N. Korean nuclear test

Date 05-26-2009 13:32 Edited 06-23-2014 18:41

It does scare me to see people like North Korea or Iran pursue nukes, but I can see how their perception is distorted. The U.S. has plenty of nukes, and my fear is that we may return to the MAD doctrine again. But, maybe they keep the peace.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 05-26-2009 14:20

You hit the nail on the head. "From other nations' perspective" That is the problem past policymakers and constiuants don't seem to care about, the sovereignty of other nations. Some will say that America shouldn't have nukes either, namely 1940's Japan. With no talks on the board with so many nations and little understanding of others, what do you expect.
And your quote, "...the only nation on Earth that has ever detonated a nuclear weapon as a terrorist weapon...", I think you opened a can of worms with that one. I can't wait to see the rebuke from our more "vocal" friends in the Forum on that one. That sounds like something I would say. Good luck with that one. :-)

By CWI555

Date 05-26-2009 16:09 Edited 05-26-2009 21:12

bryon,

Some things for you to consider:
To quote myself "Negotiations with the insane, only end with insanity"
"because politicians persist in trying to negotiate with people who either believe themselves gods"

Maybe you need to read up on history a bit more.

Hirohito had every intention of not ending the war until they had repulsed any forthcoming US invasion Japan. You must also remember he was all but considered a god. Many in fact did consider him a god. There is a reason so many Japanese commited seppuku before capture or kamikaze in attempts to kill the enemy (the US). It was a matter of honor, they could not stand the thought of failing their "god" emperor.

Even the term kamikaze should be clue to their mentality. "devine wind"=kamikaze. they believed they were dieing for their gods.

By comparison, the number of dead both Japanese and U.S. by all "intelligent" accounts were made considerably less by the two bombings.
Several dozens of firebombs were first made, multiple standard bombing runs, all lead up to the nuclear bombing. No hint of retreat, no hint of surrender. It took the terror of a nuclear bomb to make them see the light of day.
So yes it was a terror weapon in that respect. Which is not even in the same ballbark as the one your refering to.
The same could be applied to any weapon in reality. Any bomb, rifle, bullet, or other means of killing and maiming could be considered a "terror" weapon. I am sure if someone was getting shot at, it woudn't consider it a joyful occassion. They like about anyone else getting shot at are going to experience at least a modicrum of fear.

It comes back to how do you negotiate with the insane? The idea that mere negotiations will solve the issue is just as insane as the people they are attempting to negotiate with.

As to the other point, If you robbed a bank sometime in your past does it make it right or justified for someone else to rob a bank as well?
For that matter, Saddam gassed several thousand of his own people years ago, would that justify the US gassing Iran?

The nuclear option all the way around is insanity. I don't think anyone can argue that. MAD is just as bad if not worse.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

By PlasmaHead2 (***)

Date 05-26-2009 17:29

This thread made me think of a book I own that anyone with an interest in North Korea or how communist/socialist societies operate should read.
It’s written by Guy Delisle and it’s called "Pyongyang", and it gives a very interesting view of how N. Korea works inside.
Guy Delisle is a Canadian animator whose company subcontracts out to NK, and the book is about him going there to oversee production.
It's a black and white graphic novel illustrated by Guy Delisle and is really quite an effective means to show what he saw and experienced considering cameras are discouraged.
I found it at Walden books in the local mall, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to track down if you’re interested.

As for nukes... "You've watched it; you can’t un-watch it!" - The What-If machine from Futurama.
We built them, even if we destroy all the ones we have, the knowledge that they exist is still present and without some sort of global brain washing, it always will be. We as a species still need nukes to some extent, but not everyone on the planet needs one. Especially people or leaders who are not stable enough to keep their fingers away from the big red button. As for why we still need nukes, if for no other reason than they are the BIGGEST fire cracker us as a species has developed. We just need to learn to NOT light off fireworks in our house, and to keep the unstable children away from the explosives. The universe is quite vast and full of immense energies and large fast moving objects like comets and asteroids. Maybe having something that can dig a mile deep crater on our planet might be useful against a mile wide asteroid that’s heading right for us?
Just some random thoughts...
-Clif

By CWI555

Date 05-26-2009 22:05

You raise a valid point. But there is something that hasn't been overcome yet in the quest for an astroid killer.
Nasa's Deep impact mission slammed a 815 pound projectile into an astroid at 33,466 feet per second. It barely made a scratch. The large arrow in the attached pic shows the point of impact. 4.8 tons of tnt 148,130,160,000 ft/pounds of energy and it didn't even shutter.

