Japan 1941, North Korea 2017?

Topic by General Kenobi

General Kenobi

Home Forums Political Corner Japan 1941, North Korea 2017?

This topic contains 17 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Vernimator  Vernimator 4 days, 5 hours ago.

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #685300
    +5
    General Kenobi
    General Kenobi
    Participant
    2308

    A short, but interesting article on the WW2 Japanese and the Kim regime.

    Interview of Eri Hotta by Jeff Baron

    “In Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy, Eri Hotta tells the story of how Japan’s leaders led their country into war with the United States even though virtually the entire Japanese national security establishment expected to lose. Reading Hotta’s account, I couldn’t help but wonder: Japan 1941, North Korea 2017? The DPRK almost certainly understands that should it go to war with the United States, it would lose. But would the North Koreans do it anyway, as the Japanese did? With these questions in mind, I interviewed the author of Japan 1941 to see if she saw parallels, or found lessons to be learned, from US efforts in 1941 to change Japan’s aggressive behavior in Asia and US efforts in 2017 to change North Korean policy and action on its nuclear and missile programs”.

    http://www.38north.org/2017/12/jbaron120717/

    The Force runs strong in this one

    #685347
    +3
    Faust For Science
    Faust For Science
    Participant
    13569

    Those whom wish for war keep in mind that this would likely lead the U.S. to a war with China and Russia. The U.S. military is stretched thin and the U.S. would likely lose such a war.

    #685358
    +1
    General Kenobi
    General Kenobi
    Participant
    2308

    Faust, I concur wholeheartedly. We do not want this, and those that do have no idea what they are in for.

    The Force runs strong in this one

    #685360
    +3
    MG-ɹǝʍo┴
    MG-ɹǝʍo┴
    Participant

    I’m good to go! I got my iodide pills!

    Carry on!

    #685371
    +1
    General Kenobi
    General Kenobi
    Participant
    2308

    I’m good to go! I got my iodide pills!

    Carry on!

    Tower….I brought the Iodine supplement up at my local Pharma after Fukushima…..they looked at me with the biggest WTF you could imagine, though one minor dude on the food chain kinda got it…Hey buddy,,,shares??? 😛 🙂

    The Force runs strong in this one

    #685445
    743 roadmaster
    743 roadmaster
    Participant
    1552

    Well if NK would do a favor and take out Hollywood before going down,…

    mgtow is its own worst enemy

    #685447
    Travis3000
    Travis3000
    Participant

    Well if NK would do a favor and take out Hollywood before going down,…

    Woah now!!! Why do you want to sully N. Korean hardware like that? I mean come on, at least N. Korea should be able to take out someplace that’s not already a complete s~~~hole oozing with human puss and degenerate bastards. (This has been a joke)

    #685468
    Manspread Mansplainer
    Manspread Mansplainer
    Participant
    2113

    Rumor is they will use an EMP satellite to strike back.
    That would cripple N. America.
    China supports Kim 100%.

    If only Trump could fire a laser pulse weapon from a moon base and raze N. Korea in a nanosecond…

    #IceThemOut ~ Let them have cats. Let them have wine. Let them have bubble baths... Alone and wondering where the good men are.

    #685471
    +1
    Manspread Mansplainer
    Manspread Mansplainer
    Participant
    2113

    pew pew

    kimmy

    burninate

    #IceThemOut ~ Let them have cats. Let them have wine. Let them have bubble baths... Alone and wondering where the good men are.

    #685628
    Gerald
    Gerald
    Participant
    1709

    Is the plan to start a war with us so we knock them back to the stone age (I mean that is like taking out two power plants in N. Korea, right?) and then have to spend forever to rebuild them to a modern country?

    Without change, there is no growth. Change your life and #ICETHEMOUT

    #686004
    General Kenobi
    General Kenobi
    Participant
    2308

    Is the plan to start a war with us so we knock them back to the stone age (I mean that is like taking out two power plants in N. Korea, right?) and then have to spend forever to rebuild them to a modern country?

    With all due respect, no. It is the primer for WW3 per my opinion.

    The Force runs strong in this one

    #686354
    +1
    Vernimator
    Vernimator
    Participant
    30

    Those whom wish for war keep in mind that this would likely lead the U.S. to a war with China and Russia. The U.S. military is stretched thin and the U.S. would likely lose such a war.

