Is North Korea really a problem?

[Yamato]

3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

It wasn't a matter of just bureaucratic will no matter how badly you want it to be to justify your own distorted world view that maximizes any evil, done or perceived, by America.  As for why we wanted Japan to surrender quickly that is a compounded reason.  It is true we didn't want the Soviets in Japan, but you completely discount war weariness, and the cost in men and resources of prolonging the war.  We could of avoided dropping the atomic bombs and instead continued the blockade of Japan along with carpet bombing them for another year or so to get the same result as dropping the atomic bombs but it would of cost far more and resulted in far more dead.  Given the state of the Soviet navy at the end of the second World War, there was no threat of them being able to invade the Japanese mainland for years.

You are the only purpose on this site I believe who can be shown tables of data on production and completely discount it and argue that it doesn't actually mean what it clearly shows.  It honestly shows just how delusional you really are.  Do you honestly believe that the Japanese lost over 95% of the planes that they had produced during the course of the war, if you look up Japanese equipment loses during the course of the war you would of found out that Japan lost between 35,000 and 50,000 aircraft over the course of the war.  Using simply math its easy to figure out that if Japan produced 76,320 aircraft over the course of the war, and they lost about 50,000 aircraft then they must of had about 26,320 aircraft left by the time they surrendered.  I never denied that there was a drop off in production, the chart shows the drop off, the mere fact that you can't accept what the chart clearly says shows hos disconnected from reality that you really are.

If everyone major historian on this topic agrees with you then produce a few with links to what they said that backs up your case, once again since that would require actual research I doubt you will bother since you clearly never do any research on any subject from what I have read of you.

You never proved historical accounting is on your side, and its not by the way, but besides from that while my post tend to be on the longer side, especially in regards to your delusional rantings they actually contain information gathered from research since I like to be thorough so people like you can't try to weasel out by some small gap.  Honestly it just sounds like you either don't like or have trouble reading anything longer then a few sentences. 

Having offensives capability or not means nothing when you are planning on making a final defensive stand as bloody as possible.  I know I said this already, but your twisted and distorted world view where you try to maximize any or all evil done by America is not only childish but boring.  You bring no facts or new information to any debate and instead try to resort to some condescending tone where you try to pretend that you are an expert in some field you clearly know nothing on.

"For another year".  You're speculating.  Your belief has been well established.

"War weariness" could just as well justify the invasion of Japan, and nevertheless, that wasn't necessary either.  All that was necessary was the bureaucratic will to make terms.   The insolent attitude of "unconditional surrender" or its alternative "utter destruction" obviously constipated the bureaucratic peace.   That may not have come in September 1945.  For you hurry warts, yes you did what you had to do to end the war the day you did.   That's not saying much in posterity though.   That you're so intellectually obtuse that you can't even entertain the what ifs shows how frozen some of you peoples' thinking can be.

You only consider production and think that planes produced are planes operable.  That's not even close to being true in the best of circumstances.   Playing with numbers probably isn't a good idea.   You're not "using math" you're using an unschooled opinion thinking that aircraft maintain, service and fly themselves.   You just build them, put them in a closet, and take them out when you're ready to use them?   Using math!

Your credibility was shot the moment you said they had 4 battleships and 5 aircraft carriers.   They had 1 battleship.  They had a light carrier and a training ship.   What historical facts are you lacking not to be able to acknowledge that?   If you can't even see a sunken battleship with your own eyes and acknowledge reality and use "they could have boarded it and fired the guns defensively" as a rationale for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you will say anything or everything to make your religion seem more palatable.

My tone is condescending?  My "twisted distorted delusional rantings." vs. your atomic religion.  

You're so fanatical with your atomic religion you must also think that Dwight Eisenhower is a delusional know-nothing!

Dwight Eisenhower: “voiced to him [Stimson] 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 Eisenhower:  "It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

General Curtis LeMay: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

Admiral Chester Nimitz:  "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan"

Admiral William Halsey: "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it...they had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.”

So I'm going to go with what history has taught any objective student of this war, not because I think America is evil, but because historians know infinitely more than you, and frankly since you don't acknowledge anything that's presented to you in a discussion and can't learn anything from it, so am I.

I'm going with Eisenhower, Nimitz, Halsey and LeMay, not unschooled anonymous clowns pumping their religion on the internet about how vital two atomic bombs were to the exclusion of all else

[kmt_sesh]

Silver Thong and Merc: Please, let it go. Enough. The next step is to close this thread and possibly suspensions.

[The Silver Thong]

4 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Silver Thong and Merc: Please, let it go. Enough. The next step is to close this thread and possibly suspensions.

