North Korea claims to have conducted hydrogen bomb test

[nik-]

I added more actually, but it's apparent I shouldn't have wasted my time. You're the one lashing out and going off on non related rants. Perhaps you should take your own advice. I mean look at your previous post.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West...disambiguation)

USA RUSSIA = west.

WE = west.

West is not just a direction.

Your logic is faulty, if USA and Russia = west then we arnt in the west. More realistically 'we' have no influence what so ever on the U.S. and Russia.

There is nothing anyone outside of these countries and very little anyone in them can do to influence any of this.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Great comparison. Terrorists and police. BRILLIANT. Nothing at all is lost when comparing North Korea vs Americas right to nukes, and the police and terrorists rights to weapons. Wow. You must be a Harvard grad.

We are the police, they are the terrorists. I can feel my chakras lining up and my mind expanding just by speaking with you fellows. This is enlightening. Nik- believes he knows exactly what reality is, who is living in reality and who isn't. (Quite the ability.)

Wimbledon believes western world doesn't include Canada.

And you are here comparing terrorists and policemen...to wether or not nations should be allowed to have something that we have, and we are not showing any interest in getting rid of.

If I had my own country crumpystan, I wouldn't be trying to get nukes, I'd be advocating for disarmament. However if I noticed nobody was taking disarmament seriously, not least the nations with the nukes already - I would say OK well the dudes who have the nukes are perfectly content keeping them with no interest in destroying their weapons. Also who chooses which nation is terrorist or police? Their background, race, religion? the UN. Haha.

So why have a double standard. Who gave you the moral high ground to decide who is police and who is terrorist in the world of politics.. OK so you believe Iran and NK are terrorist and shouldn't have WMD. So who should? Please answer that. Give me a list of 10 nations who should have nukes, or the police for the sake of your analogy.

There is only one country that has used an atomic bomb on people. Hint: It's not Pakistan.

You are so pro establishment and so indoctrinated you wouldn't know a terrorist unless he was screaming Allahu Akbar.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

So can you think of any nations that do that? Or is it just bearded idiots running about in the Middle East.

It's funny I read a newspaper in France describe anders brevik the Norway killer as someone who used terrorist like tactics. ???? The man was a terrorist he killed 77 Norwegian kids on an island because he hated Islam. How is it that we label one person a terrorist and not the other. As if terrorist means one specific very small thing.

Hiroshima Nagasaki is literally the best example of terrorism in the history of the world.

I pray for your brains.

Wut.

Nik is clearly saying:

Nukes suck, some countries have them and that sucks, they also won't disarm them and we can't do anything about it, which also sucks, but in the mean time lets try to prevent other countries from acquiring nukes and doing the exact same sucky things that the other sucky countries that already have them are doing.

It would be fantastic if every country would put their toys away, but they won't. So now do you think every country should get a toy too because everyone else has one?

And Fozzie is saying:

The countries who already have weapons = The "police". They already have access to weapons, and we have a good idea what they will probably do with said weapons, same with the real police

The countries who don't have weapons = The "terrorists". They don't have access to weapons, and we don't have a slight idea what they will do with said weapons, same with real terrorists.

The police have enough weapons, lets not let them have any more, and the terrorists don't, so lets continue to keep them away from them.

He's not saying that the United States are the actual police of the world, nor that North Korea are the terrorists of the world. It was just an analogy.

A country like North Korea is more likely to rashly fire a nuke at a country for ####s and giggles than the United States. Yes the US used them on another country, but it was a strategic, calculated move that ended the War and potentially saved millions upon millions of lives. They didn't just nuke Japan because they were bored

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Am I finally going to be a live witness to a user meltdown in Gunt?? I've missed so many, but I feel this is my chance!!

[corporatejay]

Yeah. He's acting like he's dropping mad knowledge but he's being a troll and he knows it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Am I finally going to be a live witness to a user meltdown in Gunt?? I've missed so many, but I feel this is my chance!!

This is a thing?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Yeah. He's acting like he's dropping mad knowledge but he's being a troll and he knows it.

The disjointed unrelated ramblings really do make his perceived supremecy that much more hilarious.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

'dropping a nuke on men women and children was an act of mercy'

You make me absolutely sick.

Would you take a bullet if it meant saving your friends and families lives?

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

And along with your lol WUt comments and saying the western bloc and Japan doesn't think it should have been nuked, what have you contributed?

Obviously your whittle feewings are hurt, or you are taking this too personally. Go to sleep you little fly.

