A Comment On The Anniversary Of The Worst Act Of Terrorism In Human History
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
what ur utopian self is filled with a cattleman says smells like money
Trying to convince us that the US committed war crimes by destroying the military industries of the enemy during WW2 is being utopian? How so? It's certainly revisionist, but I'm failing to see where that intersects with any utopian philosophy.
I would add James Bradley's "Flyboys". I'm about halfway through the book and the extent, depth of the Japanese brutality described is sickening.
Medic, of all the people on this board you are my favorite. Granted, sometimes you get a little carried away with your insults of Sys, but usually you are quite funny and enjoyable to read. I agree with your far more often than not. But this time we'll just have to disagree. We just see things differently. Let me be clear, I am in no way defending the actions of the Japanese army. The war against them was justified (if war could ever be justified). We won, and that was a good thing. My argument throughout this whole discussion has always been that dropping the atom bombs were unnecessary, had almost no impact on the final outcome of the war, and were heinous actions by a President that took those actions against the advice of his generals. Japan was beaten. It was blockaded. It couldn't get material into or out of its ports. The USA was in a relentless bombing campaign of cities across the country. It sued for peace. It asked for one condition. The USA refused that condition, and proceeded to anihilate over one million people just because Truman knew he could. Japan surrendered and Truman gave them the condition they had asked for. The bombing of those cities, IMO, was nothing other than a war crime. The "revisionist history" was promulgated by the government, justifying its actions in a most callous and untruthful manner. As the article points out the "worst case scenario" if list American lived was thought to be 46K, not the 500K the government told the American public. Even if the bombing of Hiroshima was justified, there was no need to follow it up with Nagasaki 3 days later or Tokyo two weeks after that. There, I've said my piece. I give the rest of you the last word.
No final word necessary sir. I respect your opinion even though I disagree. I disagree with the assessment that an invasion would only have killed 46,000 US soldiers. We can speculate now, but there's no way to put it in the perspective of the time with our post war knowledge.
The atomic bombs and additional bombings were to ensure victory under our terms. If we really want to be honest, the atomic bombs were probably more about the Soviet declaration of war and invasion than they were about the inevitable victory. It sent a message to our ally in the war but ideological enemy outside of it. A finishing blow to show the next opponent how hard we could punch so to speak. War is hell like that.
The last question I posed was only about my curiosity about how you see your views on the subject as utopian.
I will add that I took exception to the implication that acceptance of the atomic bombs as necessary during WW2 somehow marries us to the same view in these modern times. If that wasn't your intention, my bad sir. If it was, well, you couldn't be farther from reality in regards to me.
WTF? So...my rural water board? It's a criminal enterprise. Huh. This little town? My state? (maybe you got me on that one.) Come on -- you're biting off on some inaccurate and wildly over-generalized narratives.
You make some good points about the war. It's a good reminder why we shouldn't go in lightly and why we should stay out of wars. The bit about the 5 year old is good stuff, too. You're wrong as hell on this and "they" had it coming, but you make some good points. I'm not saying you're a nut or featherbrain for saying we shouldn't have dropped the nukes. Maybe we have some blame, but Japan has about x100 times the blame imo. They all but begged for it.
The prevailing opinion at the time was that since the Emperor was considered a deity unless he voluntarily stepped aside that the people would fight to defend him by any method possible.
It was totally unacceptable to everyone particularly the Chinese and Filipinos allies that the Emperor could not be allowed to remain even a figurehead.
I question your 1 million number, are you talking about all civilian deaths or deaths from atomic bombs. The numbers I have found are 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki.
I'm sorry considering something like 60 million people total perished in WW II I don't find those numbers particularly shocking in order to get unconditional surrender of Japan.
It was totally unacceptable to everyone particularly the Chinese and Filipinos allies that the Emperor could not be allowed to remain even a figurehead.
I question your 1 million number, are you talking about all civilian deaths or deaths from atomic bombs. The numbers I have found are 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki.
