Sources: North Korea test-fires missile

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

A far away planet. At least he is consistent in his stupidity.

Huh... 2 jerks in the same thread. And I'm pretty sure 'he' is a she... stupid.

[peter12]

I want to know why the US retaliation for the surprise attack at Pearl Harbour is sick?

Funny how a thread about a crazed megalomaniac with nuclear weapons turns into an American bashing thread.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I want to know why the US retaliation for the surprise attack at Pearl Harbour is sick?

I think the (obvious) intimation is that, despite the Pearl Harbour attack, dropping atomic bombs (years later) on major Japanese cities is considered by some as very, very unnecessary, especially when considering the devestation and death caused by the blanket fire-bombing campaigns (which killed far more people that the a-bombs).

Funny how a thread about a crazed megalomaniac with nuclear weapons turns into an American bashing thread.

Because world events and the United States are two separate topics? The US is intimately tied into the North Korean situation. The US is the chief topic of discussion for nearly every political conversation... again, for pretty obvious reasons.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

If the only reason why N.Korea attained nuclear weapons was to **** off the Western World, why does the U.S. have so damn many of them - far more than the rest of the world multiplied by 100. Was it to **** off the rest of the planet? Well, I guess it worked, because they sure are mad.

I'm sure you don't want to let facts get in the way of anything, but this site, for one, would tend to disagree with you (looks fairly reputable):

USA---------------------------10,656 weapons

Russia-------------------------10,000 weapons

China----------------400
France---------------350
India-----------------60+
Israel----------------200+
Pakistan--------------24+
United Kingdom-------185
Non-"superpowers" total---------1,219 weapons

Yeah....you're right....they have 100 times (!) the arsenal of the rest of the world combined!!! Oh...I don't suppose their huge number of weapons had anything to do with trying to outdo their cold war enemy eh? Nahhhh...I'm sure they were just trying to **** everyone off by showing off.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Wow... thats a real jerkish thing to say in the middle of a normal debate. Have some respect for other posters, even if their point of view doesn't exactly match yours. Its common courtesy, helps keep this board a nice place for everyone.

Look at Peter's post. Maybe I shouldn't have been so rude, but seriously.

[Azure]

Why does any state proliferate arms? A state is going to have to seriously consider occupying N.Korea now because the risk of nuclear warfare is at hand. It is strategically the smartest thing N.Korea can do. At this exact moment, there is no one particular state that is threatening their sovereignty, but why would a state wait until a state is a direct threat, when it is far too late to do anything?

You do realize that NK is at least 5-10 years away from having the capability of starting a nuclear war? Iraq, also at one time was on the verge of making a nuclear warhead, maybe you should read history and find out what happened to them.

NK is only doing this for one purpose; it has nothing to do with defending themselves, because no one in their right mind would attack NK, seeing that they're China's puppet.

But hey, if you want to defend NK, and state that has defied international law, which specifically banned them from firing a long-range missile, and allow them to have nuclear weapons so that the Western World is in even more danger, go right ahead.

Are you stupid? If you think that there is no "don't mess with us or we'll nuke you" attitude in this world, you should probably pick up a newspaper. Hell, turn on CNN. One of the only reasons Israel is still surviving amoungst Arab states is because of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons is a HUGE deterrant of warfare.

Israel has a very powerful military, what does nuclear weapons have to do with anything? Last time I checked, the Arab states were still high on their anti-semitism, like you, plus some of the Palestinians have been firing missiles at Israel for years now.

If you think it's sick that N.Korea has missles that could potential hit the west coast, you are completely naive to what lies directly beneath the 49th parallel. I am surprised that some idiot American hasn't accidentally nuked all of Canada by pushing a button at one of the silos directly below us. Now thats sick. The fact that we are so close to the U.S. is sick. The way the U.S. retalliated against Japan for Pearl Harbour is sick.

Why is it sick that the US retalliated after approx. 3,000 of their own people where killed?

