North Korea, Warmonger State

Celly Smunt

I AM VICTOR RESNOV!!! I SAID I AM VICTOR RESNOV!! NOVA GAS! ARRGHGH


if everybody just had wars on call of duty the world would be a much better place.

Capt'n Midnight

Japan was totally defeated by the time the first bomb dropped.

The Soviet advance into Manchuria / Korea etc. from 9th-20th of August show that.

Yes it would have been difficult to invade Japan, but it was already blockaded so they could have starved them out. Barbaric but they were planning on reducing Germany to a pastoral economy, with the unwritten assumption that 10 million people would not be fed.

I saw something about using poison gas in Japan but I think that might have been an April Fool's.

There was no need to drop the A bomb to save American lives or to change the ending of the war. Reasons to drop were 'to see what happens', ' we built it so lets use it', 'shock and awe demo for the world'


The demo could have been done at sea or an unpopulated area, unless the idea was to get data on it's effects on people.

enfant terrible

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Japan was totally defeated by the time the first bomb dropped.

The Soviet advance into Manchuria / Korea etc. from 9th-20th of August show that.

Yes it would have been difficult to invade Japan, but it was already blockaded so they could have starved them out. Barbaric but they were planning on reducing Germany to a pastoral economy, with the unwritten assumption that 10 million people would not be fed.

I saw something about using poison gas in Japan but I think that might have been an April Fool's.

There was no need to drop the A bomb to save American lives or to change the ending of the war. Reasons to drop were 'to see what happens', ' we built it so lets use it', 'shock and awe demo for the world'


The demo could have been done at sea or an unpopulated area, unless the idea was to get data on it's effects on people.

The Americans had every intention of invading Japan and were going to in October 1945 if the atomic bomb program was unsuccessful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

"Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[51] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field."

tigger123

chin_grin wrote: »

Stop. Playing. Call. Of. F*ckin'. Duty!

HA! I wish I could.

Capt'n Midnight

I for one welcome our new Korean overlords.

Clawdeeus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Japan was totally defeated by the time the first bomb dropped.

The Soviet advance into Manchuria / Korea etc. from 9th-20th of August show that.

Yes it would have been difficult to invade Japan, but it was already blockaded so they could have starved them out. Barbaric but they were planning on reducing Germany to a pastoral economy, with the unwritten assumption that 10 million people would not be fed.

I saw something about using poison gas in Japan but I think that might have been an April Fool's.

There was no need to drop the A bomb to save American lives or to change the ending of the war. Reasons to drop were 'to see what happens', ' we built it so lets use it', 'shock and awe demo for the world'


The demo could have been done at sea or an unpopulated area, unless the idea was to get data on it's effects on people.

Actually starvation and conflict would have ment US lives lost would have run into the millions, Japanese 10's of millions, a simple cost benefit shows the bombs certainly should have been used. In the context of the conflict, those bombs werent even especially devastating (casualty wise) of the top of my head, comparable/ more died at Berlin, Warsaw, Dresden, Nanking, Chonjqing (I butchered that spelling), Shanghai, Stalingrad, Moscow (I could go on and on on the Eastern front, but everyone knows them).

All sides did it, some worse than others but to single these cities out as especially bad is disengenous, the only shocking thing about it was the ease with which it was done, rather than 100,000's of troops, or 1000's of planes, it was a handful of guys.

The idea that "Japan was already defeated" is also bull. They were not defeated untill they signed a surrender treaty, they were continuing to train their population for home island defence and using suicide tactics untill the day of the capitulation.

What factored in more than "giving a message to the soviet Union" (that could be done by setting off the bomb pretty much anywhere the Soviets could see) was Japanese fanatascism. People forget how effective stuff like the kamikaze's were. Protection of civilian population is not possible once you hit a certain level of conflict. This has been seen througout history.

Capt'n Midnight

Clawdeeus wrote: »

In the context of the conflict, those bombs werent even especially devastating
Conventional bombing raids on Tokoyo killed more in a single night too

the only shocking thing about it was the ease with which it was done, rather than 100,000's of troops, or 1000's of planes, it was a handful of guys.
the cost was the same though, both the B29 program and the A Bomb cost billions in 1940's dollars - the big difference was that it wasn't a battle of attration any more, one bomber getting through could ruin your whole weekend

The idea that "Japan was already defeated" is also bull. They were not defeated untill they signed a surrender treaty, they were continuing to train their population for home island defence and using suicide tactics untill the day of the capitulation. similar stuff in Germany
point is you can't survive long in a war against a technologically superior enemy who has resources that you haven't, like fuel and doesn't respect you - early shipments of proximity shells were labelled 'for use against Jap personnel only', you know about the firebombing that more or less targeted homes and the bat bombs

