the use of nuclear weapons. The only reason i picked china, is that its the furthest away from western ideals, USA, UK, France, Pakistan or India are hardly going to attack Australia. Leaving a choice of example between China and Russia, China being the choice as its still communist and in a different world could take that more seriously.

I didnt mean to offend you by that, if anything, im reassuring people that nuclear deterrent is actually useful.

I dont understand how i wait for a page to turn? I cant help people posting whilst im asleep.

I'm not confused, but thank you for concerning. You have not noticed what my previous posts said. Your idea of a nuclear umbrella (whether is american or not) is ridiculous. They were not build for making umbrellas (as you call them), have you forgot Hiroshima and Nagasaki? According to your argument, since every nuclear arms race had been ONLY for building these umbrellas, then N.K. (or China, Pakistan, France, whatever) are making their own for the same purpose.

Nuclear deterrent is NOT useful. That kind of logistic should not be allowed, it's a huge fallacy that only corresponds private interests. It's because of it that North Koreans are worried about their security (unstable systems tend to show a military courtain). it's also a vicious circle (you have them, i'll have them).

PS: I'm not trying to offend you either. What i'm saying is not the truth (i'm not a dilematic-tautological-automaton-person), it's what i think. People can believe in what they want to without being pushed.

PSS: Excuse me for forgetting that you live in an entirely different time zone.

Edit:
I think people missunderstand the use of nuclear weapons in warfare, they are conventional artillery, like the invasion of iraq, we bomb the place then move the troops in. That is what Nuclear weapons were designed for, and without the nuclear umbrella would be used for

Remember that WITHOUT nuclear bombs, nuclear umbrellas would not be necessary. You can tell me that it's imposible to get rid of all of them... Then, i would tell you that, according to this complicated conjuncture, it's imposible (to do at once).

Ward Dragon
29-05-09, 09:59
Now that nuclear weapons exist, we can't get rid of them. Whoever has them has a big advantage when it comes to diplomacy. If a country like the US got rid of our nukes then other countries which kept their nukes would be able to extort us. If someone's going to have the high ground, I'd rather it was us.

Nuclear deterrents are the only reason that the Cold War never erupted into World War III. As long as the countries with nuclear weapons are ruled by someone who is somewhat rational and not suicidal, then the nukes serve as a shield of protection. If the country gets devastated and has nothing left to lose then they'd nuke their enemies, so their enemies refrain from pushing them that far. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a demonstration of the power possessed by a single nuclear bomb in order to convince the Japanese government to surrender. As far as weapons go, we did far more damage with far more casualties via traditional fire bombing Japanese cities. Nuclear bombs are more of a psychological deterrent to war rather than a real tool of war.

Goose
29-05-09, 10:05
Your idea of a nuclear umbrella (whether is american or not) is ridiculous.

Are you saying that you believe i was stating an opinion, rather then fact, about the US and UK's dedication to a nuclear deterrent to all its allies?


Remember that WITHOUT nuclear bombs, nuclear umbrellas would not be necessary. You can tell me that it's imposible to get rid of all of them... Then, i would tell you that, according to this complicated conjuncture, it's imposible (to do at once).

If there was a way to dispose of nuclear weapons, which didnt involve stock piling dismantled warheads like it does now, then it would be impossible for us to inforce this on other countries who in 50 years could be our enemies. Not only that, if it were possible to enforce this on all governments, we would also have to 'dismantle' any scientist who has the knowledge of how to make one, as they are a nuclear threat themselves, and as world war 2 showed, they will work by force. America used Nazi scientists who worked on flying bombs to create new weapons and missiles.

Mokono
29-05-09, 10:20
Nuclear deterrents are the only reason that the Cold War never erupted into World War III. As long as the countries with nuclear weapons are ruled by someone who is somewhat rational and not suicidal, then the nukes serve as a shield of protection.

I can't deny that fact, but you know that it's implicit that as a defensive move, it could turn offensive too (since is not really a shield, but serves as a psychological one).

If the country gets devastated and has nothing left to lose then they'd nuke their enemies, so their enemies refrain from pushing them that far.

Exactly, then the ultimate chain of the cycle would be total extermination (you bomb , i bomb).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a demonstration of the power possessed by a single nuclear bomb in order to convince the Japanese government to surrender. As far as weapons go, we did far more damage with far more casualties via traditional fire bombing Japanese cities. Nuclear bombs are more of a psychological deterrent to war rather than a real tool of war.

They were more than a demonstration of power, they were, in my opininon, an abuse of power. Tokyo was already stormed, right? They would have surrender soon or later, nothing would have changed that.

Are you saying that you believe i was stating an opinion, rather then fact, about the US and UK's dedication to a nuclear deterrent to all its allies?

C'mon, the super hero idea of the allies is not a fact, it's what your interpretation of history made you believe.

If there was a way to dispose of nuclear weapons, which didnt involve stock piling dismantled warheads like it does now, then it would be impossible for us to inforce this on other countries who in 50 years could be our enemies.

Come on, your perfect alliance could be torn down in the following years and everyone could be enemy of everyone. That's not precaution, it's lucubration.

Not only that, if it were possible to enforce this on all governments, we would also have to 'dismantle' any scientist who has the knowledge of how to make one.

God, no!
No more useless killing! But have in mind that id thy had any ethical formation, they would not be deliberately making nuclear weapons to satisfy nations or the black market.

America used Nazi scientists who worked on flying bombs to create new weapons and missiles.

You mean operation paperclip? Sure they did, the wrong thing for the right cause again...

PS: Why am i the only one who feels a deep pain when read the word casualties? As if they weren't human enough or something, so their death was... Oh, forget this last sentence.

XBOXCroft
29-05-09, 10:29
:/ What's the point of these nuclear stuff if about now no wars are here?

And why did NKorea test those missles anyway?

Ward Dragon
29-05-09, 10:30
They were more than a demonstration of power, they were, in my opininon, an abuse of power. Tokyo was already stormed, right? They would have surrender soon or later, nothing would have changed that.

The Japanese emperor was revered as a god and he couldn't admit defeat without a sign from the heavens that Japan was not meant to win the war. That's what we gave him -- a way to surrender without losing face. If the gods had meant for Japan to win then they would not have blessed us with such a powerful bomb (or at least that's how it was interpreted in Japan). Japan would have fought tooth and nail until every last person was dead if they didn't have such a dramatic reason for surrendering as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

XBOXCroft
29-05-09, 10:31
Hiroshima? My favorite town. Sorry I went offtopic here.

I just wish this whole thing won't end up to a war.

Mokono
29-05-09, 10:37
The Japanese emperor was revered as a god and he couldn't admit defeat without a sign from the heavens that Japan was not meant to win the war. That's what we gave him -- a way to surrender without losing face. If the gods had meant for Japan to win then they would not have blessed us with such a powerful bomb (or at least that's how it was interpreted in Japan). Japan would have fought tooth and nail until every last person was dead if they didn't have such a dramatic reason for surrendering as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I don't want to sound bullheaded-like, but if they were waiting for a sign, they would have obtained it, maybe by bombing the far sea visible from Tokyo, without any casualties. If those who autorized the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wanted to give a sign, they could have deliver a sign, not a bomb. The bomb was launched to warn the Sovier Union, not as a sign.

Now, out of this offtopicness, do you really think North Korea's nuclear test is a threat or a deterrent?

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 10:41
The Japanese emperor was revered as a god and he couldn't admit defeat without a sign from the heavens that Japan was not meant to win the war. That's what we gave him -- a way to surrender without losing face. If the gods had meant for Japan to win then they would not have blessed us with such a powerful bomb (or at least that's how it was interpreted in Japan). Japan would have fought tooth and nail until every last person was dead if they didn't have such a dramatic reason for surrendering as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Indeed. But not only that, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the world the true power of nuclear weapons. Because America and Russia had the image of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still in their minds, they were much more reluctant to use nukes. I honestly believe that had Hiroshima and Nagasaki not been bombed, a full-blown nuclear war would've erupted between America and Russia.

Mokono
29-05-09, 10:42
Indeed. But not only that, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the world the true power of nuclear weapons. Because America and Russia had the image of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still in their minds, they were much more reluctant to use nukes. I honestly believe that had Hiroshima and Nagasaki not been bombed, a full-blown nuclear war would've erupted between America and Russia.

The US already had that image from the nuclear test in mohave, it seems like they just wanted the soviets to know. They could have bombed anything else near without killing thousands.

Offtopic: Am i going too far with this? I'm not trying to spam btw.

Ward Dragon
29-05-09, 10:45
I don't want to sound bullheaded-like, but if they were waiting for a sign, they would have obtained it, maybe by bombing the far sea visible from Tokyo, without any casualties. If those who autorized the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wanted to give a sign, they could have deliver a sign, not a bomb. The bomb was launched to warn the Sovier Union, not as a sign.

It was a war. There are always casualties in war. Bombing the ocean would have proved nothing. The only reason the A-bomb was so psychologically terrifying is because a single bomb dropped from one plane killed nearly as many people as an entire squadron using traditional bombs. Without an actual demonstration it wouldn't have proven anything. More people had already been killed by traditional methods and Japan was fighting even more ferociously if anything. You can't rationally persuade people to stand down when they are so committed to the cause that they are willing to perform kamikaze attacks. Something dramatically devastating was needed in order to end the war then and there rather than drag it out and kill millions more.

And yes, as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both the US and Russia realized just how devastating A-bombs actually were, which prevented them from ever using them again. Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people who made the bombs only had guesses about what would happen and they didn't realize it would be nearly that devastating, much less have such long-term effects.

Neteru
29-05-09, 10:45
What a lot of bull**** about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is documented fact that Japan had already sued for peace prior to the use of the first bomb.

Goose
29-05-09, 10:47
C'mon, the super hero idea of the allies is not a fact, it's what your interpretation of history made you believe.

As much as you dislike and distrust America it would seem, that is a fact, for the UK to. What use is an allied nation that consists of scorched earth?


Come on, your perfect alliance could be torn down in the following years and everyone could be enemy of everyone. That's not precaution, it's lucubration.

Again your not looking at reality, our alliances are based more on economy then historical friendships. We are more likely to find an enemy in china and other more conventional enemies then France. Especially with consolidating groups like NATO and EU that gets western leaders together and maintains friendships either real or through peer pressure.



