http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear

This little piss-ant country is totally bat-sh!t crazy! If its true that they can feild only around 6-12 nukes of questionable accuracy and they're basically trying to dictate to the WORLD whats up...wtf.

Is anybody really concerned about this? The idea of nuclear war is so very terrible obviously...one part of me wonders what sort of gov't is actually silly enough to think that nukes are an answer to anything at all. The other part realises that this is a country where my western rationale probably doesnt even begin to comprehend whats going thru their minds. Honestly, I'm not sure if I should be concerned or not...for all the good my worrying will do.

Time to boot up my future survival simulator. I'm about to hit level 20 in Fallout 3 once again...perhaps I'll download the latest content for new options.

No we need g.i joe.
But really i think russia and china might step in before anything happens.

One mad man does not speak the will of a whole nation.

Keep that in mind before insulting others. After all , all the heat is what makes humans fight among each other all the time.

North Korea isn't going to get anywhere. Their population is malnourished and isn't any bigger than Australia's. China and Russia aren't backing NK, so if they make an act of war, they're going to be taken down by the rest of the world pretty damn quickly. The only thing holding us back is the fact that if we make an act of war, they could bomb Seoul into oblivion.

LunaHound wrote:
One mad man does not speak the will of a whole nation.

Isnt this essentially a dictatorship we're talking about here? If so, I think one mad man does INDEED speak the will of a whole nation.


...Keep THAT in mind.

If North Korea starts a nuclear war, they will be going down faster than a 16 year old on prom night, the question is, will they be able to bite your nuts off first?

The little man wants to be a big man in a world of giants. I want to ignore him, but he seems to be just the type to pull somethingly isanely stupid, like start a nuclear war, to get attention.

Deadshane1 wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
One mad man does not speak the will of a whole nation.

Isnt this essentially a dictatorship we're talking about here? If so, I think one mad man does INDEED speak the will of a whole nation.


...Keep THAT in mind.

Just because he can dictate the whole country, that doesnt mean the rest of the country approves of it.
if anything , they are too scared of their own lives to resist.

Keep THAT in mind before you go insult a whole nation and their people.

I suppose we can always hope that someone in NK's top brass will see sense and give Kim the boot.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I suppose we can always hope that someone in NK's top brass will see sense and give Kim the boot.

Now thats actually the best scenario i heard so far.

Comming from cheese elemental too never the less.

(top brass?) are you really 16? i have never ever heard some of the phrases you use before.

I'm nearly sure that they are simply waiting for him to die so they'll be safe from hardliners revenge killing them. The man has concentration camps, but some people ther do actually believe him a god.

*heres hoping the next regime chooses to end the insanity and give up all that power. Probably not, but I like to think that humanity is occasionally capable of self-sacrifice for the common good.

It's times like these that I really really really really really really hope that it does happen, so that people finally realize that nukes are only to be used in case of dire absolute
need, in which most of the world aggres that the use of nukes are justified. but nobody listens to the pyshco walking back and forth, muttering some thing about zombie s and cake with a side of coffee....

LunaHound wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
One mad man does not speak the will of a whole nation.

Isnt this essentially a dictatorship we're talking about here? If so, I think one mad man does INDEED speak the will of a whole nation.


...Keep THAT in mind.

Just because he can dictate the whole country, that doesnt mean the rest of the country approves of it.
if anything , they are too scared of their own lives to resist.

Keep THAT in mind before you go insult a whole nation and their people.

...at the risk of deviation from the real subject...

I'm talking about a country on the verge of starting a nuclear war...

you seem miffed at my "insulting another countries people"...

Which should we discuss I wonder, my rudeness or another nation accepting a madman who threatens nuclear war as ruler? Keep on track Luna, examine your priorities.

You see, apparently the country DOES approve. If they do nothing, in my opinion, they approve. F@ck them. Uprising, rebellion, leaving the country...they are all options, especially if you are under the rule of a madman threatening to use such drastic means against another nation.

All I'll say at this point is, is that this dimension is really boring.

Almost all the others have dropped twice as many nukes as you guys.

HURRY UP AND DO IT ALREADY!

Ratbarf wrote:If North Korea starts a nuclear war, they will be going down faster than a 16 year old on prom night, the question is, will they be able to bite your nuts off first?

