Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

N. Korea Announces It Has Nuclear Weapons

North Korea Neclear Weapons Announcement

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 04:37 AM

AP Asia

Quote

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea (news - web sites) on Thursday announced for the first time that it has nuclear weapons and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks any time soon, saying it needs the armaments as protection against an increasingly hostile United States

The communist state's pronouncement dramatically raised the stakes in the two-year-old nuclear confrontation and posed a grave challenge to President Bush (news - web sites), who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea's nuclear program through six-nation talks.

"We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

Previously, North Korea reportedly told U.S. negotiators in private talks that it had nuclear weapons and might test one of them. Its U.N. envoy told The Associated Press last year that the country had "weaponized" plutonium from its pool of 8,000 nuclear spent fuel rods.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#2 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 04:44 AM

Quote

saying it needs the armaments as protection against an increasingly hostile United States

I can understand why he might feel that way, being part of the 'Axis of Evil' and all

but this is still just not good news in any way

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#3 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 04:49 AM

^ Yes, I'd prefer it if N. Korea's "respected and beloved Great Leader" didn’t have the ability to inflict mass destruction.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#4 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 04:53 AM

You, me and I think every other thinking person too.

#5 Shoshana

Shoshana
  • Islander
  • 4,033 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 05:01 AM

North Korea has been to me at least, much more of a scary threat to the US than Iraq ever was.

<sarcasm>But wait... do they have oil in North Korea?</sarcasm>

And even tho I figured they had nukes, knowing it is freaking me out a bit.

'shana

#6 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:11 AM

no oil = no interest

After all, there is only one country worldwide who as actually ever  used weapons of mass destruction......
RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products

#7 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:23 AM

Quote

Chaddee: no oil = no interest
Nuclear Weapons + Enough Artillery to level Seoul in a few hours = Tell me what we are supposed to do.

Quote

Chaddee: After all, there is only one country worldwide who as actually ever used weapons of mass destruction......
One country that has used nuclear weapons is what you mean.  The alternative was a messy invasion of Japan that would have caused something on the order of 100,000 to 250,000+ American casualties with the high-end estimates figuring over a million.  It would have meant bringing massive amounts of firepower to bear on the Japanese civilian population who their government intended to use in mass wave attacks against US troops.  It would have meant another Saipan where many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than face what their government claimed our GIs and Marines did.  This mass suicide on Saipan was done within sight of our troops who pleaded with them to stop.  In all other words we would have had to conduct a messy invasion that leveled the country from end to end and probably destroyed most of the Japanese casualties.  I would like for someone with this sentiment to answer a question.  I have always been slightly convinced that if the US hadn’t used the bomb and instead launched a messy invasion people of a certain political leaning would still be bashing the US.  “We should have used the bomb because we could have avoided millions of people from dying.”

How many additional Japanese lives being lost at the time would be worth it to be able to say the US didn’t use the bomb?  One million?  Two Million?  Five Million?  Or would it go up to Ten Million plus?  Because that was the alternative to the Atomic Bomb.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 10 February 2005 - 10:24 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#8 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:29 AM

Yeah it would have been much better if we had invaded Japan and killed millions of Japanese suicide minded soldiers and civilians.  As well as having a few hundred thousands more dead among the allied troops.  Or we sadly kill a couple of hundred people while using these weapons against viable military targets.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#9 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:40 AM

CJ, G: Historical speculation is, at its heart, speculation.  While we can speculate about how things might have turned out had America not dropped the bombs, the truth is that we'll never know.

#10 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:43 AM

^^Death toll at Hiroshima is estimated to be somewhere between 90,000 to 200,000 on the far high end estimates.  Nagasaki is hard to estimate with 39,000 to a little over 100,000  on the high end.  Still far lower than a invasion would have been.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 10 February 2005 - 10:44 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#11 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:57 AM

prolog, on Feb 10 2005, 10:40 AM, said:

CJ, G: Historical speculation is, at its heart, speculation.  While we can speculate about how things might have turned out had America not dropped the bombs, the truth is that we'll never know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


We can’t tell the exact numbers but we can draw a range that puts it well above what the Atomic Bombs caused.  Actually all you need to do is start with Guadalcanal, go to Saipan, and then jump ahead to the bloodbaths of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.  In each battle the Japanese grew more and more desperate and used more radical tactics.  Until it reached the point that at Iwo Jima we virtually had to wipe out an entire 27,000 man Japanese garrison when we only captured a little over a thousand.  In return we lost around 7,000 KIAs and had a higher total causality count than the Japanese garrison we wiped out.  Okinawa was far worse in several ways and set the stage for invading Japan.  Meanwhile the Japanese government was planning human wave attacks and gathering far more troops than what took part in Iwo Jima and Okinawa to defend the home islands.  

