Is North Korea really a problem?

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, and then said:

The removal of the Mikado and humiliating the power structure that led to such carnage in the world was ABSOLUTELY justified.  The Japanese military behaved bestially in that war and were at least as evil as the Nazis.  If the US shares in the dishonor it was in our pardoning the guilty of unit 731 so that we could get the data they gained on human experimentation.  That, in itself, was criminal, imo.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

My guess is that the Norks are carrying on that tradition today.  It will be a human tragedy if millions die on that peninsula but it will not be a conflict the US ever wanted.  It's in China's hands now.  Hopefully, Xi believes some of the press about Trump being mentally unstable.

Oh, I think they're quite aware of who's manipulating the situation and it isn't Kim, this time. Trump's more like Khrushchev, wildly unorthodox and wily as fox.

[Yamato]

Also there's the rather huge hypocrisy with us and nuclear weapons and North Korea.   Chemical weapons and Syria.   We were using multiple chemical weapons with our incendiaries in the strategic bombing of Japan.  

It's okay when we do it.  They attacked us on Pearl Harbor.   sigh

[DarkHunter]

On 5/6/2017 at 6:53 PM, Yamato said:

Translating 12,700 aircraft in the home islands to "10,000 suicide planes" ready for action as a rationale that the atomic bombs were necessary, is all kinds of Stoopid.

LeMay was absolutely right.  His strategic bombing campaign was so effective, the atomic bombs were completely unnecessary.   And since you're using Wikipedia to restock your kool aid bowl, you'd know we were bombing Japan with leaflets announcing what cities were going to be destroyed beforehand giving people the opportunity to escape.    This could have been done with the atomic bombs as well, but then internet trolls like yourself would show up and desperately explain that all those civilians that we killed were also necessary to achieve surrender.   There's obviously no end to the BS you're willing to spew to ramrod your religious faith in revisionist nonsense so we should probably leave you here.

Even when presented with concrete evidence you still utterly refuse to accept that Japan was able to defend itself effectively against an invasion, guess having to accept Japan wasn't some defenseless victim is far to damaging to your twisted world view.

You continue to show that you have absolutely no understanding of history.  Leaflets were dropped, and depending on the leaflets as different ones were dropped, they warned that the cities of Nagano, Takaoka, Kurume, Fukuyama, Toyama, Maizuru, Otsu, Nishinomiya, Maebashi, Koriyama, Hachioji, Mito, Tokyo, Ujiyamada, Tsu, Koriyama, Hakodate, Nagaoka, Uwajima, Kurume, Ichinomiya, Ogaki, Nishinomiya, and Aomori may be targeted for bombing while also clearly stating that cities not listed may also be bombed.  As can clearly be seen American named 24 specific cities and carpet bombed 67 cities.  So your claim that the cities were warned before being destroyed is only true in the vaguest sense that America was warning Japan that its cities in general would be destroyed.

Secondly you always either refuse to accept or just straight out ignore that the two cities targeted for the atomic bombs were of military importance.  Hiroshima was the headquarters of Field Marshall Hata's second general army, which commanded all the defenses of southern Japan, along with being the headquarters of the 59th army, the 5th division, and 224th division.  The city also contained approximately 40,000 Japanese soldiers and was also a communication center, troop assembly area, key logistical and supply hub, and one of the last remaining major war material production hubs of Japan producing parts for planes, boats, bombs, rifles, and handguns.  Nagasaki on the other hand besides from being one of the last major untouched ports Japan had also was another major production area making ordnance, ships, and other military materials and equipment and due to technological limitations of that time it was spared largely cause it was extremely difficult to hit the city during night bombing missions.

[DarkHunter]

9 hours ago, Yamato said:

Also there's the rather huge hypocrisy with us and nuclear weapons and North Korea.   Chemical weapons and Syria.   We were using multiple chemical weapons with our incendiaries in the strategic bombing of Japan.  

It's okay when we do it.  They attacked us on Pearl Harbor.   sigh

What chemical weapons did we use with our incendiaries when we were bombing Japan, if you are going to make such a big claim why not back it up with the specific chemical weapons that we used.

[WoIverine]

In reply to the OP's subject question: Is NK really a problem?

