Happy Birthday Kim!

[Boston Rockbury]

Just wanted to beat the rush and be the first one to put out a big happy birthday to Kim Il Sung.

[DigitalBuddha]

Just wanted to beat the rush and be the first one to put out a big happy birthday to Kim Il Sung.

Seriously? Dude, I hope this extreme undude, murderer and vicious dictator is rotting in hell.

See..............

Statistics Of North Korean Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources - http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP10.HTM

This is his legacy...



Kill tally: About three million killed in the Korean War. Between 600,000 and one million North Koreans needlessly starved to death due to the economic legacy of Kim's regime. (Some reports claim that as many as three million starved.) - http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/kim-il-sung.html

[Boston Rockbury]

It's tough, but maybe a few people have to suffer so they can pay for the nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles they clearly need to defend themselves.

[DigitalBuddha]

It's tough, but maybe a few people have to suffer so they can pay for the nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles they clearly need to defend themselves.

You believe a murderous vicious dictatorship brutalizing it's people, a country run by a family of worthless thugs should be defended, and its a good idea for them to posses and threaten the world with a nuclear attack? You believe that their people should suffer for that? Are you serious?

[rev-jaholbrook]

Maybe this is sarcasm?  I really hope any how.

[DigitalBuddha]

Maybe this is sarcasm?  I really hope any how.

Fuckin' eh, lets hope.

[Boston Rockbury]

It's tough, but maybe a few people have to suffer so they can pay for the nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles they clearly need to defend themselves.

You believe a murderous vicious dictatorship brutalizing it's people, a country run by a family of worthless thugs should be defended, and its a good idea for them to posses and threaten the world with a nuclear attack? You believe that their people should suffer for that? Are you serious?

That's a pretty strong argument dude. Not sure how to respond to that.

I worry about some of our allies; Had a friend who lived in saudi Arabia, who said it was real oppressive, especially to chicks. I think it's run by a family firm too, bit like North Corea. they use torture a fair bit apparently. I don't think it's very democratic and i saw somewhere that they fund something which was called something like 'Wahabi' Islam (might have got that name wrong). But anyhow it's the extreme, terrorist, alkida type of islam. Anyhow there are US bases there and they get a lot of political support from us. The Korean leaders do seem to be on a different planet and a whole bunch of dudes suffer as a result, but shit, look at some of the crazy regimes we're propping up man!

[meekon5]

Also we should not be blind to our own governments abuses.

Not saying Korea or anywhere else is right.

We have people on the streets (homeless), governments that listen to everything that we say on line and by phone, and the UK is one of the most CCTV covered countries in Europe.

People here were actually surprised when they found out the politicians were having their moats cleaned on tax payers money.

Just because we don't see our governments "disappearing" people doesn't mean they are not doing it.

I've heard it would take a fraction of what is spent by the first world on armaments (don't shout about other countries nuclear weapons whilst standing in front of our own stockpiles) to cure the world food crisis.

Sooner the machines take over the better.

[Caesar dude]

And always remember....or never forget....the ONLY country ever to have used the ultimate weapon, was.....


The Good Old USA!

Peace?

[DigitalBuddha]

And always remember....or never forget....the ONLY country ever to have used the ultimate weapon, was.....


The Good Old USA!

Peace?

True, but what was the alternative?

[Boston Rockbury]

And always remember....or never forget....the ONLY country ever to have used the ultimate weapon, was.....


The Good Old USA!

Peace?

True, but what was the alternative?

I guess the alternative was to finish the war with 'conventional' warfare.

I started this thread in the 'oh Jesus what's that smell' lane to make it clear that i was being ironic about Kim but at the same time there is a serious point that we tend to demonise regimes when it suits our government to do so and support ones which are seriously dodgy at the same time. The CIA has actively supported groups that could easily be considered terrorists when they feel the US is 'threatened by democratically elected left-wing governments in Central America.

At the same time we support China! and give them 'most favoured nation status' in spite of it being a hugely oppressive, totalitarian, authoritarian, one-party state. Undemocratic, internet filtering, torturing, Tibet-occupying China is handed the Olympics for fuck sake. All the shit is conveniently played down. then we dump our hate on some tin-pot piece of crap like North Korea. It's too neat and it's bullshit.

