Support NeoGAF

[Dubbedinenglish]

The Supreme Council met after the Soviets declared war to discuss a surrender. Then the second bomb was dropped killing tens of thousands of civilians.

Unconditional surrender. Japan still wanted their holdings in mainland China and Manchuria. Them negotiating terms after being in a state of total defeat was not acceptable to end the war. Civilian losses from the bombs still pale in comparison to the famine and invasion that would've taken place if Japan was allowed to drag the war on.

Incendiary bombs did more damage than the nukes I read.

This is true, the photos from bombed out Tokyo are pretty much indistinguishable from Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The main difference was the efficiency of the nukes that shocked Japan. One bomb effective wiping a city off the map.

 

[kame-sennin]

Do you believe Invading Japan and causing hundreds of thousands more to die on both sides would have been a better idea?

Japan surrendered to the U.S. because they didn't want to be pillaged by the Red Army the way Germany was. While the atomic bomb would have been enough incentive to surrender, it wasn't for Japan because they literally didn't know what hit them.

The U.S. had already destroyed multiple Japanese cities in pretty horrific ways (like firebombing a city made of paper). Reports of another city being destroyed by U.S. bombing would not have caused the Japanese to surrender. The damage done from radiation, and the truly massive explosion would have likely shocked the Japanese government, but they had no time to survey the damage between Hiroshima and their surrender, which was only a week later. The Imperial government simply did not have the same understanding of atomic weapons that we do today. It would take some time before the full significance of the bomb was understood. Certainly more than 6 days.

The Japanese chose to surrender to the U.S. so they wouldn't have horrible war crimes perpetrated on them by the Soviets. The best way to have induced a Japanese surrender would have been drop the precondition that the Emperor step down, which the U.S. did anyway after the surrender.

 

[MadJackChurchill]

It's the US that enforces the non-nuclear proliferation treaty (which forbids SK from obtaining nuclear weapons), and it was the US that forced Japan to get rid of their army. It's America's obligation to defend these countries (not to mention in its national interests, but that's only convenient).

Fun fact, s. 13(d) of the Korean Armistice Agreement originally forbade SK from having nukes, which the US then violated by installing them in 1958.

I would say a preemptive strike would only be warranted if North Korea tried to fire a nuke at the US mainland and we were completely certain that was their plan. I do not think that's what this is. This will be a missile test for a missile that would probably struggle to reach Hawaii.

It'll be an underground nuclear test. They definitely can't reach Hawaii with a miniaturized nuke on the top. If they actually tried to fire a nuke at the YS, I'd call that we'll and truly "they started it" lol

 

[MadJackChurchill]

Double post

 

[PnCIa]

Strange coincidence that shit seems to hit fan since a certain someone was elected president of the US. Hm...

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Fun fact, s. 13(d) of the Korean Armistice Agreement originally forbade SK from having nukes, which the US then violated by installing them in 1958.



It'll be an underground nuclear test. They definitely can't reach Hawaii with a miniaturized nuke on the top. If they actually tried to fire a nuke at the YS, I'd call that we'll and truly "they started it" lol

Kinda confused about this, you mean SK have having nukes or US from placing nukes in SK that are under control by US forces?

Edit:

I agree we should cut aid to NK (and other countries with human rights abuses) but that's a discussion for another day. Sabre-rattling should still not to be tolerated.



It's the US that enforces the non-nuclear proliferation treaty (which forbids SK from obtaining nuclear weapons), and it was the US that forced Japan to get rid of their army. It's America's obligation to defend these countries (not to mention in its national interests, but that's only convenient).

o I know that US forbid Japan from having a military besides a defense force. And frankly I do support the US 100% in defending both Japan and South Korea if shot hits the fan.

I also support the US in being a police force if required. However power does lead to abuse so meh and I don't like trump being in charge of it. If it was another president perhaps I would feel better.

 

[kame-sennin]

The Supreme Council met after the Soviets declared war to discuss a surrender. Then the second bomb was dropped killing tens of thousands of civilians.