Potentially, yes, especially if they're capable of detonating a warhead above mainland USA via satellite launch. EMPs aren't fun.

Edited May 8, 2017 by WoIverine

[Yamato]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

What chemical weapons did we use with our incendiaries when we were bombing Japan, if you are going to make such a big claim why not back it up with the specific chemical weapons that we used.

Napalm.   White Phosphorus.

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

Now that you've learned this, what difference will it make to your religious scripture?

General Douglas MacArthur:  "One of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history."

So then, I've got Eisenhower, LeMay, Nimitz, Halsey, Leahy, and now MacArthur.

Who've you got on your team of experts?   Hirohito and Harry.

[Yamato]

3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Even when presented with concrete evidence you still utterly refuse to accept that Japan was able to defend itself effectively against an invasion, guess having to accept Japan wasn't some defenseless victim is far to damaging to your twisted world view.

You continue to show that you have absolutely no understanding of history.  Leaflets were dropped, and depending on the leaflets as different ones were dropped, they warned that the cities of Nagano, Takaoka, Kurume, Fukuyama, Toyama, Maizuru, Otsu, Nishinomiya, Maebashi, Koriyama, Hachioji, Mito, Tokyo, Ujiyamada, Tsu, Koriyama, Hakodate, Nagaoka, Uwajima, Kurume, Ichinomiya, Ogaki, Nishinomiya, and Aomori may be targeted for bombing while also clearly stating that cities not listed may also be bombed.  As can clearly be seen American named 24 specific cities and carpet bombed 67 cities.  So your claim that the cities were warned before being destroyed is only true in the vaguest sense that America was warning Japan that its cities in general would be destroyed.

Secondly you always either refuse to accept or just straight out ignore that the two cities targeted for the atomic bombs were of military importance.  Hiroshima was the headquarters of Field Marshall Hata's second general army, which commanded all the defenses of southern Japan, along with being the headquarters of the 59th army, the 5th division, and 224th division.  The city also contained approximately 40,000 Japanese soldiers and was also a communication center, troop assembly area, key logistical and supply hub, and one of the last remaining major war material production hubs of Japan producing parts for planes, boats, bombs, rifles, and handguns.  Nagasaki on the other hand besides from being one of the last major untouched ports Japan had also was another major production area making ordnance, ships, and other military materials and equipment and due to technological limitations of that time it was spared largely cause it was extremely difficult to hit the city during night bombing missions.

Whatever "major production areas" Japan had left was one bombing away from total destruction.   They were finished by all historical accounts.   The reason you don't post any sources for this pathetic "argument" is because you don't have any.

[Yamato]

21 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

No one was in any mood to grant the Japanese an "honorable surrender" anymore than the Allies were the Germans. The terms were unconditional surrender and the path to that was through the Emperor. The use of the Atom Bomb was, perhaps unfortunate--in hindsight.

Conditional =/= "Honorable".  

The confounding factor was the Emperor.   The path was through the Emperor but the Japanese couldn't keep the Emperor.  What a pickle.   It's wholly a bureaucratic matter either way.

But for the record Trump would be "honored" to receive Kim diplomatically.   Are we in the mood to honor him?

[DarkHunter]

1 minute ago, Yamato said:

Napalm.   White Phosphorus.

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

Now that you've learned this, what difference will it make to your religious scripture?

General Douglas MacArthur:  "One of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history."

So then, I've got Eisenhower, LeMay, Nimitz, Halsey, Leahy, and now MacArthur.

Who've you got on your team of experts?   Hirohito and Harry.

You really don't know anything at all how weapons are classified do you.  Neither napalm or white phosphorus were or are considered chemical weapons.  I had a feeling you would try to use white phosphorus but also including in napalm was a bit of a surprise, your delusions must be getting worse if you consider napalm a chemical weapon.  

No matter how badly you want it to be the case in your twisted world, white phosphorus has not and still isn't considered a chemical weapon but an incendiary weapon along with napalm.

Best place to start off is with the definition of what an incendiary weapon is.

"1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances. (b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities." 

From https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2A921D989053D623C12563CD0051EEF9

And the definition of what a chemical weapon is.

" 1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b)."