True. north korea aint bad at all. its there alliances. currently there allied with china. whose army has more men the the american population

China is one of the countries that APPROVED the sanction against the north.

They wont stand with N. Korea on this one.

I'd just like to add that while N Korea has nuclear weapons, the people on the TV box say their missiles lack the capacity to lift them. That being said, they do have the capacity to deliver conventional warheads as well as biological/ chemical weapons.

True, that. China may be an oppressive communist regime, but they don't have hostile intentions towards the west.

I can imagine there's a fair bit of facepalming going on in the Chinese and Russian governments. Mind you, they probably weren't expecting NK to abuse their aid like this.

If North Korea started a war it would be by destroying the capitol of south korea.

MILLIONS OF SOUTH KOREANS WOULD DIE IN THIS ACTION. The american forces stationed there are paltry compared to the million man army, and even with the inevitable and quick destruction of the Norths ability to supply its war machine and prosecute an offensive the simple act of attacking the south would ensure one of the most bloody conflicts in decades.

Then there's japan. Kim would nuke japan. He has the questionable capability and the will. Kim has 6-8 possible nukes, this would ensure the conflicts casualties would rise into the double digit millions.


Kim would strike civilian targets with chemical and nuclear weapons. He has nothing to lose. He is insane. He has promised to do so dozens of times. This is not Iraq. This is North Korea, north korea has thousands of artillery pieces on their border aimed at Seoul armed with chlorine gas and other chemical agents. It has an army of over one million soldiers. It is the fourth largest military on the planet.

Just because he can dictate the whole country, that doesnt mean the rest of the country approves of it.
if anything , they are too scared of their own lives to resist.

Keep THAT in mind before you go insult a whole nation and their people.

You don't know much about North Korea do you? Firstly Kim is worshipped as the father of the state. His power is akin to that of a god within the north. What he says goes, any dissent at all results in either execution or imprisonment for three generations in a concentration camp. There is no dissent in the North because dissent is suicide and a starving populace that has absolutely no ability to revolt is not going to try.

I suppose we can always hope that someone in NK's top brass will see sense and give Kim the boot.

This is unlikely. Decades of being worshipped as the father and execution of anything even resembling something other than lockstep obedience has very effectively removed the will to revolt. There's a reason he has been around so long despite the absolute debasement of North Koreas entire population.



The only true option other than waiting for kim to die and praying that the son granted power is less insane is an unannounced pre-emptive and massive airstrike removing the Norths ability to launch nukes, bombard seoul, and prosecute a land invasion. No small task considering the entire American Military is busy on the other side of the planet.

The news puts it as sabre rattling, I kind of agree. Back in the cold war it was mutually assured destruction (MAD doctrine), Kim just want's to reasure that the M is there, capitolised, maybe even underlined. This gives him a better negotiating position.

Deadshane1 wrote:...at the risk of deviation from the real subject...

I'm talking about a country on the verge of starting a nuclear war...

you seem miffed at my "insulting another countries people"...

Which should we discuss I wonder, my rudeness or another nation accepting a madman who threatens nuclear war as ruler? Keep on track Luna, examine your priorities.

You see, apparently the country DOES approve. If they do nothing, in my opinion, they approve. F@ck them. Uprising, rebellion, leaving the country...they are all options, especially if you are under the rule of a madman threatening to use such drastic means against another nation.

Your idea that a country needs to be held responsible for its leader because it hasn't undertaken violent uprising is pretty dubious. Is the Iraq war the responsibility of the entirety of the US population, or just the leadership that decided on the war and then set about creating the casus belli?

Second up, what are you actually proposing here? Because right now the situation is that an unstable regime could go nuts and kill a million odd South Koreans. The current solution is to prevent that nation increasing its killing abilities through blockade, while waiting it out and hoping the regime moves to something more stable. The alternative is war, and the only thing that would achieve is the destuction of Seoul, which is the worst case scenario anyway.

So what is it you want out of this situation that isn't being met already?

Deadshane1 wrote:China is one of the countries that APPROVED the sanction against the north.

They wont stand with N. Korea on this one.