Yup. This is what being overrun by an overwhelming adversary looks like:

The operation was carried out as a classic double pincer movement over an area the size of the entire Western European theatre of World War II....

The Soviet pincer from the East crossed the Ussuri and advanced around Khanka Lake and attacked towards Suifenhe, and although Japanese defenders fought hard and provided strong resistance, the Soviets proved overwhelming.

After a week of fighting, during which time Soviet forces had penetrated deep into Manchukuo, Japan's Emperor Hirohito recorded the Gyokuon-hōsō which was broadcast on radio to the Japanese nation on 15 August 1945.

Many Japanese settlers committed mass suicide as the Soviet army approached. Mothers were forced to kill their own children before killing or being killed themselves. The Japanese army often took part in the killings of its civilians. The commander of the 5th Japanese Army, General Shimizu, commented that "each nation lives and dies by its own laws." Wounded Japanese soldiers who were incapable of moving on their own were often left to die as the army retreated.[21]

The Soviets laid claim to Japanese enterprises in the region and took valuable materials and industrial equipment.[22]

British and US reports indicate that the Soviet troops that occupied Manchuria (about 700,000) looted and terrorized the people of Mukden, and were not discouraged by Soviet authorities from "three days of rape and pillage". In Harbin, Chinese posted slogans such as "Down with Red Imperialism!" Soviet forces ignored protests from Chinese communist party leaders on the mass rape and looting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

 

[Dopus]

Yup. This is what being overrun by an overwhelming adversary looks like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

Interesting. It always seems to get parroted but it's really only an argument for the first bomb that was dropped. Certainly not the second, nevermind the Soviet declaration and the impact that had on the council.

 

[Jarmel]

Japan surrendered to the U.S. because they didn't want to be pillaged by the Red Army the way Germany was. While the atomic bomb would have been enough incentive to surrender, it wasn't for Japan because they literally didn't know what hit them.

The U.S. had already destroyed multiple Japanese cities in pretty horrific ways (like firebombing a city made of paper). Reports of another city being destroyed by U.S. bombing would not have caused the Japanese to surrender. The damage done from radiation, and the truly massive explosion would have likely shocked the Japanese government, but they had no time to survey the damage between Hiroshima and their surrender, which was only a week later. The Imperial government simply did not have the same understanding of atomic weapons that we do today. It would take some time before the full significance of the bomb was understood. Certainly more than 6 days.

The Japanese chose to surrender to the U.S. so they wouldn't have horrible war crimes perpetrated on them by the Soviets. The best way to have induced a Japanese surrender would have been drop the precondition that the Emperor step down, which the U.S. did anyway after the surrender.

I feel this is disregarding the shock and awe aspect of nukes. Yes the firebombings of Tokyo were destructive and hellish but with a nuke, Hiroshima was literally gone in a span of seconds. That level of destructive magnitude in that short of a span of time was jaw droppingly scary back then even in context of events like Dresden. The Japanese didn't need radiologists to examine Hiroshima to know that they faced literally being bombed out of existence.

Also the Japanese were still insisting on a conditional surrender and nobody on the Allies side was having any of that shit and I can't blame them. Yes the US dropped the Emperor clause from the eventual treaty but that's very different than allowing the Japanese to set that up as an initial condition.

 

[MadJackChurchill]

Kinda confused about this, you mean SK have having nukes or US from placing nukes in SK that are under control by US forces?.

No nukes were to be placed in the peninsula, which the US then stated they were not bound by. So they kicked off the legality of nukes in Korea.

 

[J-Rzez]

Yes, because dropping a nuclear bomb on Nagasaki was the only solution.

Yeesh. Not this discussion again. Anyways, it was the best option for the US. And, in a war time situation that, a true war, you don't sacrifice your resources and lives on a whim. The bloodshed on a full out invasion would have been insane to think would have been a better option.

Or perhaps you're suggesting like the one poster here before (iirc) did which was to suggest marching, lemming soldiers and civilians into Berlin handing out pamphlets to sway the German people to revolt... lol.

