If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I wasn't mentioning that to rile you, just to point out that America has used nukes, contrary to what you believe.
And yes, Japan did cripple your fleet, if you choose to believe the movies and not history.
I recall the Japanes only completely destroyed about 3-4 ships. The other ships that were damaged were salvaged within 6 months. Hardly crippling.
this is besides the point.
If there was a war against Korea, it would quickly become a war of attrition if the USA didn't use nukes. Afghanistan has already become one, a war that was supposed to be over by christmas...we haven't heard that before!
If relations between N-Korea and USA did break down, then China wouldn't hesitate in siding against you. And whatever you may want to believe Thanatos, China will hurt you. It has more nukes, more submarines, more troops, more tanks, more jets than the USA. They may not be better, but in a war of attrition they are enough. And China gets stronger every day. They and the Russians are already developing equipment that outmatches anything you have to offer. The Mig-29, the T-90 are 2 examples.
Maybe the USA would win in the end, but it will do so with the blood of millions of people on its hands, that of American and Asian to begin with. How long would it take before we and the rest of NATO get dragged into it?
You say you won't start a war, but it is easy to tell from the way you and your countryment speak, you are waiting for any excuse for a fight. And from the way you speak, it wouldn't surprise me if one of them trod on your foot before you were aiming a rifle at their head.
Revising history comes more within your specialty.
Seems you understand very little concerning the mindset of a warrior.
Warriors do not quit, and they don't surrender, regardless of certain defeat. They are not like many here, who would take the path of "reasoned debate" while on the walk to the guillotine.
Japan is a militaristic society, and their warriors live lives committed to honor.
Japan would have fought a conventional war until every last man had dies, and only women and children were left to the fight.
You might find this difficult to comprehend, but I RESPECT the Japanese commitment to honor, in regards to the ferocity of their warriors.
Warriors are very different from anything within your extremely limited exposure to this world, and it matters little whether the theatre is Bastogne, or Khe Sanh, or even a mission in Texas (The Alamo). It matters little which country the warriors are from, and this is why warriors respect warriors from other countries and cultures.
Regardless of of what YOUR revisionist propoganda handlers would feed you, Japan would have fought to the last man, within a conventional invasion, and had the US not invaded, they would have regenerated themselves, and come back with a vengence.
How do I know?
It is what I have done, and would do.
I have much more in common with them, than I do with the likes of you...
Dont know much about the South Koreans do ya mate. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Afghanistan is most certainly not a war of atrition. Do you know what that word means? Where do you get the idea it was supposed to be finished by christmas? I seem to recall talk of years and decades.
Im also a little confused as to where Russia comes into the equation. They wouldnt fight for NK.
It gets boring and annoying putting NORTH in front of Korea and Ireland in talks like this.
A war of attrition, much like the second world war where it drags on for years and years. A fight where the person with the most soldiers and the most guns will win in the end. Kind of like a meat grinder.
When I mention Afghanistan, I recall Bush and Blair saying the war against terrorism would certainly last years, however neither of them mentioned the war in Afghanistan itself lasting so long, and several people of influence were hinting that it would be over pretty quickly.
As for Russia, if you were Putin, who would you ally with..China or the USA? He has already voiced his concerns over US handling of Israel, Afghanistan and North Korea, and has consistently maintaned his displeasure with US meddling in the regions.
Eh? They are totally different countries and the South Korean military is one of the best in the world. They totally outclass the North.
Doesnt happen when one side totally outclasses the other in every aspect. NK has a population of 20 million, South 45 million. Attrition? please.
Show me where someone in authority said it would be over by Christmas.
Er thats a no brainer mate..Russia WOULD ally itself with the USA. China is the larger threat to a weakened Russia and Putin knows that.
[ 26-03-2002: Message edited by: Balddog ]
[ 26-03-2002: Message edited by: Balddog ]
China;1450 million
How would a war of attrition affect them? Killing 20 million wouldn't make a dent in the figure. China's military is geared for Guerilla warfare, it's units can operate independently of central command, it has Airbases spread throughout the country. Nuking the East coast wouldn't impede it's ability to wage war. Nuking the entire country wouldn't do anything but kill civilans. The soldiers would still be there waiting for you.
As for Putin, yes Russia is weakened. However I believe Putin, unlike Blair is too proud to become America's lap dog, don't you? I believe he is far more likely to side with China, as China is more of a threat. How long would it take America to send thousands of ground troops to Moscow? How long would it take China?