I'm sorry considering something like 60 million people total perished in WW II I don't find those numbers particularly shocking in order to get unconditional surrender of Japan.
You are exactly right. I misread the numbers of the Tokyo fire bombing. It was an estimated 100,000 killed and 1,000,000 left homeless after over 250,000 homes were completely destroyed. Maybe those are numbers you can live with?
Medic, my "utopian" remarks were meant as a gentle joke at JD's tweaking me for being utopian.
Oh, one last thing, Medic. The 46K figure was the assessment at the time, not some revisionist's claim. The government buried that number and told the American public the bombings were necessary to save 500K lives. Considering the American public still buys the government justification, it strikes me as completely unnecessary for it to have lied. Yet it lied anyway. Makes me wonder what else it lied (and continues to) lie about.
Right on, I read that wrong.
I also meant to compliment you earlier. I'm glad you started posting here. I like how you challenge the status quo traditional thinking. I like how you even challenge your own. These days I often wonder why I read and post here. In the grand scheme of productivity, this board is time wasted on the surface. Without trying to sound lame, I keep coming back to read the thoughts of others so I don't find myself in my own vacuum. I like having myown thoughts and beliefs challenged as well. Your threads and posts are always a priority to read sir. I thank you for the time you take to share your readings and thoughts. Challenging my own political thoughts is something I only started taking the time to do in 2008 or so. Thank you for routinely taking me out of my own comfort zone.
I'm fairly certain that list could keep us busy reading for the next 50 years. The heart of it is the corruption the two party system encourages and even demands. Probably roughly half of the voters in this country are always willing to look the other way for team politics.
I admire that you make no bones about being a utopian anarchistic.
IMO, it is misguided, but I do admire you owning it.
Live with? What the hell? I abhor war but I believe the bombs expedited the unconditional surrender of the Japanese and right or wrong it was the only conclusion acceptable to the countries at war with Japan.
For whatever reason, every year this gets brought up - everyone is silent on the Japanese (and German) atomic weapons programs. Every major power at the time was doing research - the United States had a number of advantages that other nations didn't have (local sources of uranium; R&D and production facilities outside of the war zone; help from the British program and German exiles, etc) and was just the first to field a workable bomb....barely. They actually built a containment vessel (named Jumbo) to detonate the test bomb inside - in case the bomb did not work (which was feared), the hope was that the vessel would contain the plutonium so that it could be recycled for another test bomb....there wasn't enough available at the time.
Anyway, while us terrorist Americans were working in the New Mexico desert, those wacky Germans were shipping the poor Imperial Japanese a submarine full of uranium (probably just for glow in the dark watches).
Here's something of interest from the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-bomb-20150805-story.html
"If we'd built the bomb first, of course we would have used it."
Anyway, while us terrorist Americans were working in the New Mexico desert, those wacky Germans were shipping the poor Imperial Japanese a submarine full of uranium (probably just for glow in the dark watches).
Here's something of interest from the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-bomb-20150805-story.html
"If we'd built the bomb first, of course we would have used it."
ghost mountain boys is another excellent book on the battle for new guinea
japanese soldiers using Americans for bayonet practice...
there's no discussion here
Amazon product ASIN 0307335976
japanese soldiers using Americans for bayonet practice...
there's no discussion here
Amazon product ASIN 0307335976
I'll make two points here relevant to the conversation.
1. Back in the early 90's I attended a Pearl Harbor Day celebration in Baton Rouge, LA to photograph the event. After much of it was over, I approached a group of men who had either: been at Pearl Harbor, were taken POW by the Japanese, or who served in the Pacific and they were kind of open about their experience.
I never will forget what some of them had to say, especially one man who had been tasked with liberating those allied troops held in the various POW camps upon the surrender by the Japanese. His best friend since childhood had been taken prisoner in the Philippines at the beginning of the war and every place he went, he took his buddy's photo and asked all the survivors if they knew him or recognized his picture.