From https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/

The significant difference between the two is incendiary weapons kill by heat, flame, or both while chemical weapons kill by toxic properties of the chemicals.  While both napalm and white phosphorus are both toxic to different degrees the fact that they do not use those toxic properties to kill but instead use heat, flame, or both means they are incendiary weapons.  With the way you are wanting to define chemical weapons anything except bullets and certain types of anti armor rounds would be considered chemical weapons and banned.

You conveniently left out General Marshall, and completely ignored the quotes from General LeMay I posted on using the atomic bomb where he was in support of it.  Secondly you are falsely equating the generals and admirals not thinking the atomic bomb was necessary with them thinking it was wrong in a lot of the quotes.  No matter how badly you want those two to be equal they aren't, then again separating the two would require actual research which you are clearly incapable of doing.

20 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Whatever "major production areas" Japan had left was one bombing away from total destruction.   They were finished by all historical accounts.   The reason you don't post any sources for this pathetic "argument" is because you don't have any.

For someone who has only provided one link to a homemade non-sourced site, it is probably not the best idea to bring up citing sources.  Anyway I have been citing most of the stuff I post and what hasn't been cited can quickly be checked and verified with a quick google search, but given the lengths you will go to to protect your delusion I assume you don't do much research on any topic do you.

[Yamato]

Napalm and white phosphorus are chemicals producing chemical reactions.

2C8H18 + 25O2 ---> 18H2O + 16 CO2

2C6H6 + 15O2 ---> 6H2O + 12CO2

and

P₄ + 5 O₂ → 2 P₂O₅

2 P₂O₅ + 6 H₂O → 4 H₃PO₄

respectively.

[DarkHunter]

Just now, Yamato said:

Napalm and white phosphorus are chemicals producing chemical reactions.

2C8H18 + 25O2 ---> 18H2O + 16 CO2

2C6H6 + 15O2 ---> 6H2O + 12CO2

and

P₄ + 5 O₂ → 2 P₂O₅

2 P₂O₅ + 6 H₂O → 4 H₃PO₄

respectively.

Apparently reading comprehension isn't a strength of yours either.  You apparently either skipped over or didn't understand the part in the definition of incendiary weapons where it said "produced by a chemical reaction of a substance".  Anything that burns is a chemical reaction, high explosive detonating is a chemical reaction, with what you want to define as a chemical weapon would include literally everything except the bullet and certain super dense materials used in some anti armor weapons.  Just cause there is a chemical reaction doesn't mean it is a chemical weapon.

[Thanato]

4 hours ago, WoIverine said:

In reply to the OP's subject question: Is NK really a problem?

Potentially, yes, especially if they're capable of detonating a warhead above mainland USA via satellite launch. EMPs aren't fun.

Homefront?

[Yamato]

14 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Apparently reading comprehension isn't a strength of yours either.  You apparently either skipped over or didn't understand the part in the definition of incendiary weapons where it said "produced by a chemical reaction of a substance".  Anything that burns is a chemical reaction, high explosive detonating is a chemical reaction, with what you want to define as a chemical weapon would include literally everything except the bullet and certain super dense materials used in some anti armor weapons.  Just cause there is a chemical reaction doesn't mean it is a chemical weapon.

Including literally everything would be like not distinguishing incendiaries from non-incendiaries.  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

If white phosphorus is a chemical weapon, the distinction is relegated to bureaucracy. 

[+Hammerclaw]

5 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Apparently reading comprehension isn't a strength of yours either.  You apparently either skipped over or didn't understand the part in the definition of incendiary weapons where it said "produced by a chemical reaction of a substance".  Anything that burns is a chemical reaction, high explosive detonating is a chemical reaction, with what you want to define as a chemical weapon would include literally everything except the bullet and certain super dense materials used in some anti armor weapons.  Just cause there is a chemical reaction doesn't mean it is a chemical weapon.

[+Hammerclaw]

Don't waste anymore time, Hunter. He never cedes a point, he just goes quite for a while, then comes back raving nonsense on another topic. Thanks for your effort, though. You've taught me a lot, at least.

[Space Commander Travis]

How much does any of this have to do with N. Korea? .  