Anyways, sounds like China won't get involved, and they're basically telling their acquaintance "hey, we're not behind you NK, and this POTUS will not screw around."

 

[TarNaru33]

Was it any different for Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan, Syrian, Yemeni people? Sixth time's the charm!

I think the Iraqi and Afghani people are better off than how they were before. I can't speak for the Libyan and Yemen people though.

I won't include Syria, since Syria happened due to the lack of intervention.. do you think the Suunis gulf states would just cease all support of the rebels just because U.S decides to leave?

Considering deaths and suffering are already high for NK people, an intervention would probably cost less lives in the long run and they would have some way to climb to a better living standard. This is of course if we don't go nuclear war.

Blah, blah...but we have had the technology since the Carter administration.

Realistically, we have a man-child who learned that he has access to tomahawk missiles (at $1.87m each). Like a boy with a BB gun, he's going to fire it until he shoots his eye out. Sadly, each shot hits actual humans. It's really depressing. As much as I appreciate your well written post regarding the advances in missile defence, I remember Reagan's Star Wars defence system and all the bullshit that has hawkishly been spun around it.
Violence begets violence.

Reagan's Star Wars defense system was probably the only realistic way to use missile tech to counter ICBMs, but proved itself to be waaaay too expensive for something that we would never like to have to use. Laser technology is where our hope lies now.

I don't agree with the status quo going on with NK right now. Just because a war will cost more lives initially, does not mean it is inherently a bad choice, besides NK with a missile capable of reaching U.S mainland is not an option U.S will or should allow. All this is doing is kicking the can down the road.

 

[AmyS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMfmVzHZvkc

STAR WARS - Strategic Defense Initiative.

Kewl CGI graphics.

Edit:

(youtube comment)

This is the most 80s thing to ever exist

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Yeah Trump, go ahead and attack them. THEN WHAT? The hell is his after-plan? This reaks of Iraq but far, far worse.

 

[Bollocks]

does NK have oil? No, so chill people

 

[jelly]

does NK have oil? No, so chill people

Coal.

You know how much Trump likes coal.

 

[AmyS]

does NK have oil? No, so chill people

That's not going to stop them from testing another nuclear device (would be their 6th).

 

[FreedomFighter]

US being so belligerent lately. What the hell.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Totalitarian regimes threatening liberal democracies with nuclear weapons is absolutely a problem.

1. USA is not a liberal democracy, rather a plutocracy.
2. USA has made so many illegal bombings for the last 25 years that they completely lost moral high ground.
3. Trump (and so the USA) is more of a danger to the world than any other country right now.

I agree tho that we need to discuss with NK to stop their nuclear program.

 

[lastplayed]

Coal.

You know how much Trump likes coal.

Is it clean though?

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Interesting. It always seems to get parroted but it's really only an argument for the first bomb that was dropped. Certainly not the second, nevermind the Soviet declaration and the impact that had on the council.

The bombs are directly in line with war of attrition tactics.

It's not clean, nor morally defensible. It just was.

 

[Officerrob]

does NK have oil? No, so chill people

Are we pretending like that matters to Trump?

 

[The Chosen One]

I feel like whatever happens, NK attacks the US or US attacks NK after nuclear test, Trump's approval rating will go up.

He probably knows this too.

Actually if you look at the Gallup Daily tracker ever since the Syrian airstrikes, Trump's approval rating has been completely flat. Barely a bump up or down.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

I'm guessing he gained a few establishment Republicans and hawk-ish Dems but he also lost support from the isolationist segment of his base and those bothered by his extreme flip-flops. It's probably why the needle has barely moved on his approval numbers.

If he does do an attack on Worst Korea, you can guarantee he will lose a significant segment of his base who are nationalist and want him to focus on domestic issues and not start WWIII. While the establishment, the media, and political class have been mostly in favor of some action in Syria. Almost no one wants any kind of military action on NK. Even saber rattling with military action carries huge risks. There is no good outcome if we do a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, there will most certainly be a counter-attack which will result in Best Korea losing a lot of innocent lives. No way Trump's approval ratings go up if we do any kind of military action there. He'll quickly plummet to the low 20s.