God, no!
No more useless killing! But have in mind that id thy had any ethical formation, they would not be deliberately making nuclear weapons to satisfy nations or the black market.

And if North Korea and Iran had any they wouldn't either would they? Of course they have ethics, just not yours, if a group has something a scientist thinks is a worthy cause then they would work for them.

What a lot of bull**** about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is documented fact that Japan had already sued for peace prior to the use of the first bomb.

Behind closed doors, as a facade he showed contempt for the US plea for unconditional surrender to Japanese citizens which was what the US gauged as a solid no. The bombs were dropped the week after.

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf

Cochrane
29-05-09, 10:49
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are interesting and complex topics that might warrant their own thread. In short, it is likely that they helped end the war, but we don't know for sure how much of the "fight to the last man" would have really happened and how much of it was propaganda if things had come to an invasion. Things being as they are, though, I can understand why the US government chose, at the time, to bomb these cities. At the same time, I think those are the best examples to show why such weapons should never be used in combat again.

Mokono: There is quite a lot of difference, psychologically, between seeing lots of empty desert being blow up and seeing the effects on an actual city.

As for the nuclear deterrent, I'm less and less certain we actually need it. Russia and China could, economically, not afford a war with the US, even if they had nuclear weapons and the US didn't. Their economies would collapse. When it comes to protection against states like North Korea, I think conventional military is more than capable of this job.

Edit to add: What a lot of bull**** about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is documented fact that Japan had already sued for peace prior to the use of the first bomb.

It is also a documented fact that factions within the japanese armed forces were strongly opposed to any peace, even after the emperor had already surrendered, and tried to stage a coup that failed, just to continue the war. It's not black and white.

Mokono
29-05-09, 10:51
It was a war. There are always casualties in war. Bombing the ocean would have proved nothing. The only reason the A-bomb was so psychologically terrifying is because a single bomb dropped from one plane killed nearly as many people as an entire squadron using traditional bombs.

Without an actual demonstration it wouldn't have proven anything. More people had already been killed by traditional methods and Japan was fighting even more ferociously if anything. You can't rationally persuade people to stand down when they are so committed to the cause that they are willing to perform kamikaze attacks. Something dramatically devastating was needed in order to end the war then and there rather than drag it out and kill millions more.

What a lot of bull**** about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is documented fact that Japan had already sued for peace prior to the use of the first bomb.

I have nothing more to add.

And yes, as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both the US and Russia realized just how devastating A-bombs actually were, which prevented them from ever using them again. Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people who made the bombs only had guesses about what would happen and they didn't realize it would be nearly that devastating, much less have such long-term effects.

They knew how devastating it was before bombing those cities, please try too see that if i throw a nuclear bomb in the desert that can chrystalize sand near the ground zero and vaporize cactus and birds, it will obviously kill people :).

Cochrane
29-05-09, 10:53
They knew how devastating it was before bombing those cities, please try too see that if i throw a nuclear bomb in the desert that can chrystalize sand near the ground zero and vaporize cactus and birds, it will obviously kill people :).

Right you are, sir, it would. But hearing this in theory and seeing the effect in practice is still very different. If you knew nothing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you'd probably be far less scared of nuclear weapons, even if you knew what they can do in the desert.

Goose
29-05-09, 10:58
They killed everyone in one bomb rather then weeks of bombing like the Germans did to the UK, and we did to Germany. That was how things were done, not that anyone today agrees.

Ward Dragon
29-05-09, 10:58
What a lot of bull**** about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is documented fact that Japan had already sued for peace prior to the use of the first bomb.

If it's so well documented then why not offer proof instead of dismissing my knowledge as a load of bull****? You've been awfully abrasive and condescending lately concerning political matters.

Goose
29-05-09, 11:01
If it's so well documented then why not offer proof instead of dismissing my knowledge as a load of bull****? You've been awfully abrasive and condescending lately concerning political matters.

Well he is right to a point, inside Japan things were going on, but from our point of view they ignored it. But people will always look at what was happening behind closed doors and say "America should have given them a chance" and all that. But considering these are people who flew planes into aircraft carriers, its not surprising the allies weren't thinking Japan would accept unconditional surrender.

Ward Dragon
29-05-09, 11:02
Well he is right to a point, inside Japan things were going on, but from our point of view they ignored it. But people will always look at what was happening behind closed doors and say "America should have given them a chance" and all that. But considering these are people who flew planes into aircraft carriers, its not surprising the allies weren't thinking Japan would accept unconditional surrender.

Exactly. I've read firsthand accounts of people who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki and even they felt that the bombings ended the war much sooner than it would have done otherwise.

Mokono
29-05-09, 11:03
As much as you dislike and distrust America it would seem, that is a fact, for the UK to. What use is an allied nation that consists of scorched earth?

Don't jump at conclusions. I do not dislike or distrust the US. I'm already glad that i'm by the same side, but it's not part of this discussion.

And if North Korea and Iran had any they wouldn't either would they? Of course they have ethics, just not yours, if a group has something a scientist thinks is a worthy cause then they would work for them.

Interesting point, different ethics? ar they better or worse? What's the right one? And... What is a worthy cause? Money of course.

Mokono: There is quite a lot of difference, psychologically, between seeing lots of empty desert being blow up and seeing the effects on an actual city.

Like if it could not be deductible.

As for the nuclear deterrent, I'm less and less certain we actually need it. Russia and China could, economically, not afford a war with the US, even if they had nuclear weapons and the US didn't. Their economies would collapse. When it comes to protection against states like North Korea, I think conventional military is more than capable of this job.

Yes, economy plays an important role.

It is also a documented fact that factions within the japanese armed forces were strongly opposed to any peace, even after the emperor had already surrendered, and tried to stage a coup that failed, just to continue the war. It's not black and white.

Actually, almost every japanese used to be (if they are not still being) very loyal to their emperor. It was for him that they commited suicidal attacks in first place. But they didn't attack L.A. or San Francisco, but a military base... As a western nation point of view that never had this kind of combat over it's territory, this was outrageous. Then, it looks also as some kind of dirty revenge.

They killed everyone in one bomb rather then weeks of bombing like the Germans did to the UK, and we did to Germany

And that made it the perfect solution. Of course...

That was how things were done, not that anyone today agrees.

And that's why it can't be done today, epecially by N.K.

Well he is right to a point, inside Japan things were going on, but from our point of view they ignored it. But people will always look at what was happening behind closed doors and say "America should have given them a chance" and all that. But considering these are people who flew planes into aircraft carriers, its not surprising the allies weren't thinking Japan would accept unconditional surrender.

Into aircraft carriers, not into cities.

Exactly. I've read firsthand accounts of people who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki and even they felt that the bombings ended the war much sooner than it would have done otherwise.

I don't wanna make ad hominem, but they are demoralized people that saw how friends and family turned instantly into charcoal and dust. There's nothing left to trust rather than the justification that winners said. SAid in other terms: they were forced to believe so.

Cochrane
29-05-09, 11:16
I wouldn't place too much importance on the fact that Japan did not attack any cities. They never came close enough to the US's west coast to launch an effective attack. If you look at Japan's track record in Korea and China, it's reasonable to assume that if they had had such a range, they wouldn't have been any better regarding human rights of civilians than the other parties in the war.

Mokono
29-05-09, 11:20
I wouldn't place too much importance on the fact that Japan did not attack any cities. They never came close enough to the US's west coast to launch an effective attack. If you look at Japan's track record in Korea and China, it's reasonable to assume that if they had had such a range, they wouldn't have been any better regarding human rights of civilians than the other parties in the war.

Japan and China's personal issues have a looong history going by... Let me remind you that none of them used nuclear bombs. You may add that they would have to, but there's no way to prove it. Some things are deductible, other things not.

Ward Dragon
29-05-09, 11:28
I don't wanna make ad hominem, but they are demoralized people that saw how friends and family turned instantly into charcoal and dust. There's nothing left to trust rather than the justification that winners said. SAid in other terms: they were forced to believe so.

I trust their insight into the Japanese mindset a lot more than I would trust people who weren't there and are trying to analyze things in hindsight. It's easy to say how things should have been from the perspective of a completely different culture half a century later, but nothing in history is ever ideal. It is a masochistic process to try to sort through everything in history and try to figure out what was good and justified versus how things should have been if everything was ideal.

Japan and China's personal issues have a looong history going by... Let me remind you that none of them used nuclear bombs. You may add that they would have to, but there's no way to prove it. Some things are deductible, other things not.

China is right next to Japan. If they nuked Japan, they'd suffer from the radiation as well. On the other hand, Japan does not have nukes or any real sort of military for that matter (part of the terms of their surrender from WWII). Personally I think what Japan did at Nanking is far more brutal than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Neteru
29-05-09, 11:30
If it's so well documented then why not offer proof instead of dismissing my knowledge as a load of bull****? You've been awfully abrasive and condescending lately concerning political matters.Sharp I have been. I have no desire to be horrible to people, but frankly, Jennifer, when I see all kinds of rationalisations for genocide, it makes my blood boil.

There are many, many sources out there for all to find for themselves. Do I really need to do the leg work for other people? If I can find out, then so can other people. Nevertheless, here's a collection you can start with, that contains many references from public records, diaries of those concerned, including your president at the time, and many high ranking military staff as to how it was well known that Japan wanted to surrender and how a number of those high ranking military staff clearly state the use of these bombs was of no military benefit or necessity.

http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

The details on that page alone are echoed all over the internet.

scoopy_loopy
29-05-09, 11:32
Sharp I have been. I have no desire to be horrible to people, but frankly, Jennifer, when I see all kinds of rationalisations for genocide, it makes my blood boil.

There are many, many sources out there for all to find for themselves. Do I really need to do the leg work for other people? If I can find out, then so can other people. Nevertheless, here's a collection you can start with, that contains many references from public records, diaries of those concerned, including your president at the time, and many high ranking military staff as to how it was well known that Japan wanted to surrender and how a number of those high ranking military staff clearly state the use of these bombs was of no military benefit or necessity.

http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

The details on that page alone are echoed all over the internet.

I agree, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was totally uncalled for.

Ward Dragon
29-05-09, 11:35
Sharp I have been. I have no desire to be horrible to people, but frankly, Jennifer, when I see all kinds of rationalisations for genocide, it makes my blood boil.