    First and foremost, I do not wish for war. That said your assessment that a North Korean conflict would lead to China and Russia attacking the U.S. and we would loose is a bit presumptuous.

    China has several generational groups in it’s populations much like we do here in the states. The young adult population which is the largest is not in power and calling the shots, per say. The old guard, which is now out of power, were the allies of the Kim regime and would have backed them if they were still in power. The current Chinese generation in power is stuck between two worlds. The Old Guard mentality and the very westernized youth generation. Overt action against western nations such as the U.S. could have a profound negative effect on there economy as well as the youth and they may rise up in such a way that makes Tiananmen Square in 1989 look like a walk in the park. Even now they are timid in there response to the U.S. aggressiveness towards the North Korean regime. If China was firmly in Kim Jong-un’s camp do you thing Trump and his administration would be as bombastic and forceful as they have been? Is Trump’s speech/tweets towards “Rocket Man” also designed to test the resolve of the Chinese as well? Is Kim Jong-Uns rapid push and successful advancements in missile and nuclear weapons technology because he know’s that China is no longer a reliable shield and he needs his own stick?

    As for Russia they are in an economic mess and their military is far more degraded then the U.S.. They also do not have the capacity to ramp up military production and logistics like the U.S. can on a moments notice. During the cold war the Ukraine was a huge part of their military industrial complex which has not been equitably replaced and I don’t think they are going to help out anytime soon. Logistically, Russia just can’t compete in any long term endeavor. All shout and no substance.

    If you want to discuss Nukes I’d be more then happy. Currently developing several technical presentations on today’s Nuclear Threat and it isn’t what you probably think it is. Russia and China are on the wrong end of that stick as well.

    ~V~

    "I'll never be back!!!"

    #686691
    General Kenobi
    General Kenobi
    Participant
    2308

    Those whom wish for war keep in mind that this would likely lead the U.S. to a war with China and Russia. The U.S. military is stretched thin and the U.S. would likely lose such a war.

    First and foremost, I do not wish for war. That said your assessment that a North Korean conflict would lead to China and Russia attacking the U.S. and we would loose is a bit presumptuous.

    China has several generational groups in it’s populations much like we do here in the states. The young adult population which is the largest is not in power and calling the shots, per say. The old guard, which is now out of power, were the allies of the Kim regime and would have backed them if they were still in power. The current Chinese generation in power is stuck between two worlds. The Old Guard mentality and the very westernized youth generation. Overt action against western nations such as the U.S. could have a profound negative effect on there economy as well as the youth and they may rise up in such a way that makes Tiananmen Square in 1989 look like a walk in the park. Even now they are timid in there response to the U.S. aggressiveness towards the North Korean regime. If China was firmly in Kim Jong-un’s camp do you thing Trump and his administration would be as bombastic and forceful as they have been? Is Trump’s speech/tweets towards “Rocket Man” also designed to test the resolve of the Chinese as well? Is Kim Jong-Uns rapid push and successful advancements in missile and nuclear weapons technology because he know’s that China is no longer a reliable shield and he needs his own stick?

    As for Russia they are in an economic mess and their military is far more degraded then the U.S.. They also do not have the capacity to ramp up military production and logistics like the U.S. can on a moments notice. During the cold war the Ukraine was a huge part of their military industrial complex which has not been equitably replaced and I don’t think they are going to help out anytime soon. Logistically, Russia just can’t compete in any long term endeavor. All shout and no substance.

    If you want to discuss Nukes I’d be more then happy. Currently developing several technical presentations on today’s Nuclear Threat and it isn’t what you probably think it is. Russia and China are on the wrong end of that stick as well.

    ~V~

    You have me curious now. Let’s discuss nukes! Nice post btw.

    The Force runs strong in this one

    #686835
    +1
    Atton
    Atton
    Participant

    Orbital Bombardment

    A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

    #686850
    General Kenobi
    General Kenobi
    Participant
    2308

    Orbital Bombardment

    Did you read my mind Atton?

    The Force runs strong in this one

    #687242
    Vernimator
    Vernimator
    Participant
    30

    You have me curious now. Let’s discuss nukes! Nice post btw.

    I’ll put together a series of “Myths and Facts” this evening to get the discussion started. Getting back to China, Russia and the US lets take a look at GDP.

    Projected 2017
    U.S. $19,417,296,000 #1 in the world
    China $11,795,297,000 #2 in the world
    California $2,603,000,000 Would rank #4 in the world if a country.
    Russia $1,560,706,000 #11 in the world

    20-25% of China’s GPD is in foreign trade and much of that is to the U.S. and it’s allies. War would have a significant effect.