Edited May 9, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[RoofGardener]

Remarkably little, Manfred von Dreidecker. Last time I checked, NK as such wasn't involved in WW2, isn't an island chain, doesn't have an Emperor, doesn't have Japanese as its national language, and isn't particularly known for chemical weapons. (though Yamato might disagree, on the grounds that NK has soldiers, who are composed of chemicals ? )

If NK was happy to mind its own business then I could happily live with it. However, it's attitude is - and has always been - belicose. It has repeatedly stated its intention to invade South Korea. It's armaments industry is geared up for attack rather than defense.

Sod 'em !

[Lilly]

Life begins with chemistry...in other words, just about everything comes down to chemical reactions. Such does not make 'everything' a chemical weapon though.

Ok, now that this is cleared up, how about getting back to the topic. Stop discussing one another (and everything else under the sun) and address the question of North Korea.  

 

[Unusual Tournament]

16 hours ago, WoIverine said:

In reply to the OP's subject question: Is NK really a problem?

Potentially, yes, especially if they're capable of detonating a warhead above mainland USA via satellite launch. EMPs aren't fun.

I'd be more worried if North Korea smuggled a nuclear weapon into Australia and detonated it, than any silly missile attack which would stand next to no chance in striking the the U.S. or any of its allies.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Captain Risky

[Lilly]

IMO the problem is that North Korea continues to pursue missile technology (already has nuclear capability). How long will it take before Lil' Kim and his minions can fire off some missiles that can strike its neighbors? From what I've read it stands to only be a few years (3 or 4) and perhaps even sooner if they can manage to get some outside help.

[Thanato]

On 2017-05-08 at 4:39 AM, Yamato said:

Also there's the rather huge hypocrisy with us and nuclear weapons and North Korea.   Chemical weapons and Syria.   We were using multiple chemical weapons with our incendiaries in the strategic bombing of Japan.  

It's okay when we do it.  They attacked us on Pearl Harbor.   sigh

Comparing the world today to the world of ww2 is... well... just wrong. yge World was literally a different place.

[aquatus1]

**Back on topic.  Yamato, that includes you.**

[The Silver Thong]

14 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

How much does any of this have to do with N. Korea? .  

My dad can beat up your dad lol

[Yamato]

If I don't start out with the media rhetoric and try to look strictly at where the evidence takes us, then Kim has a population with hungry needy people.   He has a huge army with artillery and vehicles, a government or "regime" that focuses on military first and foremost.   Just like we do.   

SO...What the hell, once again!   Why is it okay when we do it?    and then?   Merc14?  Darkhunter?   

Kim rules a tiny midget country sandwiched between the #2 and #3 powers in the world with its potential severely reduced by its infatuation with military.   Even South Korea is far more powerful.  

Geezus Kristoff, maybe this is what happens when we don't officially end a war with somebody.    North Korea can be better handled with diplomatic pressure than unhinged violence, and Trump has the potential of accomplishing that.   His rhetoric is disturbing and his policies are dubious.   He could still do the right thing and find things in common we have with China that we can agree be used to apply diplomatic pressure with North Korea from both ends.   China would/will welcome the opportunity to have friendly diplomacy with us, and all I'm really saying is give peace a chance.

And another question to the suspects and then, Merc14, Ravenhawk particularly:   If North Korea is such a threat, why isn't Israel?   If we're going to actually pay an inordinate amount of attention stroking the fear about a midget country with a disproportionate military, we have one in the Middle East.  

It again seems hypocritical how we can pay 100% of our attention to one nuclear rogue and 0% of our attention to the other.   Does anyone else have a challenge with that?

[+DieChecker]

It appears nothing big has happened so far. Could just be more hyperbole from the Liberal Media and more blowing of smoke from Kim.

It is NOT OK that the US nuked Japan, though there was justifications aplenty. That means zero compared to today, almost 70 years later. Kim should not have nukes, and neither should we, or anyone. The second best thing is for NO ONE else to get nukes... looking at you Iran. 

I think we should figure out a way to relieve North Korea of their nuclear weapons. More of buying it off them, or tricking them out of them, rather then invasion. Military force should be the last way to try doing so. We basically gave Iran $30 billion in cash, right? Why can't we give North Korea something they would want, that would make the Dear Leader look like a People's Hero? Diplomacy is about being diplomatic, right? Not about being a bully.

Latest news appears to be just more insults and talk, coming at the issue from both ends.