He told us about how he finally reached on prison camp, in what was likely in Thailand/Vietnam/Burma/Cambodia region and started asking around. He said that in one corner, he got a response and he walked over to ask the guy if he knew the name or the guy in the photo. He said the guy just sat there looking at him..... and he was starting to get perturbed as he thought the guy was holding back.... then the guy just looked at him and said "Jim, don't you recognize me?" (name made up as I can't recall the gentleman's name) He started crying at that point relaying the story and talked about how his friend who was about 25 yrs old, had no teeth, weighed around 125 lbs, was completely wrinkled and had lost of all his hair due to various bug infestations and infections. He said his friend looked closer to 75 than 25.
BTW, my sister-in-law had an older brother who she never met, he was likewise taken prisoner in the Philippines. While being held in a Japanese Prison Camp he was water-boarded to death, as he drowned from inhaling too much water into his lungs.
2. Historical "what ifs" - I'm sure most of you know that the term "Kamikaze" means "Divine Wind." The term first came up during the Mongol Empire, when Kubla Khan attempted to invade Japan twice about 5-6 yrs apart.
Khan's navy/army was virtually destroyed when their ships transporting the army/horses and supplies were hit by a typhoon in the Sea of Japan. The second time, it was after Khan's "learned counsel" had advised him that typhoons of that size and strength in the Sea of Japan at that time of year were virtually unheard of and that there was no way it would happen twice in such a short span of time. The Japanese took these results as being the interjection of Divine Intervention, thus the "Divine Winds" were actually those of the two typhoons that destroyed their enemy at the gate and spared their island.
The US/Allied plan for invading Japan, in the absence of a surrender by Japan, was to amass a D-Day type invasion force in Korea/China. Then to invade a number of places on the western shores of Japan coming from the opposite direction the Japanese had prepared their forces to fight (the Pacific side of the Island.)
The date had been drawn up and they were readying final preparations to invade when the surrender happened. On the day the original plan was scheduled one of the largest typhoons in history hit the Sea of Japan. The allied troops may have very well met the same fate and set-back that Kubla Khan's forces had suffered centuries before.
1. Back in the early 90's I attended a Pearl Harbor Day celebration in Baton Rouge, LA to photograph the event. After much of it was over, I approached a group of men who had either: been at Pearl Harbor, were taken POW by the Japanese, or who served in the Pacific and they were kind of open about their experience.
I never will forget what some of them had to say, especially one man who had been tasked with liberating those allied troops held in the various POW camps upon the surrender by the Japanese. His best friend since childhood had been taken prisoner in the Philippines at the beginning of the war and every place he went, he took his buddy's photo and asked all the survivors if they knew him or recognized his picture.
He told us about how he finally reached on prison camp, in what was likely in Thailand/Vietnam/Burma/Cambodia region and started asking around. He said that in one corner, he got a response and he walked over to ask the guy if he knew the name or the guy in the photo. He said the guy just sat there looking at him..... and he was starting to get perturbed as he thought the guy was holding back.... then the guy just looked at him and said "Jim, don't you recognize me?" (name made up as I can't recall the gentleman's name) He started crying at that point relaying the story and talked about how his friend who was about 25 yrs old, had no teeth, weighed around 125 lbs, was completely wrinkled and had lost of all his hair due to various bug infestations and infections. He said his friend looked closer to 75 than 25.
BTW, my sister-in-law had an older brother who she never met, he was likewise taken prisoner in the Philippines. While being held in a Japanese Prison Camp he was water-boarded to death, as he drowned from inhaling too much water into his lungs.
2. Historical "what ifs" - I'm sure most of you know that the term "Kamikaze" means "Divine Wind." The term first came up during the Mongol Empire, when Kubla Khan attempted to invade Japan twice about 5-6 yrs apart.