What factored in more than "giving a message to the soviet Union" (that could be done by setting off the bomb pretty much anywhere the Soviets could see) was Japanese fanatascism. People forget how effective stuff like the kamikaze's were. they weren't effective once the pickets and overwhelming air superiority were used, and like the V2 it was a huge waste of resources, you can't continue to expend an aeroplane per mission for long especially if you have no fuel. Also look at how the Yamato was sent on a suicide mission.
Protection of civilian population is not possible once you hit a certain level of conflict. This has been seen throughout history.another reason to use the bomb was to get in a hit before it was banned by the Geneva conventions (technically it is banned because it is so indiscriminate) as were biological and chemical weapons

side note: Kamikaze means divine wind and there was a massive storm later in 1945 that would have interfered with an invasion fleet

I still feel that there was enough shock and awe from the soviet invasion and from the firebombing that surrender in the short term was inevitable because the Japanese knew the Americans would wage a genocidal war against them.

Clawdeeus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

side note: Kamikaze means divine wind and there was a massive storm later in 1945 that would have interfered with an invasion fleet

I still feel that there was enough shock and awe from the soviet invasion and from the firebombing that surrender in the short term was inevitable because the Japanese knew the Americans would wage a genocidal war against them.

Maybe, but then given the nature of the defense planned, genocide was going to be the only real outcome. As an example, childeren were given satchels of bombs, and were benig trained to throw themselves under US tanks and blow themselves up. the only way to defeat that kind of fantascism is overwhelming force, not even allowing them a "hero's death" but leave them faced with annhilation in the blink of an eye, with no chance of taking some of the enemy with you. Its sad, but I cant see how the war could have ended better. Thats not saying I think it ended "well" just that sometimes the only choice is between bad options.

According to Japanese legend the same type of storm took out a Mongol invasion fleet which, if its true, would be easily the biggest single naval disaster of all time.

Also, had no idea he nukes cost that much, does that include development?

FreudianSlippers

The use of atomic weaponry, especially against civilians, is never justified - I don't care what argument you have to say that it is, it's simply wrong.
There is immense suffering and devastation that is long lasting when these weapons are used.

jackiebaron

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

(CNN) -- "Running dogs," "imperialist lackeys," "criminal gangs" and "brigandish moves" -- that sort of propaganda language died with the Cold War, except in the offices of the Korean Central News Agency.

This kind of rhetoric would be funny if it wasn't so serious... what should the West do to counter this retarded eijit and his regime?

I say take the nutjob and his sons out, covert style, but if he wants a war and end up being hung like Saddam Hussein, then bring it on! :mad:

FFS

Wompa1

OisinT wrote: »

The use of atomic weaponry, especially against civilians, is never justified - I don't care what argument you have to say that it is, it's simply wrong.
There is immense suffering and devastation that is long lasting when these weapons are used.

Justified is a bad word to use really. But I can see why they opted to drop the bombs.

karma_

It's fúcking terrifying that 36 people feel that those 2 instances of mass killing were even close to being justifiable.

Manic Moran

OisinT wrote: »

The use of atomic weaponry, especially against civilians, is never justified - I don't care what argument you have to say that it is, it's simply wrong.
There is immense suffering and devastation that is long lasting when these weapons are used.

Please note your use of the present tense. As far as it goes, I'm inclined to say your statement is correct.

Change the tense, however, and different circumstances apply.

NTM

Paparazzo

OisinT wrote: »

The use of atomic weaponry, especially against civilians, is never justified - I don't care what argument you have to say that it is, it's simply wrong.
There is immense suffering and devastation that is long lasting when these weapons are used.

What if it was on a remote Siberia town of about 1000 people, but could guarantee a next world war would be stopped?

Pookah

It says on Russian TV that the South Koreans fired first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcsXT6fL9lE&feature=channel

You may have to change the thread title, OP.

karma_

Paparazzo wrote: »

What if it was on a remote Siberia town of about 1000 people, but could guarantee a next world war would be stopped?

Where then do you draw the line, obviously you feel 1000 is a good start and I assume you also have no objection to around 150,000 in the case of Hiroshima (Not to mention another 74,000 from Nagasaki). Half a million maybe? Just where exactly do you draw the line? These kind of weapons are morally reprehensible and if you object to somewhere like New York, London or Dublin being nuked then you must object to all.