You got it Oh wait I got it

[Yamato]

6 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Your statement on Japan being defeated every time they met a meaningful force is complete and utter nonsense.  First off you never accurately define what a meaningful military force even is and completely discount the successes of the Japanese forces at the start of the war.  Secondly you completely and utterly discount the difficulty in taking territory from the Japanese who in the later stages of the war were normally out numbered.  While the Japanese were slowly removed from islands during the island hopping campaign they did so at extensive cost to America.  At the battle of Okinawa for example 130,000 Japanese troops resisted 287,000 American troops for 3 months and caused 65,000 casualties or the battle of Iwo Jima were about 21,000 Japanese troops resisted about 110,000 American troops for about a month and caused around 22,000 casualties.  While the Japanese were losing at the end they made every fight exceedingly bloody.  

A meaningful military force: The US military.   Disprove my "complete and utter nonsense" then by informing me which battle their army won against the US so I can go inform the historians of this revelation!

Their army lost every battle fought against us.   But I guess holding out for a few months on an island is another dumb **** reason to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.   sigh

[The Silver Thong]

NK would never start something with the U.S.

 

[Yamato]

Wow I've been banned for less than 10% of all that and never got a warning, or even a mention of what it was I got banned for.   Just KABOOM like an atomic bomb out of nowhere, no explanation, no 2nd chances.

Because asserting that Palestinians have human rights too, makes one an "anti-Semitic" "Holocaust denier"; therefore one must allow other posters to call him/her that an infinite number of times without ever defending themselves.   It was like the justice said:  "The defenseless ARE defenseless."   And it confers quite logically with the discussion I'm having right here today.  

"Melt The Japanese in the nuclear fire, Now!  Yes, yes, kill them quickly, they must burn!"   "Muhahaha!!"

I'm just a little Japanese boy in Nagasaki that's all I am, what a shame. 

I'm straight out of the projects of Gaza but I'm going to learn from history and listen to schooled opinions before basing what I believe on the Emperor's speech haha

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy

Another twisted demented "America is evil" kinda guy right there.   Me and Leahy, what a duo!

[Kismit]

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

Wow I've been banned for less than 10% of all that and never got a warning, or even a mention of what it was I got banned for.   Just KABOOM like an atomic bomb out of nowhere, no explanation, no 2nd chances.

 

Firstly you have not been Banned. If you had been you would not be posting now.

Secondly there is a new warning system in place. Something which Saru posted about publicly in the updates forum, and.... Thirdly...

This rule is still active.

• 6c. Appeal: Do not post content designed to complain about, rally support against or to criticise moderator action. If you disagree with action taken by a member of staff you have the option to appeal the decision by PMing a moderator or administrator.

[Space Commander Travis]

6 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

 Do you honestly believe that the Japanese lost over 95% of the planes that they had produced during the course of the war, if you look up Japanese equipment loses during the course of the war you would of found out that Japan lost between 35,000 and 50,000 aircraft over the course of the war.  Using simply math its easy to figure out that if Japan produced 76,320 aircraft over the course of the war, and they lost about 50,000 aircraft then they must of had about 26,320 aircraft left by the time they surrendered.  I never denied that there was a drop off in production, the chart shows the drop off, the mere fact that you can't accept what the chart clearly says shows hos disconnected from reality that you really are.

That's entirely irrelevant as they were worthless without experienced pilots and fuel to fly them. Same with Germany. That was one of the main reasons for the defeat of Germany just as it was with Japan; hemorraging of experienced personnel and lack of fuel, without which nothing could be done. They continued to produce aircraft at the same rate right up to the end of the war, but they were useless without fuel. And most of those 26.320 would have been things like Zeroes, which were totally outclassed by 1945. There were many types of newer aircraft, but they could never build them in enough numbers because they continued production of older and outdated types (same as with Germany). Mere numbers are irrelevant.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Yamato said:

A meaningful military force: The US military.   Disprove my "complete and utter nonsense" then by informing me which battle their army won against the US so I can go inform the historians of this revelation!

Their army lost every battle fought against us.   But I guess holding out for a few months on an island is another dumb **** reason to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.   sigh

No one, not even the military and much of the scientific community understood what the "atomic" in atomic bomb actually meant. Only a relative handful had even seen one detonated. Radiation and all it's horrors were unknown and not even contemplated. No one could see how it could be a worse way to die than the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese population centers where tens of thousands perished. It was just the gadget, a mighty big bang. The Japanese people would have fought for every square yard as we worked out way up the archipelago, not just the military. We would have had to virtually annihilate most of the civilian population. Scaling the casualty figures of Okinawa up proportionately showed what price we would have exacted and paid. Not a question of whether we would win, but in the cost of human suffering. 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Hammerclaw

[The Silver Thong]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights

 

 I agree and will respect the right to be insulted

[Space Commander Travis]

18 hours ago, Bama13 said:

I have read about WWII since I was around 8 years old. Know plenty, thanks. In fact it is apparent to anyone with knowledge of the end of WWII that I know more than you or Thong. 