Genocide? Hardly. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit just like Dresden and Berlin. Genocide is rounding people up and putting them in gas chambers, or running through the streets with babies on bayonets.

In the meantime I will look that site over.

Mokono
29-05-09, 11:40
I trust their insight into the Japanese mindset a lot more than I would trust people who weren't there and are trying to analyze things in hindsight.

What i wrote before was considering japanese mindset also. You weren't there too, did you? I won't complain about this circumstantial ad hominem, since i made a similar fallacy.

It's easy to say how things should have been from the perspective of a completely different culture half a century later, but nothing in history is ever ideal. It is a masochistic process to try to sort through everything in history and try to figure out what was good and justified versus how things should have been if everything was ideal.

Is not that masochistic, really. Life is appreciated by every culture. When they do an apotheosis to death it's to obtain more life (wether this or the other life). Denying the values of good and wrong because of it's subjective nature, even if we're analyzing history, and it's justifications is a comfortable position, since nothing is longer wrong or good.

China is right next to Japan. If they nuked Japan, they'd suffer from the radiation as well. On the other hand, Japan does not have nukes or any real sort of military for that matter (part of the terms of their surrender from WWII).

They are not that close (considering the radiation radius), trust me.

Sharp I have been. I have no desire to be horrible to people, but frankly, Jennifer, when I see all kinds of rationalisations for genocide, it makes my blood boil.

There are many, many sources out there for all to find for themselves. Do I really need to do the leg work for other people? If I can find out, then so can other people. Nevertheless, here's a collection you can start with, that contains many references from public records, diaries of those concerned, including your president at the time, and many high ranking military staff as to how it was well known that Japan wanted to surrender and how a number of those high ranking military staff clearly state the use of these bombs was of no military benefit or necessity.

I agree, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was totally uncalled for.

And i re-agree with you guys!

Genocide? Hardly. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit just like Dresden and Berlin. Genocide is rounding people up and putting them in gas chambers, or running through the streets with babies on bayonets.

In the meantime I will look that site over.

Nope, Genocide is all kind of human race killing, despite the aim. In spanish, it's called genocidio and the word comes from greek root γένος wich means estirpe (breed) and -cidio (wich means killing). You can conclude that this applies to the english variation also.

Goose
29-05-09, 12:00
Don't jump at conclusions. I do not dislike or distrust the US. I'm already glad that i'm by the same side, but it's not part of this discussion.

Of course it is, you've already shown a form of disdain for Americas nuclear protection of its allies, so you obviously dont trust them or there judgment.



Interesting point, different ethics? ar they better or worse? What's the right one? And... What is a worthy cause? Money of course.

Well its obviously not money, every step Iran or North Korea takes towards being a full on nuclear power, the worse there economy gets through sanctions. For some, like Iran its religious, somehow ties in with the coming of the Mahdi in there mind.


Actually, almost every japanese used to be (if they are not still being) very loyal to their emperor. It was for him that they commited suicidal attacks in first place. But they didn't attack L.A. or San Francisco, but a military base... As a western nation point of view that never had this kind of combat over it's territory, this was outrageous. Then, it looks also as some kind of dirty revenge.

Hong Kong was as British as Belfast.



Into aircraft carriers, not into cities.


But if there prepared to do that, the point is, there not going to give up easily are they.

Ward Dragon
29-05-09, 12:06
Is not that masochistic, really. Life is appreciated by every culture. When they do an apotheosis to death it's to obtain more life (wether this or the other life). Denying the values of good and wrong because of it's subjective nature, even if we're analyzing history, and it's justifications is a comfortable position, since nothing is longer wrong or good.

You cannot know for sure how things would have been if something in history had happened differently. It's pointless to say that things should have happened a certain way because maybe it would be better but maybe it would be a hell of a lot worse too. All that we know for sure is what did happen and what the consequences were. We should take that, learn from it, and move on.

Nope, Genocide is all kind of human race killing, despite the aim. In spanish, it's called genocidio and the word comes from greek root γένος wich means estirpe (breed) and -cidio (wich means killing). You can conclude that this applies to the english variation also.

The definition of genocide (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide) is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." Bombing the enemy during wartime does not fall under that category. If the US had wanted to kill all Japanese people, then they'd be dead. Clearly the US wanted Japan to survive and recover after the war.

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 13:38
I see the Japanese occupation of Manchuria has yet to be mentioned. As most people here will probably know, the Japanese invaded and occupied Manchuria in the 30s, before the outbreak of WWII. When the American military dropped the A-bombs, the Russians were in the process of attacking the Japanese Manchuria. Had WWII continued, there would've still been a bloody war going on between the Russians and the Japanese, resulting in many Chinese civilian casualties on top of the of the obvious Japanese and Russian military casualties.

Mokono
29-05-09, 13:41
Of course it is, you've already shown a form of disdain for Americas nuclear protection of its allies, so you obviously dont trust them or there judgment.

Just because i don't agree with nuclear policies doesn't mean i disdain America or it's allies. Don't try to fool my opinions. However, your point of view is slanting, you take nuclear policies as protection: like a = a or 2+2 = 3+1. Anyway, even if i do, i would be disdaining pre-cold war countries, not the actual ones... And not a side in particular.

But if there prepared to do that, the point is, there not going to give up easily are they.

Neither you.

You cannot know for sure how things would have been if something in history had happened differently. It's pointless to say that things should have happened a certain way because maybe it would be better but maybe it would be a hell of a lot worse too. All that we know for sure is what did happen and what the consequences were. We should take that, learn from it, and move on.

I'm not trying to describe what it could happen, i'm showing it, since there's nothing in the world at this moment to point that. I've also learnt that, during wartime, human lives does not have any value.

The definition of genocide (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide) is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." Bombing the enemy during wartime does not fall under that category.

Notice that wat i highlighted from what you said is just wrong, and proves my point. Dehumanization is the best excuse for a genocide (gentiscidĭum, from gentis = people and caedĕre = To Kill), because it's easy to kill those who are not humans. Human rights? But they are not humans, let's erase them as the problem they are! Wat time does not make the difference, people does.

If the US had wanted to kill all Japanese people, then they'd be dead. Clearly the US wanted Japan to survive and recover after the war.

That doesn't mean that what happened was good. Also, it would have been noticeably wrong if they killed the whole Japan, don't you think so?

I see the Japanese occupation of Manchuria has yet to be mentioned. As most people here will probably know, the Japanese invaded and occupied Manchuria in the 30s, before the outbreak of WWII. When the American military dropped the A-bombs, the Russians were in the process of attacking the Japanese Manchuria. Had WWII continued, there would've still been a bloody war going on between the Russians and the Japanese, resulting in many Chinese civilian casualties on top of the of the obvious Japanese and Russian military casualties.

I'm glad you mentioned it, but it seems like you're missing the fact that Japan was already losing the war.

Goose
29-05-09, 13:50
Neither you.

Neither me what? They had a warrior code and it seemed they wouldnt give up that easy. We weren't the same, as Dunkirk proved if that's what you mean.

Mokono
29-05-09, 13:58
Neither me what? They had a warrior code and it seemed they wouldnt give up that easy. We weren't the same, as Dunkirk proved if that's what you mean.

No i didn't mean Dunkirk, i meant that Warrior Code thing you've been using as an excuse. Now, don't try to tell me that Kamikazes would have done their job ignoring the Emperor of Japan. They were suiciding because of their religious link with their emperor. If the emperor said hold, his will was done.

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 13:59
I'm glad you mentioned it, but it seems like you're missing the fact that Japan was already losing the war.By June 1944 when the Americans, Brits and Canadians launched an attack on the Germans at Normandy (better known as D-Day), it became clear that the Germans were losing the war. The Soviets were fast pushing in from the east and other Allied forces were pushing the Germans back towards Germany in the west. However, this didn't stop the Germans did it? The Germans didn't even give up until the Allies had reached Berlin from both sides in May 1945. In actual fact though, the Germans were destined to loose after their defeat at Stalingrad in February 1943. Just because a side is losing a war does not mean they are going to give up so easily.

Goose
29-05-09, 14:00
No i didn't mean Dunkirk, i meant that Warrior Code thing you've been using as an excuse. Now, don't try to tell me that Kamikazes would have done their job ignoring the Emperor of Japan. They were suiciding because of their religious link with their emperor. If the emperor said hold, it was done as his wish.

Yes they would have, considering some japanese soldiers fought in the jungles into the next decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout

Two lasted 29 years.

Mokono
29-05-09, 14:04
By June 1944 when the Americans, Brits and Canadians launched an attack on the Germans at Normandy (better known as D-Day), it became clear that the Germans were losing the war. The Soviets were fast pushing in from the east and other Allied forces were pushing the Germans back towards Germany in the west. However, this didn't stop the Germans did it? The Germans didn't even give up until the Allies had reached Berlin from both sides in May 1945. In actual fact though, the Germans were destined to loose after their defeat at Stalingrad in February 1943. Just because a side is losing a war does not mean they are going to give up so easily.

No, were the soviets who reached and stormed Berlin first. The following bombing was intended to be symbolical as the others said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Actually, the battle of Moscow was the turning point of the war at the eastwards (as well as D-day was the turning point westwards).

Yes they would have, considering some japanese soldiers fought in the jungles into the next decade.

Right... I'll reduct a whole army's opininon to 2 men.

PS: I would not take wikipedia that serious...

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 14:13
Yes, the Soviets reached Berlin first but the Allies weren't far off. However, the Battle of Stalingrad is generally acknowledged as the turning point of WWII, at least in the European theater. I don't see your point though. It still goes to show that just because an army is losing, it does not mean they surrender as easily.

Mokono
29-05-09, 14:19
Yes, the Soviets reached Berlin first but the Allies weren't far off. However, the Battle of Stalingrad is generally acknowledged as the turning point of WWII, at least in the European theater. I don't see your point though. It still goes to show that just because an army is losing, it does not mean they surrender as easily.

BUt they will eventually, remember that it's not just an army. They're fighting for their country, there's civilians as well involved in war (when it gets too far to dehumanize them), and all that it's stuck in their minds. If they are losing in their own territory, watching their fellows die, then expect a surrender, cause that happened and history proves it (i mean that the fact happened, nothing else, like someone else would like to add to improve it's opininons)...