[Caesar dude]

There were several alternatives:

I won't list them as I sure you are aware of them....all would have cost lives.. some more than the nuke option and some perhaps less.

There could also have  an option to drop a nuke on a far less populated city or province or island...which could have shown the force and the technology...

However!

When ever the west decides to talk about a WMD's it has to remember that the only country ever to use them was the USA. And just in case you want to use Iraq's mustard gas against the Kurds...(WMD wasn't coined in those days) and it was limited action....I'm not condoning it of course! Far from it.

All through my service in the 80's and 90's we were totally expecting proper WMD action from the Eastern Blok....nerve agent blister agent and biological weapons were totally expected...didn't occur to us that either side would balk from using them. They were just a part of each others armoury and we trained to protect ourselves accordingly!

In the summer in Germany at 30C + I could pour a a litre of sweat out of my respirator after an hour. I the winter a -20C and below...you couldn't get me to take the fucking thing off in those biting Siberian winds.

The reason we never went to war wasn't because of Hiroshima or Nagasaki...it was simply that even the big dicks knew it would be the end of us all! We could all fight a war with Biological and chemical agents and survive...but oh the horror that would have unleashed! and for how long?

I still have my S10 respirator and a couple of sealed cannisters...in case you guys in the States need em any time soon!


Peace for sure!

[DigitalBuddha]

There were several alternatives:

I won't list them as I sure you are aware of them....all would have cost lives.. some more than the nuke option and some perhaps less.

There could also have  an option to drop a nuke on a far less populated city or province or island...which could have shown the force and the technology...

However!

When ever the west decides to talk about a WMD's it has to remember that the only country ever to use them was the USA. And just in case you want to use Iraq's mustard gas against the Kurds...(WMD wasn't coined in those days) and it was limited action....I'm not condoning it of course! Far from it.

All through my service in the 80's and 90's we were totally expecting proper WMD action from the Eastern Blok....nerve agent blister agent and biological weapons were totally expected...didn't occur to us that either side would balk from using them. They were just a part of each others armoury and we trained to protect ourselves accordingly!

In the summer in Germany at 30C + I could pour a a litre of sweat out of my respirator after an hour. I the winter a -20C and below...you couldn't get me to take the fucking thing off in those biting Siberian winds.

The reason we never went to war wasn't because of Hiroshima or Nagasaki...it was simply that even the big dicks knew it would be the end of us all! We could all fight a war with Biological and chemical agents and survive...but oh the horror that would have unleashed! and for how long?

I still have my S10 respirator and a couple of sealed cannisters...in case you guys in the States need em any time soon!


Peace for sure!

Here are the arguments against these points..........

re; There could also have  an option to drop a nuke on a far less populated city or province or island...which could have shown the force and the technology...

re; "I guess the alternative was to finish the war with 'conventional' warfare."

We couldn't take the chance at dropping the few (actually two at the time) bombs we had as a "demonstration" risking sending a message to the Japanese that we didn't have the balls to use it on them directly. You could argue that the Japanese didn't know we only had a couple, but they would have figured out we can build more, but again, maybe we didn't have the nerve to use them on the mainland of Japan. A mere demonstration was unlikely to convince the fanatical war lords in Japan that we would use it on them.

At that time, Russia was not at war with Japan, and had not declared war on Japan. It was believed that Russia, who knew we were developing the bomb, might have informed Japan that the US was building one. Nazi Germany, at that time, was known to have sent information on bomb building and even some small amounts of heavy water and possibly small amounts of U238 to Japan. That is to say that the nazis and Japan could have been working on a usable bomb and planned to use it on us with the aid of nazi aircraft or missile such as the feared Japanese "V3" rumored to be in development in Japan based on the nazi V2 technology. Germany was out of the war and defeated, BUT Japan could have continued the development after Germany and built a bomb, or a dirty bomb to use on Britain or the US.

Also, it was strongly believed that Russia would soon build a bomb and the US believed it had to also demonstrate to the communists that we had the will to use one, even on them if they turned on us, which they more or less did right after the war; the cold war.