As to why exactly the Japanese surrendered I suggest you read the surrendered statement issued by the Emperor.

You should take your own advice as you need it more than I.

I suggest you read the Emperor's statement? That's like saying "to find out why Hillary Clunton lost the election, listen to her speech explaining how it was because of the Russians". Of course the Emperor - a god - is going to put a brave face on it and he's hardly going to say that it was because he was comprehensively defeated. is he. 

[Space Commander Travis]

13 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Second you seem to forget that Japan was still occupying large sections of Asia that were still producing resources even if they couldn't make it to Japan.

What? even though they couldn't' get it to Japan (because every single tanker was torpedoed) it still meant that Japan was a major threat so it had to be either invaded or bombed with a Nuke? However much oil there may have been in the occupied countries was completely useless since they hardly had the facilities to refine it into gasoline in all of the occupied countries, and it wouldn't have been any point if they could since they didn't have any aircraft to use it. You seem to rely on tables of statistics a great deal, but tables of statistics are meaningless without looking at the background. 

[Space Commander Travis]

13 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

 While that is significantly less then what they were producing earlier and meant that there larger ships were forced to stay in harbor it was enough fuel to use their smaller ships, submarines, and kamikaze planes/boats. 

And there'd have been no need to worry about short-range weapons like those if they hadn't insisted on invading. None of this proves that there was any compelling need to invade, just the opposite in fact; japan could no longer be a strategic threat so why not just contain it until political upheaval forced them to agree to some reasonably honourable terms. And even the long range the submarines were hardly any danger at all by 1944 and later (except for the USS Indianapolis); by blockading the home islands they could easily have been starved out and the remaining ones mopped up.

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, Yamato said:

"For another year".  You're speculating.  Your belief has been well established.

"War weariness" could just as well justify the invasion of Japan, and nevertheless, that wasn't necessary either.  All that was necessary was the bureaucratic will to make terms.   The insolent attitude of "unconditional surrender" or its alternative "utter destruction" obviously constipated the bureaucratic peace.   That may not have come in September 1945.  For you hurry warts, yes you did what you had to do to end the war the day you did.   That's not saying much in posterity though.   That you're so intellectually obtuse that you can't even entertain the what ifs shows how frozen some of you peoples' thinking can be.

You only consider production and think that planes produced are planes operable.  That's not even close to being true in the best of circumstances.   Playing with numbers probably isn't a good idea.   You're not "using math" you're using an unschooled opinion thinking that aircraft maintain, service and fly themselves.   You just build them, put them in a closet, and take them out when you're ready to use them?   Using math!

Your credibility was shot the moment you said they had 4 battleships and 5 aircraft carriers.   They had 1 battleship.  They had a light carrier and a training ship.   What historical facts are you lacking not to be able to acknowledge that?   If you can't even see a sunken battleship with your own eyes and acknowledge reality and use "they could have boarded it and fired the guns defensively" as a rationale for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you will say anything or everything to make your religion seem more palatable.

My tone is condescending?  My "twisted distorted delusional rantings." vs. your atomic religion.  

You're so fanatical with your atomic religion you must also think that Dwight Eisenhower is a delusional know-nothing!

Dwight Eisenhower: “voiced to him [Stimson] 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 Eisenhower:  "It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

General Curtis LeMay: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

Admiral Chester Nimitz:  "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan"

Admiral William Halsey: "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it...they had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.”

So I'm going to go with what history has taught any objective student of this war, not because I think America is evil, but because historians know infinitely more than you, and frankly since you don't acknowledge anything that's presented to you in a discussion and can't learn anything from it, so am I.

I'm going with Eisenhower, Nimitz, Halsey and LeMay, not unschooled anonymous clowns pumping their religion on the internet about how vital two atomic bombs were to the exclusion of all else

It's effect was psychological on the Emperor. It was never used as a meaningful military asset. It just scared the crap out of the right people at the right time. The Japanese are bewildered by expressions of regret for using it. They will say, if they had it they would have used it against us.                                        

       

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

And there'd have been no need to worry about short-range weapons like those if they hadn't insisted on invading. None of this proves that there was any compelling need to invade, just the opposite in fact; japan could no longer be a strategic threat so why not just contain it until political upheaval forced them to agree to some reasonably honourable terms. And even the long range the submarines were hardly any danger at all by 1944 and later (except for the USS Indianapolis); by blockading the home islands they could easily have been starved out and the remaining ones mopped up.

That's all true, and I believe it was considered with great seriousness. I think it was only due to politics requiring a definitive, and quick, win which led to the "necessity" of using the nuclear bombs. That and the political need of a show of force to cow down the Russians in the European theater.

