• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

North Korea..

Dubai I respect your view and informative posts. However the things you have posted are open to speculation and based on what you predict (based on likeliness) rather what can happen.

News today, NK will target Japan first in a nuclear strike as they are the one developed country in East Asia that do not have a nuclear deterrent.

It isn't speculation, mate, more international theoretical opinion. Though that may be speculation as well, I freely admit: because when you think about it, all political thought is speculation, whether it be on economic values, social issues or power politics. Machiavelli was speculating when he imagined the reactions to the actions he urges his 'prince' to commit in the name of wise rule. Marx was speculating when he advocated an 'end of history' when communism surpasses all other forms of economic and social thought, ending the pattern of revolution and counter-revolution inherent in the divide between the forces and means of production. And Mearsheimer was speculating when he postulated that international countries act in a lawless environment devoid of an officiating power and thus pursue survival (Via the accumulation of relative power) as their only objective.

edit: and that bit of news surprises me. South Korea doesn't have one. Taiwan doesn't have one. Singapore, Malaysia,Indonesia, hell, even Australia (if you include Oceania as part of East Asia, something quite a few scholars do) doesn't have a deterrent.

Japan has U.S missiles on its soil. Stupid decision, if true.
 
Last edited:
You bring up some good points, I agree fully on the world not becoming a more violent place. Another point to that is that violence must surely be seen compared to population size, not just in overall deaths or wars. I haven't seen any numbers on it that were solid that I can remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if we were living in some of the most peaceful times in a very long time.

I think your analysis of the current status quo is a solid one too, but like in my previous post I want to bring up just how difficult it is to predict the future and just how quickly changes can happen. No one expected the Spanish inquisition I suppose is the cliche. No one expected the cold war to suddenly end would probably be a better and much more relevant saying at this point in time. The very same Dan Carlin as I mention in my post above also has a history podcast, some fantastic stuff presented in it. He uses a saying in there - "historical wildcard" or something to that effect. Point being that those things that to us now seem almost inevitable in the cold light of our hindsight bias were very difficult to predict before they happened. The only safe assumption as I see it would be to assume that we can't accurately predict what will happen next and we should plan for most eventualities we can think of.

I think nuclear weapons have done a lot of good for the world in deterring major conflict and preventing the kind of suffering from war that you describe so well. The continued presence of such a deterring effect seems to me to be something that we (Europe, as I'm Norwegian) cannot afford to lose even if it right now seems a bit unnecessary.

I would say that we are actually perhaps living in one of the most peaceful times in human history actually.

No for sure. For example, Neville Chamberlain gets a lot of stick for his 'appeasement' policy but the reality is that he actually had few choices. The cuts to the British military had been so savage post WW1 and especially with the onset of the Great depression that we actually didn't have much ability to stop what was starting to happen in continental Europe.

Thanks, I'll have a look at his podcasts, they sound interesting.

My argument was not necessarily an all encompassing one for or against nuclear weapons. More whether the UK actually requires a nuclear deterrent. Barring a sudden and monumental collapse of the USA, my thoughts are that we don't tbh. Obviously we cannot see into the future but I don't envisage any situation in the near future where, if we were to be hit with nukes, there would not be a reaction in kind from the USA. But obviously I'm not psychic!
 
Last edited:
Did you know we were prepared to use nuclear weapons against Argentina when they invaded the Falklands?

I think you have actually inadvertently stumbled upon probably the biggest argument against nuclear weapons there. The fact that we were seriously considering nuking Argentina (and we weren't going to aim for the countryside here, we were going to go for a big population centre) over the bloody Falklands, shows how absolutely ridiculous these weapons actually are.


Dubai I respect your view and informative posts. However the things you have posted are open to speculation and based on what you predict (based on likeliness) rather what can happen.

News today, NK will target Japan first in a nuclear strike as they are the one developed country in East Asia that do not have a nuclear deterrent.

Singapore, Brunei, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and the number one most obvious target South Korea don't have any kind of nuclear threat whatsoever.

It is doubtful whether NK could even reliably get a nuke to Japan.

More importantly, just like most of their threats, this is almost certainly hot bluster. Japan, just like many of these other countries, come under the US defence umbrella and, even for those that don't, I imagine a nuke would bring about US involvement. An attack on Japan would bring about an American response.

Un will only launch a nuke if he has absolutely nothing to lose anymore. Launching a nuke, especially at close US allies like South Korea or Japan, or probably any country in the region, will result in only one thing, the removal of his regime.
 