    Russia’s GDP is very low in comparison. Check out this article from a couple years ago. Gives a good comparison of the U.S. and Russia now and Soviet Union back in the day.

    Relax: Turkey and Russia Will Not Go to War

    Here is a comparison of Military forces. A couple things to note. China and Russia use conscripts and the U.S. is all voluntary. Money wins wars.

    China Vs US

    Russia vs US

    "I'll never be back!!!"

    #687660
    Vernimator
    Vernimator
    Participant
    30

    The big shots, try to hold it back
    Fools try to wish it away
    The hopeful depend on a world without end
    Whatever the hopeless may say
    -Neal Peart

    RUSH – Manhattan Project

    Ok, first and foremost any nuclear detonation in or over a population center or military installation is nothing short of catastrophic. It is estimated the the energy released to cause the damage to the World Trade Center complex during 9/11 was 3-5 Kilotons (KT). About the size that could be expected from an improvised crude terrorist device. Most of the information below can be found at the following links

    Nukemap

    Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance

    Nuclear War Survival Skills

    Section 5.0 Effects of Nuclear Explosions

    Here is my synopsis.

    Myths and Facts

    Myth’s I see and hear all of the time.:
    -There are enough Nuclear Weapons to destroy all of mankind.

    -The majority of Nuclear Weapons are several Megatons and larger.

    -A 2mt (megatons) bomb is 100 times more powerful than the 20 kt (kiloton) Nagasaki bomb and 10 times more powerful than a 200kt bomb.

    -Radioactive fallout will make the area uninhabitable for 1000’s of years.

    Some Facts
    -Of the roughly 15,000 nuclear weapons currently in inventory more than 90% belong to Russia (7,000) and the U.S. (6,800)

    -Over 5,300 are waiting to be dismantled and are non-operational.
    2,510 for Russia
    2,800 for the U.S.

    -Less than 3,000 warheads are in a deployed status. Fully assembled with active means of delivery. ICBM, SLBM, Strategic Bomber.
    1,561 for Russia
    1,393 for U.S.
    40 for the U.K.

    -China, France, India, and Pakistan do not have any nuclear weapons deployed.

    -A non-deployed warhead has no active/available delivery vehicle and is more likely than naught in a partial assembly state such as trigger being removed and/or no deuterium load making the weapon essentially inert.

    -No country actively has any Nuclear Weapons, bombs/cruise missiles, on any aircraft. Only ICBM and SLBM are readily available for immediate use in a strike/counterstrike. This is a significant portion of Russian and U.S. deployed weapons.

    -No deployed missile warheads are greater than 800kt

    -Not all ICBM silo’s are in a ready status at all times. Maintenance, upgrade, etc.

    -Not all mobile ICBM launchers are deployed at all times. Maintenance, upgrade, crew turnover, resupply, etc..

    -Not all Ballistic Missile Submarines are out to sea at all times. Maintenance, upgrade, crew turnover, resupply, etc.

    -Of the 3,000 deployed nuclear weapons there may only be 50-60% actually available for immediate use in a strike/counterstrike.

    -The “average” Yield of all deployed warheads is well less than 500kt.
    Russia 340kt
    U.S. 215kt
    U.K. 100kt

    -Power magnitude in weapon size is not linear. A 2mt yield is not 10 times the power of a 200kt weapon. It’s roughly an inverse square which means the blast radius for a 2mt weapon is 2.16x the radius of a 200kt blast and 4.63x the area.
    Surface burst are used on hardened military targets such as missile silos and underground command/control/communications bunkers.

    -Airburst at a specified height to cause maximum damage at a certain blast level would be used on a military basses and population centers.
    20 psi (500 mph winds) – Heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished.
    10 psi ( 300 mph winds) – Reinforced concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished.
    5 psi (160 mph winds) – Residential and commercial buildings severely damaged or demolished.

    -If each country set all of their deployed warheads for a 10 psi blast the following would be the overall blast area they could affect at that level.
    Russia – 340 kt yield affects ~ 29.4 km² x 1,561 warheads = 45,893 km² (between the size Maryland (32,131 km²) and West
    Virginia (62,755 km²)
    U.S. – 215 kt yield affects ~ 21.6 km² x 1,393 warheads = 30,088 km² ( slightly smaller than Maryland)
    U.K. 100 kt yield affects ~ 13 km² x 40 warheads = 520 km² (just over 2x the size of D.C.)
    Note: The above numbers assume 100% available deployed warheads which as stated above would not be the case.