Japan would have never in a million years won had the US invaded. It would have been a prolonged, devastating, war, that would had leveled Japan to ashes. You could debate, the events of Hirosima and Nagasaki, saved Japan to a degree. The outcome of a ground war, and prolonged bombing by the US would have left nothing. The Americans/Allies were that powerful.

Don't forget, Japan had signed an Tripartite pact with Germany and Italy. We aren't talking about a country that was exactly 'innocent' here. They were focused on domination, the allied forces were focused on freedom and liberty. Like it or not, Japan were the bad guys. Some of the most horrific war crimes were committed by the Japanese against China.

Not for one moment I do not think the horrors of what happened were good. But the alternative was horribly worse. I love Japanese people, Japanese culture, the honor of their people. But the era of Japanese imperialism was dark and evil. And they needed to be stopped.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by pylon

Japan would have never in a million years won had the US invaded. It would have been a prolonged, devastating, war, that would had leveled Japan to ashes. You could debate, the events of Hirosima and Nagasaki, saved Japan to a degree. The outcome of a ground war, and prolonged bombing by the US would have left nothing. The Americans/Allies were that powerful.

Don't forget, Japan had signed an Tripartite pact with Germany and Italy. We aren't talking about a country that was exactly 'innocent' here. They were focused on domination, the allied forces were focused on freedom and liberty. Like it or not, Japan were the bad guys. Some of the most horrific war crimes were committed by the Japanese against China.

Not for one moment I do not think the horrors of what happened were good. But the alternative was horribly worse. I love Japanese people, Japanese culture, the honor of their people. But the era of Japanese imperialism was dark and evil. And they needed to be stopped.

It's also absurd to think that the people that made the decision to drop the bomb had much comprehension of what they were doing, secrecy of the Manhattan Project was such that Truman never had an idea the bomb existed until a few weeks before he had to decide to drop them, outside of a small group of scientists the bomb was seen as literally just a really big bomb. There was no comprehension of the radiation effects or, really, the size of it, they were being advised by generals who themselves hadn't seen the bomb who were describing it as s city buster but still basically presenting it as a conventional weapon.

To call it terrorism is asinine, it was horrific but there was no course of action in 1945 that didn't involve several hundred thousand to possibly millions of Japanese dieing, Okinawa was a clear signpost to what an invasion of the mainland would look like, mass suicides by the civilian population as well as the soldier.
You can make a reasonable case that the atomic bombs were actually the most humane ending for Japan if you just go by body count

[nik-]

In the end, the atomic bomb was horrifying, but LeMay's methods weren't a whole lot better. Asphyxiating or burning to death or being killed by overpressure collapsing buildings and radiation. It's ####ing horrible either way.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

This thread reminds me of the fact this is a community of sports fans.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

But continue believing what you were taught in school by your teachers. Im done with the lol WUT boys. If anyone wants to seriously discuss something on this topic inbox me because this thread is a home for people who think west is only a direction and the Japanese couldn't have conceivably been defeated in any other way than the 'merciful' act of dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian population including women and children. PS Japan was already discussing surrender with the Brits far before this bomb was dropped and to suggest it was anything other than a war crime and act of terrorism is very telling of how you view the "others" and the value of their lives. I wonder how you would feel if it was Hitler dropping the A bomb on some European allied cities where there were hundreds of thousands of civilians. I'd feel exactly the same, because I love all people and value human life equally in times of peace and war.

PS there is a consensus those with 3 digit IQs, AND a heart; that this was a war crime.

[Hatter]

Is constructing nuclear weapons difficult in 2016? I'm legitimately curious. Does North Korea's apparent struggles creating a nuclear arsenal mainly stem from technological hurdles or difficulty aquiring the required fissionable/fusionable material to construct said weapons?

Could Canada hypothetically create a nuclear arsenal quickly if the need arose?

As an obvious layman, it seems that since this technology and the principles behind it have been in use for almost 80 years that we would be seeing more rogue nations developing these weapons than we currently do.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

This is an essay by Albert Frikin Einstein. Hope it doesn't cause your brain any damage nik-

My participation in the production of the atom bomb consisted in a single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt. this letter stressed the necessity of large scale experimentation to ascertain the possibility of producing an atom bomb.

I was well aware of the dreadful danger for all mankind, if these experiments would succeed. But the probability that the Germans might work on that very problem with good chance of success prompted me to take that step. I did not see any other way out, although I always was a convinced pacifist. To kill in war time, it seems to me, is in no ways better than common murder.