I think it is funny how you quote international law to defend the U.S. that repeatedly disregards international law without a blink of an eye. The U.S. administration's foreign policies are the reason why N.Korea has made this decision, instead of blaming N.Korea for reacting to the threat of the Americans, maybe you should be questioning why they need those weapons in the first place.

When has the US broken international law by firing a long range missile into the sea 500 miles from the shore of another nation?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Look at Peter's post. Maybe I shouldn't have been so rude, but seriously.

Fair enough. I actually agree with points in that post. I firmly believe that North Korea IS developing these weapons for defensive purposes; the defense of Kim Jung's regime. I think that possession of nuclear weapons would be a _huge_ deterrant to potential intervention/invasion. Is North Korea right or 'good' to make these weapons? I have no idea. What I do 'know' is that they are not readying their nuclear arsenal in an attempt to take over the world or 'strike first'. Kim is probably desperately afraid of being removed externally, and this is the best bet to prevent that.

I'm also of the opinion that, unless World War III broke out, Canadian soldiers would not be engaged in offensive operations against North Korea. We just don't seem to have the jam anymore to do these activities. A few fighter planes and frigates? Maybe... but boots on the ground? It would have to be a pretty strange scenario to see Canadian combat soldiers in N. Korea in the 21st century.

I don't think his post was that stupid.

[Azure]

I think the (obvious) intimation is that, despite the Pearl Harbour attack, dropping atomic bombs (years later) on major Japanese cities is considered by some as very, very unnecessary, especially when considering the devestation and death caused by the blanket fire-bombing campaigns (which killed far more people that the a-bombs).

I don't think that Pearl Harbour had any direct influence on dropping the A-bomb. Truman dropped the bomb because he felt he could save more lives dropping the A-Bomb, then he could by physically attacking Japan with the military.

Since the A-Bomb was dropped, we will never know how many lives could have been saved. Or how many lives were taken in vain.

Because world events and the United States are two separate topics? The US is intimately tied into the North Korean situation. The US is the chief topic of discussion for nearly every political conversation... again, for pretty obvious reasons.

Last time I checked, the US was helping the UN draft a resolution, seeking to resolve the situation throughout international means. Too bad some people have no problem with a maniac test firing missiles at Japan.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

NK is only doing this for one purpose; it has nothing to do with defending themselves, because no one in their right mind would attack NK, seeing that they're China's puppet.

Sorry, what is the purpose? You believe that they are creating these weapons for an imminent and certain nuclear first-strike agains the Western world? If US officials really believed that, don't you think they'd have just levelled any/all sites suspected of holding nukes?

I don't think the US regime is afraid that North Korea will attack 'unprovoked'. It seems obvious that the development of these weapons is to scare the **** out of any state that contemplated intervening there and removing the Jung regime.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Fair enough. I actually agree with points in that post. I firmly believe that North Korea IS developing these weapons for defensive purposes; the defense of Kim Jung's regime. I think that possession of nuclear weapons would be a _huge_ deterrant to potential intervention/invasion. Is North Korea right or 'good' to make these weapons? I have no idea. What I do 'know' is that they are not readying their nuclear arsenal in an attempt to take over the world or 'strike first'. Kim is probably desperately afraid of being removed externally, and this is the best bet to prevent that.

I'm also of the opinion that, unless World War III broke out, Canadian soldiers would not be engaged in offensive operations against North Korea. We just don't seem to have the jam anymore to do these activities. A few fighter planes and frigates? Maybe... but boots on the ground? It would have to be a pretty strange scenario to see Canadian combat soldiers in N. Korea in the 21st century.

I don't think his post was that stupid.

I guess the best way to defend your regime is to break international law and get the UN in an uproar over what you're doing, right?

If the UN lauched a land war against NK, which I doubt will happen, I'm pretty sure Canada, under Harper would be involved.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sorry, what is the purpose? You believe that they are creating these weapons for an imminent and certain nuclear first-strike agains the Western world? If US officials really believed that, don't you think they'd have just levelled any/all sites suspected of holding nukes?

