America dropped the "fat man" nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, 74,000 killed many more died in agony later or suffered serious life changing injuries, and today we have 2 powerful men threatening to do the same.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/9/newsid_3580000/3580143.stm
History repeating itself.............
History repeating itself........
The situations are rather different.
Except, it's not.
North Korea has made a career out of sabre rattling. They issue idle threats externally all the time, and internally their country is told how Great And Powerful they are reinforced by a media blackout.
If NK launch an attack on the US, a) I'll eat my own shoes and b) they'll be a smoking crater inside of 15 minutes.
If NK launch an attack on the US, a) I'll eat my own shoes and b) they'll be a smoking crater inside of 15 minutes.
This. & that's without US nukes.
Enola Gay dropped the first one on the 6th
North Korea needs sorting out, there simply is no "do nothing" option. Leaders like Obama have just tried to ignore the problem whilst they get closer to offensive nuclear weapons.
Cougar I agree NK won't launch an attack - yet - the US could well move first and arguably should do.
Suggestions?
I'm not saying you're wrong, and it is a serious question - I just can't think exactly what should be done.
I mean there are already sanctions, so that's not it. So what then?
Edit - I see your suggestion. I'm going to suggest you're wrong. First strike - bad idea.
jambalayaNorth Korea needs sorting out, there simply is no "do nothing" option.
Yes there is. It's called the do nothing option. It's the only option that might not result in millions of deaths.
North Korea needs sorting out,
Well Kim Jong Wotsit needs sorting out that's for sure. But so does Trump.
Both cranks of the highest order.
dance off, old school rules?
Hardly fair when Kim won the internet with that gangnam thing a couple of years ago.
am i the only person who thinks trump is more dangerous than kim?
Trumps probably thin skinned enough to take him seriously.
ton - Memberam i the only person who thinks trump is more dangerous than kim?
If you had to choose between living in the U.S or North Korea, which would you pick?
Hardly fair when Kim won the internet with that gangnam thing a couple of years ago.
[img] 
[/img]
What does "sorting out"mean Jambalaya ?
If you had to choose between living in the U.S or North Korea, which would you pick?
irrelevant.
If either shoots a bomb,tv news channels will have a field day, wonder which one will be the first to send a news crew to the site, then realise to late its to late.
What should they do?jambalaya - Member
arguably should do.
Trump has really painted himself into a corner with this one.
Thing is, he's painted a lot of others into the corner too. That's his thing.
Gordimhor
Cougar I agree NK won't launch an attack - yet - the US could well move first and arguably should do.
I assume he means first strike.
If you had to choose between living in the U.S or North Korea, which would you pick?
I think trump is less likely to bomb the US than North Korea but I'm not 100% sure 8)
ton
If you had to choose between living in the U.S or North Korea, which would you pick?irrelevant.
Hardly. You can theorize all you want about how Trump might be more dangerous than Kim Jong Un, but the reality is Kim Jong Un is a mass murderer, part of a brutal regime that kills, imprisons and enslaves millions of North Koreans. The people under him are living in a brutal, tyrannical, paranoid military dictatorship.
People living under Trump, well they live in America.
As in most of these cases the ones shouting that something will be done or needs to be done never really volunteer for a bit of action come the event.
Of course there is a "do nothing" option!
In fact, that's the option which enabled the cold war to end in peace, rather than pieces.....
The West will always have a sufficient Nuclear Arsenal to completely flatten NK, and NK knows it. Even if they develop their Nuclear Tech and methods of launching it, they cannot actually ever use it. It's called Detente or MAD, which ever you favour. Ultimately NK are a small country on their own in the world, a Nuclear strike by them on any foreign power would open the door for a similar Nuclear retaliation by any number of foreign powers, or agents for those powers (ie NATO etc)
A nuclear strike on NK would also cause massive death and disruption to NK's neighbours, our allies.
It's utter madness, if America bombs NK, the best EU response would be to bomb the USA.
Mutually assured destruction, I think is the correct term.
