The DPRK has not interfered in 3rd world democracies like the US and has not spent the last 50 years invading foreign soil. The US has proved itself to be significantly less trust worthy with nukes than the DPRK
>>741562843 Because 1) The populace is starving, so the Pig of the north (Kim-cheeky) can fund his nuclear ambition. 2) The Irrational leader has been constantly threatening to attack. That's like giving a Bazooka to the kid who keeps saying he's gonna shoot up his school. 3) Being retarded peasants, there is a high chance of 'oops' Chernobyl
>>741563503 >The DPRK has not interfered in 3rd world democracies like the US That's from lack of ability, not desire. >The US has proved itself to be significantly less trust worthy with nukes than the DPRK We've been able to destroy any country on the planet for over 50 years and have not. DPRK is just now getting to the point where it can nuke another country, so let's see if they can go 5 years before making such an uninformed statement.
>>741563764 >high poverty and inequality levels US = Poor because of corporate/rich people's tax avoidance. North Korea = Poor because selling food to other countries to raise money for nuclear, rather than feeding is own people. Also sells it's people for slave labour in places like Poland. Grows plenty of food, yet it magically disappears, and they scream for food-aid. Somehow money for nuclear technology magically appears when the food dissipaters.
>>741564513 except that DPRK is actually making public announcements saying that they will launch nukes at the US. Nobody has to tell me to fear that. I innately fear the possibility of a nuclear exchange. I am sentient and I understand and respect the destructive power of nuclear weapons.
>>741563035 No probably. Kim is using his nuke and rocket tests as a kind of advertising campaign. You can bet countries are getting ready to throw their panties at NK as NK will deal with people no other country would sell weapons to.
Imagine African warlords with their own ICBMs sort of thing
>>741565029 >Would you prefer we invaded 3rd world countries? I think it's pretty obvious, given how bogged down in the Middle East you are, for oil only, let's be honest, you couldn't sustain any such invasions or the disruption to trade that could result.
>>741565490 What kind of tinfoil hat bullshit are you on? lol are you saying Kim Jong Un doesnt actually exist and everything is just made up so the US can invade a backwater shithole of a country no one cares about except NK, SK, and China?
>>741565729 Actually no, not "everyone" can have nuclear weapons. The fact that the world has allowed NK to even get this far is disturbing. Clinton should have put a stop to it in the 90s when we had the first information about their weapons program.
No country can develop nuclear weapons unless they had them before 1968. Its why Iran pretends their nuclear program is "for domestic power production"
>>741566170 Except both NK and Iran signed the NNPT (though NK withdrew when they were caught developing weapons anyway)
You dont take countries to court. There is no "country jail" when you break the rules. Not obeying the NNPT is the ground work for a declaration of war and massive international sanctions through the UN. Sure, dont obey it... but no one is going to come help you when your country is a smoldering crater either
>>741566170 BTW, it wasnt an accord, it was a ratified treaty. Each signatory country had to ratify it through their own processes. Its legally binding as any treaty is. An accord is basically just a promise with no weight of law behind it
>>741566472 It's all meaningless really. Countries promise to be good and then they aren't. Again and again, nothing really changes with people except our ability to kill one another keeps getting better.
>>741566900 Crippling international sanctions work well on countries who arent determined to live in a time period before the internet, cell phones, etc. The other options take strong countries to have had enough and use force.
In the end, you either obey, or you will be forced to obey. There is no middle ground. You do what you are told, or you wont have ears to hear the warning a second time
>>741567127 Those new sanctions are a joke. The DPRK probably spent over a billion this year alone test firing missiles. Are we supposed to believe that the measily $3b they get from trade anyway would have any real impact at this point? Seems like a smoke and mirrors act to me that this does anything but give us all more time to believe things will somehow work out in our favour before coming to reality.
>>741567388 Sanctions dont work against people like NK for 2 main reasons. 1. their pretty much only trade partner (China) doesnt obey the sanctions they themselves signed off on. 2. NK is living in a world that passed 70 years ago. The majority of NKs do not have TVs in their home. Cell phones were outright banned until a few years ago (and even now, you only get signal in the north near the Chinese border)
This IS all smoke and mirrors and has been since 2003 when we had concrete proof NK was developing weapons. The only thing that ends this is military force.