I don't think the US regime is afraid that North Korea will attack 'unprovoked'. It seems obvious that the development of these weapons is to scare the **** out of any state that contemplated intervening there and removing the Jung regime.

See post below. I could see NK building up its military, or even developing missile technology, in order to defend themselves.

But I really feel that they are just doing it to gain attention.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think that Pearl Harbour had any direct influence on dropping the A-bomb. Truman dropped the bomb because he felt he could save more lives dropping the A-Bomb, then he could by physically attacking Japan with the military.

Since the A-Bomb was dropped, we will never know how many lives could have been saved. Or how many lives were taken in vain.

Well, given that Japan was beyond shattered at that point by fire-bombing, I think its a stretch to imagine that 10's of 1000's of US soldiers would lose their lives 'Normandy-ing' Japan. Japan wasn't on the ropes at that point, they'd been knocked out of the ring.

Many people theorize that it was just to show the USSR that they had it, and that they'd use it, and not to 'defeat the Japanese Empire'; it was already 98% there.

Last time I checked, the US was helping the UN draft a resolution, seeking to resolve the situation throughout international means. Too bad some people have no problem with a maniac test firing missiles at Japan.

Right. The US is heavily involved in the situation. Thats why when we talk about events of world-wide import, the US 'always' gets brought up. They are an integral part of the fabric of international relations.

[Azure]

Funny how the situation has gone with NK. Here's a writeup from a different forum.

Reasonable Person: "We should bomb Kim Jong Il. He's a homicidal maniac."
Bedwetter: "What? No! He's only oppressing his own people; he doesn't present a threat to anyone else, and who are we to get involved in his country's internal affairs?"

(A year passes)
RP: "We should bomb Kim Jong Il. He's a homicidal maniac, and he's working on nuclear weapons."
BW: "What? No! There's no evidence he intends to use them against anyone else, and besides, he doesn't have a delivery system. We should engage him in multilateral talks and give diplomacy a chance to work."

(A year passes)
RP: We should bomb Kim Jong Il. He's a homicidal maniac, and he's working on nuclear weapons and a guided missile delivery system."
BW: "What? No! There's no evidence he intends to use them against anyone else, and besides, his missiles can't possibly reach the U.S. We should engage him in multilateral talks and give diplomacy a chance to work."

(A year passes)
RP: We should bomb Kim Jong Il. He's a homicidal maniac, and he's working on nuclear weapons and a guided missile delivery system that could reach the U.S."
BW: "What? No! His missile tests have failed! We should engage him in multilateral talks and give diplomacy a chance to work."

(A year passes)
RP: We should bomb Kim Jong Il. He's a homicidal maniac, and he now has nuclear weapons and a guided missile delivery system that could reach the U.S."
BW: "What? No! We can't launch a pre-emptive attack on an unstable country run by a madman who has nuclear weapons!"

(A year passes)
RP: We should bomb Kim Jong Il. He just dropped a nuke on BW."
BW:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...0&postcount=64

[Azure]

Well, given that Japan was beyond shattered at that point by fire-bombing, I think its a stretch to imagine that 10's of 1000's of US soldiers would lose their lives 'Normandy-ing' Japan. Japan wasn't on the ropes at that point, they'd been knocked out of the ring.

And there were reports that Japan was willing to fight to its last person. Like I said, we really don't know which course of action would have saved more lives. On a moral sense, yes I agree that dropping the A-Bomb was wrong simply because of the radioactive fallout, but the guys would built the A-Bomb didn't know it would happen like that.

Many people theorize that it was just to show the USSR that they had it, and that they'd use it, and not to 'defeat the Japanese Empire'; it was already 98% there.

I agree 100% about "show the USSR." I really can't say if the Japanese Empire was already 98% defeated at that point though.

Right. The US is heavily involved in the situation. Thats why when we talk about events of world-wide import, the US 'always' gets brought up. They are an integral part of the fabric of international relations.