Oh, and just because they don't surrender easily doesn't mean we should nuke them symbolically.

PS: This has highly been an Offtopic subject... However, i hope it was useful.

Goose
29-05-09, 14:28
Right... I'll reduct a whole army's opininon to 2 men.

PS: I would not take wikipedia that serious...

It was alot more then two men, although there are only a handful of documented occurrences, some involved the killing of police and soldiers, and i obviously heard from it from elsewhere otherwise i wouldn't have known to look for a Wikipedia reference would i.

If you dont take things like wikipedia seriously then what do you take seriously?

I have to study CBRN yearly and take a practical and theory test in survival, as well as its uses and delivery methods, yet you still seemed to disagree with my opinions on its uses, so if you disagree with someone whos had it explained to them by those who work in the field aswell as reference sites, what do you think is good information?

Catapharact
29-05-09, 14:34
However, the Battle of Stalingrad is generally acknowledged as the turning point of WWII, at least in the European theater. I don't see your point though. It still goes to show that just because an army is losing, it does not mean they surrender as easily.

Do you know WHY was it the turning point of the war? The same reason why the British and the U.S. forces need to becareful about stretching themselves too thin. Right now, there seems to be a nonsense level of confidence about launching war theater groups around every possible trouble zone in this world. Germany stretched itself too thin during WW2 as well and ended up getting pounded from all sides. Furthermore, they never expected hit and run tactics to be so effective during the battle at Stalingrad.

Seems like the modern military still hasn't learned that lesson yet.

Mokono
29-05-09, 14:36
If you dont take things like wikipedia seriously then what do you take seriously?

A research that is not constantly edited at will of wikieditors and wikimods.

I have to study CBRN yearly and take a practical and theory test in survival, as well as its uses and delivery methods, yet you still seemed to disagree with my opinions on its uses, so if you disagree with someone whos had it explained to them by those who work in the field aswell as reference sites, what do you think is good information?

Offtopic: At the end of a wikipedia article are numbers. Those numbers point the sources. Try those books that were used to make the article and you'll find out, with surprise, that the interpretation of the source the wikiuser made may differ with the main source itself. If not, it's reliable.

Goose
29-05-09, 14:36
Do you know WHY was it the turning point of the war? The same reason why the British and the U.S. forces need to becareful about stretching themselves too thin. Right now, there seems to be a nonsense level of confidence about launching war theater groups around every possible trouble zone in this world. Germany stretched itself too thin during WW2 as well and ended up getting pounded from all sides. Furthermore, they never expected hit and run tactics to be so effective during the battle at Stalingrad.

Seems like the modern military still hasn't learned that lesson yet.

Well it has learned, we're leaving Iraq now, and Afghanistan was supposed to be a UN battle, just seems alto of member arent keen to remain as involved as they were before. Take almost all the surge troops out of Iraq and thats alot of extra feet that can be placed in Afghanistan.


Offtopic: At the end of a wikipædia article are numbers. Those numbers point the sources. Try those books that were used to make the article and you'll find out, with surprise, that the interpretation of the source the wikiuser made may differ with the main source itself. If not, it's reliable.

Not always, alot lead to government websites and news stories, when someone refers to a wiki page, there usually refering to those sources, and as you stated a belief that only 2 Japanese soldiers fought on you obviously didnt even check the page let alone the sources.

A research that is not constantly edited at will of wikieditors and wikimods.

Net's reference in his post you agreed to was nothing but a private wiki page of sorts, same method of collecting information, yet you agree with that?

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 14:38
BUt they will eventually, remember that it's not just an army. They're fighting for their country, there's civilians as well involved in war (when it gets too far to dehumanize them), and all that it's stuck in their minds. If they are losing in their own territory, watching their fellows die, then expect a surrender, cause that happened and history proves it (i mean that the fact happened, nothing else, like someone else would like to add to improve it's opininons)...

Oh, and just because they don't surrender easily doesn't mean we should nuke them symbolically.

PS: This has highly been an Offtopic subject... However, i hope it was useful.But the question is when will they surrender? The bombings brought a swift end to a bloody and costly war. That justifies them for me, as in the long run I believe they saved many lives.

Mokono
29-05-09, 14:45
Well it has learned, we're leaving Iraq now, and Afghanistan was supposed to be a UN battle, just seems alto of member arent keen to remain as involved as they were before. Take almost all the surge troops out of Iraq and thats alot of extra feet that can be placed in Afghanistan.?

Do you want your troops out of Iraq to send them to Afghanistan? Are you serious?

Not always, alot lead to government websites and news stories, when someone refers to a wiki page, there usually refering to those sources, and as you stated a belief that only 2 japanese soldiers fought on you obviously didnt even check the page let alone the sources.

Net's reference in his post you agreed to was nothing but a private wiki page of sorts, same method of collecting information, yet you agree with that?

With the method? yes. With the way it was done? No. Don't compare a serious academic book with a Wikipedia article... Even if Wikipedia's goal is to be reliable, it's still far from being that.

But the question is when will they surrender?

Without bombing? Of course they would have (and they did). I don't want to quote Neteru again, so please stop repeating that. (and i'm talking about a serious documented fact, not a seriously written article on a wiki).

The bombings brought a swift end to a bloody and costly war. That justifies them for me, as in the long run I believe they saved many lives.

For you and for goose human lives are nothing than a big sack of casualties. Killing innocents for saving innocents? That really makes sense...

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 14:57
Without bombing? Of course they would have (and they did). I don't want to quote Neteru again, so please stop repeating that. (and i'm talking about a serious documented fact, not a seriously written article on a wiki).They may have surrendered had the bombs not been dropped, but that doesn't mean the fighting would've stopped. I haven't been repeating anything. I only mentioned when they would surrender once. The invasion of Iraq ended in May 2003, however, there's still fighting going on there.

For you and for goose human lives are nothing than a big sack of casualties. Killing innocents for saving innocents? That really makes sense...Killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to save millions of innocents and demonstrate the true power of nuclear weapons so that they may never be used again and to stop the biggest and bloodiest conflict in human history? Yes, that actually makes a lot of sense. :)

Mokono
29-05-09, 15:03
They may have surrendered had the bombs not been dropped, but that doesn't mean the fighting would've stopped. I haven't been repeating anything. I only mentioned when they would surrender once.

You don't know that, neither i. Lucubration is lucubration. Let's ask a Japanese!

Killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to save millions of innocents and demonstrate the true power of nuclear weapons so that they may never be used again and to stop the biggest and bloodiest conflict in human history? Yes, that actually makes a lot of sense. :)

It doesn't, it's completely unreasonable to think that, since they were used to hurt Japan, not to show it's power, and i already said so... Like a few pages ago? Genocide is not an excuse.
It stopped the biggest and bloodiest conflict in our history, but it has not sense at all (not just now)!
So there's no need for nuclear umbrellas anymore (if there was ever a reason to have them)!

PS: How do you post as offline?

Elmer
29-05-09, 15:05
I wonder what North Korea has to say about this, it's always good to hear the full story.

Goose
29-05-09, 15:05
Do you want your troops out of Iraq to send them to Afghanistan? Are you serious?[/I]

Did i say i wanted that? But that is whats happening.


With the method? yes. With the way it was done? No. Don't compare a serious academic book with a Wikipedia article... Even if Wikipedia's goal is to be reliable, it's still far from being that.
[/I]

I take it you didnt actually read Net's link then right? The site was doing exactly what wiki does, takes information from numerous books and brings it together for its own purpose. The site itself isn't 'a serious academic book'.

http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

Mokono
29-05-09, 15:09
I take it you didnt actually read Net's link then right? The site was doing exactly what wiki does, takes information from numerous books and brings it together for its own purpose.

I already answered you, search above.

Oh, well...

About Serious books vs Wikipedia:
Don't compare a serious academic book with a Wikipedia article... Even if Wikipedia's goal is to be reliable, it's still far from being that.

About the way Wikipedia works:
A research that is not constantly edited at will of wikieditors and wikimods.

About pointing sources for research purposes:
With the method? yes. With the way it was done? No. Don't compare a serious academic book with a Wikipedia article... Even if Wikipedia's goal is to be reliable, it's still far from being that.

About Neteru's post:

...and i'm talking about a serious documented fact, not a seriously written article on a wiki.

i just might add that the link Neteru posted it's not constantly edited at everybody's will, and such...

Goose
29-05-09, 15:12
I already answered you, search above.

You gave me the answer i quoted in the post above. Your using a website that is using a book to present its facts, aswell as other books. Exactly like wiki does, even then that book by Alperovitz has been criticized itself for misrepresentation. So whether you follow the links on wiki, or read that page that was linked its not much different.

The link didnt go to a book, it led to a webpage that quoted a book, like wiki does, and the lack of modifying leads to facts being left that may be easily refuted.

Still at then end of the day were talking about the link to japanese soldiers fighting, and the linkes were to real news stories at the time, with eye witness interviews, so its odd your trying to dismiss them. Do you not think TIME magazine might want to check its facts before printing stories about missing soldiers fighting for decades?

Mokono
29-05-09, 15:18
You gave me the answer i quoted in the post above. Your using a website that is using a book to present its facts, aswell as other books. Exactly like wiki does, even then that book by Alperovitz has been criticized itself for misrepresentation. So whether you follow the links on wiki, or read that page that was linked its not much different.

Offtopic:
Yes, but as well as it's one single person who wrote it, there's more chances to approve or refute what he's saying. Wikipedia is made the same way a thesis is done; however, it has a discussion page were they democratically chooses what's in and what's out... So if according to the majority, something wrong is ok, make sure it's gonna be in the article.

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 15:24
It doesn't, it's completely unreasonable to think that, since they were used to hurt Japan, not to show it's power, and i already said so... Like a few pages ago? Genocide is not an excuse.
It stopped the biggest and bloodiest conflict in our history, but it has not sense at all (not just now)!
So there's no need for nuclear umbrellas anymore (if there was ever a reason to have them)!I never said they were used because of that, but that's one of the things that their use did. It wasn't Genocide. That term is thrown around way too loosely these days. The definition of genocide was explained way back in this thread.

