Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Technosoul · Jun 17, 2005, 02:17 am

Based on what you currently have learned about North Korea over the news would you support a first stike nuclear attack on that country,? Concidering that we presently cannot have an effective conventional war - lack of troops and equipment. Would you support such action if President Bush wanted to do that?

castille · Jun 17, 2005, 03:07 am

Only if we also agree to a first strike on the United States :)

(PS. This isn't religion or philosophy. I think it belongs to Misc)

tinybear · Jun 17, 2005, 03:14 am

No, I wouldn't. A nuclear strike would inevitably target innocent civilians. We don't want a repeat of Hiroshima/Nagasaki do we?

mr.perfecto · Jun 17, 2005, 05:36 am

What was wrong with Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I support nuking NK after we take out the Sunni Triangle. Then again, its not like we have a shortage of bombs. Take them both out by tomorrow morning and we can all sleep a little more soundly tomorrow night.

tinybear · Jun 17, 2005, 05:39 am

At the expense of being terrorists? When you deliberately target civilians and non-combatants, you're no better than them.

mr.perfecto · Jun 17, 2005, 05:49 am

We can worry about being better than them after they are dead. And really, look at all the good it did Japan. How many times in the 50 years before WW2 did Japan invade China? How many millions died then? How many times has Japan invaded since?

Talk about a major attitude adjustment. Nuking the Triangle and the Koreans would probably have a similar effect. Seriously, 60 years from now their intellectuals will be thanking us for doing it.

**Matt W** · Jun 17, 2005, 05:49 am

Quote:

What was wrong with Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

The war was already won, for starters.

tinybear · Jun 17, 2005, 05:58 am

Mr. perfecto> The Japanese have not forgotten what we did. They're just waiting for the chance to exact a terrible vengence. Japanese militarism still lives, not only amongst an insignificant minority but amongst the intellectual and political elite.

mr.perfecto · Jun 17, 2005, 06:01 am

I'm not sure how that is possible, as we didn't accept their surrender until after we nuked them.

Besides, we couldn't let WW1 repeat itself, we had to make our overwhelming victory so clear, that the Japanese would have no choice but to reevaluate their society. We couldn't allow the disloyal opposition (every nation eventually gets one) to claim Japan hadn't really been beaten.

tinybear · Jun 17, 2005, 06:18 am

Mr. p> Click on this link and read "The Bard Memorandum".

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

mr.perfecto · Jun 17, 2005, 06:30 am

I'm not quite sure what I was supposed to take from that...

I supposed we could give the Triangle and NK a bit of a warning before we strike, it probably won't less the psychic blow to their societal "self-image" and it may even make them amenable to learning the lessons they need to learn.

Technosoul · Jun 17, 2005, 08:37 am

I was thinking that a nuclear attack would be a moral issue of interest in religion and perhaps for philosophy folks, although I was thinking of putting the post under politics. But I guess it might be something a General would discuss. Tech

**Matt W** · Jun 17, 2005, 08:50 am

*grins* That was me, Tech, moving it here. It can be discussed as a political & moral question, but seeing as it's more of a 'what if...' with elements of both, I thought 'General' was the best place.

castille · Jun 18, 2005, 09:26 am

"Behold, the power of the Death Star!"

Thunder Wave · Jun 18, 2005, 11:18 am

Please read.
An article on Hiroshima

If you think Nuking is a solution to problems, think again. One Nuke would cause another and the whole world could be crippled until the extinction of humankind.

I mean right now. Any Nuclear act will just explode from country to country ESPECIALLY the US. We aren't liked very much among the majority of nations.

tinybear · Jun 18, 2005, 11:43 am

I like your avatar. It makes you look so....sincere. :)

View Poll Results: Would you support a 1st strike nuclear attack on N.K.
Yes	2	20.00%
No	7	70.00%
Only if President Bush wanted too	0	0%
Only if the United Nations authorized the action	1	10.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote

Jun 17, 2005, 02:17 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Would you support a nuclear first strike of N.K. Based on what you currently have learned about North Korea over the news would you support a first stike nuclear attack on that country,? Concidering that we presently cannot have an effective conventional war - lack of troops and equipment. Would you support such action if President Bush wanted to do that?

Jun 17, 2005, 03:07 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Only if we also agree to a first strike on the United States :) (PS. This isn't religion or philosophy. I think it belongs to Misc) Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Jun 17, 2005, 06:01 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	I'm not sure how that is possible, as we didn't accept their surrender until after we nuked them. Besides, we couldn't let WW1 repeat itself, we had to make our overwhelming victory so clear, that the Japanese would have no choice but to reevaluate their society. We couldn't allow the disloyal opposition (every nation eventually gets one) to claim Japan hadn't really been beaten. Last edited by mr.perfecto; Jun 17, 2005 at 06:24 am.

Jun 17, 2005, 08:50 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,800	grins That was me, Tech, moving it here. It can be discussed as a political & moral question, but seeing as it's more of a 'what if...' with elements of both, I thought 'General' was the best place. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Jun 17, 2005, 03:14 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,112	No, I wouldn't. A nuclear strike would inevitably target innocent civilians. We don't want a repeat of Hiroshima/Nagasaki do we?

Jun 17, 2005, 05:36 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	What was wrong with Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I support nuking NK after we take out the Sunni Triangle. Then again, its not like we have a shortage of bombs. Take them both out by tomorrow morning and we can all sleep a little more soundly tomorrow night.

Jun 17, 2005, 05:39 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,112	At the expense of being terrorists? When you deliberately target civilians and non-combatants, you're no better than them.

Jun 17, 2005, 05:49 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	We can worry about being better than them after they are dead. And really, look at all the good it did Japan. How many times in the 50 years before WW2 did Japan invade China? How many millions died then? How many times has Japan invaded since? Talk about a major attitude adjustment. Nuking the Triangle and the Koreans would probably have a similar effect. Seriously, 60 years from now their intellectuals will be thanking us for doing it.

Jun 17, 2005, 05:58 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,112	Mr. perfecto> The Japanese have not forgotten what we did. They're just waiting for the chance to exact a terrible vengence. Japanese militarism still lives, not only amongst an insignificant minority but amongst the intellectual and political elite.

Jun 17, 2005, 06:18 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,112	Mr. p> Click on this link and read "The Bard Memorandum". http://www.dannen.com/decision/

Jun 17, 2005, 06:30 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	I'm not quite sure what I was supposed to take from that... I supposed we could give the Triangle and NK a bit of a warning before we strike, it probably won't less the psychic blow to their societal "self-image" and it may even make them amenable to learning the lessons they need to learn.

Jun 17, 2005, 08:37 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	I was thinking that a nuclear attack would be a moral issue of interest in religion and perhaps for philosophy folks, although I was thinking of putting the post under politics. But I guess it might be something a General would discuss. Tech

Jun 18, 2005, 09:26 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	"Behold, the power of the Death Star!" Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Jun 18, 2005, 11:18 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Thunder Wave World Peas Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 118	Please read. An article on Hiroshima If you think Nuking is a solution to problems, think again. One Nuke would cause another and the whole world could be crippled until the extinction of humankind. I mean right now. Any Nuclear act will just explode from country to country ESPECIALLY the US. We aren't liked very much among the majority of nations. 人の振り見て我が振りなおせ。十人十色。 :( :) :confused: :rolleyes: :eek: ~ Debate Party

Jun 18, 2005, 11:43 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,112	I like your avatar. It makes you look so....sincere. :)