Kenetic energy impactors will have to be moving at least 1/4 c before it will dig a hole deep enough in an astroid like 9p/tempel1. Reaction time alone will likely limit the choice of what is used to get to the core. Which btw, is the only place thats going to have a hope of splintering an astroid/comet this size.

Nukes will definetly be part of the solution, but getting that solution delivered to the appropriate place is the trick.

Regards,
Gerald

159836main_di_T1_Composite_Map_516.jpg (102k)

By kipman

Date 05-26-2009 15:42

Obewan,
I think your use of the word "terrorist" here is mistaken, and offensive. The US had been fighting a conventional war with Japan for over 3 years. Before the atomic bombs were dropped, the allies warned Japan that something big was coming their way unless they surrendered (the Potsdam declaration). If I am not mistaken, the actual targets for the bombs were military (a bridge for Hiroshima if I remember right) though clearly a nuclear bomb was way more than needed to destroy a small military target. So even though in our modern eyes we have come to view nuclear weapons as despicable, it was not terrorism.

By OBEWAN

Date 05-26-2009 16:49

Obewan,
I think your use of the word "terrorist" here is mistaken, and offensive.
-------------------------------
I am not saying that the U.S. is a "terrorist" nation. I am pointing out that the intent of using the weapon was to cause "terror". No one can deny that the intended killings were civilians including women and children and not military personnel. In that sense, the strategy was to cause so much terror in Japan that they were forced to surrender. I am not taking the position that the bomb did not bring a successful end to a terrible conflict, I am pointing out that other nations in the world might perceive things differently since they were not in our position.

By uphill

Date 05-26-2009 17:44

Well it was the US that launched the big one first, who else would pay to rebuild a country that murdered so many at Pearl Harbor? It must have done something to all of the inbread mentals who have nukes, Cant say as I have heard on any more going off lately.

It sort of said "Dont bring a knife to gun fight" dont it?

By js55

Date 05-26-2009 20:23

Obewan,
Until the advent of smart bombs, and imbeded media, and daily network updates during war, ALL airial bombing had a terrorist aspect. So if the charge is leveled by 'other nations' the equal charge of hypocracy can easily be leveled. For I challenge someone to name a country, or entity, that has practiced bombing without this terror aspect. So the charge would only reveal an anti American bias or disingenousness, and therefore NOT to be taken seriously other than for its, now obvious, power to influence.

By darren

Date 05-27-2009 05:34

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1024097.html
this the full text of ahmadinejad's speech to the un assembly,
i think if your read it, it will give a clearer understanding of the iranian perspective at least from a "word" perspective.
the "action" perspective will unfold in the future for all to judge.

By Cumminsguy71 (*****)

Date 05-30-2009 22:57

Well, nothing compares to a good sniper and 1 shot....or in this case 2. I agree with the how can we say you can't have nukes....when our backyard is loaded with them. Like the pot calling the kettle black. Japan, Hirohito was encouraging the citizens to pick up their farm tools, guns, knives whatever they had and rallying to get the entire nation on board to thwart off a US invasion on mainland Japan. From my understanding millions of lives would have been lost if we did a conventional beach invasion. Unfortunately around 200,000 souls were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was that better than 1 million? Or 2 million? War sucks, people die, that's just how it is and we can't change that anymore than we can unchange the invention of the nuclear bomb. Kind of a morbid way to think but we have wars and sickness as sort of a population control, could use a good epidemic now to cut back on population, but that's another topic.

Kim whatever ill is a nutjob, just like Ama.....well the Iran guy.

By uphill

Date 05-31-2009 02:42

Maybe the issue should be who has the firing code for the target area and the launching of the nukes. Its not a matter of when and by who the first strike comes from but the question is what kind of response they get. Wonder why the nutz waited untill an Anti-American president bought his way into office to start this ? Take that statement any way your frame of mind will allow. I am just doing what the Constitution still allows .
Millions died during the wars, All of them= religious/political or for whatever reason. Why is it the winner is always stuck with the clean-up bill? The Japs were planning to invade the US so what makes that OK?

More people have died by Abortion, driving drunk and accidents than actual war. Dont know how that stacks up to the events leading up to war.

Would you give a blind man a machine gun to shoot an apple off your head? Not me

You have to respect life to make sure that some of it has value. If you dont give a crap about women and children you do some very sick killing. Like the World Trade Center ( I would have made Afganistan into a crater lake with crispy black sand.) "But thats another topic" Nice end.