Additionally; even low estimates of deaths due to having to evade the Japanese mainland were set at a minimum of one million, which included Americans, British, Russians, Canadians, and Japanese. Japan at that time was far from beat and still very capable of war and resistance. Russia was hinting that they were going to declare war on Japan, but no guarantees.

One thing I would like to add here, and this is NOT intended to be a shot at Britain or the British people (which are my ancestors), but it must be noted that yes, 35,000 people lost their lives in one day in Hiroshima, but Britain killed 100,000 in the fire bombing of Dresden in one night. Thousands of innocent human beings were burned to death including women and children. What is the difference between dying by nuclear bomb in Japan or incendiary bomb used on the Germans? Britain did what it had to do to survive, the US did what it had to do. There is no difference. Both were the evils of war, and what is forced on a country trying to survive.

Who killed the Germans in Dresden? The nazis. Who killed the Japanese in Hiroshima? The Japanese war lords. Both brought death and destruction on their own people.

In reality, one million estimated lives were saved by using the bomb to force Japan to surrender. Otherwise no doubt Japan would have fought on for at least another estimated one to two years in one hell of a battle.

[Caesar dude]

We couldn't take the chance at dropping the few (actually two at the time) bombs we had as a "demonstration" risking sending a message to the Japanese that we didn't have the balls to use it on them directly.

Not too sure about that argument! I think the total destruction of one of the many islands would have sent a clear and direct message!

Especially as you're bombers were already taking out Japanese Cities at the rate of 20 per month using standard bombing techniques (already perfected by the RAF and may it be said USAAF crews over Germany!) *

Although USAAF bombing was far more effective as the Japanese air defence were holding their fighters in reserve in case of invasion.) this bombing was so effective that it succeeded in killing more than 100,000 people in Tokyo in two nights of bombing...9/10 March 1945 and caused more death and destruction than either of the nukes. It goes down in history as the most people killed in a single action and the deadliest raid of all time with more than 16sqm of Tokyo laid waste!

*Did you cite Dresden? 

Ok well!  The death toll was no where near as I high as you stated...somewhere between 25 to 50 thousand. and just for context...something like 700 RAF Bombers were used...oh and 500 USAAF bombers... (couldn't have done it without yah lads!)

Plus at that time...we were only just turning the tide of Germany...early 1945 we needed to ensure that they couldn't regroup in any way so we could make it easier for troops on the ground to continue their advancement.

You had already kicked the Japs into the back of next week ....the Nukes were just flex for everyone else! It seems to have worked though!

[DigitalBuddha]

We couldn't take the chance at dropping the few (actually two at the time) bombs we had as a "demonstration" risking sending a message to the Japanese that we didn't have the balls to use it on them directly.

Not too sure about that argument! I think the total destruction of one of the many islands would have sent a clear and direct message!

Especially as you're bombers were already taking out Japanese Cities at the rate of 20 per month using standard bombing techniques (already perfected by the RAF and may it be said USAAF crews over Germany!) *

Although USAAF bombing was far more effective as the Japanese air defence were holding their fighters in reserve in case of invasion.) this bombing was so effective that it succeeded in killing more than 100,000 people in Tokyo in two nights of bombing...9/10 March 1945 and caused more death and destruction than either of the nukes. It goes down in history as the most people killed in a single action and the deadliest raid of all time with more than 16sqm of Tokyo laid waste!

*Did you cite Dresden? 

Ok well!  The death toll was no where near as I high as you stated...somewhere between 25 to 50 thousand. and just for context...something like 700 RAF Bombers were used...oh and 500 USAAF bombers... (couldn't have done it without yah lads!)

Plus at that time...we were only just turning the tide of Germany...early 1945 we needed to ensure that they couldn't regroup in any way so we could make it easier for troops on the ground to continue their advancement.

You had already kicked the Japs into the back of next week ....the Nukes were just flex for everyone else! It seems to have worked though!

re; "Not too sure about that argument! I think the total destruction of one of the many islands would have sent a clear and direct message!"

You just proved my point, no one was "sure;" so the bomb had to be used in the surest way possible; that was a direct strike on mainland Japan. Anything less was less likely to succeed in ending the war, so it was used in the most effective way possible...unfortunately. Let's face it, war is hell, there is no nice war. It all sucks and is stupid. We have yet to grow up and end war. Maybe we will some day. I hope so.