MUCH you cannot comprehend.
Those who have survived the reality of war are the least likely to search for an excuse to return to war. However, they comprehend the necessity for the preparedness for war, both in material, and in mindset.
What the US has, in technology, is not necessarily what you will read about on the web, nor hear from your socialist sympathizer propoganda handlers. What we have, in any area of discussion concerning capability in war, is not left to general popular knowledge. Ever hear of the term "OpSec"? Operational Security? I did not answer the query as to how many troops we have in S Korea, because I know better than to believe popular sources. Only the truly naive believe that BS. It might be accurate, but most likely is FAR from actually accurate.
DIS-INFORMATION within the realm of your comprehensive skills???
Iraq was supposed to devistate the US armored units during Desert Storm. The Marine armored units (supposedly the weakest and under strength) were supposed to be support, but not just took the brunt, but DESTROYED the Iraqi units.
I do NOT buy into the bullshit which you accept as fact, and I have witnessed with my own eyes the total opposite of what is taken as your factual history.
If you believe that the Chinese and Koreans will take it to the US, then it is time to back up your words with your life. Root for who you believe will prevail, and not so secretly hope will prevail, and THEN pledge your life to the conflict.
I have.
Others have.
You will not...
Im not quite sure what your point is about China..Who gives a fuck if they have a screaming chinaman behind every tree in China if the war is in south korea? Nobody wants to invade China here mate.
If China and the USA went to war tommorrow, the USA would win with quite a good margin. The Russians know this and they would side with the USA(if anyone) They certainly wouldnt side with China just for the hell of it.
Anyway this is getting silly...Fantasy land. China prolly wouldnt come in on NKs side atm anyway. They know they cant win a war against the USA or else they would have retaken Taiwan.
My compliments. Some of you guys "over there" give hope that the pablum consumers will not prevail over reality...
[ 26-03-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
Khe Sahn, S Vietnam. 5600 US Marines stood off 100,000 NVA. Under-manned, under-supplied, and US forces still prevailed.
During Vietnam conflict, US forces killed 60 times the losses they suffered. It was a military loss ONLY in your revisionist history...
"Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia... ever look up the losses for each side?
Be careful in choosing which team you root for...
Who has the "influence"? Your teachers? Your socialist handlers and propoganda sources?
I seem to recall stating MYSELF on this forum that the conflict would likely last for the rest of my life...
Assuming he forget the hatred which the two countries share. Even thought they we both communist countries until recently they actually have seen eachother as bigger threat than the US...
It would be worth looking up your history of this region.
but why? its just stupid. It would be understandable if it was a cold war situation USSR vs USA, each battling for supremacy, but its not. north korea is a tiny country (smaller than england?) and doesn't stand a chance in hell against the rest of the world.
they keep going on about hapans brutal occupation of korea pre-1945 and american "war crimes" during the korean war. why dont they just shut up and get on with their lives?
who are they to talk about propaganda? but do I read this correctly - are they saying that they will retaliate with nuclear weapons or that the american attack might be with nuclear weapons?
Life in NK is shocking but as long as the North Koreans think that America is the great satan then the government has nothing to worry about.
Ever read George Orwell? 1984? <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
In WW2, Russia suffered 18,000,000 deaths, compared with Germany's 5,260,000. In terms of total population, this is 11% and 7% respectively. Did Germany win WW2 because it suffered fewer losses? I think not.
The number of people killed cannot be used to judge who wins a war. Stated military objectives can. The stated military objective of the Allies in WW2 was to destroy Nazi Germany. They succeeded; Germany lost. The stated military objective of the US in Vietnam was to eliminate Communism from the country, or at least to protect the South from it. They failed. You may have noticed that Vietnam is a Communist country, even now.
You might argue that these victories are pyrrhic; I would disagree.
The method of kill counting determining victory was developed by the US Military in Vietnam in order that their lack of success in more traditional indicators be covered up by the fact that "today I killed 10 VC soldiers".
All I was trying to do was point out the other side of the coin as it were. You believe you are all powerful, and as you put it "preparing for war". What war? Your constantly preparing for a war, like a paranoid school girl is going to cause the next one. You've talked about launching pre-emptive strikes against Iraq and Iran and other "hostile" nations, when in fact they have done nothing to show that they can threaten you directly. And don't say they can, but just for the fun of it, what can Iraq do that won't result in it's annhiliation...?