As long however, as nations are ready to abolish war by common action and to solve their conflicts in a peaceful way on a legal basis. they feel compelled to prepare for war. They feel moreover compelled to prepare the most abominable means, in order not to be left behind in the general armaments race. Such procedure leads inevitable to war, which, in turn, under todays conditions, spells universal destruction.

Under such circumstances there is no hope in combating the production of specific weapons or means of destruction. Only radical abolition of war and of danger of war can help. Toward this goal one should strive; in fact nobody should allow himself to be forced into actions contrary to this goal. This is a harsh demand for anyone who is aware of his social inter-relatedness; but it can be followed.

Gandhi, the greatest political genius of our time has shown the way, and has demonstrated the sacrifices man is willing to bring if only he has found the right way. His work for the liberation of India is a living example that man's will, sustained by an indomitable conviction is stronger than apparently invincible material power.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in these ones.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Noam Bloody Chomsky said this. He's a fringe, lunatic conspiracy theorist who writes books that nobody reads.

I stated that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 'among the most unspeakable crimes in history.' I took no position on just where they stand on the scale of horrors relative to Auschwitz, the bombing of Chungking, Lidice, and so on.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Ban God Damn Ki Moon said this. He's some stupid Korean dude who somehow worked his way into possibly the top position in global politics.

I was profoundly moved to be the first United Nations Secretary-General to attend the Peace Memorial Ceremony in Hiroshima. I also visited Nagasaki. Sadly, we know the terrible humanitarian consequences from the use of even one weapon. As long as such weapons exist, so, too, will the risks of use and proliferation.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Gunter BLOODCLOT Grass a Nobel prize winner, said this

How do we prevent Iran developing an atomic bomb, when, on the American side, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not recognised as a war crime?

George **** Wald, Harvard scientist, Nobel prize winner.

Dropping those atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime.

But please go on telling me how I'm just some educated fool who thinks he's dropping 'mad knowledge'. Tell me how it is I am living in some sort of 'John Lennon wonderland'. Then turn around and claim I'm the one going ad hominem and insulting people. No wonder you have 34,000 posts, your posts are about as intelligent, long and informed as a fortune in a Chinese cookie. Hope mums basement is nice and coazy, and with your Doritos and laptop charger you can hopefully keep on keeping on, probably be at 70,000 posts before long. Preying on threads, literally refreshing them every minute, responding to yourself, what a joke.

Well if that's the case than I am guilty as charged, a deranged madman who knows nothing along with Einstein, Ban Ki Moon, Gunter Grass, George Wald and a number of other people who literally take poops with a higher intelligence quotient than all of the posters in this thread combined.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Am I finally going to be a live witness to a user meltdown in Gunt?? I've missed so many, but I feel this is my chance!!

You came to a thread about nuclear weapons looking for a meltdown?

That's not very Chyr-noble.

[afc wimbledon]

The island of Okinawa had around 500,000 troops and civilians on it when the Americans invaded it using conventional means, in the course of a two months in suicidal unarmed charges by the troops and mass suicides by the civilians, mothers throwing themselves off cliffs with their children by the hundreds, around 200,000 Japanese died, maybe more.

That's roughly 1/3 of the population of the island. There's no reason to believe the invasion of the mainland would have been any different, civilian suicides alone would have numbered into the millions, and contrary to your assertion the Japanese military was not negotiating surrender, elements of the civilian government were testing the waters but the military was fully committed to seeing Japan utterly destroyed, in their mind it was the only honourable end to the war, even after both bombs were dropped they did not want to surrender, it took the intervention of the emperor himself to force the army to back down.

There is a school of thought amongst historians that it was only the utter enormity of the bombs that gave the army a face saving way out, that anything less than what was seen as an almost supernatural display of power wouldn't have allowed them to follow the emperors orders.
You are probably to young to be aware that Japanese soldiers were still routinely being found in the jungle and convinced to surrender in the 1970's, fully 25 years after the war had ended.

[afc wimbledon]

Incidently Japan in 1945 had a population of 72 million, if the attack on Okinawa was a reasonable predictor of what the Japanese population would have done on the mainland you would see around 15 to 20 million deaths in a conventional attack, mostly due to suicide, although Okinawa was a rural area so it's reasonable to assume a vastly increased rate of deaths due to bombing in urban settings.

About 300,000 died in the two bombs