Back on subject, at the time they did what they had too do, projected losses for an Allied (American) invasion of mainland Japan were horrific. They hoped one bomb would be enough but the Japanese military wanted a fight to the death. Even after the second bomb some of them wanted to carry on.
Sometimes a regime is so wicked that it needs to be stopped, even when the price is high:
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 ]Unit 731[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
Although, of course, some would condemn both sides equally, those Sihk soldiers tying their hands behind their backs, placing target numbers beside themselves and accidentally sitting in front of the Japaense soldiers and those Japanese soldiers that organised the use of human beings for target practise.
That's the one Grandmaster Flash.
cranberry - Member
even when the price is high:
What price is acceptable to stop NK?
Yes there is. It's called the do nothing option. It's the only option that might not result in millions of deaths.
This.
It's not ideal, but it's worked for 50 years, being able to land a nuke on the USA isn't *that* big a change to the status quo. a) NK are already able to wipe out millions with the kit they already have. b) NK won't do it.
As always the Atlantic explains it all:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/
I get that IGM it's just that "sorting out" seems such a neat and tidy glib phrase.
What it would actually be is theunleashing the most destructive weapon ever on civilians with immediate catastrophic results.
Back on subject, at the time they did what they had too do, projected losses for an Allied (American) invasion of mainland Japan were horrific.
This. Never mind casualties invading the mainland, Allied and local civilian deaths taking medium sized Pacific islands were immense. 50,000 lives to end it was cheap and saved a large multiple of 50,000 Japanese lives, let alone Allied.
Let's not forget we killed 30,000 French Civilians bombing France in the run up to D-Day! ...and that didn't even end the war it just got Troops on the Beach.
No North Korean has ever tried to kill me. Whilst Transit van, First Bus and BMW drivers do on a daily basis. Can we go to war with them first please
(I'm presuming North Koreans don't drive buses in Suffolk btw).
No they wouldn't be [b]north[/b] Koreans that far south Wilburt
If you had to choose between living in the U.S or North Korea, which would you pick?
People living under Trump, well they live in America.
Neither they are as bad as each other. The US is fast becoming a totalitarian state where the populace are dangerously ignorant of the outside world. [url= https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/08/unlearning-the-myth-of-american-innocence ]Here's a bit of a read by an American journalist for some perspective.[/url]
Of course there is a "do nothing" option!In fact, that's the option which enabled the cold war to end in peace, rather than pieces.....
The West will always have a sufficient Nuclear Arsenal to completely flatten NK, and NK knows it. Even if they develop their Nuclear Tech and methods of launching it, they cannot actually ever use it. It's called Detente or MAD, which ever you favour. Ultimately NK are a small country on their own in the world, a Nuclear strike by them on any foreign power would open the door for a similar Nuclear retaliation by any number of foreign powers, or agents for those powers (ie NATO etc)
Does this not rely on common sense and concern for the citizens that they govern on the part of the leadership?
I can envisage various scenarios where MAD would not restrain the NK leadership
I think we should all just sit back and watch Pulgasari directed by Kim Sr with the aid of a kidnapped film director.
It wouldn't be a 'MAD' scenario as NK couldn't destroy the US.
sit back, ride your bikes, relax, nothing will happen.
Kim and Donald should settle things with a Stanley knife fight.
The US is fast becoming a totalitarian state
Looks up totalitarian in the dictionary, goes online to watch some US comedians laying into Trump, checks that friends and relatives over there are not living in camps, checks to see if Disney World is still open....decides that maybe some people need to lookup the word hyperbole first.
Dance off, best of five.
Paper, scissors, stone or a round of California Games oh the Sega Master System are the only ways to settle this
The US is fast becoming a totalitarian state
Utter codswallop. It is a democracy, where people utterly take the piss out of Trump and are free to vote for whomever they want without consequence.
Trump might not be your choice for President, but claiming that it is a totalitarian state in, of all things, a discussion about [url= https://www.hrw.org/asia/north-korea ]North Korea[/url] shows a great lack of judgement.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
North Korea needs sorting out,
This is why Iraq and Libya are such beacons of democracy and freedom
Frankie Goes to Hollywood "2 tribes" or a dance off are the best solutions.
