North Korea to enter state of war with South Korea and United States

I'm just stating the facts. It's his choice whether he wants to sign his death certificate or not. North Korea has no allies and no other country would mind us taking care of them. 1 or 2 things will come out of this. WW3 or North Korea is erased from the face of the earth. He's playing with fire and picking his poison.

PEDRO12 said:

Wow that's really rude. The guy might be a nut-job, but what he's proposing is a means to an end, the end being the improvement of his national economy. His country is dying right now. Not saying I agree with him, and hating on him is sorta ok, just not the whole god damn country. They're people too you know.

Click to expand...

He's not trying to improve the North Korean economy. If he wanted to do that he wouldn't be showing his "military might" (It's all outdated WW2/Cold War era weaponry). He's only further alienated his country from the rest of the world since coming to power. If not the worst, he has to be one of the worst, leaders ever.

ShinyUmbreon189 said:

I'm just stating the facts. It's his choice whether he wants to sign his death certificate or not. North Korea has no allies and no other country would mind us taking care of them. 1 or 2 things will come out of this. WW3 or North Korea is erased from the face of the earth. He's playing with fire and picking his poison.

Click to expand...

Yes but we as human beings should care about killing tens of millions of people. Have we really evolved into completely senseless cold hearted bastards? I hope not.

The way World War II ended, in my opinion at least, was horrible. It's true that had the two nuclear bombs we dropped not been launched, the war might have gone on for God only knows how long and it's even possible that more lives would have been lost than those taken by the atomic bombs.

But as true as that may be, I as a human can't help but feel that the lives that would have been lost in any further war would not have been as senseless, nor scarring as those who were not even fighting in the war, yet were taken by one trigger as an act of retaliation and vengeance.

I would literally lose my faith in what this country stands for if we retaliated to an attack from North Korea with a god damn nuclear bomb.

An eye for an eye can only go so far.

BraveNewWorld said:

He's not trying to improve the North Korean economy. If he wanted to do that he wouldn't be showing his "military might" (It's all outdated WW2/Cold War era weaponry). He's only further alienated his country from the rest of the world since coming to power. If not the worst, he has to be one of the worst, leaders ever.

Click to expand...

Exactly and his greed and decisions is gonna determine him and his peoples destiny. Leave US and its' allies alone or go through with it and get you're people killed.

@Pedro his intentions is to attack city after city and each city here has a couple million people especially cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, etc. If he nukes even one city were sending ours his way and killing all his people. If he kills 3 million of our people, were killing 10 million of his people or how ever many they have. Because America will not allow him to attack more than 1 city if they send it our way, they're ****ed simple as that.

Let's not kid ourselves, North Korea has no intention of attacking the United States. It has intentions of reunifying Korea, it has intentions of maintaining a military balance against Japan. But it has never declared its intentions to attack the United States.

I don't know what glory is to be found by blowing up a couple hundred thousand Koreans who live in destitute conditions without the rights and freedoms you take for granted. There's no reason to want North Korea erased off the face of this earth. As a Chinese and an Asian, I take pride in our history, traditions, and nations even if we make war upon each other every now and then. It is regrettable that you had to express your feelings against North Korea in such a way.

Also, I don't see the reason in warhawking. You're not the general who has military training and has to seriously calculate how many of "our boys and girls" will be sent home in a body bag, not to mention the inevitable Korea civilian casualties either.

ShinyUmbreon189 said:

@Pedro his intentions is to attack city after city and each city here has a couple million people especially cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, etc. If he nukes even one city were sending ours his way and killing all his people. If he kills 3 million of our people, were killing 10 million of his people or how ever many they have. Because America will not allow him to attack more than 1 city if they send it our way, they're ****ed simple as that.

Click to expand...

What you seem to forget is that nuclear war doesn't have outlines for our people or his. No one can win a dispute built over the deaths of millions of people.

I don't know about you but I can certainly say that even Americans hate the way World War II ended. So I ask you this, having launched two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, how would you have felt had their government responded by nuking America? You'd be lying if you said you'd think it was just, and even then you'd have to be a cold hearted to person to think that it was fair for the casualties of their attacks on our nation to pay for our government's mistakes, simply because we killed them first. Here I emphasize, once again, that there is no them or us when it comes to nuclear war.