Your "preparing" for a war that might never happen is ultimately going to drag everyone else into world war 3. But you fail to realise that.
The Japanesse on the verge of surrender, that's why every last child was armed and ready to try and gut a GI. Right. That's also why they didn't surrender after the first bomb.
I guess none of your pinko teachers ever taught you that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had heavy military buildups. The targets had been studied for a very long time. Tokyo had been nixed because of too high a civilian casualty rating. See even the Americans aren't that bad.
I missed to much of this thread. But some of you are real revisionists. I've studied the war, in Japan. And I can say that although they aren't happy they got bombed they aren't near as upset by it as you dolts. They understand why we did it. I go and party every weekend in Hiro, and most of the people love me, not hate me and they know I'm a Marine. So live with the fact we used atomic bombs in WWII the Japanesse have!!!
Well, they did.
The Japanese, through intermediaries, sent word that they would surrender if the safety of the Emperor was guaranteed after the first bomb. Truman had already decided 3 months earlier that we wouldn't go after him when we won. After the second bomb they dropped the condition. The question is, why did we drop the second bomb if we were getting everything we wanted?
I have a feeling that we wanted to see if and how well the more complicated bomb would work.
They way to maintain peace is to oppose every planned war of the ruling class! The workers of the world have no interest in the wars of the ruling class and the bosses! All wars arise out of disputes between the ruling class of different countries over things like competition for markets, trade routsand access to raw materials! These wars are of no concern to the workers! In wars it is the workers who are slaughtered on battlefields, it is their homes that are bombed, it is them who are ethnically cleansed!
They way to end the threat of war once and for all is for the workers to sieze power from the bosses and ruling class and establish a system of workers control of the means of production and a system of production for need not profit. A system where there is no ruling class and no bosses where the workers are in control ie world communism!
Globalise Resistance the voice of the anti-capitalist movement
This is totaly crao because warfare has been around longer than capitalism. In fact some tribes in Africa fight wars, even though they wouldn't know what capitalism is if it bit them on the arse.
It is a shame that your political dogma has made you so blind.
Warfare is human nature, just as much as eating...
The previous systems of imperialism and feudalism were similar to capitalism in that they had a ruling elite who owned the majority of the wealth and the means of production, land in those days and used the labour power of the lower classes to create wealth. It was the ruling class in these previous systems that started wars over there quest for wealth such as colonies and their rivalry with the ruling class of other countries over access to things like raw materials and resouces like land which was used to create wealth!
Read the Socialist Worker the paper that tells the facts
[ 27-03-2002: Message edited by: stealgate ]
No, wars have been fought for increasing power and security independent of wealth. Many wars have been fought for territory, even when controlling and governing this territory would actually cost the conqueror.
Read Thucydides' History of the Pelloponessian (sp) War, a history of a conflict fought 2000 years ago for reasons completely independent of economics or class struggle.
There are many others. Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1937, many of the Roman wars of conquest, Alexander of Macedonia's conquests, etc.....
It's naive to think that economics is the only reason why nations go to war.
However you fail to realise that oil is the west's lifeblood. Without oil we don't have a society, we'd be sent back to the stoneages.
Sure, we need to find a renewable source of energy, and quickly. However you can't make roads, plastic, computer components e.t.c without oil. So yes, the gulf war was about economic reasons, but also our survival was at stake. Very few people seem to realise this.
Buy the way the anti-gulf war protests in Britain and America were the biggest anti-war protests since Vietnam!
Socialist Worker the alternative to the capitalist press
[ 28-03-2002: Message edited by: stealgate ]
Pathetic sycophants always say that they will get it right thistime, that every other instance of communism was a fuck-up... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard (or at least close) What big bad war did the US have between Vietnam and the Gulf?
Socialist Worker the alternative to the capitalist press.
it is a big bad world out there SG, we are fortunate to live in one of the most powerful countries on Earth. Other countries, decide that they want some of that power, and attempt to take it. They get beaten down. Wars are fought over territory, in an ideal world people would be nice, we would share and be happy. But we're human.
I remember a quote I once read in the times:
What I'm trying to get at is, that we are the same as we were millenia ago. We won't change. Communism goes against every base human instinct there is.