By Metarinka (****)

Date 06-02-2009 02:52

last i heard they haven't even confirmed a nuclear test. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSWBT011299

hello all, I'm in Japan right now, about 4 days ago I visited hiroshima and had a chance to visit ground zero and the peace museum. There's many factors surrounding the decision to drop the bomb and the decision to drop 2 (remember they were a few days apart) and they were both against non-military targets. also let us not forget that the fire bombing of tokyo killed far more than either of the bombings. History is written by the winners and had we lost the war we would have definately been tried for war crimes related to the fire bombings.

several other factors related to the bomb dropping was to force japan to surrender on our conditions not conditions more agreeable to them. Also after the european campaign russia agreed to enter the japanese theatre and we wanted to hasten a surrender so that russia did not have any time to enter and claim anything. Additionally we dropped 2 bombs so that we could prove that it wasn't a one trick show at the time we only had 4 bombs worth of fissible material (if i remember correctly).

The argument that dropping the bombs was much less deadly than a full blooded invasion is very much true, but the japanese already were close to surrender at that point. it would be impossible to say for sure if we would ever have been required to fully invade japan.

anyways that's all i have for now, I got to visit the Toyota plant and it makes so much sense why they are beating american auto manufacturers. Today i'm trying to work out a tour of a japanese facility that does a lot of welding, have a nice day!

By CWI555

Date 06-02-2009 16:11

As for war crimes in WW2, There was not a side to be chosen that is innocent of them.
Although, the term "war crimes" is just as insane as the prospect of a winable nuclear war.

War by it's nature is a brutal lawless kill or be killed event. The idea that somehow there are innocents that are not otherwise affected is simply wrong. The soldier on the field of battle has family, that family suffers when that soldier dies in combat, the potential social and economic products of that person dies with them, and in short, everything he was, everything he is, and everything he could have been, passes into oblivion.

I've therefore never understood the term "war crimes", nor the people who insist on calling it such. There is no "humanity" in the act of killing or maiming a human.

Be it by fire, bullets, gas, bombs or whatever medium, dead is dead. War and sanity do not belong in the same sentence, nor does the word nuclear bomb.
Wars are won by meeting a smaller degree of insanity with a larger degree of the same. No war has ever been won otherwise.

By darren

Date 06-03-2009 01:19 Edited 06-03-2009 01:22

war crimes is a euphemism for we beat your ass and now we are gonna do it again, just to prove that we were right and you were wrong and to let those know who oppose us that we will not only beat your ass but we will continue to do it even after your down. (sophisticated beating of chest)....kinda like in dog fights the winner mounts the loser in a sign of dominance.

if there is such a thing as a war crime it would be against those who promulgate war. see international bankers for this.

i have read the ata of canada and some of the homeland security anti terrorism laws in the states. every requirement to apply the statutes is there to try, convict and sentence the ceo's of big banks and financial institutions and big oil companies with charges of treason, terrorism and organized crime. but i just a welder

Wars are won by meeting a smaller degree of insanity with a larger degree of the same. No war has ever been won otherwise.
never heard that one, awesome

By CWI555

Date 06-03-2009 02:13

Just a welder???

Don't take this the wrong way, but I call bullS***

Let’s look at the statement semi objectively. A welder, worthy of being called a welder is far from the implied level of ignorance.

Manual pipeline welders I've seen exhibit high degrees of mechanical aptitude, an innate sense of spatial resolution, electrical aptitude, some degree of metallurgical aptitude, and that is just the short list. Many times as an inspector I have witnessed them put on that good ol boy golly ge whiz Im just a welder routine. I can't say as I have ever known a dumb successful pipeline welder. When they pull out that good ol boy routine, i know I am being tested. They are thinking "wonder if this guy has a clue what he's talking about". They'll string an inspector along just enough to let them step on their proverbial meat then step on it again for them or when they see the inspector does have a clue, start paying attention. If the inspector is dumb or arrogant enough (usually one and the same) to buy into the facade of "I’m just a welder", they should have never been anywhere near the firing line to start with.

That’s just one example.

A more pointed example. Stephan. "I consider myself just a welder". I take that like wernher von braun's statement "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
or Isaac Newton "“To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me.”

The "I’m just a welder" to me has a whole different meaning. You professional welders need to sale that line to someone else. I don't buy it.