Goose
29-05-09, 15:25
Offtopic:
Yes, but as well as it's one single person who wrote it, there's more chances to approve or refute what he's saying. Wikipedia is made the same way a thesis is done; however, it has a discussion page were they democratically chooses what's in and what's out... So if according to the majority, something wrong is ok, make sure it's gonna be in the article.

Your allowed to edit anything or add to it, provided you can back up your sources with enough information proving it wrong, its not a choice, the choice is whether to remove the information, not to add to it.

On a personal website you cant do that.

But like i said, TIME would most certainly check its sources.

Mokono
29-05-09, 15:25
I never said they were used because of that, but that's one of the things that their use did. It wasn't Genocide. That term is thrown around way too loosely these days. The definition of genocide was explained way back in this thread.

Yours was, and it's already well refuted by me :) (not because of me, if you don't get this it's cause you haven't read my explanations).

Mokono
29-05-09, 15:30
Your allowed to edit anything or add to it, provided you can back up your sources with enough information proving it wrong, its not a choice, the choice is whether to remove the information, not to add to it.

On a personal website you cant do that.

But like i said, TIME would most certainly check its sources.

Not time, users would. I might add that i don't refuse to believe whatever wikipedia says. It's like i previously stated before: It's a show of facts, not a description. Wikipedia's point of view is not axiologically neutral, so it can't be true or false from an epistemological point of view.

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 15:31
Genocide

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

The bombing of enemy towns and cities in wartime is not genocide. If you wanna count the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as Genocide then you might as well call any bombing raid during World War II an act of Genocide too.

Mokono
29-05-09, 15:34
Genocide

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

So... They are humans beings or not?

The bombing of enemy towns and cities in wartime is not genocide. If you wanna count the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as Genocide then you might as well call any bombing raid during World War II an act of Genocide too.

Exactly i stand for life ;)...

Goose
29-05-09, 15:35
Not time, users would. I might add that i don't refuse to believe whatever wikipedia says. It's like i previously stated before: It's a show of facts, not a description. Wikipedia's point of view is not axiologically neutral, so it can't be true or false from an epistemological point of view.

What do you mean? Users of TIME magazine 3 decades ago? the article can be mistrusted but im pointing at the sources as i said.

Anyway lets get back to the original topic.

Just how is the west dismantling nukes going to help world peace in the age of global terrorism and rouge states who have little ties to other nations, seeking to create there own?

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 15:43
So... They are humans beings or not?



Exactly i stand for life ;)...Killing other humans in war doesn't make it genocide. "Standing for life" is all well and good, but in war you can't just sit their while your enemy attacks you. What do you propose the Americans should've done after Pearl Harbor, or the Polish after they were invaded by the Nazis?

Mokono
29-05-09, 15:43
What do you mean? Users of TIME magazine 3 decades ago?

Anyway lets get back to the original topic.

Before that, off topic is that i shall tell you that i meant Wikipedia users.

Just how is the west dismantling nukes going to help world peace in the age of global terrorism and rouge states who have little ties to other nations, seeking to create there own?

You haven't searched the causes of what you call terrorism, do you? Even though it sounds like i'm excusing them, i can tell because my country was in a 20 years war fight with inner terrorism. Do you think that Fujimori's face with the wanted sign all over his face was another random easter egg in Tomb Raider: Legend? He ordered the killing of hundreds in a whole region implying they were all terrorists, so the media (and regular citizens) would not care about the massacre. So don't just use that word for those who are defending their countries from foreign invation. But let's make this hace more sense: terrorist => Those who uses terror to achieve what they can't in a conventional confrontation. But you may think, also, that thos afghans who are defending their country are terrorists as well (even if they are Al-Qaeda or not).

What do you propose the Americans should've done after Pearl Harbor, or the Polish after they were invaded by the Nazis?

Pearl Harbour was not a city, was a military base. Although it had lives as well, and i'm not excusing Japan. About Poland, see, not only Germany invaded it: it was invaded by the soviets as well. What should have been done? They did the same the japaneses did (since many brave polish actions were suicidal, and many of them died during the german strong occupation period). But i'm not discussing that, in my previous posts, i point how evolved we are, but our ways of resolving conflicts are below any intelligence, so make me get back on topic recalling all i've said:

-I'm against nukes.
-I'm against how wars had been taken recently.
-I'm against detterents on wich underlies offensive.
-I'm against demonization and dehumanization of human groups.
-I'm against North Korea's Nuclear policies also (obviously, whithin first reason)
-I'm against the way historicians from the winning parts had justified every single massacre.
-And so it goes...

I guess you can also be excused for ignoring the last 30 years of IRA terrorism in the UK, not to mention Al-Qaede, aswell as the fact that the Taliban were the leaders of a coup against the real government of Afghanistan in 1994, not freedom fighters, and for the most part today are foreign fighters who gather at the Pakistani border region.

When did i say they where? And also, the war against terrorism in Perú started lasted 20 years, but the massacres started since 20's with every single coup.

I know enough about terrorism, im in a military thats fought it for decades.

Oh, i'm sorry i haven't been blessed with a huge war recently, so i can't say anything.

Goose
29-05-09, 15:47
Before that, off topic is that i shall tell you that i meant Wikipedia users.



You haven't searched the causes of what you call terrorism, do you? Even though it sounds like i'm excusing them, i can tell because my country was in a 20 years war fight with inner terrorism. Do you think that Fujimori's face with the wanted sign all over his face was another random easter egg in Tomb Raider: Legend? He ordered the killing of hundreds in a whole region implying they were all terrorists, so the media (and regular citizens) would not care about the massacre. So don't just use that word for those who are defending their countries from foreign invation. But let's make this hace more sense: terrorist => Those who uses terror to achieve what they can't in a conventional confrontation. But you may think, also, that thos afghans who are defending their country are terrorists as well (even if they are Al-Qaeda or not).

I guess you can also be excused for ignoring the last 30 years of IRA terrorism in the UK, not to mention Al-Qaede, aswell as the fact that the Taliban were the leaders of a coup against the real government of Afghanistan in 1994, not freedom fighters, and for the most part today are foreign fighters who gather at the Pakistani border region.

I know enough about terrorism, im in a military thats fought it for decades.

What you put there did come across as an excuse not to debate the reasons behind saying the west dismantling its nukes is a good idea in the face of the world today unfortunatly.

You can say what you like, just dont tell me to refrain from using the word terrorist when refering to people who terrorize....

"When did i say they where?"


But you may think, also, that thos afghans who are defending their country are terrorists as well (even if they are Al-Qaeda or not)

Its not there country in the first place, they invaded in 1994, and are now mostly foreigners from all over the middle east.

Im not questioning your war in Peru, your telling me i dont know about terrorism, so im explaining to you what i know.

Mokono
29-05-09, 16:02
I guess you can also be excused for ignoring the last 30 years of IRA terrorism in the UK, not to mention Al-Qaede, aswell as the fact that the Taliban were the leaders of a coup against the real government of Afghanistan in 1994, not freedom fighters, and for the most part today are foreign fighters who gather at the Pakistani border region.

When did i say they where? And also, the war against terrorism in Perú started lasted 20 years, but the massacres started since 20's with every single coup.

I know enough about terrorism, im in a military thats fought it for decades.

Oh, i'm sorry i haven't been blessed with a huge war recently, so i can't say anything.

What you put there did come across as an excuse not to debate the reasons behind saying the west dismantling its nukes is a good idea in the face of the world today unfortunatly.

But i told my reasons! Can't you understand nuclear arms race is a vicious circle? It's cyclic!

You can say what you like, just dont tell me to refrain from using the word terrorist when refering to people who terrorize....

Boy, you can think whatever you want, i don't want to refrain that, but try to not sound like George Bush back in 2003 next time. Do you think i'm making a presonal attack by saying this? I don't thinks so, but you obviously think that just because you come from a country that had won wars and fought terrorism, you can justify all the meassures taken. Right, because you are happy with the ressults (stability to the westerns). let's forget about those who have to deal with the ressulting missery!

PS: This is highly offtopic and we're not going anywhere whithout trying to change each other's point of view, and that's not what this thread was about.

SamReeves
29-05-09, 16:05
The bombings of Nakasaki and Hiroshima are totally justified by President Harry Truman. An invasion of mainland Japan would have been 10 times bloodier than Iwo Jima. Also the Japanese had an underground program of the earliest of ballastic missiles and jet fighters under development. Both of those could have set a serious setback to the Pacific Fleet, perhaps dragging WWII on even longer. Are the results distasteful? Absolutely, but when Japan was vowing to go until the death…there was no other choice but to drop it.

Mokono
29-05-09, 16:06
The bombings of Nakasaki and Hiroshima are totally justified by President Harry Truman. An invasion of mainland Japan would have been 10 times bloodier than Iwo Jima. Also the Japanese had an underground program of the earliest of ballastic missles and jet fighters under development. Both of those could have set a serious setback to the Pacific Fleet, perhaps dragging WWII on even longer. Are the results distasteful? Absolutely, but when Japan was vowing to go until the death…there was no other choice but to drop it.

Please, read the whole thread... The main subject is not that. On previous pages you can spot those who think it was necessary and those who don't.

SamReeves
29-05-09, 16:08
Please, read the whole thread... The main subject is not that. On previous pages you can spot those who think it was necessary and those who don't.

Huh? I read the last several pages just fine.

But whatever…exiting thread. :wve:

Goose
29-05-09, 16:08
But i told my reasons! Can't you understand nuclear arms race is a vicious circle? It's cyclic!

Well im afraid your ideas are just non realistic, we cant disarm the world, this is what i want you to explain, how do you believe it could be achieved?


Boy, you can think whatever you want, i don't want to refrain that, but try to not sound like George Bush next time. Do you think i'm making a presonal attack by saying this?

Well yea it is pretty personal, my home cities been bombed enough by the IRA and Islamic extremists to make it that way. I dont sound at all like George Bush, im claiming to understand terrorism due to our experiences here?

Mokono
29-05-09, 16:15
Well im afraid your ideas are just non realistic, we cant disarm the world, this is what i want you to explain, how do you believe it could be achieved??

Step by step with a more ethical (not double faced) and solid UN.

Well yea it is pretty personal, my home cities been bombed enough by the IRA and Islamic extremists to make it that way. I dont sound at all like George Bush, im claiming to understand terrorism due to our experiences here?

