Most active commenters
  • petcat(4)
  • nl(3)

←back to thread

Hunting for North Korean Fiber Optic Cables

(nkinternet.com)
288 points Bezod | 12 comments | 08 Dec 25 16:38 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
petcat ◴[08 Dec 25 23:42 UTC] No.46199273[source]▶
Can we back up and just recognize how insane North Korea is? I think that future generations will look back on our history and wonder why nobody ever did anything about the incredible atrocities that took place in that country for decades.
replies(8): >>46199321 #>>46199942 #>>46200853 #>>46201063 #>>46201321 #>>46201384 #>>46202236 #>>46205997 #
VWWHFSfQ ◴[08 Dec 25 23:46 UTC] No.46199321[source]▶
It will definitely go down as one of the biggest failures of mankind. Especially since it was so easily preventable if MacArthur was permitted to just take the whole peninsula.
replies(6): >>46199456 #>>46199486 #>>46199540 #>>46199545 #>>46201002 #>>46201354 #
timschmidt ◴[09 Dec 25 00:09 UTC] No.46199545[source]▶
China was already sending troops and material to the front lines when MacArthur was ordered to stand down. Pushing further would have meant a hot war with China.
replies(1): >>46199680 #
petcat ◴[09 Dec 25 00:21 UTC] No.46199680[source]▶
A hot war with China in 1950 was going to end quickly with the firepower USA had on-hand.
replies(2): >>46200064 #>>46200939 #
timschmidt ◴[09 Dec 25 01:08 UTC] No.46200064[source]▶
There is no way we could match them in numbers on the ground. Such a conflict would have inevitably led to us nuking them as a result. Which is probably the reason decision makers chose not to.
replies(1): >>46200149 #
1. petcat ◴[09 Dec 25 01:18 UTC] No.46200149[source]▶
And maybe that's really the humanitarian failure. That USA didn't nuke China in 1950 or 1951. Would have solved a lot of problems for generations of people.
replies(3): >>46200203 #>>46201425 #>>46204374 #
2. yongjik ◴[09 Dec 25 01:25 UTC] No.46200203[source]▶
Wow, just half a dozen comments from why we're not saving North Koreans to "we could've nuked China and solved a lot of problems."

Some Hacker News threads are on their own level.

replies(1): >>46200249 #
3. petcat ◴[09 Dec 25 01:30 UTC] No.46200249[source]▶
Well we know what happened to North Korea after China "won". And it's pretty fucking god-awful for 10s of millions of people for 80+ years.

USA dropping nukes probably would have been the better outcome for humanity.

replies(2): >>46200564 #>>46202671 #
4. gpm ◴[09 Dec 25 02:26 UTC] No.46200564{3}[source]▶
USA dropping nukes would have prevented the convention against using nukes in wars from being started. I think there's a pretty good chance we wouldn't have any civilization left by now if we went down that fork in history.
replies(1): >>46201559 #
5. TheBicPen ◴[09 Dec 25 05:03 UTC] No.46201425[source]▶
Maybe the real humanitarian failure is that the US didn't nuke everybody and start over from the stone age. Can't any societal problems if no societies exist, right?
6. jojobas ◴[09 Dec 25 05:29 UTC] No.46201559{4}[source]▶
How is nuking Japan different from nuking Korea? Everybody agrees that forcing Japan to surrender with nukes was much better for everyone involved than a ground invasion.
replies(2): >>46202523 #>>46202684 #
7. AngryData ◴[09 Dec 25 08:15 UTC] No.46202523{5}[source]▶
When Japan was bombed, nobody else in the world had nuclear weapons, the US only had 2, and there were only a handful of people outside of the US seriously researching nuclear weapons and were still years away from a test. By 1950 the USSR had working nuclear bombs, had proven so with a nuclear test, and a dozen other countries had started their own nuclear weapons programs.
8. nl ◴[09 Dec 25 08:40 UTC] No.46202671{3}[source]▶
Wait - you think the solution to some people having a lower standard of living and others being persecuted is to kill them all?
replies(1): >>46206018 #
9. nl ◴[09 Dec 25 08:43 UTC] No.46202684{5}[source]▶
It's different almost by definition?

Because it was a once (twice!) off the impact and significance of it is amplified.

10. noobr ◴[09 Dec 25 12:48 UTC] No.46204374[source]▶
wtf
11. lkbm ◴[09 Dec 25 15:32 UTC] No.46206018{4}[source]▶
Nukes usually don't wipe out entire countries, especially tactical nukes.

I'm far from convinced that using nukes in the Korean War would've been a good move, but equating it with "kill[ing] them all" is completely dishonest. What's your goal in this debate, and is it served by dishonest rhetoric?

replies(1): >>46213255 #
12. nl ◴[10 Dec 25 02:14 UTC] No.46213255{5}[source]▶
My comment is in the context of:

> That USA didn't nuke China in 1950 or 1951. Would have solved a lot of problems for generations of people.

> USA dropping nukes probably would have been the better outcome for humanity.

Both of which I read as an expansive campaign of "nuking China"