Khan's navy/army was virtually destroyed when their ships transporting the army/horses and supplies were hit by a typhoon in the Sea of Japan. The second time, it was after Khan's "learned counsel" had advised him that typhoons of that size and strength in the Sea of Japan at that time of year were virtually unheard of and that there was no way it would happen twice in such a short span of time. The Japanese took these results as being the interjection of Divine Intervention, thus the "Divine Winds" were actually those of the two typhoons that destroyed their enemy at the gate and spared their island.
The US/Allied plan for invading Japan, in the absence of a surrender by Japan, was to amass a D-Day type invasion force in Korea/China. Then to invade a number of places on the western shores of Japan coming from the opposite direction the Japanese had prepared their forces to fight (the Pacific side of the Island.)
The date had been drawn up and they were readying final preparations to invade when the surrender happened. On the day the original plan was scheduled one of the largest typhoons in history hit the Sea of Japan. The allied troops may have very well met the same fate and set-back that Kubla Khan's forces had suffered centuries before.
To steal ol' crime fighter Rahm's line, never let an opportunity pass to shovel a load of Pollyanna twat-rot into the gullets of the lemmings crying:
I'll sum up my feelings/thoughts on the topic like this:
The dropping of the A-Bombs on Japan were probably the worst thing that could have happened.
Just behind all of the other reasonable and available options of the time. I've always been convinced that the number of dead/wounded would have been significantly higher for the Japanese Civilians as well as the Allies if there were no surrender and an invasion/blockade became necessary with the war dragging on for potentially years more.
The dropping of the A-Bombs on Japan were probably the worst thing that could have happened.
Just behind all of the other reasonable and available options of the time. I've always been convinced that the number of dead/wounded would have been significantly higher for the Japanese Civilians as well as the Allies if there were no surrender and an invasion/blockade became necessary with the war dragging on for potentially years more.
I imagine it would have ended up with our troops rolling into utter devastation and suffering (if the conventional bombing raids would have continued long term) and/or facing a "fight to the last man/house-to-house/urban warfare" that would have been like invading Iraq with all the sides opposing us.
Also, it would have probably ended with Japan divided between Soviet "North Japan" and a US/UK/Australia "South Japan". No telling how brutal a Soviet invasion of Japan would have been.
And finally, as bad as the civilian deaths from the two bombs were - the destruction brought about by them probably did more to convince the rest of the world to use them only as a weapon of last resort than anything.
I see both sides of this.
My take is that it goes beyond quickly ending the war and saving lives.
We developed a weapon that needed to be demonstrated and it needed to be demonstrated that we were willing to do whatever was necessary.
I hope that never happens again, anywhere.
It was a terrible thing, but it was necessary.
I don't know about the fire bombing afterwards, and one could argue against the second bomb, but I find it hard to argue use of the first one.
My take is that it goes beyond quickly ending the war and saving lives.
We developed a weapon that needed to be demonstrated and it needed to be demonstrated that we were willing to do whatever was necessary.
I hope that never happens again, anywhere.
It was a terrible thing, but it was necessary.
I don't know about the fire bombing afterwards, and one could argue against the second bomb, but I find it hard to argue use of the first one.
Can not ignore that Stalin was in the process of entering the Pacific at the time. How would history be different if the war had gone on for a few months longer and Russia had entered the Pacific.
Okinawa is why the bombs had to be dropped.
"... because the Japanese on Okinawa ... were so fierce in their defense (even when cut off, and without supplies), and because casualties were so appalling, many American strategists looked for an alternative means to subdue mainland Japan, other than a direct invasion. This means presented itself, with the advent of atomic bombs, which worked admirably in convincing the Japanese to sue for peace [unconditionally], without American casualties."
We lost 20,000 in that battle alone, how were we going to lose only 46,000 in a full invasion of Japan? Some even argue that the bombs saved many more Japanese lives. Lives not just from us killing them but from mass suicide of the brainwashed masses.
The 2 A bombs only killed around 200,000 people. In Okinawa the Japanese lost 100,000 plus 100,000-200,000 civilians.