And that's why your notion of terrorism is full of hard feelings, my friend. I feel sorry for you and the british people for all they have been through (i haven't forgot that you are as human as i am), but you must know that violence breeds more violence. you can whether refute me again or settle down: i really don't care. I have a life to live and i don't want my 400 post because of this sad thread. Now, if you'll excuse me, i gotta go. However, if you wan another reply, i'll be pleased giving it to you when i'm back home. Have a nice day.

Goose
29-05-09, 16:18
Step by step with a more ethical (not double faced) and solid UN.

And how would they do anything different from what they are doing to North Korea and Iran? And how would that stop groups like the Taliban, who have no interaction with them at all, except killing its aid workers, from using dismantled parts, or getting the intelligence to build one from scratch.


And that's why your notion of terrorism is full of hard feelings, my friend. I feel sorry for you and the british people for all they have been through (i haven't forgot that you are as human as i am), but you must know that violence breeds more violence. you can whether refute me again or settle down: i really don't care. I have a life to live and i don't want my 400 post because of this sad thread. Now, if you'll excuse me, i gotta go. However, if you wan another reply, i'll be pleased giving it to you when i'm back home. Have a nice day.

Well i think we'll just leave your argument against my definition of terror alone then in that case.

Draco
29-05-09, 16:21
The 'bomb' will never be replaced until it is rendered obsolete.

Goose
29-05-09, 16:23
The 'bomb' will never be replaced until it is rendered obsolete.

And in my opinion that will be when there is a weapon capable of destroying it 99% of the time before impact. But thats not going to happen anytime soon.

Mokono
29-05-09, 16:33
And how would they do anything different from what they are doing to North Korea and Iran? And how would that stop groups like the Taliban, who have no interaction with them at all, except killing its aid workers, from using dismantled parts, or getting the intelligence to build one from scratch.

Sorry, i could not resist! Lucubration, again, but this time, with the Taliban. Killin it's aid workers? Can you explain?

Well i think we'll just leave your argument against my definition of terror alone then in that case.

Is not an argument (and is not alone either), is a demonstration of an opinion, i never tried to convince you, but, since every last post you made tends to underly something, i can't resist to make an allegation. You'll see, i've been talkin from a logic point of view that implies surpassing average propositions so you don't take them as a matter of fact, but you just seem to try to prove something... Like an ultimate true... Your true?

And in my opinion that will be when there is a weapon capable of destroying it 99% of the time before impact. But thats not going to happen anytime soon.

I hope that never happens.

Draco
29-05-09, 16:33
Or a weapon that is more effective. Either way it will be a dark period in our history. Simply because the rules will change.

Goose
29-05-09, 16:42
Sorry, i could not resist! Lucubration, again, but this time, with the Taliban. Killin it's aid workers? Can you explain?

Un aid workers have been killed in the hundreds in Afghanistan, aswell as Iraq. Besides the question i said that in is more on topic, how is the UN going to deal with them?


Is not an argument (and is not alone either), is a demonstration of an opinion, i never tried to convince you, but, since every last post you made tends to underly something, i can't resist to make an allegation. You'll see, i've been talkin from a logic point of view that implies surpassing average propositions so you don't take them as a matter of fact, but you just seem to try to prove something... Like an ultimate true... Your true?

Im not, i referred to terrorism, and you dismissed me as if i had no idea and wasnt qualified to use that term.


I hope that never happens.
You hope theres never a weapon that can destroy an incoming nuclear missile 99% of the time? If there was it would erradicate the need for nukes.....Its almost as if your going to disagree with anything i post, even if its an idea to get rid of nukes forever?

Mokono
29-05-09, 16:59
Un aid workers have been killed in the hundreds in Afghanistan, aswell as Iraq. Besides the question i said that in is more on topic, how is the UN going to deal with them?

And how are they going to deal with the children killed then? See your question is not answerable without being redundant and quoting everything that had been said so far.

Im not, i referred to terrorism, and you dismissed me as if i had no idea and wasnt qualified to use that term.

I'm sorry if you felt dismissed, but didn't you dismiss me also? Even if that's the case, my intention was to make things clear between both points. According to what you tell it seems that it wasn't the best example ever.

You hope theres never a weapon that can destroy an incoming nuclear missile 99% of the time? If there was it would erradicate the need for nukes

OMG i completely misunderstanded that sentence, i meant i hope a weapon 99% more destructive than nukes will never be developed.

Its almost as if your going to disagree with anything i post, even if its an idea to get rid of nukes forever?

I'm sorry if you felt like i was being reluctant to your ideas, but you know that if you set an idea to get rid of nukes forever it would have look like i won at changing your opinion or something like that, but there's nothing to win here. Just opinions, exposition of ideas. However, with every single question you made instead a proposition, you just make this tedious and eternal.

It's also without sense that i can refuse to accept a world non nuclear policy (according to verything i've said so far)...

PS: Are you going back on topic now?

Goose
29-05-09, 17:05
And how are they going to deal with the children killed then? See your question is not answerable without being redundant and quoting everything that had been said so far.


I dont think you get my point, if a group like the Taliban get hold of Pakistans Nukes, like they almost did recently, how could the UN have any effect when they're not in talks with them?


I'm sorry if you felt dismissed, but didn't you dismiss me also? Even if that's the case, my intention was to make things clear between both points. According to what you tell it seems that it wasn't the best example ever.


I didnt dismiss you at all, i countered your attack on my 'naivety' towards 'real' terrorism. Like i said, im not going to tell you about your war in Peru because you probably know as much about the IRA as i do about your conflict, which is also why i said you could be forgiven for not knowing.

Ahh i see about the miss-understanding.

Mokono
29-05-09, 17:12
I dont think you get my point, if a group like the Taliban get hold of Pakistans Nukes, like they almost did recently, how could the UN have any effect when they're not in talks with them?



I didnt dismiss you at all, i countered your attack on my 'naivety' towards 'real' terrorism. Like i said, im not going to tell you about your war in Peru because you probably know as much about the IRA as i do about your conflict, which is also why i said you could be forgiven for not knowing.

Ahh i see about the miss-understanding.

=== MY LAST OFFTOPIC ===

Damn man, I see the village idiots are out this morning on a certain thread!

LOL, yea at least it has some entertainment value! Nobody watches the History Channel anymore. They're too busy watching the Green Party on local access!

I just got wannabe-modded! Screw that crap…

Oh here, were the ding dong says I have to re-read the thread: http://www.tombraiderforums.com/show...&postcount=130.

Totally agree there. Discovery and Military Channel well…are the bomb!

LMAO! I guess history now exists in different alternate universes for the wack jobs!

The way I understand it, the Emperor wanted out, but there was no way the military was going to allow it. Reminds me of Patton, which I watched this past weekend. What damage could he have done if sent to the Pacific campaign?

Why do you want me to answer you again... TO MOCK AGAIN? I don't think so, i'm asking Neteru to close this thread I can't believe i fell in your little trap till reaching nowhere, i feel so ashamed of myself. But you should feel more ashamed also since you have no decency at all to say all that in my face.

You really want me to answer this?
He wont accept the concept of mutual destruction and how its saved us, he wont accept any version of terrorism then his.

Yes i will accept the concept... Indeed, I DO, but i don't justify it. Couldn't you just see? Sorry if my language difficulties made it unclear.

Im not even sure what were arguing over, every post i make he attempts to go against it, even before i was even talking to him lol!

Its good though.

You just couldn't see through... We were arguing about the necessity of extiguish other human lifes. And i'm not against you, but against how you can justify the death of others. Now, it all started with the detterent issue, wich leaded to the nuclear weapons goal issue, wich lead to Hiroshima and war and, more recently, terrorism. The last topic was really annoying, since we had encountered opinions about it and thoughts and feelings beneath.

If you've got a problem with what someone posted on my profile, id say its best to leave it between us and mods, not here.[QUOTE]

Whatever points at me deals with me too. And obviously he/she wasn't talking alone... But his/her profile does not show anything to proof.

[QUOTE=Mokono;3682868]You haven't searched the causes of what you call terrorism, do you? Even though it sounds like i'm excusing them, i can tell because my country was in a 20 years war fight with inner terrorism. Do you think that Fujimori's face with the wanted sign all over his face was another random easter egg in Tomb Raider: Legend? He ordered the killing of hundreds in a whole region implying they were all terrorists, so the media (and regular citizens) would not care about the massacre. So don't just use that word for those who are defending their countries from foreign invation. But let's make this hace more sense: terrorist => Those who uses terror to achieve what they can't in a conventional confrontation. But you may think, also, that thos afghans who are defending their country are terrorists as well (even if they are Al-Qaeda or not).

Edit:
Boy, you can think whatever you want, i don't want to refrain that, but try to not sound like George Bush back in 2003 next time. Do you think i'm making a presonal attack by saying this? I don't thinks so, but you obviously think that just because you come from a country that had won wars and fought terrorism, you can justify all the meassures taken. Right, because you are happy with the ressults (stability to the westerns). let's forget about those who have to deal with the ressulting missery!


I've noticed that these statements were a load of crap. I want to apologize, not just to you, but to everyone who read this terrorism ignorant nonsense.

Edit 2: To the ironic SamReeves

I gave a valid opinion, and you name yourself God and moderator all in the next response…

I never said i was God or a Moderator. Oh, silly me, you mean that i'm asking for help desesperately? tell you what, think what you want to, i don't know you and i don't give a whole.

not a very nice way to carry on discussion. I see no point in raising drama here, but I know your type who go out of their way to pick fights on the internet.

So talk about someone at his back is a nicer way. So cash!

I will likely no longer respond to any further replies. I am sorry for "Ding Dong" if that really ruined your day. Added to the ignore list, have a nice day. :wve:

It was your hypocrisy what ruined my day. But it's over, since i took fresh air with my friends. I don't need to ignore you, my sarcastic friend, and i don't care if you think i'm an internet fighter or troll... From my point of view, you are the troll, and you should not care about what i think also. The only thing i'm asking you is to not fool around ensuring that you know what kind of person i am, cause you have no idea, and this thread does not picture me well, but does according to someone (you) that wants to disqualify me. Obvious troll is obvious ;).