So there I ask, do you agree with the double standard that Japan in 1945 would have done a terrible thing had they bombed the US, but the US would be fairly retaliating if they replied to a nuclear bomb from North Korea, with another?

I'm not trying to kid myself here, I have little to no doubt that America would in fact retaliate. I'm just saying that I don't agree with it nor do I find it the least bit amusing when you tell them to 'bring it on'.

PEDRO12 said:

What you seem to forget is that nuclear war doesn't have outlines for our people or his. No one can win a dispute built over the deaths of millions of people.

I don't know about you but I can certainly say that even Americans hate the way World War II ended. So I ask you this, having launched two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, how would you have felt had their government responded by nuking America? You'd be lying if you said you'd think it was just, and even then you'd have to be a cold hearted to person to think that it was fair for the casualties of their attacks on our nation to pay for our government's mistakes, simply because we killed them first. Here I emphasize, once again, that there is no them or us when it comes to nuclear war.

So there I ask, do you agree with the double standard that Japan in 1945 would have done a terrible thing had they bombed the US, but the US would be fairly retaliating if they replied to a nuclear bomb from North Korea, with another?

I'm not trying to kid myself here, I have little to no doubt that America would in fact retaliate. I'm just saying that I don't agree with it nor do I find it the least bit amusing when you tell them to 'bring it on'.

Click to expand...

Yes, Americans hate the way WW2 ended - We would have rather stormed the country and fought over it inch by inch, resulting in innumerable casualties in both sides.

The nukes were used because they caused less loss of life then a conventional ground war would have.

Additionally, it's impossible for Japan to nuke the US. You know why? It's pretty hard impossiable to nuke a country if you don't have a nuke to nuke them with. They didn't have them during WW2, and they don't have them now.

Mr. X said:

Yes, Americans hate the way WW2 ended - We would have rather stormed the country and fought over it inch by inch, resulting in innumerable casualties in both sides.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier:

But as true as that may be, I as a human can't help but feel that the lives that would have been lost in any further war would not have been as senseless, nor scarring as those who were not even fighting in the war, yet were taken by one trigger as an act of retaliation and vengeance.

Click to expand...

Had the war continued, most of the lives that would have been lost would have been of those who knew they were at risk. Those who expected death. But to use an atomic bomb and kill millions of innocents, women, children, elderly... etc. who didn't expect it is beyond cold. Soldiers die in war, and their deaths are indeed tragic. But innocents should never suffer, even though they do. But to nuke them. No.
"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Mr. X said:

The nukes were used because they caused less loss of life then a conventional ground war would have.

Click to expand...

The Nukes were used because "You bombed Perl Harbor? Take this for size." Our leaders are still human and vengeance albeit rare in international affairs, is still in their hearts. Of course that wasn't the only motivation, don't get me wrong, but it was still stirring around in them when the final call was made.

Mr. X said:

Additionally, it's impossible for Japan to nuke the US. You know why? It's pretty hard impossiable to nuke a country if you don't have a nuke to nuke them with. They didn't have them during WW2, and they don't have them now.

Click to expand...

That was a theoretical statement.

My stance is that the nukes were a net benefit to America. They ended the war, saved Japanese and American lives, and turned Japan entirely into an American ally. Had the bombs not been dropped, there would be a treat of Soviet invasion, as well as the huge cost of a potential American invasion, and even if that didn't occur, massive civilian casualties and suffering from strategic bombing.

There is a common misperception (not expressed here) that the US only had 3 bombs. That's not the whole picture, because another bomb would've been ready in 2 weeks, as well as 3 a month for the following months. If you read some of the documents, they were plainly deciding how to deploy these weapons, having them drag out the time between each detonation, or to use a whole batch at once. It's really as if they were aliens twiddling their thumbs at their options on how to destroy human civilization. Also General MacArthur wanted to unleash these bad boys over Korea 60 years ago to defeat the Chinese.

Of course, there is no parallel between then and in Korea today XD. A Chinese "invasion" and make those big quotes, isn't as threatening, and an American invasion or a protracted bombing of North Korea would not be necessary.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

Finding it difficult to agree with the net benefit theory due to the radioactive repercussions that generations of Japanese natives have dealt with and which the world will continue to deal with.
Idt people realize how hard it is to make rational leaders use nuclear weapons. The U.S. bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was mostly irrational due to the inexperience with nuclear technologies at that point in time. With the invention of the hydrogen bomb the stakes have risen and a nuclear confrontation would bode ill for all of humanity.