"... because the Japanese on Okinawa ... were so fierce in their defense (even when cut off, and without supplies), and because casualties were so appalling, many American strategists looked for an alternative means to subdue mainland Japan, other than a direct invasion. This means presented itself, with the advent of atomic bombs, which worked admirably in convincing the Japanese to sue for peace [unconditionally], without American casualties."
We lost 20,000 in that battle alone, how were we going to lose only 46,000 in a full invasion of Japan? Some even argue that the bombs saved many more Japanese lives. Lives not just from us killing them but from mass suicide of the brainwashed masses.
The 2 A bombs only killed around 200,000 people. In Okinawa the Japanese lost 100,000 plus 100,000-200,000 civilians.
Interesting article in The Atlantic from December 1946.
Did the atomic bomb bring about the end of the war? That it would do so was the calculated gamble and hope of Mr. Stimson, General Marshall, and their associates. The facts are these. On July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Ultimatum called on Japan to surrender unconditionally. On July 29 Premier Suzuki issued a statement, purportedly at a cabinet press conference, scorning as unworthy of official notice the surrender ultimatum, and emphasizing the increasing rate of Japanese aircraft production. Eight days later, on August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; the second was dropped on August 9 on Nagasaki; on the following day, August 10, Japan declared its intention to surrender, and on August 14 accepted the Potsdam terms.
On the basis of these facts, I cannot believe that, without the atomic bomb, the surrender would have come without a great deal more of costly struggle and bloodshed.
Exactly what role the atomic bomb played will always allow some scope for conjecture. A survey has shown that it did not have much immediate effect on the common people far from the two bombed cities; they knew little or nothing of it. The even more disastrous conventional bombing of Tokyo and other cities had not brought the people into the mood to surrender.
The evidence points to a combination of factors. (1) Some of the more informed and intelligent elements in Japanese official circles realized that they were fighting a losing battle and that complete destruction lay ahead if the war continued. These elements, however, were not powerful enough to sway the situation against the dominating Army organization, backed by the profiteering
industrialists, the peasants, and the ignorant masses. (2) The atomic bomb introduced a dramatic new element into the situation, which strengthened the hands of those who sought peace and provided a face-saving argument for those who had hitherto advocated continued war. (3) When the second atomic bomb was dropped, it became clear that this was not an isolated weapon, but that there were others to follow. With dread prospect of a deluge of these terrible bombs and no possibility of preventing them, the argument for surrender was made convincing. This I believe to be the true picture of the effect of the atomic bomb in bringing the war to a sudden end, with Japan's unconditional surrender.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/
Did the atomic bomb bring about the end of the war? That it would do so was the calculated gamble and hope of Mr. Stimson, General Marshall, and their associates. The facts are these. On July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Ultimatum called on Japan to surrender unconditionally. On July 29 Premier Suzuki issued a statement, purportedly at a cabinet press conference, scorning as unworthy of official notice the surrender ultimatum, and emphasizing the increasing rate of Japanese aircraft production. Eight days later, on August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; the second was dropped on August 9 on Nagasaki; on the following day, August 10, Japan declared its intention to surrender, and on August 14 accepted the Potsdam terms.
On the basis of these facts, I cannot believe that, without the atomic bomb, the surrender would have come without a great deal more of costly struggle and bloodshed.
Exactly what role the atomic bomb played will always allow some scope for conjecture. A survey has shown that it did not have much immediate effect on the common people far from the two bombed cities; they knew little or nothing of it. The even more disastrous conventional bombing of Tokyo and other cities had not brought the people into the mood to surrender.