Goose
29-05-09, 17:14
==MY LAST OFFTOPIC===
Why do you want me to answer you again... TO MOCK AGAIN? I don't think so, i'm asking Neteru to close this thread I can't believe i fell in your little trap till reaching nowhere, i feel so ashamed of myself. But you should feel more ashamed also since you have no decency at all to say all that in my face.

Did I mock? Show me and ill explain.

Say all what?

Heres the rest of the conversation your quoting. Show me what you find disagreeable and ill apologize.

He wont accept the concept of mutual destruction and how its saved us, he wont accept any version of terrorism then his.

Im not even sure what were arguing over, every post i make he attempts to go against it, even before i was even talking to him lol!

Its good though.

I said that to you.

Lol wannabe modded! where was that?

History channel is the way forward, as well as Discovery, good quality tv as well as education.

Didnt need to say that.

Ahh i see, he quoted a web-site which in turn quoted a book, which in turn quoted other books which in turn probably quoted people who knew people that worked in the mess hall at the air base where a pilot who flew the enola gaye's wife lived....or somthing.

Its fact now, that japan sought to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, even though the book was heavily criticized.

I said that to you.

Ahh well, i think as English isnt Mono's first language its abit harder to make a point anyway.

Good read though.

I didnt say that to you, did it offend you?

If you've got a problem with what someone posted on my profile, id say its best to leave it between us and mods, not here.

You really want me to answer this?

Would have been clearer to make a new post to do so, but all those opinions i posted on sam Reeves site are mirrored here, so how did i mock you?

Im sorry you were upset.

SamReeves
29-05-09, 21:49
==MY LAST OFFTOPIC===

Why do you want me to answer you again... TO MOCK AGAIN? I don't think so, i'm asking Neteru to close this thread I can't believe i fell in your little trap till reaching nowhere, i feel so ashamed of myself. But you should feel more ashamed also since you have no decency at all to say all that in my face.


I gave a valid opinion, and you name yourself God and moderator all in the next response…not a very nice way to carry on discussion. I see no point in raising drama here, but I know your type who go out of their way to pick fights on the internet. I will likely no longer respond to any further replies. I am sorry for "Ding Dong" if that really ruined your day. Added to the ignore list, have a nice day. :wve:

Mad Tony
29-05-09, 23:02
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8074527.stm

Dunno if I should be worried or amused.

Johnnay
30-05-09, 23:40
im not worried about this crap

but that north korean dude better die. i dont like him:) as well as all the wahabi terriorists in this world( and that was off topic)

Mad Tony
31-05-09, 00:09
im not worried about this crap

but that north korean dude better die. i dont like him:) as well as all the wahabi terriorists in this world( and that was off topic)Lol.

Some speculate that he already is dead due to various health issues. I doubt it's true, but it's definitely a possibility.

Draco
31-05-09, 03:19
That was special.

Kittypower
31-05-09, 04:02
We all love britney spears but how is she going to stop north korea.

Catapharact
31-05-09, 04:05
We all love britney spears but how is she going to stop north korea.


By being a bigger psyco then ol Kimmy? To the point where the UN has to declare her the enemy of humanity and blow her up with a well placed guided bomb as an example for all would-be attention mongers? And I do mean ALL... Yes I am looking at you t.A.T.U.

Indiana Croft
31-05-09, 05:10
God it's like the world is going to hell. Is this cold war again? Jesus!
Or is it WW3? It seems like everyone is fighting with someone. This kinda stuff builds and builds until it starts to concern me. This nuclear arms **** is starting to make me pay attention. I've paid attention since i was six, but I mean like PAY attention instead of just make fun of it and shrug it off. I like kicking ass as much as the next guy, but its times like these where I realize Pacifism could do this world alot of good.

Ward Dragon
31-05-09, 05:14
its times like these where I realize Pacifism could do this world alot of good.

Unfortunately that only works if everyone is pacifist which I don't think will ever happen :o There's always going to be some megalomaniacal jerk who tries to take over other countries, they defend themselves, and things escalate :(

Mad Tony
31-05-09, 09:02
God it's like the world is going to hell. Is this cold war again? Jesus!
Or is it WW3? It seems like everyone is fighting with someone. This kinda stuff builds and builds until it starts to concern me. This nuclear arms **** is starting to make me pay attention. I've paid attention since i was six, but I mean like PAY attention instead of just make fun of it and shrug it off. I like kicking ass as much as the next guy, but its times like these where I realize Pacifism could do this world alot of good.You think this sort of thing is anything new? It's not. There's always been tension surrounding North Korea and there's always been lots of wars being fought around the world. Always.

Johnnay
31-05-09, 13:40
We all love britney spears but how is she going to stop north korea.

that is so funny

no no wait

imagine paris hilton going to kim song wang( or whoever he is) lets see her trying to stop him. it would be funny for her trying to do something like it.

scoopy_loopy
31-05-09, 13:54
that is so funny

no no wait

imagine paris hilton going to kim song wang( or whoever he is) lets see her trying to stop him. it would be funny for her trying to do something like it.

Do you think before you type?


:vlol:

Johnnay
31-05-09, 13:58
Do you think before you type?


:vlol:

yeh

i know thats not related to the subject

but im trying to create humour here. what kittypwer said make me think of slutty hilton.

you found what i wrote funny didnt you

Catapharact
31-05-09, 14:02
Johnnay... Its kinda obvious that English isn't your first language so you do have difficulty trying to convay your point across clearly. What Scoopy Loopy is trying to say to you is that the reason why your post seems funny is because it just plain simply comes across as "odd funny" rather then "Haha funny."

Johnnay
31-05-09, 14:15
Johnnay... Its kinda obvious that English isn't your first language so you do have difficulty trying to convay your point across clearly. What Scoopy Loopy is trying to say to you is that the reason why your post seems funny is because it just plain simply comes across as "odd funny" rather then "Haha funny."

oh

but english is my first language. i do not have the ability to speak Arabic or Armenian at a young age so yeah english forever:(

but yeah on topic:

i hate it when USA sometimes interferes in a countrys affairs. but i really dont mind when it comes to NK coz i stillt hink NK should stop what they're doing and if they want to use nuclear energy do it for civilan purposes like Iran in the future they would use nuclear energy because they are running short of electricity in their country. its not like they are going to make a bomb and chuck it at *Israel*. if that happened majority or even..........all living things in the world would die due to trade currents carrying nuclear air and dust and affecting other living things.

but yeah NK Should be stopped and Israel must SHUT its propaganda on Iran and get rid of its nuclear bombs, nukes and warheads. their recent miltary drill is useless for the region. they are hungry for war for Lebanon and the Lebanese people.

scoopy_loopy
31-05-09, 14:23
oh

but english is my first language.

:vlol:

This is like a sitcom. I can see French acting it out in my head now.

Mad Tony
31-05-09, 14:34
but yeah on topic:

i hate it when USA sometimes interferes in a countrys affairs. but i really dont mind when it comes to NK coz i stillt hink NK should stop what they're doing and if they want to use nuclear energy do it for civilan purposes like Iran in the future they would use nuclear energy because they are running short of electricity in their country. its not like they are going to make a bomb and chuck it at *Israel*. if that happened majority or even..........all living things in the world would die due to trade currents carrying nuclear air and dust and affecting other living things.

but yeah NK Should be stopped and Israel must SHUT its propaganda on Iran and get rid of its nuclear bombs, nukes and warheads. their recent miltary drill is useless for the region. they are hungry for war for Lebanon and the Lebanese people.Half of the that wasn't anywhere near on-topic. What have your ramblings about Israel got to do with the situation in North Korea?

Johnnay
31-05-09, 14:38
Half of the that wasn't anywhere near on-topic. What have your ramblings about Israel got to do with the situation in North Korea?

it isnt much yes but i love to write stories which come from my brain some on topic some off topic. ifeel like a political scientist like you do. your posts are very interesting and intriguing.

but israel believes iran and north korea are cooperating when it comes to nuclear technology and iran is aiding NK in nuclear research and that bloody crap. that is i have heard this in some sources


:)

Indiana Croft
31-05-09, 15:52
You think this sort of thing is anything new? It's not. There's always been tension surrounding North Korea and there's always been lots of wars being fought around the world. Always.

I don't think i gave the impression that I thought it was new. I directly referenced the cold war and the world wars. I know this stuff isn't new. I'm just amazed at how fast it escalates. I haven't been living under a rock all my life

Goose
31-05-09, 16:12
do it for civilan purposes like Iran in the future they would use nuclear energy because they are running short of electricity in their country.

They are serious providers of oil, they have more then enough to power there own country without Nuclear plants, they really have no excuse.

Mad Tony
31-05-09, 16:12
I don't think i gave the impression that I thought it was new. I directly referenced the cold war and the world wars. I know this stuff isn't new. I'm just amazed at how fast it escalates. I haven't been living under a rock all my lifeThe phrase "God it's like the world is going to hell" certainly gave me the impression that you thought that. Sorry if that wasn't what you meant.

Draco
31-05-09, 16:16
Johnnay... Its kinda obvious that English isn't your first language so you do have difficulty trying to convay your point across clearly. What Scoopy Loopy is trying to say to you is that the reason why your post seems funny is because it just plain simply comes across as "odd funny" rather then "Haha funny."

If what he has said about himself is true, I'm impressed that he is as coherent as he is.

I have an adopted cousin who has Asperger's and he is far less pleasant than johnnay boy here.

Indiana Croft
31-05-09, 16:28
The phrase "God it's like the world is going to hell" certainly gave me the impression that you thought that. Sorry if that wasn't what you meant.

sorry i should have said "God its like the world is going to hell all over again". I get wat u mean, my bad

Draco
31-05-09, 16:37
To go back, it would have had to leave in the first place.

Cochrane
31-05-09, 17:19
They are serious providers of oil, they have more then enough to power there own country without Nuclear plants, they really have no excuse.

Actually, oil is considered a finite resource. There is a lot of debate about how long it will last, but the consensus is that some day, all countries that depend on oil will be left standing in the rain. Now, Iran has lots of sun so solar power might be a better choice. Still, investing in nuclear power now, before it's way too late, does not seem like an unreasonable idea. In fact, I'd have no objection to it if I could trust Iran to not abuse nuclear power.

Of course, I can't trust Iran to not abuse it (I consider constructing weapons an abuse already, not only using them).