I'm guessing Trump liked all the good press he got over the Syrian airstrike, so he thinks tossing missiles at a nuclear power will improve his approval rating ten-fold!

 

[FreedomFighter]

I think the Iraqi and Afghani people are better off than how they were before.

You should speak to some Iraqi refugees. And consider the ones who came here were FRIENDLY to the US. They'll tell you something a little different. I interned at a refugee resettlement agency in graduate school and it really impacted my view in geopolitics today. They had the most heartbreaking stories. This one guy was 19, and his dad worked as an interpreter for US forces and really put their family in danger, so they had to get out of there. But they did not feel like Iraq was better off now. Not hardly.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

does NK have oil? No, so chill people

NK does have natural resources. Why do think it has happened to be a nation?

 

[Milly Osworth]

If the nukes start dropping this is fitting music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS-gbqbVd8c

 

[Maztorre]

NK will never stop working on nuclear deterrence. In their view it is their only defence against having Libya/Iraq-style regime change imposed upon them. From this perspective the constant posturing and creating the perception of a volatile state is advantageous to NK's leadership maintaining their existence.

There is no short-term or military-based solution to North Korea without the high risk of massive casualties to South Koreans or Japanese. The only viable solution will involve China convincing the NK leadership to move towards more humanitarian reforms over the long term, as usual using aid as a bribe.

 

[wesleyshark]

does NK have oil? No, so chill people

No, oil is a major import to them. They do have other resources, though.

 

[Irishmantis]

OP I can't take readingthat abasulte World threatening serious statement with your avatar in my view lol

 

[kingkaiser]

If the nukes start dropping this is fitting music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS-gbqbVd8c

I see your and raise you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8WEaGSSd58

 

[maquiladora]

This is absolute bullshit.

There is no way that the US is going to launch an attack on a nuclear state putting the lives of tens of thousands of US forces and citizens in the region at risk - all because North Korea will conduct a sixth nuclear test. There is no imminent risk here that would require such an insanely dangerous move.

This is a leak to NBC by some idiot in the Trump WH trying to put pressure on North Korea.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

No nukes were to be placed in the peninsula, which the US then stated they were not bound by. So they kicked off the legality of nukes in Korea.

Gotcha, regardless I would like to believe North Korea would still chase after nukes nonetheless. But hey what do I know really

 

[TarNaru33]

You should speak to some Iraqi refugees. And consider the ones who came here were FRIENDLY to the US. They'll tell you something a little different. I interned at a refugee resettlement agency in graduate school and it really impacted my view in geopolitics today. They had the most heartbreaking stories. This one guy was 19, and his dad worked as an interpreter for US forces and really put their family in danger, so they had to get out of there. But they did not feel like Iraq was better off now. Not hardly.

Unfortunately, interventions not done right cause a lot more pain than is necessary, the occupation of Iraq is one such of a failed occupation in which U.S was never planning on occupying the country in the first place also done while U.S was already in Afghanistan.

There are going to be plenty of people that will be thrown under the bus when such things like this happen, so of course I will easily find refugees and regular Iraqis who will say "things were better before". Hell you can find people saying things like that in U.S.

I still believe Iraq is better off than previously, if they can get their country together, it will be even quicker. Unfortunately these countries have too strong of a conservative mind, so I fully expect progress to be slow. I am pretty biased against dictatorships though, many do nothing to try to lead their country forward, I think a democracy would be best fit for progress there.