The evidence points to a combination of factors. (1) Some of the more informed and intelligent elements in Japanese official circles realized that they were fighting a losing battle and that complete destruction lay ahead if the war continued. These elements, however, were not powerful enough to sway the situation against the dominating Army organization, backed by the profiteering
industrialists, the peasants, and the ignorant masses. (2) The atomic bomb introduced a dramatic new element into the situation, which strengthened the hands of those who sought peace and provided a face-saving argument for those who had hitherto advocated continued war. (3) When the second atomic bomb was dropped, it became clear that this was not an isolated weapon, but that there were others to follow. With dread prospect of a deluge of these terrible bombs and no possibility of preventing them, the argument for surrender was made convincing. This I believe to be the true picture of the effect of the atomic bomb in bringing the war to a sudden end, with Japan's unconditional surrender.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/
My dad fought in the Phillipines and had gone thru parachute training and a briefing on the invasion of mainland Japan. In the briefing at the end someone asked what the evacuation plans were, they were told don't you worry son if you survive we will find a way to get you home. They were all assumed to be killed.
My dad said they were told every man, women, and child would fight to the death. They said you will have grandma's that will have broom sticks sharpened to a spear trying to spear them as they parachute down. They were told they needed to be prepared to literally kill anyone or anything that advanced towards them and that included kids.
He said he was having nightmares of the invasion, and he said it was not a question if he would die but how many could he kill before he died.
I posted previously around Dday some of the things that happened in the Philippines, both sides broke the Geneva convention, the US version of the war we get is sanitized.
It is real simple, kill or be killed. Japan deceitfully and intentionally attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, they started it. The Japanese were ruthless, the US offered to demonstrate one of the bombs to Japan but they felt no way could such a weapon exist. I could tell you some of the atrocities my dad witnessed on that island.
US damn sure did the right thing dropping that bomb, it would have taken MILLIONS of US lives to overtake Japan, look at how many lives we lost just taking simple Hills, Cliffs, and Mountains. This would have been House to house extermination, they would have never surrendered if you understood the kamikaze pilot and the fact they would slice their own gut at that time for being disgraced. Only way they surrender is thru death or being faced with complete anniliation. Anyone today that does not understand this knows jack about that war and is living in fantasy land.
The other thing dropping that bomb did was demonstrate how powerful it was and the need for permanent peace. Thank god the US got it before Japan or Germany did, they would have carpet bombed people with it if needed.
Last edited:
I'm just throwing this out as a hypothetical and an opposing view, please don't think this has been well thought out or researched.
Japan is one of our greatest Allies now even after we bombed the $hit out of them. I'm not sure how much of it is they are just the most forgiving people on earth or that they were under the thumb of the Emperor and as absolutely horrendous the bomb was and killed many innocent lives I wonder if some of their forgiveness came from the fact that they are no longer under the Emperors thumb. I think you could probably make the argument that without the bombing our relationship wouldn't be near what it is, the number of lives lost would be similar and they'd be a thorn in our side currently. You could even stretch it a bit further and say this is good reason for bombing North Korea. Take a step back but two steps forward.
Japan is one of our greatest Allies now even after we bombed the $hit out of them. I'm not sure how much of it is they are just the most forgiving people on earth or that they were under the thumb of the Emperor and as absolutely horrendous the bomb was and killed many innocent lives I wonder if some of their forgiveness came from the fact that they are no longer under the Emperors thumb. I think you could probably make the argument that without the bombing our relationship wouldn't be near what it is, the number of lives lost would be similar and they'd be a thorn in our side currently. You could even stretch it a bit further and say this is good reason for bombing North Korea. Take a step back but two steps forward.
Emperor Hirohito was seen as divine by the Japanese people, they thought he was god like. Japanese culture means obeying, they were loyal to the Emperor in a loving way, he did not have to oppress his people to have their love and support.
The Emperor was never seen by the Japanese people, that kept him more divine like. For Japan to lose the war exposed the Emperor to the Japanese people and the realization he was not a divine being and was fallible.
The Japanese were fanatical in their support of their Emperor, the Japanese would have died for him, and they did as evidenced by the kamikaze pilots and how fiercely they fought, the German people on the other hand did not like Hitler so much they would willingly die for him. The Germans and Japanese military were motivated for different reasons. Japanese because of their feelings for their Emperor and their country were much more fierce fighters than the Germans.