To a lot of politicians and generals dropping the nuke was necessary.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I suggest you read the Emperor's statement? That's like saying "to find out why Hillary Clunton lost the election, listen to her speech explaining how it was because of the Russians". Of course the Emperor - a god - is going to put a brave face on it and he's hardly going to say that it was because he was comprehensively defeated. is he. 

Hillary is writting a book about why she lost. A memoir of her campaign, if I remember correctly. Due out in October, I think.

THEN we'll have the names of the Real Killers of Nicole Brown Simpson... Err... I mean why Hillary lost the election.

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

No one, not even the military and much of the scientific community understood what the "atomic" in atomic bomb actually meant. Only a relative handful had even seen one detonated. Radiation and all it's horrors were unknown and not even contemplated. No one could see how it could be a worse way to die than the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese population centers where tens of thousands perished. It was just the gadget, a mighty big bang. The Japanese people would have fought for every square yard as we worked out way up the archipelago, not just the military.

That is absolutely false.  The firestorms took hours and even days to do their damage.  Plenty of time for the vast majority to escape if they weren't directly under the path of the falling bombs.  The atomic bomb was fully lit in 0.01 seconds after detonation and there was no escape.

"No one could see how..." that's BS.  The scientists knew.   Everyone who was in-on-it knew since Trinity.

[SHaYap]

*muted disbelief*

~

 

~

Quote

Hiroshima: Quotes - Hiroshima: Was It Necessary?

www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Quotes from prominent Americans on why the atomic bombing of Japan was ... Two days later, Szilard met with J. Robert Oppenheimer, the head scientist in the ...

 

~

As Hiroshima Smouldered, Our Atom Bomb Scientists Suffered Remorse

www.newsweek.com/hiroshima-smouldered-our-atom-bomb-scientists-suffered-remo...

Aug 5, 2015 - “It is our hope,” Oppenheimer said, “that in years to come we may look at this ... blood of future casualties of nuclear war; not the blood of the Japanese. ... His great speech of 2 November 1945 to the Association of Los Alamos ...

 

~

Edited May 5, 2017 by third_eye
lost link

[Space Commander Travis]

 Yes, Bob knew what he'd created all right.

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

No one, not even the military and much of the scientific community understood what the "atomic" in atomic bomb actually meant. Only a relative handful had even seen one detonated. Radiation and all it's horrors were unknown and not even contemplated. No one could see how it could be a worse way to die than the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese population centers where tens of thousands perished. It was just the gadget, a mighty big bang. The Japanese people would have fought for every square yard as we worked out way up the archipelago, not just the military. We would have had to virtually annihilate most of the civilian population.

Actually that's probably true, since it was so classified, almost certainly those involved at operational level had no idea what it might actually do. Whether it would have been necessary to invade at all, since Japan was no longer any possible danger to anywhere else, though, is another question.

[Frank Merton]

2 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

 Yes, Bob knew what he'd created all right.

What is your opinion of Stalin's stealing of the bomb and making his own arsenal?

[Space Commander Travis]

1 minute ago, Frank Merton said:

What is your opinion of Stalin's stealing of the bomb and making his own arsenal?

Yes, perhaps it was a mistake demonstrating that it did actually work. On the other hand, it did mean that no one was going to risk direct confrontation between the major powers, didn't it (except in Korea), once both sides had it.

[Frank Merton]

2 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Yes, perhaps it was a mistake demonstrating that it did actually work. On the other hand, it did mean that no one was going to risk direct confrontation between the major powers, didn't it (except in Korea), once both sides had it.

You make a valid point -- I remember a Jules Verne story with this theme written in the early part of the twentieth century.  I doubt, though, that that was Stalin's motive.  Of course it kept the West from kicking him out of Eastern Europe as they should have after what he did, so in part it may have been.

[Bama13]

15 hours ago, Thanato said:

I call the United States of America, the United States or simply the US. I call Citizens of the United States, Yanks or Americans.

Do you call your countrymen "Americans"? 

If Thong is calling herself "American" because of the continent she lives on shouldn't she be calling herself "North American" since she lives on the North American continent?

[Bama13]

13 hours ago, Yamato said:

What do you think you know more than me?  The Emperor's speech?   What else?    If I can press you to think about something else you'll realize "oh ****, there's more to this than I thought."

The atomic bombings provided an easy out for the Emperor.  OF COURSE he would include it in his speech.  Jeezus Christ Bama how insensitive and ignorant would it be not to?   I can't even imagine that this detail would have been left out.   If you actually believe that this is "exactly why" then no, you are not well read on this.   What book and what author taught you exactly what, exactly?

From your posts I don't think that I know more than you on this topic, I know that I know more than you. Enjoy your revisionist version of history. I'll stick with what the people that were actually alive during the war said and thought.

Done on this topic. Have a nice weekend.