The effects of radioactivity wasn't as terrible as you think it might be. Let's consider first a whole 200,000 died outright from the blast. Radiation sickness and immediate cancer deaths might raise that number to 200,000. It's important to understand that radiation sickness will kill you in 6-8 weeks. That means if you're still alive by the end of that timeframe, you're probably going to make it in terms of avoiding radiation sickness. Estimates for cancer deaths into the 2000's is several thousands, a couple orders of magnitude below the number of those who died immediately so it's insignificant - even though they doubled the amount of leukemia deaths than expected.

Estimated American deaths from the invasions were at around 500,000, with the Japanese definitely suffering more and with many times that number in terms of civilian casualties - so the total could end up in the millions. I've had this debate at school in which people decried how cruel radiation is - but that's just hype. Birth defects and radiation sickness sure are gross, but I don't know if it's in good taste to compare radiation victims to burn and amputation victims as if it were categorically worse. And all this hype about human rights and suffering (euthanasia, PETA, etc.) seems to make people think death is a better option than suffering. And there are psychological traumas that have to be dealt with by everybody in the invasion, but I guess that isn't as bad as dying from cancer? I don't know about you guys, but while dead people don't suffer, they're still dead. They don't have a life any more, and the families don't have them any more either.

So that's why I feel dropping bombs and terrorizing the Japanese to surrender was a better option than an invasion that would have cost many more lives and suffering.

TOKYO, April 20 (Yonhap) -- A senior Chinese official, such as top nuclear envoy Wu Dawei, could visit North Korea as Pyongyang indicated its willingness to talk with Beijing about ways to defuse tensions on the Korean Peninsula, a Japanese newspaper reported Saturday.

North Korea conveyed the intention to China in mid-April, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported citing an unidentified source. This has made South Korea, the United States and Japan believe that Pyongyang is less likely to press ahead with a medium-range missile launch, it said.

Look like talk's finally happening.

Triple posting, but this is news:

Pyongyang says no to denuclearisation

North Korea said on Saturday that it would never agree to talks on denuclearisation, but would be open to negotiations for arms reduction.

Pyongyang said it will not give up its nuclear programme until the entire world is denuclearised, according to the North's main newspaper Rodong Sinmun.

"There may be talks between us and the United States for the sake of arms reduction, but there will never be talks for denuclearisation," it said.

"Our position is clear. Never dream of denuclearisation on the Korean Peninsula before denuclearisation of the world is realised." The United States and South Korea have called on Pyongyang to resume the six-party talks over its nuclear programmes to ease tensions on the peninsula.

The negotiations involving both Koreas, the U.S., Japan, Russia and China, stalled in 2009.

On Thursday, Pyongyang demanded an end to UN sanctions and the US-South Korea military drills as conditions for a dialogue.

Seoul and Washington dismissed the demand as unacceptable and "illogical." North Korea has been issuing almost daily threats since the UN imposed tougher sanctions against the communist state after it conducted a third nuclear test in February.

It also blocked entry to an industrial park run jointly by the two countries in Kaesong, located just north of the border, halting operations at more than 120 factories.

A South Korean auto parts supplier said Saturday it had lost a contract with an Indian company after it failed to deliver supplies due to the closure of Kaesong, the Yonhap news agency reported.

Daewha Fuel Pump Industrial Ltd said the Indian firm has demanded it to either pay back money equivalent to its investment or return equipment from its factory in the Korean industrial park.

Click to expand...

If NK is going to go arms reduction before nuclear disarmament, that tells me that NK /is/ afraid of an invasion by the United States/South Korea and are willing to make dialogue just as long as they have their nuclear deterrence. So the weapons would be used for chiefly defensive purposes. That, or they still want to keep their get-money-free pass.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...ays-no-to-denuclearisation/article4636738.ece

I think what we should really be worrying about is North Korea going crazy and attacking South Korea. Unlike the U.S, South Korea doesn't have the advantage of distance. If North Korea really goes wacko and surprise attacks South Korea, a lot of people are going to die. Of course, it will be easy to subdue North Korea after that, but I think we should take that into consideration.