And rightfully so, given that they are the worlds true superpower.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

And there were reports that Japan was willing to fight to its last person. Like I said, we really don't know which course of action would have saved more lives. On a moral sense, yes I agree that dropping the A-Bomb was wrong simply because of the radioactive fallout, but the guys would built the A-Bomb didn't know it would happen like that.

Yeah, you're right, no one knows for sure what would have happened. We do know what was happening though;

"The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23–24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (~2.56 km²) of the city. Following on that success 334 B-29s took off from the Mariana Islands on the night of March 9–10 heading for Tokyo. After 2 hours of bombardment the wooden city of Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. These fires were so hot they would literally ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. What was particularly horrifying was a lot of the women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like igniting a wick on a candle to start consuming the flame. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devasting single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city was destroyed in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26."

Brutally devestating compared to mere atomic weapons. The above section only describes only a few of the firebombings, though the US did this over nearly every major city on the island. Not saying right or wrong, but I am willing to speculate that use of atomic weapons was completely unnecessary, given that firebombing technically destroyed more area, and killed more people.

I agree 100% about "show the USSR."

I suppose you have to ask what price is appropriate to 'demonstrate' these weapons and US convictions in using them. Apparently the appropriate price is 10's of 1000's of Japanese civilians dead. History has largely exonerated the US for this, so I don't see the major issue, other than the Japanese probably have a right to be a little miffed about it, just as the US does for PHarbour.

And rightfully so, given that they are the worlds true superpower.

Exactly. My original point that you responded to was reasoning 'why are we always talking about the US'. Thats why.

I really can't say if the Japanese Empire was already 98% defeated at that point though.

Well... it was. There was no chance they were going to recover in any way militarily. It was a matter of time (and not much). Its equivalent to the allies fighting into Germany... sure Germany was still fighting, but it was clearly only an issue of when Germany would fall, not if.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Funny how the situation has gone with NK. Here's a writeup from a different forum.



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...0&postcount=64

Well... wouldn't the bedwetter be the United States? Aren't these the same things the US has basically been saying; diplomacy > intervention right now? Or is it just the world's current political climate that prevents the US for intervening? I haven't read or heard that Bush advocated military intervention, only to be denied by... who?

What does it say when the 'bedwetters' are getting their way? How effective (or right) is the (so-called) reasonable person? It sounds like they're not getting what they want... obviously they're not in the same position of power that the bedwetters are, like the US Administration. Of course, these labels sort of automatically remove any interest in this post, given that its pretty clearly massively slanted. Remove the derogatory labels and its a lot more effective.

[Azure]

Brutally devestating compared to mere atomic weapons. The above section only describes only a few of the firebombings, though the US did this over nearly every major city on the island. Not saying right or wrong, but I am willing to speculate that use of atomic weapons was completely unnecessary, given that firebombing technically destroyed more area, and killed more people.

But you really can't tell which course of action would have saved more lives. I see your point though, yet you also contradict yourself. Had the US "not" dropped the A-Bomb, surely these sorts of firebombings would have continued and even more innocent civilians would have died. And God knows how long that would have lasted.

So in a sense, dropping the A-Bomb may have saved lives on both sides.

I suppose you have to ask what price is appropriate to 'demonstrate' these weapons and US convictions in using them. Apparently the appropriate price is 10's of 1000's of Japanese civilians dead. History has largely exonerated the US for this, so I don't see the major issue, other than the Japanese probably have a right to be a little miffed about it, just as the US does for PHarbour.

They don't seen so miffed about it today, as Japan and the US are staunch allies.

Plus, I think history has given us a lesson, and had the A-Bomb not been dropped on Japan, either the US or the Soviet Union would have dropped it on the opposing country, simply because it was unknown what kind of damage it would do.

Exactly. My original point that you responded to was reasoning 'why are we always talking about the US'. Thats why.

I never made the original point, but I understand what you mean.

Well... it was. There was no chance they were going to recover in any way militarily. It was a matter of time (and not much). Its equivalent to the allies fighting into Germany... sure Germany was still fighting, but it was clearly only an issue of when Germany would fall, not if.