I think you have actually inadvertently stumbled upon probably the biggest argument against nuclear weapons there. The fact that we were seriously considering nuking Argentina (and we weren't going to aim for the countryside here, we were going to go for a big population centre) over the bloody Falklands, shows how absolutely ridiculous these weapons actually are.

If you had a nuke, and the other side didn't, wouldn't you consider stating publicly that you are considering using it as an act to deter the opposition from pursuing their planned act of aggression?
 
If you had a nuke, and the other side didn't, wouldn't you consider stating publicly that you are considering using it as an act to deter the opposition from pursuing their planned act of aggression?

No, because all you are doing then is pushing those countries without nukes into feeling that they have a need for them to defend themself.
 
If you had a nuke, and the other side didn't, wouldn't you consider stating publicly that you are considering using it as an act to deter the opposition from pursuing their planned act of aggression?

Sorry, I was under the impression that we were thinking about it privately ie when you're actually considering using it. If not, then you can ignore my previous post!
 
I think you have actually inadvertently stumbled upon probably the biggest argument against nuclear weapons there. The fact that we were seriously considering nuking Argentina (and we weren't going to aim for the countryside here, we were going to go for a big population centre) over the bloody Falklands, shows how absolutely ridiculous these weapons actually are.

You made the post earlier where you were saying that we're probably living in one of the most peaceful times in human history. I think this is true and I think the presence of nuclear weapons is a major reason that we're experiencing this period of relative peace.

Then again, I also think that dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right decision by a massive distance.

Who are these nut job theocracies trying to build a nuke?

Iraq previously, North Korea already succeeded to some degree, Iran?
 
Interesting arguments going on in here and another thread regarding defence, The Falklands showed what can happen when you remove a deterrent, even when you consider there to be no threat.
 
Just a few minutes until the N.Korean holiday is over. I thought if anything was gonna actually happen, it would be today.
 
No, because all you are doing then is pushing those countries without nukes into feeling that they have a need for them to defend themself.

Or to cease hostilities against countries that do have a nuclear deterrent, or are protected by a nuclear-armed nation. Argentina hasn't pursued a nuclear policy since the Falklands conflict for instance.
 
You made the post earlier where you were saying that we're probably living in one of the most peaceful times in human history. I think this is true and I think the presence of nuclear weapons is a major reason that we're experiencing this period of relative peace.

Then again, I also think that dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right decision by a massive distance.



Iraq previously, North Korea already succeeded to some degree, Iran?

It is part of the reason. Another huge part is the importance of trade. There is too much to lose from going to war. Germany have more to gain from trading with France and Russia than trying to invade them, so they trade, rather than fighting. Us and France don't go to war anymore, not because we're scared of each others' nukes but because it makes much more sense to be allies and not engage in war.

This is also imo why actually many smaller nations don't engage in inter-state war anymore. There is little to gain and much to lose from such an operation. Nigeria could invade Niger tomorrow but what would be the point?

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html

2 excellent articles here:

What was left of Japan's factories and workshops struggled fitfully to turn out weapons and other goods from inadequate raw materials. (Oil supplies had not been available since April.) By July about a quarter of all the houses in Japan had been destroyed, and her transportation system was near collapse. Food had become so scarce that most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet.

On the night of March 9-10, 1945, a wave of 300 American bombers struck Tokyo, killing 100,000 people. Dropping nearly 1,700 tons of bombs, the war planes ravaged much of the capital city, completely burning out 16 square miles and destroying a quarter of a million structures. A million residents were left homeless.

Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age." Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s."

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato, US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved."

The 1st article especially is exceptional and beyond all this, also has the thoughts of Generals Eisenhower, Macarthur, Feller and LeMay, Admirals Leahy and King and the head of the American air force.

How are Iraq or North Korea theocracies? I'll answer the Iran point in my reply to Scara.
 

You mean these nut jobs that haven't started a war since the 19th century? That anyone who is reading beyond the hysterical headlines and lies of the media knows is not building the bomb?

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/11/top_ten_media_failures_in_the_iran_war_debate

The West has been saying that Iran is just months away from building the bomb, since 1984. 29 years later, here we are. We paint them as irrational, violent, despite the fact that they have not started a war in almost 300 years (as opposed to us in the rational West, who prefer to start a war every few years it seems).