The issues with interpreters for example are a domestic issue, unfortunately at a time of right-wing control of the country. I will be right with anyone saying U.S should accept more refugees and any interpreter (and their family) that worked with U.S easily earns the right to immediately migrate here.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Yup. This is what being overrun by an overwhelming adversary looks like:







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

And this is what an amphibious attack by the Soviets across 10 km of open water with complete strategic suprise looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shumshu

The Battle of Shumshu was the only battle between the Soviets and Japanese in August–September 1945 in which Soviet casualties exceeded those of the Japanese. The Soviets suffered 1,567 casualties – 516 killed or missing and another 1,051 wounded – and the loss of five landing ships, while Japanese casualties totaled 1,018 – 256 killed and another 762 wounded.[10] Soviet officers later often said that the operation demonstrated the difficulty of amphibious invasions of enemy territory and Soviet shortfalls and inexperience in amphibious warfare, and cited the Soviet experience on Shumshu as a reason for not invading the island of Hokkaido in the Japanese Home Islands.

The Soviets were not going to launch a successful opposed invasion of Japan in 1945 or even 1946.

 

[TarNaru33]

And this is what an amphibious attack by the Soviets across 10 km of open water with complete strategic suprise looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shumshu



The Soviets were not going to launch a successful opposed invasion of Japan in 1945 or even 1946.

This is a good point... as much as people say Japan feared a Soviet invasion more than the atomic bombs that were dropped, did the Soviets even have the capability to invade mainland Japan?

The only nation at the time that I think could even pull that off would be U.S and Britain as they had the largest and best navies at the time.

 

[brochiller]

1. USA is not a liberal democracy, rather a plutocracy.
2. USA has made so many illegal bombings for the last 25 years that they completely lost moral high ground.
3. Trump (and so the USA) is more of a danger to the world than any other country right now.

I agree tho that we need to discuss with NK to stop their nuclear program.

That's the problem. They have no interest in discussing anything.

 

[wesleyshark]

1. USA is not a liberal democracy, rather a plutocracy.
2. USA has made so many illegal bombings for the last 25 years that they completely lost moral high ground.
3. Trump (and so the USA) is more of a danger to the world than any other country right now.

I agree tho that we need to discuss with NK to stop their nuclear program.

How can we discuss anything with a leader who has no interest in discussing any such thing? Kim is a madman.

 

[ClosingADoor]

1. USA is not a liberal democracy, rather a plutocracy.
2. USA has made so many illegal bombings for the last 25 years that they completely lost moral high ground.
3. Trump (and so the USA) is more of a danger to the world than any other country right now.

I agree tho that we need to discuss with NK to stop their nuclear program.

Why would North Korea talk about these things? Their aim is to get nukes and put them on missiles that can hit the US, so they can threaten them. Previous administrations have all tried to deal with it. They all failed. And so will this one.

 

[Wensih]

We should have all known something would happen on Friday (today). It's the MO of the government now. Have them fuck up everyone's nice weekend while they're away golfing.

 

[pa22word]

You know it's kind of absurd that the communist propaganda mao and stalin spewed to talk shit and indoctrinate their people to love the red army being in Chinese territory is being taken as historical fact to some people in this thread.


As pointed out multiple times in this thread, Stalin was not going to invade Japan. It was both logistically impossible and the invasion pact made between him and Roosevelt at Yalta specifically spelled out the route of the red armies path and the soviets gains in the east Asia theatre. Hint: it was all in manchuria plus a pacific route through the sakhalin island chains. Stalin wasn't going to invade Japan even if he had to hitch a ride on American transport ships because he wanted to split the country in half for his efforts, which Roosevelt refused. Hell the only reason Roosevelt got stalin involved in the first place was because chaing kai-shek was on his knees and the US didn't think they could sustain an invasion without tying down okamura and The kwantung army group on the mainland. And yet stil, despite this stalin still waited until literally the last possible moment he could have to actually invade manchuria.

The bomb, and only the bomb ended the war in the year 1945. Otherwise we have operation downfall and millions more dead, with conservative estimates putting the war at least a year and half more fighting.

 

[iMax]

Nice to know our tax dollars have been well spent

Not as bad as the UK though, whose weapons defence systems run Windows XP...

