Jump to content

North Korea


Casper
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty certain Japan had no idea and wasn't warned. My grandfather was in charge of preparing the Bockscar for that mission and all they were told was that it was a "highly classified tactical mission"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We absolutely did neither of those things. The US was already at war (entered in '41, Normandy was in '44) and they knew we would have to enter into battle overseas so we specifically leaked tons of information to cloak where we would actually land (operation bodyguard). With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were specifically EXCLUDED from the leaflet "bombings" so it would cause the greatest psychological aftereffect. We dropped leaflets to warn of various air raids, which would then happen, but the atomic bombing were left out of that strategically.

He does need to prove his worth, and that is exactly what he is doing. The military leaders are not stupid people, they are not as censored and realize that they could never win in an all out war. He can, however, win over the general public by lying to them and censoring anything that contradicts him.

I don't understand the fascination with a preemptive strike either. Allied/Coalition/whatever soldiers WILL die if there is a war. Not only that but the generations of disfigurement from chemical/nuclear fallout through all of the Pacific and animal death resulting in further starvation of innocent bystander countries. People that want that and actively campaign for it are heartless and ignorant. I don't much mind the idea of a CIA take down (power vacuum is a whole different can of worms) but to actively lobby for innocent deaths shows some sort of developmental retardation (al la Erikson et al.).

Edit: Ugh, this is why I can't discuss politics. Is this close enough to be moved into that sub?

Japan: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Firebombing_leaflet.jpg

Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet,” which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.” (See Richard S. R. Hubert, “The OWI Saipan Operation,” Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.)"
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not excluded from the leaflet drops. Hiroshima wasn't listed on the leaflet, but it was dropped there and said that other cities were possible targets. Some, all, or others will be firebombed. What they didn't mention was that it was a completely new type of bomb that would decimate the cities. The reason it was excluded supposedly was because they were worried it wouldn't detonate. But yes, we did tell them something was coming. They just didn't believe us.

Normandy, as I understand it, went something like this. Operation Fortitude. The US said we were going to Normandy. It was talked about clearly over the radios. Allies passed obvious info saying the attack was going to be at Normandy. However, spies that had been inserted within the German army (read somewhere it's thought all German spies had been turned by Britain) and other "intelligence" pointed Hitler towards Pas de Calais and Norway. His spies and this intelligence made it all very clear that Normandy was a distraction, and that the real invasion was coming from Pas de Calais. He moved a vast majority of his troops there. Even after the Normandy landing, he still kept his troops in Pas de Calais waiting for the "real" attack. We did tell them Normandy. They just didn't believe us.

My point here was that the obvious is sometimes the truth. North Korea keeps saying they're going to attack. Don't be surprised when they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japan: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Firebombing_leaflet.jpg

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not excluded from the leaflet drops. Hiroshima wasn't listed on the leaflet, but it was dropped there and said that other cities were possible targets. Some, all, or others will be firebombed. What they didn't mention was that it was a completely new type of bomb that would decimate the cities. The reason it was excluded supposedly was because they were worried it wouldn't detonate. But yes, we did tell them something was coming. They just didn't believe us.

Normandy, as I understand it, went something like this. Operation Fortitude. The US said we were going to Normandy. It was talked about clearly over the radios. Allies passed obvious info saying the attack was going to be at Normandy. However, spies that had been inserted within the German army (read somewhere it's thought all German spies had been turned by Britain) and other "intelligence" pointed Hitler towards Pas de Calais and Norway. His spies and this intelligence made it all very clear that Normandy was a distraction, and that the real invasion was coming from Pas de Calais. He moved a vast majority of his troops there. Even after the Normandy landing, he still kept his troops in Pas de Calais waiting for the "real" attack. We did tell them Normandy. They just didn't believe us.

My point here was that the obvious is sometimes the truth. North Korea keeps saying they're going to attack. Don't be surprised when they do.

I meant it to read "With the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings". Since you singled out those two cities, the assumption was that it was solely about the atomic bombings. The pamphlet you posted is about the firebombing (and is even labeled that way). They were not excluded from this, but pamphlets ceased leading up to the atomic bombings both for the reason you mentioned (fear of it not working) and to increase the psychological effects (as I mentioned). We did not tell them something big was going to happen, we were actually trying to end it before the atomic bombs needed to be used since just about everyone in the know was lobbying against its use (except top military brass). We were truthful and fairly consistently with the firebombings when leaflets where dropped but didn't warn of the atomic bombings.

In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, US military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb, and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation, and the wish to maximize psychological shock.[52] No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped.[53]

With Normandy, I wouldn't consider it "clearly talked over radios" but rather "mentioned in passing". I completely agree with everything else. This small change underlines the deception role and further intensifies it being an assistant landing point so that attention was not sparked when troops showed up.

The most obvious is NOT the truth in these scenarios. The most obvious with the atomic bombings would be that there was no bombings scheduled at all, let alone an entirely new bomb. With the invasion, it should have been at two points in the North and South rather than Normandy. In both cases we needed to deceive. Extrapolating this out, Best Korea would be sending small/mid range missiles to Guam or South Korea since they have been bolstering imminent, full scale nuclear attack on the US (people would generally think mainland). I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they did do that, and subsequently a Gulf War scenario play out. My bets still lie with the military leaders in N. Korea not wanting to move and would rather take out dear leader (?) themselves then allow their cushy lifestyles to end abruptly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been trying to figure out why my post was changed along with jbots, just realized it was edited. Sneaky sneaky cdubyah

mine was changed cause i guessed the wrong vowel

2593041967_0f4ef7bf37_o.jpg

maybe i oughta open my eyes, am i right or am i right?

hue hue hue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm here for the BBC.

NK has nothing to lose. At best, they 'test fire' a missile or move some troops and get the US to blink and fire first. Even if it's just one bullet. PR Win for NK. At worst, the US spends a lot of time and resources moving assets around to counter the 'threat', possibly distracting them from something elsewhere in the world.

Glorious leader knows that a first strike is suicide. The US knows a first strike is political suicide and disastrous for South Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China will step in if things get out of hand they do not want problems with the U.S. We owe them so much money that if we stopped payments on them and broke off ties it would bankrupt them and put their main source of income out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't predict nukes on either side. America wouldn't use them because they are a throwback to a bygone era where civilians were legitimate military targets. Not so these days.

On good nuke on Pyonyang could see hundreds of thousands of dead civillians in a single missile. That could never happen. The fallout would kinds hundreds of thousands more in China, South Korea and Japan etc. It's lunacy to think the US would do that.

Would NK do it? Dunno.

I predict they will eventually just shut up and go away for a while, until the next round of threats. I can see us bolstering SK defenses etc, and deploying the missile shield to the area. The worst I see us doing is tactical conventional strikes on key nuclear sites / missile sites.

I see NK as an annoying little kid threatening to shoot you with a gun you don't believe he has. How much smackdown can you lay on him before YOU become the bad guy?

Iran is watching the VERY carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the US should mind its fucking business and stop pissing away tax dollar money.

Who are we to tell someone their government is fucked? Look at the shit situation we have allowed to happen here

I agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...