>>741567787 Let's hope it ends better this time than last time. I sure hope China is on our side. During the Korean war, at least 8 Chinese divisions were engaged in the conflict. Let alone North Korean forces and the 60 years of paranoia, digging in and fortifications to contend with on their turf. Be easier and cheaper to just turn it into a glass parking lot and let radiation do the rest.
>>741562843 They don't have or feel any responsibility to any other country through either treaty or trade other than possibly China and therefore they have nothing to lose on the world stage for starting shit. They believe their leader is a god and are mostly cut off from the rest of the world intellectually, financially, and socially.
They are literally the school shooter of world countries.
>>741574293 Japan all but surendered at that point in the war, the nukes were deployed just to make a statement, and to do some testing as well. I call that the biggest war crime in history. No country in history ever killed so many civilians and did so much damage to make a statement
>>741574581 They had not surrendered and were preparing their people to fight to the death, which is very Japanese anyway to repel the invaders. Invading Japan would have cost millions of lives to do what the bomb accomplished as terrible as it was.
>>741575062 24 hours of conventional bombing in tokyo killed more people than both nuclear bombs combined.
Do you somehow think we would've stopped bombing if we decided to invade the mainland rather than drop the nukes?
It was a risk for sure, but a risk that paid off and ended the war in the pacific.
As far as locations, give me a location that doesn't kill anyone or kills much less that still gets the japs to stop fighting. What part of Japanese military doctrine makes you think they were making rational decisions?
>>741574986 Just to add, both general McArthur and Eisenhower were strong critics against using the nuclear weapons. It was not necessary because the Japan industry and food production was completely destroyed. They were simply not able to continue fighting for much longer. But hey, US just had to showcase their new expensive toy. It is estimated that about 250 000 thousand people died immediately and during 5 years after the bombing due to radiation, cancer and leukemia. Nice eh
>>741575842 So you approve dropping nuclear bombs on countries that start wars? Remeber that one, it might come in handy soon. I hope this madness stops but since we have mad men running countries, we are looking at a final war, very soon
>>741575738 You are not wrong that there were probably other ways they could have ended the war. Announcing they would allow retention of the emperor possibly would have been one of them. But if you think for one second the dropping was because "meh, fuck it, sounds fun" you are a fucking idiot. There was much planning and debate about nukes as an option and for whatever reason, they decided to drop them. It worked.
As I said before, the conventional bombing campaign continuing would have been decidedly more brutal than the nukes were, even with the deaths from the after-effects. There's no arguing this.
>>741576318 Just fyi it is generally accepted opinion that US started a lot of shit in the last 50 years. So your logic implies that if US was nuked it would be the logical consequence. Just to be clear, honestly I wish the damn thing would explode in the face of everyone who even thought of making it. Civilians should never be a logical target in any war
>>741576218 So much misunderstanding of japanese government before and during the war in this thread. By the time the bombs were dropped, the figures in power in Japan were brutal as fuck and not even approaching rational in their decision-making process. Japanese propaganda was Nazi-tier and they ruled with an iron fist. Do a little research and you will see that the only thing that could've stopped them was a big statement. They would've starved their people to fight a ground war. Hell, they already were.
Not being a dick, but most westerners don't know the first thing about japanese history between ww1 and the end of ww2.
>>741576340 There are valid reasons for and against, but I honestly believe they had no idea about what kind of weapon they created. After the first bomb, Japan was ready to surender. Why was the second one dropped?
>>741576980 Because they didn't fucking surrender. You keep saying, "they were ready to surrender," but the fact remains they did not surrender until after being hit again. What were they waiting for if they were so ready to surrender?
>>741577112 They were ready to surender but under some conditions. US did not want to negotiate terms but went ahead and dropped another one. Japan then surrendered to prevent 3rd bombing. I'll say it again: Japan war machine was broken, they had no food, even US generals were against using nuclear weapons... killing civilians is a war crime, or maybe not if US does it?
>>741577452 >killing civilians is a war crime But bombing cities from the air was not a war crime in that time. And the fact that the generals were against it's use is meaningless since it wasn't up to them. Truman wanted a quick end to the war so that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops wouldn't have to die in invasion.
>>741577661 that's not what I was told growing up in russia. The americans stole the ideas for the atom bomb from the russians and then started using it when noble Stalin had promised never to use it on the nazis because he knew what a terrible weapon of destruction it was
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.