 

[Xando]

Interesting:

AFP: Chinese state broadcaster says Air China flights between Beijing and North Korean capital Pyongyang will be suspended from Monday

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/852860864944275456

 

[NyMartin90]

Interesting:


https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/852860864944275456

Maybe China has finally reached their point to put Kim in line.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

Yes, because dropping a nuclear bomb on Nagasaki was the only solution.

Let's not start this shit again, please. It always turns into the same stupid arguments.

As for NK, that is one of the few countries that I think would be crazy enough to use a bomb and not give a shit about the consequences. They are probably one of the last countries that should have access to them because of that. So I am perfectly ok with some severe Saber rattling if it gets them to rethink their position.

 

[kmfdmpig]

we downplay our missile defense capabilities because why would you goad Russia? if they think there is a nuclear capability inequality they will only work harder at building better weapons. So its probably better than completely useless. But by how much, who knows?

The tests and then the success rates are also not really that applicable to real world situations.
On the negative side many argue that the tests are overly simple with less effective decoys, no MIRVs, etc... Those won't be an issue with North Korea though as they don't have either of those.
On the positive side in a real world situation it wouldn't be that we shot one interceptor and crossed our fingers that it would hit. We'd fire several which would dramatically improve the chances of success.

It's true that with many modern ICBMs fired we'd be screwed, but I think they'd be able to intercept 1 or a few NK ICBMs, and actually wonder if that might be the next point of escalation rather than an attack. The US and Japan have threatened to intercept missile tests, which NK has said would be treated as an act of war, but they say that about many things, so who knows how they would react. I think that NK has done a good job of convincing many that they're an irrational actor, but for the most part they act as a rational actor and I don't think they'll be in a rush to have a full-fledged war with SK, Japan, and the US particularly if they believe China no longer has their back.

That article about missile defense focuses on the ground based missiles, but the Naval based ones (SM-3) are more effective and more of a focus now:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm

 

[KingBroly]

Maybe China has finally reached their point to put Kim in line.

It's been starting to boil over for a few months. Un killing his own brother was the straw that broke the camel's back for China.

 

[ironcreed]

US being so belligerent lately. What the hell.

This might explain it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZuZShxJq8M

 

[SuperBanana]

A war between NK and the US won't be a war. The US could obliterate the country in an hour. Literally. NK are actually very very weak. However, the issue is what will happen after. South Korea won't want to annex the North. So who will? Who will help the 60 million refugees that are sick and starving? Who will take on the gigantic cost of rebuilding a country? Will America take North Koreans fleeing the country? Will they send aid to help rebuild? They're quite to strike but happy to leave a refugee crisis 3 times the size of Syria. South Korea and China would have no chance of helping all of them and China wouldn't hesitate to let the majority die if it meant hurting their own country by letting them all in.

Attacking North Korea would be like bombing a dam. Ok, you destroyed it. Good job. Now have you thought about the water that's going to flood the village afterwards?

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Will America take North Koreans fleeing the country? Will they send aid to help rebuild?

Under Trump, what do you think?

 

[MadJackChurchill]

Interesting:


https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/852860864944275456

New wave of economic sanctions probably rolling in. No foreign flights to Pyongyang.

A war between NK and the US won't be a war. The US could obliterate the country in an hour. Literally. NK are actually very very weak. However, the issue is what will happen after. South Korea won't want to annex the North. So who will? Who will help the 60 million refugees that are sick and starving? Who will take on the gigantic cost of rebuilding a country? Will America take North Koreans fleeing the country? Will they send aid to help rebuild? They're quite to strike but happy to leave a refugee crisis 3 times the size of Syria. South Korea and China would have no chance of helping all of them and China wouldn't hesitate to let the majority die if it meant hurting their own country by letting them all in.

Attacking North Korea would be like bombing a dam. Ok, you destroyed it. Good job. Now have you thought about the water that's going to flood the village afterwards?

Where did you get the number 60 million from? The country's only got 24-25 million people in it. Further, if America couldn't beat Northern Vietnamese farmers with some rusty rifles, how does it intend to fight the 4th largest army in the world with significantly more knowledge of their home terrain?