Capt'n Midnight

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Also, had no idea the nukes cost that much, does that include development?

yes

Due to a shortage of copper they used 10,000 tonnes of silver in the transformers and magnets


the US only had 4 A bombs by the end of the war.

The uranium bomb used all the bomb grade uranium available at the time, a technological dead end once Plutonium was available - it's only advantage is that bomb design is easy, but isotope separation is very hard

One of the plutonium bombs was tested - trinity used a billion dollars of Pu

Another was dropped

One remained

They could produce just three per month there after , but most large targets had been bombed out already, lack of fuel meant there wasn't much point trying to take out naval targets and airfields

Manic Moran

karma_ wrote: »

Where then do you draw the line, obviously you feel 1000 is a good start and I assume you also have no objection to around 150,000 in the case of Hiroshima (Not to mention another 74,000 from Nagasaki). Half a million maybe? Just where exactly do you draw the line? These kind of weapons are morally reprehensible and if you object to somewhere like New York, London or Dublin being nuked then you must object to all.

That's the great thing about judgement calls, though, isn't it? They're inherently subjective and defy neat analytical formulae. That's why we pay people good money to make these decisions for us.

Nukes also seem to make a great deterrent to some conventional wars.

NTM

sxt

I am not sure how this morphed into a discussion into apoll on the bombs on Japan ,but if you consider the testimoney of the hands on U.S military involved, vs the president who ordered the attack to "save lives on both sides"

"The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness. Harry S. Truman ,President of the United States"



When you consider that Japans Navy was wiped out,their Air force was wiped out (except for a few sporadic kamikaze planes), and their ground forces/ strategic postions were anihilated by heavy bombardment by thousands of regular bombs ,Japan were of absolutely no threat to the U.S.A



President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, in a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson

"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."


Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

Admiral William Halsey, commander of the U.S. Third Fleet,

"the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used.


General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific,

"My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender"

enfant terrible

sxt wrote: »

I am not sure how this morphed into a discussion into apoll on the bombs on Japan ,but if you consider the testimoney of the hands on U.S military involved, vs the president who ordered the attack to "save lives on both sides"

"The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness. Harry S. Truman ,President of the United States"



When you consider that Japans Navy was wiped out,their Air force was wiped out (except for a few sporadic kamikaze planes), and their ground forces/ strategic postions were anihilated by heavy bombardment by thousands of regular bombs ,Japan were of absolutely no threat to the U.S.A



President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, in a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson

"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."


Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

Admiral William Halsey, commander of the U.S. Third Fleet,

"the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used.


General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific,

"My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender"

None of which changes the fact the US were going to invade mainland Japan in October 1945 if the nuclear bomb experiment was a failure. Why?

What your quotes above fail to mention above was that the US had to have total surrender from Japan after what happened with Germany after WW1.

The Japanese never and were never close to offering total surrender before the bombs were dropped, why would they when they could inflict the heaviest military losses in US history if they invaded the Japanese mainland.

upandcumming

Crosáidí wrote: »

It was also genocide, the Americans had the squeeze on the Japanese, they would of won regardless and the Russians were closing in to the north

Would have man, would have.

pwd

enfant terrible wrote: »

None of which changes the fact the US were going to invade mainland Japan in October 1945 if the nuclear bomb experiment was a failure. Why?

What your quotes above fail to mention above was that the US had to have total surrender from Japan after what happened with Germany after WW1.

The Japanese never and were never close to offering total surrender before the bombs were dropped, why would they when they could inflict the heaviest military losses in US history if they invaded the Japanese mainland.

Nagasaki was bombed 3 days after Hiroshima. As mentioned, Japan were ready to surrender after the first, and were considering 4 conditions. None of these conditions prevented complete demilitarisation, so I'm not sure how people can justify the conclusion that they "had to" give total surrender. Regardless - 3 days!! Doesn't exactly indicate reluctance by the bombers does it? It seems more like they were worried Japan would offer total surrender before they had a chance to drop a second one.

The second bomb was in no way morally justifiable. It was primarily a show of force (for Russia's benefit largely) and secondarily an experiment into the effects (it was a different type of bomb to the first).

I am shocked and appalled that 44% of people voted yes.

Manic Moran

Doesn't exactly indicate reluctance by the bombers does it? It seems more like they were worried Japan would offer total surrender before they had a chance to drop a second one.

That assumes they understood what the hell had just happened the day before yesterday. The second bomb took any form of 'luck', anything from Halifax-style munitions explosion through Tunguska-style meteor to Krakatoa-style volcanic explosion out of the equation and very pointedly proved that it was the US wot did it, could do it again, and 'are you sure you don't want to surrender now?'