Edit to add:
Unfortunately that only works if everyone is pacifist which I don't think will ever happen :o There's always going to be some megalomaniacal jerk who tries to take over other countries, they defend themselves, and things escalate :(

I'd like to say (I think I say it too much): Works here. I think europe has created an atmosphere that will make any war impossible or at least highly improbably within central, west and northern europe for at least the next fifty years. In a similar manner, look at North America: Regional peace and stability is something that works without military threats against each other. Being the unreasonable optimist that I am, I see no reason why this couldn't work on a global scale – eventually.

Ward Dragon
31-05-09, 20:00
I'd like to say (I think I say it too much): Works here. I think europe has created an atmosphere that will make any war impossible or at least highly improbably within central, west and northern europe for at least the next fifty years. In a similar manner, look at North America: Regional peace and stability is something that works without military threats against each other. Being the unreasonable optimist that I am, I see no reason why this couldn't work on a global scale – eventually.

In order for it to work on a global scale, we would need a global government with the same control over every country that the US federal government has over every state. I simply cannot envision every country in the world peaceably agreeing to that. More likely the world government would have to conquer those countries by force. I don't know whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing in the long run, but it seems to defeat the purpose of being pacifist.

Draco
31-05-09, 20:23
The only possible way to peacefully unite the world under a central planetary government is to have a unified purpose that gives humans a reason to ignore the petty differentiations in ethnicity and focus on the bigger picture.

Cochrane
31-05-09, 21:56
In order for it to work on a global scale, we would need a global government with the same control over every country that the US federal government has over every state. I simply cannot envision every country in the world peaceably agreeing to that. More likely the world government would have to conquer those countries by force. I don't know whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing in the long run, but it seems to defeat the purpose of being pacifist.
It does not need that sort of control. Economic and cultural ties between the various countries and regions just need to grow deep enough, and economic imbalances need to be lessened. None of which is not a short-term goal, of course, but I think if countries are linked enough, then establishment of such a world government will come naturally, eventually. We already have the internet, linking people from vastly different backgrounds together, and I think this is only going to improve.

The only possible way to peacefully unite the world under a central planetary government is to have a unified purpose that gives humans a reason to ignore the petty differentiations in ethnicity and focus on the bigger picture.
Yeah, that would work, too. Can't be that hard, can it?

And I really don't know whether I'm cynical or optimistic when I say that.

Ward Dragon
31-05-09, 22:18
It does not need that sort of control. Economic and cultural ties between the various countries and regions just need to grow deep enough, and economic imbalances need to be lessened. None of which is not a short-term goal, of course, but I think if countries are linked enough, then establishment of such a world government will come naturally, eventually. We already have the internet, linking people from vastly different backgrounds together, and I think this is only going to improve.

Eventually can be a long time. It's my impression that as things are right now, internet access is only widely available and unrestricted in countries that are already open to forming such ties. Many countries either don't have widely available internet access (whether that's a conscious decision of the government or simply the result of poverty) or internet access is monitored and controlled by the government. The more oppressive governments will do whatever they can to maintain power, which includes silencing opposition and preventing other countries from getting involved with them.

Draco
31-05-09, 22:26
Yeah, that would work, too. Can't be that hard, can it?

And I really don't know whether I'm cynical or optimistic when I say that.

The only scenario I can come up with that leads down a peaceful unification of Earth, is typically the realm of science fiction.

Ward Dragon
31-05-09, 22:33
The only scenario I can come up with that leads down a peaceful unification of Earth, is typically the realm of science fiction.

Watchmen? :whi:

Draco
31-05-09, 22:35
Watchmen? :whi:

Pretty much any alien race will polarize the human race enough for there to be a peaceful unification. It would also spark an arms race and massively increase space technology development.

Peace on Earth means war in space.

Andariel
01-06-09, 01:15
I hope it's for their protection ONLY. If they attack any innocent nation then karma should get back to them.

LaraLuvrrr
01-06-09, 03:24
In order for it to work on a global scale, we would need a global government with the same control over every country that the US federal government has over every state. I simply cannot envision every country in the world peaceably agreeing to that. More likely the world government would have to conquer those countries by force. I don't know whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing in the long run, but it seems to defeat the purpose of being pacifist.

This sounds like a "new world order." It could bring peace or make the world ripe for an anti-christ-like dictator who can then easily control the world... Imagine having world communism. I find politics too volatile to believe the world can have a peaceful government that would last. There's always some unhappy SOB that wants to start a revolution and **** everything up.

The only possible way to peacefully unite the world under a central planetary government is to have a unified purpose that gives humans a reason to ignore the petty differentiations in ethnicity and focus on the bigger picture.

And even if we have a unified purpose I doubt it would permanently last. It's so simple for the disease of the ego to spread like wildfire. We can all be united and then the littlest thing goes wrong and spreads through media, internet, etc and before you know it conflict arises. It's sad to think that a world without egos can bring peace yet also make the world ripe for the one who is the exception who wants to make everyone his slave. Life is so paradoxical.

Ward Dragon
01-06-09, 03:27
This sounds like a "new world order." It could bring peace or make the world ripe for an anti-christ-like dictator who can then easily control the world... Imagine having world communism. I find politics too volatile to believe the world can have a peaceful government that would last. There's always some unhappy SOB that wants to start a revolution and **** everything up.

I know. I honestly don't know what a good solution would be. Some countries are ruled by horrible governments that should be stopped from an ethical standpoint, but I cannot think of a way to stop them without opening up the possibilities for even worse things to happen. It's a bloody mess.

Draco
01-06-09, 03:29
And even if we have a unified purpose I doubt it would permanently last. It's so simple for the disease of the ego to spread like wildfire. We can all be united and then the littlest thing goes wrong and spreads through media, internet, etc and before you know it conflict arises. It's sad to think that a world without egos can bring peace yet also make the world ripe for the one who is the exception who wants to make everyone his slave. Life is so paradoxical.

Well yes, there will always be those factions who strive to disrupt everything. But it is entirely feasible that the entirety of humanity can come under a common cause and put all of those egos to some real use.

dizzydoil
01-06-09, 06:35
Peace on Earth means war in space.
My new favourite quote :p.

Goose
01-06-09, 07:04
Actually, oil is considered a finite resource. There is a lot of debate about how long it will last, but the consensus is that some day, all countries that depend on oil will be left standing in the rain. Now, Iran has lots of sun so solar power might be a better choice. Still, investing in nuclear power now, before it's way too late, does not seem like an unreasonable idea. In fact, I'd have no objection to it if I could trust Iran to not abuse nuclear power.



Well oil is but they dont need to invest in Nuclear technology. Especially as they already have a nuclear power plant made by Russia, they have no excuse to create them on there own, part of what UN has been saying is to stop them building there own and allow others to use there technology to do it for them, but the fact there refusing is pretty much admitting there up to no good.

Cochrane
01-06-09, 07:41
Watchmen? :whi:

Star Trek! :D

Well oil is but they dont need to invest in Nuclear technology. Especially as they already have a nuclear power plant made by Russia, they have no excuse to create them on there own, part of what UN has been saying is to stop them building there own and allow others to use there technology to do it for them, but the fact there refusing is pretty much admitting there up to no good.

Well, if one assumes that Iran is actually harmless and not seeking weapons of mass destruction, then there are quite reasonable explanations for all this: One nuclear power plant is hardly going to last forever as energy consumption rises, while oil prices rise as well. Any solution that involves having key technology in foreign hands makes Iran suspectible to blackmail. Plus, building the technology in-house is a significant contributor to the local economy.

Of course, the problem is that Iran can't be considered harmless. I fully agree with you on that part. I'd actually like an Iran that can be blackmailed easily and officially (sorry to all Iranians out there), because I do not trust the government, now or for the foreseeable future. It is, however, hard to sell this to Iran.

Catapharact
01-06-09, 07:46
Of course, the problem is that Iran can't be considered harmless. I fully agree with you on that part. I'd actually like an Iran that can be blackmailed easily and officially (sorry to all Iranians out there), because I do not trust the government, now or for the foreseeable future. It is, however, hard to sell this to Iran.


And that is exactly the reason why the given majority support the given administration right now. Its not because of his lunitic ravings or his idiotic views of the holocaust. Its because he might be one of few given leaders that wants to see his country be a relitively independent and self-sufficient nation and this is why the western nations aren't gonna be able to win over the hearts and minds of the Iranian public.

Ward Dragon
01-06-09, 07:48
And that is exactly the reason why the given majority support the given administration right now. Its not because of his lunitic ravings or his idiotic views of the holocaust. Its because he might be one of few given leaders that wants to see his country be a relitively independent and self-sufficient nation and this is why the western nations aren't gonna be able to win over the hearts and minds of the Iranian public.

It's like a vicious cycle though -- Western nations aren't going to trust Iran until Iran's government is reasonable and doesn't threaten violence against other nations. If Iran wants to be relatively independent and trusted then they need to get a better and more trustworthy government in place.

Goose
01-06-09, 07:51
And that is exactly the reason why the given majority support the given administration right now. Its not because of his lunitic ravings or his idiotic views of the holocaust. Its because he might be one of few given leaders that wants to see his country be a relitively independent and self-sufficient nation and this is why the western nations aren't gonna be able to win over the hearts and minds of the Iranian public.

If that were true he wouldn't need to cut off avenues of media that shows Iranians presidential candidates other then himself.

Catapharact
01-06-09, 07:52
If Iran wants to be relatively independent and trusted then they need to get a better and more trustworthy government in place.

As of now, there isn't a given personality for the opposition party that has the same amount of.... charisma and conviction as ol Dinaj. Given his streak and bad habit of reversing well placed civil liberty clauses within Iran, its only a matter of time before the oppostion gains enough balls to set up a strong counter-Dinaj to Dinaj.

I personally am gonna wait this one out of another year or two.

If that were true he wouldn't need to cut off avenues of media that shows Iranians presidential candidates other then himself.

Ergo, he is a loon. What does a loon do when he feels threatened? He does loony things. See above.

Goose
01-06-09, 08:00
.
Ergo, he is a loon. What does a loon do when he feels threatened? He does loony things. See above.

Its not loony, alot of the public hate the strangle hold he has on life, and also the sanctions he attracts that only affect the public, and not him.