Japan figured out that we were not a conquering nation that intended to steal their country and its wealth and to make them our subjects, we rebuilt their infrastructure and in some instances it was newer and better than our own, this is what allowed Japan to become an industrial giant and rival Detroit in automobiles in the 70's. They had to know they were lucky we did not treat them as a conquered nation after they bombed Pearl Harbor and started the war, of course many of them probably learned the facts of Pearl Harbor after the war.
My wife has a relative that was on ground zero of the Hiroshima Bomb just days after it went off to take pictures and evaluate the damage for our Military. I have seen these pictures and heard his first hand account. He lived past 80, he spent many days there, radiation evidently did not shorten his life, he was lucky.
Last edited:
Also, faced with watching the utter destruction of Germany by May of 45, why did they continue to fight knowing without cessation of hostilities they would suffer a similar fate.
As the poster above said (with a great article from 46) they didn't intend to surrender until after the second bomb.
As the poster above said (with a great article from 46) they didn't intend to surrender until after the second bomb.
Like I said, wasnt really thought out or researched, just spit ballingYou seem to know a bit more on it so I submit to your expertise
You raise an interesting question, and not to dodge the question, but I think we all we need to be fully briefed on what is at stake to make that call? I think the risk evaluation in WWII was spot on.
I think the big bomb is the very last option but I am ok with it being on table, but if we know beyond a doubt N. Korea will at some point nuke us, I personally would prefer to attack first, if not then why have them? I understand the deterrent option, but taxpayers paid for them to save US lives. The question I have would have, could tactical nukes take out their ballistic missiles and nuclear abilities, I would prefer baby nukes first. I think you would use this opportunity to unite North and South Korea and to have a democratic government.
I also want a President in the office that is not afraid to use a nuclear weapon, if you do not have that, you have no real deterrent effect of having the weapons IMO.
What got us here was Bill Clinton's agreement with NK that looks very similar to what we have done with Iran, we have been weak and afraid of doing what was needed to keep nukes out of the hands of evil people, we have been extremely naïve. So, we are down to poor choices. Strike first and eliminate their capability and have to clean up the mess, or wait until millions of Americans die so we can retaliate with a "good" conscience and wipe them out?
If we wait and get hit first, every American will be pissed we did not strike first, they will not admit it today, but it is the truth. Some will yell optics, ethics, etc...over a first strike, but that is playing politics. We have every right to defend ourselves, if the leader of NK is crazier than Hitler (and he might be), I would rather take them out early, then wait until we have been severely damaged as a nation and perhaps lose our economic and military leadership position on earth because we have been severely damaged as a nation. Think about what this country might look like if LA, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, etc...all get nuked. Yeah, we can wipe them out, but it will take decades for the US to recover.
Maybe the US, Russia, and China, can ban together and find elements within NK that want this guy and his military/government removed and make it happen.
Last edited:
OP seems a little too flippant for my taste with the lives of American fathers, sons, brothers, sisters, wives, daughters....
my grandad served our country in the 45th division
22 years ago i was in a grad school
politics of death and dying class with
dr alfred killilea at university rhode island.
we had this very conversation as this
puerto rican dude made a presentation on how the US firebombing of dresden was a terrorist act.
i never enjoyed pummeling someone in a classroom debate more than this guy
this whole subject matter is symptamatic of this countries obama led path towards vaginaville
these folks want to hug til somebody gets hurt
22 years ago i was in a grad school
politics of death and dying class with
dr alfred killilea at university rhode island.
we had this very conversation as this
puerto rican dude made a presentation on how the US firebombing of dresden was a terrorist act.
i never enjoyed pummeling someone in a classroom debate more than this guy
this whole subject matter is symptamatic of this countries obama led path towards vaginaville
these folks want to hug til somebody gets hurt
