5 ms·
Funny how this is now considered a bad thing when the only country ever to murder innocents and children with one is America.
by theinternetman 11y ago
Funny how this is now considered a bad thing when the only country ever to murder innocents and children with one is America.
- pc86 11y agoJust so we're clear, you're saying that a nuclear-armed North Korea is a good thing? I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
- corin_ 11y agoI'd assume that rather than saying it's a good thing he's just accusing the US (and friends of the US) of being hypocritical. A tired and fairly pointless thing to say, but not as bad as saying that a nuclear-armed NK is a good thing.
- pc86 11y agoI get where you're coming from and I agree that's probably not what he meant (but who knows). But his wording does leave open the interpretation that "Bad Thing happened 70 years ago. This is Less Bad than Bad Thing so it isn't really all that Bad."
- ageofwant 11y agoThe US has 4500 warheads, Russia 4700, The UK 210, France 300, China 250, India 105, Pakistan 120, Israel 100. What moral ground has anyone to deny NK its sovereign right to do the same ?
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoIs this a serious statement? Have you ever done much in the way of research on North Korea?
- ageofwant 11y agoIts as serious as 10000 primed nuclear bombs.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoTo my knowledge, none of the listed countries actively promote a rhetoric that involves annihilating another country for some injustices in the past, perceived or otherwise. Similarly, none of them have adopted a military doctrine along those lines.
- mritun 11y agoNK is evil, but Pakistan fits the description you provided
- mikeash 11y agoWho cares about moral ground? I want as few countries to have nuclear weapons as possible, especially completely insane ones like North Korea. If it's immoral to deny their "sovereign right" then hell yes, let's be immoral.
- Perceptes 11y agoAmerica having done something bad doesn't mean this isn't also bad.
- andreasvc 11y agoLots of people consider both to be bad. NK also murders lots of innocents, I honestly fail to see your point.
- sbjustin 11y agoThis is a comfortable stance to take 70 years after the fact. In WWII: Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion). The US ended the war in the pacific with those bombs(129,000–246,000+ killed), who knows how many more would have died with an invasion of Japan. The second would not have been dropped if the Japanese had surrounded and ended the war. BTW, the US did not start the war. I'm not saying I support it, I'm just saying stop Monday morning quarterbacking.
- smaddox 11y agoWar is hell. The US tried to stay out of it as much as possible at first. Japan changed that, and they reaped what they sowed.
- ageofwant 11y agoThe US could have "ended" the war by simply walking away. At that stage the war was effectively won and dropping the Bombs had very little to do with military strategy. The argument that the Bombs "ended the war" is patent bs, and it keeps being repeated unchallenged as a justification for what was effectively a war crime.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoActually, even after the bombs were dropped, several high-ranking Japanese military officials were planning a coup to stop those were planning on surrendering to the Allies at that point. There was significant support to fight until the very last. It is debatable where it was necessary to drop the bombs on populated areas as opposed to Tokyo Bay, but it is without a doubt that the nuclear bomb and subsequent further threat ended the conflict.
- ageofwant 11y agoAnd what would they do ? Swim to California with knifes between their teeth ? Japan posed no thread to the US at that stage of the war. The conflict was over, the allies have won. The bombings were geopolitical stage props.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]