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Lesser of Two Evils

Quote

The Japanese view of war was quite different from that of the American view: death in war was not something to be avoided, but to be sought. The Shinto cult, for example, which preached a radical concept of self-sacrifice, taught that suicide was glorious, while surrender was an unthinkable disgrace. It was at Saipan that even Japanese civilians committed suicide by jumping off the cliffs on the northern tip of the island rather than surrender. At the battle of , thousands of Japanese had drawn themselves up in a line and killed themselves by hand-grenades, rather than surrender.

Quote

This explains why at this very time the Japanese military was rapidly building up defense forces on the southern island of Kyushu, where by war's end there were 14 divisions and 735,000 troops ready to sacrifice themselves in battle.

Quote

He knew, as General Marshall's reports confirmed, that at least 500,000 Americans would be lost in an invasion of Japan. That was a conservative estimate, as the possibility existed that up to one million Allied casualties would be suffered. Meanwhile, it was estimated that potential Japanese casualties stood at five million.

Truman and his advisers were well aware that they had just suffered 75,000 American casualties in seizing Okinawa , just a small island.

Quote

Truman knew that if an American invasion was carried through, the 100,000 Allied prisoners of war would die. He was aware of Tokyo’s order that, at the moment that the Americans invaded Japan's home islands, the POW's were to be tortured, beheaded, and executed en mass

So there is the alternative.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 10 February 2005 - 10:57 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#12 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 11:07 AM

I am going back over a number of books that talk about operation Olympic. They talk around a million allied causalties at least. Of which  a third would dead. They talk about huge numbers civilian causalties due to the civilians trying to attack the invaders of the soil of Japan.

So saying that millions would have died in place of a couple of hundred thousands due to the bombs is not a real far fetched as some would like.

CJ I was using American Heritage for my numbers of the dead and wounded what were you using?I also used Martin Gilbert's Second WorldWar.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#13 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 11:26 AM

CJ, G: I don't doubt that had the Americans gone in the hard way, island by island, until they took Japan itself, that there would have been massive casualties.  But that's only if that particular course of events had happened.  What if a number of other countries had jumped Japan from the west?  What if the Americans had detonated a few nuclear bombs within view of Japan, so that the Japanese knew what they were looking at if they wouldn't surrender?  I believe that your scenario is the most likely course of events in the no-drop scenario.  But given that Japan gave up after two bombs, the theory that they'd fight to the last man isn't entirely accurate.  We don't know that the course of events you outline would have occured; at best, we can only say that it was likely to have.

#14 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 11:37 AM

What the great Chinese navy of 1945 which would not have any sealift ability. Or the Russians and their great navy?  Where was the test suppose to take place that would not be called an Allied trick?  There was an attempt by members of the military to prevent the surrender speech from being aired.

They were training children to crawl under tanks with a landmine across their backs.

What got them to finally stop was the fact they did not know how many weapons we had. They had reports of how horrible the effects were. You cannot tell them see this would be horrible to do to a city when taking out the city would show it even more clearly than words.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#15 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 12:09 PM

Quote

Prolog: CJ, G: What if a number of other countries had jumped Japan from the west?

What countries?  The USSR was really the only country left in the region other than the UK and US who could have “jumped”.  And really the USSR didn’t have the sealift capacity for a large invasion.  And if you think casualties would be bad with the US/UK forces the Red Army would have had no mercy.  In addition all the political ramifications of how brutal the Red Army could be and having them sitting in Japan.  

Quote

Prolog: What if the Americans had detonated a few nuclear bombs within view of Japan, so that the Japanese knew what they were looking at if they wouldn't surrender?
First off we didn’t have enough Atomic bombs to drop several of them for demonstrations.  We didn’t even have enough material to build a test device for the “Little Boy” design.  We couldn’t have even completed another Little Boy design for several months.  “Fat Man” was only completed a few days before the actually mission to drop it.  Both bombs were dropped on the assumption that the scientists of the Manhattan project thought and “hoped” the designs would work.  We had several Fat Man assembles but no plutonium cores to use in them.  The reality is we didn’t have the bombs to carry out a warning shot and wouldn’t of had them ready for sometime. Now on top of that:

There you have to consider they didn’t surrender right after Hiroshima was leveled by the first Atomic and instead sat on it for three days until we dropped on Nagasaki.  We leveled an entire city and it didn’t impress them enough to lead to surrender.  Even after the leveling of Nagasaki and the declaration of war by the Soviets the Japanese ruling council was still in a deadlock over surrendering.  It was only by direct intervention of the Emperor that Japan came to decide to surrender.  On top of that even after the Emperor made the surrender known there was an coup aimed at stopping the surrender, kidnapping the Emperor, and killing the leaders who sought peace.  In addition several kamikaze attacks were still carried out against US Naval vessels along with several army revolts and attempted assassinations.  These acts of defiance in the word of William O’Neill in “A Democracy at War” after the fire bombing raids had done their bloody work, after millions had fled to the countryside, after the Soviets had declared war, after atomic bombs had destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and after the Emperor had twice ordered the government to surrender”.

As George Feifer put it: “The nation in trance did not care about the odds against her.  Something was needed to free her from her spell.”  The atomic bomb served that role.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 10 February 2005 - 12:10 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#16 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 12:11 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 10 2005, 11:23 AM, said:

Quote

Chaddee: After all, there is only one country worldwide who as actually ever used weapons of mass destruction......
One country that has used nuclear weapons is what you mean.  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would disagree with the school of thought that would have us believe only "one country" has used a nuclear weapon.  There has only been one alliance of countries that dropped an atomic bomb.  After all, the US was not the only country at war with Japan, nor did they fail to disclose the development of the nuclear weapon to its Allies and discuss its use with them. So the Allies dropped the atom bombs on behalf of the Alliance; it was not a US-only thing.  

For example, Churchill certainly grasped the full magnitude of the situation, and quite readily gave his country's support to the use of the bomb.  In Triumph and Tragedy, Churchill reflects on the gruesome alternative of the invasion that might have cost the lives 500,000+ British troops in addition to the enormous US and Russian casualties.

As to the decision to use the bomb, Churchill makes it quite clear:

Quote

The historic fact remains, and must be judged in the after-time, that the decision whether or not to use the atomic bomb to compel the surrender of Japan was never even an issue. There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table; nor did I ever hear the slightest suggestion that we should do otherwise.

http://www.nuclearfi...-churchill.html

Banapis

Edited by Banapis, 10 February 2005 - 12:12 PM.


#17 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 12:16 PM

Quote

What if a number of other countries had jumped Japan from the west? What if the Americans had detonated a few nuclear bombs within view of Japan, so that the Japanese knew what they were looking at if they wouldn't surrender? I believe that your scenario is the most likely course of events in the no-drop scenario. But given that Japan gave up after two bombs, the theory that they'd fight to the last man isn't entirely accurate. We don't know that the course of events you outline would have occured; at best, we can only say that it was likely to have.






There were no other countries to jump Japan. We were mostly on our own after VE day.

We dropped the first one, and gave them a chance to surrender, they would not, so we dropped the second. Those were the only two Bombs we had at the time. We coulod not have wasted them on a demonstration. The first one was dropped on a city, and they did not surrender, so there is no reason to believe a demo would have had any effect.



Had we gone in with Troops instead of using the only two bombs we had, there was no doubt that they would have fought to the last man. They already had planes diving into ships, they were dedicated to the emporror. There was no better option for the USA at the time. We'd already lost to many fighting from island to island.
Can't Touch This!!

#18 Han

Han

    When all else fails, use fire.

  • Islander
  • 483 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 12:50 PM

Dropping the bomb also explicitly sent a message to the Soviets regarding America's military potential, acting as the the first move in the beginning Cold War.

Edit: One of the first moves.

Edited by Hankuang, 10 February 2005 - 01:25 PM.

Han

#19 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 01:23 PM

^ I would say the first step in the Cold War was at Yalta.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#20 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 10 February 2005 - 01:37 PM

Back to the original topic, this is no suprise North Korea has had an active nuclear weapons program since the 1980s that I have detailed before. They lied and continued to enrich uranium and produce plutonium at secret facilities as well as buy nuclear secrets from A.Q. Khan after the Agreed Framework that was supposed to give them the insentive to stop thier nuclear program was signed and the evidence for this deception became known  by 2000, well before Bush was even in office or made mention of them in any speeches. This is not response to recent events, but the culmination of a decades long program that would give North Korea a nuclear weapon, a program that neither good faith negotation, bribery, or threats managed to stop.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: North Korea, Neclear Weapons, Announcement

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users