It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by wondernut
we have devistationg weapons that are not nuclear, the MOAB for example
lets say we carpet bomb both nations with these puppies, no fallout!
Originally posted by JIMC5499
Originally posted by rai76
And above all, the US was crazy enough at that time (well your governmet is still) to use it and that sets an example!
Read some history books. The use of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved lives, both American and Japanese, in the long run. You can use the fire bombing of Tokyo as an example. Don't forget Okinawa and the civilian suicides there. It was estimated that the invasion of Japan would cost 1 million American lives and as many as 10 million Japanese lives. This is in compairison to 140,000 in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki.
Originally posted by rai76
Originally posted by wondernut
we have devistationg weapons that are not nuclear, the MOAB for example
lets say we carpet bomb both nations with these puppies, no fallout!
Exactly. And you find it strange that other countries want to defend theirselves.
Originally posted by rai76
Ok, so you suggest now that it is and was normal to use atom boms cause it save lives? Ok, now im lost here. So lets start nuclear wars than cause they do atually save lives, wow that's a new perspective!
Originally posted by rai76
Wondernut,
I understood your point very well actually. But it's more the fact that you have these things and god know what kind of .... you have more! So why worry then about a little test they do.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
First. No Japan isn't able to defend itself. Part of the settlement of WWII was that Japan is only allowed to have a self-defence force. If North Korea starts lobbing missiles Japan doesn't have the ability to eliminate that threat.
Originally posted by rai76
I really don't think this leader is so stupid as you suggest. Even if his test will succeed and he has the possibility to send it directly to New York, he will not just launch it and do it. He know his country will be attacked and his regime will be over. He is only testing this nuke to use it to defend himself, not more than that.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
This is a test –
Assume the following:
You live in a free democratic industrialized society (U.S.A., Japan etc. you fill in the blank).
You are the leader of your country and your countries military.
The dictator of a poor starving enslaved population has somehow acquired a nuclear weapon.
This dictator after many years of threats and after demonstrating their self to be near insanity launches an ICBM towards one of your largest cities.
You know that this dictator has nuclear weapons and has said many times that they will use them without hesitation.
This missile may or may not have a nuclear warhead.
What would you do?
Originally posted by TheBorg
Bow down on one knee, say a prayer to my God for the things that I'm about to do, and then proceed to glass every square inch of that country. By the time I was finished, there wouldn't exist one single moving bacteria inside of those borders, let alone anymore loonies trying to acquire nukes to attack me and mine with. You canNOT allow mentally unstable people to come into possession of nuclear weapons. And if what one person a few posts ago said was true, that China supports NK, then why is it that China doesn't aid NK in acquiring said nukes? Answer is because they know he's as cracked as everyone else does. China won't support him anymore than anyone else will. No one likes that crazy quack.
TheBorg
Originally posted by JIMC5499
Let's make this interesting. The US needs to park an Aegis cruiser off of North Korea and shoot down the missile as soon as it is in international airspace. That would make on hell of a statement.
Originally posted by rai76
Your comment about that it was better to end the war inmidiatly by two nukes, i don't know what to say to that. In my eyes it is still in insane. You could have also attacked important buildings infrastructure etc etc. But sending a nuke and kill 214.000 people, im sorry.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm still fishing though. I want someone who believes the answer would be more diplomacy to explain what they would do and how they would guarantee the safety of their citizens? Would they actually do nothing and risk possibly millions of lives? If so how would they justify that?