NTM

twinytwo

To everyone who said that nuking japan was justified.. you need your head examined. Japan was all but offically defeated. navy/airforce and army destroyed. The bombs were nothing more than a show piece to russia. Both General McAuthur and Eisenhower both said that there was never any need to drop the bombs....The Bombings were one of the greatest war crimes ever commited.

Paparazzo

karma_ wrote: »

Where then do you draw the line, obviously you feel 1000 is a good start and I assume you also have no objection to around 150,000 in the case of Hiroshima (Not to mention another 74,000 from Nagasaki). Half a million maybe? Just where exactly do you draw the line? These kind of weapons are morally reprehensible and if you object to somewhere like New York, London or Dublin being nuked then you must object to all.

I asked a simple question just to point out that it can be justified.

ch750536

dermo88 wrote: »

I say just turn North Korea into glass, may it glow for a thousand years.
Because frankly, the only good communist is a dead one.

Wheres that facepalm smiley when you need one....

twinytwo

Paparazzo wrote: »

I asked a simple question just to point out that it can be justified.

how can using a nuke on the people of another country ever be justified?

enfant terrible

twinytwo wrote: »

how can using a nuke on the people of another country ever be justified?

What is justified in war in your opinion?

karma_

enfant terrible wrote: »

What is justified in war in your opinion?

First we need to be straight on what's unacceptable, attacks on civilian populations is first and foremost on the list.

FreudianSlippers

Long term devastation of land is also up there. Nuclear attacks damage the planet (the whole thing) and have long term repercussions that are unacceptable by any standard.

Paparazzo

twinytwo wrote: »

how can using a nuke on the people of another country ever be justified?

In the hypothetical situation here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69286002&postcount=115

karma_

Paparazzo wrote: »

In the hypothetical situation here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69286002&postcount=115

That hypothetical situation is completely ridiculous, if you believe that it somehow proves that a nuclear attack is defensible then you are sorely mistaken.

Paparazzo

karma_ wrote: »

That hypothetical situation is completely ridiculous, if you believe that it somehow proves that a nuclear attack is defensible then you are sorely mistaken.

1000 dead v 100 million? If the situation arose it would be crazy not to. Obviously unlikely, but the point is there could be situations, never say never.

karma_

Paparazzo wrote: »

1000 dead v 100 million? If the situation arose it would be crazy not to. Obviously unlikely, but the point is there could be situations, never say never.

How do you know how many lives would have been lost if the bomb had not been dropped? Why a village of 1000 people? Why not somewhere like Meath instead of Siberia? Could the destruction of a village that size really be significant enough to prevent a conventional war?

Can you also point out one example in human history where the scenario you have proposed could actually have prevented a large scale conflict.

enfant terrible

karma_ wrote: »

That hypothetical situation is completely ridiculous, if you believe that it somehow proves that a nuclear attack is defensible then you are sorely mistaken.

Why specify a nuclear attack?

Its funny how people get hysterical about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when they brought a quick end to the war and saved millions of lives by avoiding an invasion of mainland Japan.

Whereas the bombing of Dresden and Cologne were nothing but revenge bombings with no military targets and should be classified as an atrocity.

karma_

enfant terrible wrote: »

Why specify a nuclear attack?

Its funny how people get hysterical about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when they brought a quick end to the war and saved millions of lives by avoiding an invasion of mainland Japan.

Whereas the bombing of Dresden and Cologne were nothing but revenge bombings with no military targets and should be classified as an atrocity.

How do you know how many lives were saved if any?

In 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, who would have thought that by the end of 1945 about 60 million would have perished. Your scenario sounds great I will admit, the lesser evil - let one die to save 10, it looks good on paper, unfortunately it's pure speculation at best, and fiction at worst. The same line is peddled today in the war against terror, it's a sickening fallacy and ought not to be repeated.

enfant terrible

karma_ wrote: »

How do you know how many lives were saved if any?

In 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, who would have thought that by the end of 1945 about 60 million would have perished. Your scenario sounds great I will admit, the lesser evil - let one die to save 10, it looks good on paper, unfortunately it's pure speculation at best, and fiction at worst. The same line is peddled today in the war against terror, it's a sickening fallacy and ought not to be repeated.

So you would support the nuclear attacks if it could be proved to you it saved millions of lives in an invasion?

karma_

enfant terrible wrote: »

So you would support the nuclear attacks if it could be proved to you it saved millions of lives in an invasion?

Allow me to break it down even further; basically, it is impossible to prove that, ever.