    -A brief (3-5 second) thermal wave capable of lighting loose combustible debris, dry grass/leaves, etc. would be approx double the above blast figures.
    A 5 psi blast wave extends beyond this and tends to extinguish a majority of these fires.
    Burns up to 3rd degree are possible.

    -Prompt Radiation levels > the 100 REM where effects begin to appear is well within the 10 psi blast areas listed above.
    An air blast for the above blast effect would be much higher than the radius of the fireball therefore no significant, if any, long term radioactive fallout would be present after the event. See below.

    -The fireball of the explosion would have to impact the ground vaporizing material and mixing this material with vaporized residue and fission products created by the weapon for there to be any fallout that would impact the downwind side of the affected area.

    -The 7-10 rule. For every factor of 7 in hours after radioactive fallout has arrived the radiation levels will be 10% of the level at arrival. For example, initial radiation level is 500 REM. After 7 hours the level would be 50 REM and after 49 hours the levels would be 5 REM and so on until levels are equal to background.

    -Long term radioactive effects are not an issue like they are for a Nuclear Reactors waste.

    This should be enough to start a discussion..

    Cheers!!

    "I'll never be back!!!"

    #688932
    Vernimator
    Vernimator
    Participant
    30

    Another myth I see is the the soot from fires caused by even a small regional nuclear conflict such as Pakistan and India would have a profound effect on global climate change and cause the global temperatures to drop and famine for years if not decades to come.

    As we see in the post above the U.K. can impact with all of their nukes and area of 520 km² (just over 2x the size of D.C.) at 10 psi. The thermal wave would reach a bit further so let’s double the area to say 1000 km². The current Thomas fire devastating the Las Angeles is now over 230.000 acres or 930 km² and that is just one of 5 fires burning in the area right now.

    They said the Kuwaiti oil fields burning during the 1991 conflict would cause global climate change. It didn’t.

    What about the fire bombing of Germany and Japan during WWII where dozens of major cities, many of which turned into firestorms, and countless towns and industrial complexes were burned to the ground. Didn’t happen then either.

    A nuclear weapon detonating over a population center does not automatically mean an intense firestorm is to follow. In Hiroshima it did due to the large expanse of frail wood and paper homes. And those fires that led to the firestorm was due to cooking stoves, lamps, etc in the demolished homes and not due to the thermal wave. Nagasaki did not have a firestorm. It was just a conflagration, which is pretty bad on it’s own, but does not create the wind and weather effects of a firestorm.

    Third world cities are prime for extensive burning and possible firestorms but if Russia, China, the U.S. and Europe are going at it those will be the cites targeted and they would not be affected as such.

    21st century cities in comparison to World War II cities
    Here is a blurb from Wiki with sources that they link.

    “Unlike the highly combustible World War II cities that firestormed from conventional and nuclear weapons, fire experts suggest that due to the nature of modern U.S. city design and construction, a firestorm is unlikely to occur even after a nuclear detonation.[25] The explanation for this is that highrise buildings do not lend themselves to the formation of firestorms due to the baffle effect of the structures,[1] nor are firestorms likely in areas where modern buildings have totally collapsed, with the exceptions of Tokyo and Hiroshima due to the nature of their densely packed “flimsy” wooden buildings in World War II.[43][47] There is also a sizable difference between the fuel loading of World War II cities that firestormed and that of modern cities, where the quantity of combustibles per square meter in the fire area in the latter is below the necessary requirement for a firestorm to form (40 kg/m²).[48][49] Therefore, firestorms are not to be expected in modern U.S. or Canadian cities following a nuclear detonation, nor are they expected to be likely in modern European cities.[50]”

    The section after this titled “Nuclear weapons in comparison to conventional weapons” is also an interesting and compelling read.

    ~V~

    "I'll never be back!!!"

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

The MGTOW Forums are for registered red-pill Men only. There are no exceptions. All females may exit immediately. Have you read The MGTOW Forums Guidelines (Last Updated 2015.01.02)? Please check it occasionally. Before you submit a post, kindly remember you are an important representative of
MGTOW | Men Going Their Own Way.

Trigger Warning EMERGENCY EXIT