If they were trying to build a nuke, there is nothing irrational about it either, and both American and Israeli intelligence officials have said likewise. Make a list of countries that the USA has bombed the brick out in the past 60 years. Then make a list of countries that may be considered enemies but which haven't been bombed. Now try to find the common factor amongst the countries in the first list.

I found a great quote the other day. I don't know who its from but I completely agree with the message:

“The myth of religious violence promotes a dichotomy between us in the secular West who are rational and peacemaking, and them, the hordes of violent religious fanatics in the Muslim world. Their violence is religious, and therefore irrational and divisive. Our violence, on the other hand, is rational, peacemaking, and necessary. Regrettably, we find ourselves forced to bomb them into the higher rationality.”

I see much evidence of this in peoples' day to day thoughts here and seemingly amongst our political class as well.
 
The thing that really tinkles me off, is the Countries that say its all right for you to have nukes because you agree with us, but you can not because you believe differently then us.
 
But Iran (Ahmedinijad - sp?) has stated that it wants to "wipe Israel from the face of the planet". North Korea has also publicly stated it's intent to use these weapons in an aggressive, rather than defensive, position. Is that not reason enough to stop them acquiring these weapons?

Like it or not, the UN has done a good job of preventing the proliferation of nuclear a***nals around the globe. Not saying it is fair.
 
But Iran (Ahmedinijad - sp?) has stated that it wants to "wipe Israel from the face of the planet". North Korea has also publicly stated it's intent to use these weapons in an aggressive, rather than defensive, position. Is that not reason enough to stop them acquiring these weapons?

Like it or not, the UN has done a good job of preventing the proliferation of nuclear a***nals around the globe. Not saying it is fair.

I refer you to the article above for mistruths about the Iranian nuclear programme.

North Korea can state whatever it wants, it isn't going to use its nukes unless the the regime is threatened with destruction. They gain nothing from using it in an attacking sense because Un and his generals will be gone by the next day. It makes sense only as a deterrent vs the USA.

I'm not saying of course that I want any of these countries to get these weapons btw, I've made my distate for nukes clear on here multiple times in the past.
 
It is part of the reason. Another huge part is the importance of trade. There is too much to lose from going to war. Germany have more to gain from trading with France and Russia than trying to invade them, so they trade, rather than fighting. Us and France don't go to war anymore, not because we're scared of each others' nukes but because it makes much more sense to be allies and not engage in war.

This is also imo why actually many smaller nations don't engage in inter-state war anymore. There is little to gain and much to lose from such an operation. Nigeria could invade Niger tomorrow but what would be the point?

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html

2 excellent articles here:



The 1st article especially is exceptional and beyond all this, also has the thoughts of Generals Eisenhower, Macarthur, Feller and LeMay, Admirals Leahy and King and the head of the American air force.

So you agree that nukes at least are important. Worth mentioning that the thread of a nuclear war perhaps was an important part of keeping the cold war "cold". I struggle to use the world cold as I imagine people in Vietnam for example would agree about the cold, I'm sure you get what I'm saying without me explaining any further.

Cheers for posting, I just skimmed those now, will have to look further into it later on. Instinctively I have a problem believing that the US would just bomb the hell out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill another couple hundred thousand people just because they could.

I think an important point is highlighted, in a single day 100.000 people were killed by the fire bombing of Tokyo. I don't think people are any better off dying in a fire bomb raid than in a nuclear blast.

Maybe you will know better than me, but I remember reading or hearing about the death toll on Japanese forces being crushed by hardened Soviet forces coming east after having beaten the Germans. The death tolls there were higher by far from what I remember than the death tolls from both nuclear blasts. That was the world people found themselves in. I just think those nuclear blasts were a much smaller deal than it's been made out to be and that they made sense at the time. I think more people would have died had they not been used, but again, I will have to read those articles more in detail and look into it a bit further at a later time.

How are Iraq or North Korea theocracies? I'll answer the Iran point in my reply to Scara.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein, I thought it was rather accepted that he was trying to develop nuclear weapons before the invasion of Kuwait at the very least. I don't think you're going to argue that Iraq under Hussein wasn't a theocracy?

I know North Korea is supposedly some kind of atheistic communist state on paper, I don't buy that at all. Birds sang his praise when good ol' Kim was born apparently, he was some kind of superhero and is now their eternal president. Whatever their state is it isn't a state without a religion. Their religion just isn't one of the classical ones. Call it a cult of personality if you want, I think that's too weak a word.
 
Back