Home | About | Donate

Why Do US Media Only Worry About One Authoritarian’s Nukes?


#1

Why Do US Media Only Worry About One Authoritarian’s Nukes?

John O'Day

The world waits with bated breath as a “mad king” descends on Singapore, his finger itching to press the launch button and totally destroy his adversaries.


#2

The fact is the United States of America remains the only country on this Earth to have used Nuclear Weapons on another people. Had they more to use , they would have kept on using them as they stated outright at the time that they would keep dropping them on Japan until Japan surrendered unconditionally.

Japan had tried to surrender on several occassions before and the USA refused those overtures outright . This tells me that dropping the bombs was not about saving American lives as those earlier surrender overtures would have saved far more lives if accepted. It tells me the USA WANTED to drop those bombs and commit mass murder.

So why is the leader of North Korea deemed a “madman” and those that ordered the dropping of Nuclear Bombs on Cities deemed “Rational”. ?


#3

Same reason we don’t identify Christianity as the only religion to sanction WMD use


#4

You’re history is correct and supported by a few leaders of that time. The use of those weapons was to impress / intimidate USSR and kick off the cold war with a country who had been our ally during WWII. None of the allies suffered the losses (including the US) that the USSR suffered, without them we would all be speaking German.
The US leaders have proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted, I don’t know why anyone does.


#5

" Japan had tried to surrender on several occasions before and the USA refused those overtures outright . "

I think the conditions were unconditional surrender. Japan didn’t agree to that. The USSR had to invade and two nuked\s had to be dropped then it took them another 3 days to decide. Even then the Japanese generals had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the surrender talks.

That was the last war the US didn’t fight half assed. Didn’t win any wars since either.


#6

Japan had one condition. The Emperor would not face War crimes Trials. The US refused . After the war the US agreed to what Japan had offered and did not subject the Emperor to War crimes trials.

That said claiming “surrender must be unconditional” is something ONLY A FANATIC would do. If someone really wanted peace and to save lives they would never dictate unconditional surrender. When you claim “surrender must be unconditional” it only strengthens the hands of those in the Countries being dictated to that wish to prolong the war.

Japan had two factions, one wanting peace and to surrender and one wanting to fight to the bitter end. When the overtures by those wanting peace were rejected, the War party gained strength claiming there no alternative but to keep fighting.

As to this nonsense about “Japanese Fanatics” fighting to the bitter end and massive casualties if the US Invaded. More rubbish advanced by the war criminals. This was proven in Manchuria where the Russians annihilated the Japanese. The Russians lost 12,000 KIA 24,000 wounded while fighting an army of over 1.2 million. Masses of Japanese soldiers surrendered or deserted. Russia lost more than this fighting over single towns with the Germans.


#7

Worked fine in WWII. Neither the US nor the Soviet Union (Russia) have decisively won a war since. Here’s a just few Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.


#8

? What are you on about? The USA commited war crimes when it dropped Nuclear bombs on Cities slaughtering hundreds of thousands acting only as the most BRUTAL of peoples would when claiming they would continue the slaughter until surrender unconditional. What part of mass murder do you not understand?

Japan offered to surrender directly to the US General Macarthur after the fall of the Philipines agreeing to every term that was in the final peace treaty. Why on earth would anybody claim dropping Nuclear Bombs on cities and slaughtering Civilians “worked fine”? The war ended before those bombs dropped nd before the invasions of Okinowa and iwo Jima would have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands.


#9

Please stop it with the alternative history. No, the United States did not commit war crimes. Japan did not agree the unconditional surrender. War is bad stuff. If it was for people like yourself there prolly would have been peace treaty with Nazi Germany and they would have been fine and dandy.


#10

You are the same guy who said that whent he US killed all those Civilians in Vietnam it was no war crime because they were Communists.

1 that a Country will not “surrender unconditionaly” does not mean you can slaughter its civilians.this is about the most hairbrained thing I have ever heard. By your reasoning the Japanese and Germans never commmitted any war crimes because the countries they waged war on would not surrender unconditionally.

Two it is NOT alternative history that Japan tried to surrender. It was the USA that that created the alternative History when they tried to cover up for one of the greatest war crimes in history. As the sacle of the war crime became evident the USA kept boosting up the numbers of soliders they would lose to an invasion of the islands.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/129964

There were several prior attempts made to surrender. This relates to one of them and the offer mae through Macarthur. It was reported on in 1045 and NEVER disputed by Roosevelt otr truman.

Lastly it is a FACT that the USA demanded unconditional surrender. When Germany invaded France they did not make this demand and this accelerated the French surrender. All through history it has been shown tha casualties go up in a war when one sides insists on such terms. As example , at the macro level on the Western front against Germany. A German SS unit executed a group of Canadian prisoners they had captured. After that the same Canadian unit woudl execute German prisoners they had taken. This lead directly to INCREASED casualties on both sides whenever those units squared off because the soldiers knew surrender not an option.

In the Pacific campaign US and Austrialin troops would kill Japanse that surrendered with regularity. It got so bad the US had to send out a group to encourage the US soldiers not to execute priosners with offers of extra rations and things like Ice cream. They recognized at the higher levels that if the Japanese soldier would not surrender because he feared being shot, that he would just fight all the harder leading to higher casualties.


#11

As i said, war is really dirty business. And you and i are here badmouthing our leaders and our country and we can do that freely without dear of repression, because some people were willing to do the unthinkable for us and not Nazis, Fascists and imperialist Japanese win and impose their sick regimes on us. Unfortunately communism didn’t suffer the same fate right away and millions had to die until it imploded under its own evilness and decay.

I guess if it was to you there would have been “peace in our time” with both Nazi Germany and Japan.

I guess i did. You obviously never had to deal with hardcore commies. Some of those civvies might have been good people, i grant that but communism is like cancer. You gotta cut out some healthy tissue to extirpate it. Even so it will keep coming back. You just mark my words…


#12

A bit of an unintentional positive consequence of the Kim-Trump summit is that it is making the countries of Pakistan and India, who by the way have nukes pointed at each other at the discretion of their generals, to consider similar talks. The fact that the U.S. Media sees these talks as a bad thing should just go to show they don’t care about peace or to denuclearize. Nothing says military profits like constantly having the world on the brink of nuclear war.