Germany was a completely different situation. Hitler did not have the military intellect that Japan had, neither did he possess any knowledge about economics. Sure, he may have reconstructed Germany and created a powerful nation, but he also screwed up their military plans, forcing some Nazi leaders to try and assassinate him.

Once the US entered the war, it was inevitable that Germany was going to fall.

[peter12]

Not to mention the fact that he declared war on the USA.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... wouldn't the bedwetter be the United States? Aren't these the same things the US has basically been saying; diplomacy > intervention right now? Or is it just the world's current political climate that prevents the US for intervening? I haven't read or heard that Bush advocated military intervention, only to be denied by... who?

What does it say when the 'bedwetters' are getting their way? How effective (or right) is the (so-called) reasonable person? It sounds like they're not getting what they want... obviously they're not in the same position of power that the bedwetters are, like the US Administration. Of course, these labels sort of automatically remove any interest in this post, given that its pretty clearly massively slanted. Remove the derogatory labels and its a lot more effective.

The bedwetter would be anyone you make it out to be, but yes, in specifics, it would apply to the US and Bush, considering he has called for a diplomatic resolve to the situation.

I don't think diplomacy will work anymore, Il has clearly shown he will defy the international community over and over again, and there is no reason why he should obey the demands from the UN this time around.

I think the political climate right now, plus the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan has a LOT to do with why NK isn't being dealt with properly. Frankly I'm scared that a nation like NK will be allowed to retain nuclear weapons, and even possibly have the power to use them.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

But you really can't tell which course of action would have saved more lives. I see your point though, yet you also contradict yourself. Had the US "not" dropped the A-Bomb, surely these sorts of firebombings would have continued and even more innocent civilians would have died. And God knows how long that would have lasted.

Well... I'm certainly not advocating the fire-bombing campaign, but from what I've read/heard, Japan was basically destroyed by fire before the a-bomb's were dropped. In "Fog of War" they go over the statistics of lives lost in major Japanese cities due to firebombing - beyond staggering. #'s like over 50% were common for city death-rates (according to Robert MacNamarra).

They don't seen so miffed about it today, as Japan and the US are staunch allies.

I actually think there are millions of Japanese who are still 'miffed' about it. But they're the LOSERS, so they don't have a right to complain. They're not friends with the US by choice, they're friends with the US because the US constructed their current political/economic systems... and they're working great, no need to complain. That said, Japanese xenophobia is still fairly rampant, and it doesn't exclude Americans.

Plus, I think history has given us a lesson, and had the A-Bomb not been dropped on Japan, either the US or the Soviet Union would have dropped it on the opposing country, simply because it was unknown what kind of damage it would do.

Well, as much as I (apparently) can't say that the a-bomb wasn't necessary, you can't say that 'the US or the Soviet Union would have dropped it on the opposing country'. Neither happened, so we can't know. All I know is the sorry state of affairs Japan was in pre-bomb.

I never made the original point, but I understand what you mean.

Yeah, but for whatever reason you kept responding to it. I think I was commenting on someone else' post and you jumped in.

Germany was a completely different situation. Hitler did not have the military intellect that Japan had, neither did he possess any knowledge about economics. Sure, he may have reconstructed Germany and created a powerful nation, but he also screwed up their military plans, forcing some Nazi leaders to try and assassinate him.

Once the US entered the war, it was inevitable that Germany was going to fall.

This is all inconsequential. Germany was NOT defeated upon the entry of the US into the war. While we now believe, in hindsight, that the allies always had the upper-hand (long-term), at the time it was a toss up. People didn't 'know' in 1942 that Hitler was going to be defeated, not by a longshot. Hell, I dont' think the world 'knew' it was over even after Normandy, it was a pitched battle in Europe.

My point was that, at the time of the bomb, Japan was finished. I don't really believe the arguments that 'they could have kept fighting for months'. They could... but only with their fists and feet... everything else was on fire.