Cantona's Collars

Reports on Sky News that residents of the Island recently bombed have been told to go to air raid shelters.

Sea Sharp

20euro says the drills wont cause a war
Im off to bed.

Star Bingo

i've been softening up that sweet korean flange for some time now. nothing to see here folks; know what to expect. invasion imminent

Capt'n Midnight

karma_ wrote: »

How do you know how many lives were saved if any?

In 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, who would have thought that by the end of 1945 about 60 million would have perished. Your scenario sounds great I will admit, the lesser evil - let one die to save 10, it looks good on paper, unfortunately it's pure speculation at best, and fiction at worst. The same line is peddled today in the war against terror, it's a sickening fallacy and ought not to be repeated.

After Russia the greatest number of casuaties were Chinese and that war stared before 1939. Also the Russians and Japanese were at war in '39 before the invasion of Poland.

And anyway wern't the Germans only responding to a Polish attack on a German radio station ?


It needs to be said again that the NK's are great at extracting money and consessions from the west by sabre rattling, they are well versed in the art of brinkmanship.

arybvtcw0eolkf

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

No sir, you have a warped mind, the USA had already lost hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe, to invade the Japanese mainland conventionaly would have been suicide for hundreds of thousands more marines, since the civilians were also thought to defend the mainland.... it was a pre-emptive action that succeeded in its initiative

And it taught the Russian's not to get too uppity.

If the west cared so badly for the people of Iraq that they felt justified to invade it, then why can't they lift the embargoes on North Korea so the people can use machinery and enjoy a better standard of living?

Invade one country to "save it's people", embargo another country to hurt it's regime but kill the people.. Yea, good job world police.

old_aussie

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The US can't really run in there though all guns blazing because any attempt to do so means an almost guaranteed Nuclear strike on South Korea.

Nuke the North first.

Mini nuke on the capital, then one on each of the main navy, army and airforce base. Take out the power supplies/generators/communication facilities.

And the nukes on Japan were justified, saved countless allied lives and brought a quick end to the war.

More japs would have been killed if the allies relentlessly bombed japan from one end to the other.

Many more jap lives would have also been lost due to starvation and disease if the allies had not offered help at the end of the war with japan.

And the Irish have no valid say in the jap matter as they just stood on the sidelines.

bnt

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Surely the North Koreans know this? Why are they acting like knobs?

Because External enemies serve their Internal politics. Focus the attention of the people on "the enemy", instead of on the regime, and the regime gets to stay in power a bit longer.

We're talking about a regime so paranoid of Western "corruption" that radios and TVs are sold pre-set to the state channels and can't be retuned. The people of North Korea are kept ignorant of everything really happening inside and outside their country, and are fed a stream of crap about the "dear leader" and how his superior nature will defeat the West.

Here come the nasty Americans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLGKqwRB4Ik

dlofnep

old_aussie wrote: »

Nuke the North first.

Mini nuke on the capital, then one on each of the main navy, army and airforce base. Take out the power supplies/generators/communication facilities.

Great to see you're still as tolerant as ever. Don't you think the North Korean people have suffered enough, without inflicting further pain on them?

old_aussie wrote: »

And the Irish have no valid say in the jap matter as they just stood on the sidelines.

Our say as as valid as anyones. If you don't like to hear Irish opinion, how about piss off and post on a different forum? Just a suggestion.

FlutterinBantam

Another suggestion, no need to tell the person to 'piss off' just because you don't agree with his sentiment.

There is a disparate body of opinion in Ireland on a lot of issues,your outfit and outlook do not have definitive 'Irish' view on things.

Thank the Lord for that.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Another suggestion, no need to tell the person to 'piss off' just because you don't agree with his sentiment.

And I'll take that onboard, because I thoroughly value your opinion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thank the Lord for that.

Lots of that to be done here.

up for anything

old_aussie wrote: »

Nuke the North first.

Mini nuke on the capital, then one on each of the main navy, army and airforce base. Take out the power supplies/generators/communication facilities.

And the nukes on Japan were justified, saved countless allied lives and brought a quick end to the war.

More japs would have been killed if the allies relentlessly bombed japan from one end to the other.

Many more jap lives would have also been lost due to starvation and disease if the allies had not offered help at the end of the war with japan.

And the Irish have no valid say in the jap matter as they just stood on the sidelines.

Is that supposed to make us blush or cringe with embarrassment? More than enough Irish people lost their lives or gave their lives in WWII to allow us an opinion, if that is the way you view things.

Is it so difficult to type Japanese and maybe even use capitalise it?