China's position is a lot more complicated than being 'allied' with either us or the N Koreans. Right now, in terms of sanctions they are on-side with S Korea, Japan and the US. If N Korea were to invade, they would support the S Koreans. But if the US were to start making war noises like Deadshane1, you better believe they'd start backing N Korea. The Chinese primary interest is stability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:True. north korea aint bad at all. its there alliances. currently there allied with china. whose army has more men the the american population

No, China doesn't have 300 million troops. It has around 100 million, the vast majority of whom are reserves with no capability for deployment outside their provinces, let alone to other countries.

The only relevant factor is force projection, and while China is improving year to year it doesn't match the US.

sebster wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:...at the risk of deviation from the real subject...

I'm talking about a country on the verge of starting a nuclear war...

you seem miffed at my "insulting another countries people"...

Which should we discuss I wonder, my rudeness or another nation accepting a madman who threatens nuclear war as ruler? Keep on track Luna, examine your priorities.

You see, apparently the country DOES approve. If they do nothing, in my opinion, they approve. F@ck them. Uprising, rebellion, leaving the country...they are all options, especially if you are under the rule of a madman threatening to use such drastic means against another nation.

Your idea that a country needs to be held responsible for its leader because it hasn't undertaken violent uprising is pretty dubious. Is the Iraq war the responsibility of the entirety of the US population, or just the leadership that decided on the war and then set about creating the casus belli?

Second up, what are you actually proposing here? Because right now the situation is that an unstable regime could go nuts and kill a million odd South Koreans. The current solution is to prevent that nation increasing its killing abilities through blockade, while waiting it out and hoping the regime moves to something more stable. The alternative is war, and the only thing that would achieve is the destuction of Seoul, which is the worst case scenario anyway.

So what is it you want out of this situation that isn't being met already?

Deadshane1 wrote:China is one of the countries that APPROVED the sanction against the north.

They wont stand with N. Korea on this one.

China's position is a lot more complicated than being 'allied' with either us or the N Koreans. Right now, in terms of sanctions they are on-side with S Korea, Japan and the US. If N Korea were to invade, they would support the S Koreans. But if the US were to start making war noises like Deadshane1, you better believe they'd start backing N Korea. The Chinese primary interest is stability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:True. north korea aint bad at all. its there alliances. currently there allied with china. whose army has more men the the american population

No, China doesn't have 300 million troops. It has around 100 million, the vast majority of whom are reserves with no capability for deployment outside their provinces, let alone to other countries.

The only relevant factor is force projection, and while China is improving year to year it doesn't match the US.

I stopped reading when you compared the U.S. to N. Korea...there is no similarity.

We dont threaten Nuclear War and killing millions of innocents in one fell swoop.

There is a big difference between the U.S. being in the wrong concerning the Iraq War (which is debatable on certain points) and N. Korea being in the wrong in threatening/starting a nuclear war.

I think you're trying to make an arguement based on the fact that I have an American flag next to my avatar rather than the actual point of the thread.

Deadshane1 wrote:I stopped reading when you compared the U.S. to N. Korea...there is no similarity.

We dont threaten Nuclear War and killing millions of innocents in one fell swoop.

There is a big difference between the U.S. being in the wrong concerning the Iraq War (which is debatable on certain points) and N. Korea being in the wrong in threatening/starting a nuclear war.

I think you're trying to make an arguement based on the fact that I have an American flag next to my avatar rather than the actual point of the thread.

Dude, that’s just lazy. I never drew equivalency between the US and North Korea. I gave an example to point out that the people cannot be held strictly responsible for the policies of their government, even in a democracy. I could have used a lot of different policies from a lot of different countries, but I chose the US invasion of Iraq because it’s a very simple case as government was lying to the population, removing much of the blame from the population. This tied in nicely with the situation in N Korea where propaganda of the government is tremendous.

There no attempt made at equivalency between the two countries, none hinted at or implied. You read it into my post for reasons entirely your own. Whether it was sidetrack the discussion, because you’re really keen to see nutball leftism where there is none, or because you have no concept of how two things can be seen with similar qualities without being compared overall. I don’t know, but it’s something you need to work on.

sebster wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:I stopped reading when you compared the U.S. to N. Korea...there is no similarity.

We dont threaten Nuclear War and killing millions of innocents in one fell swoop.

There is a big difference between the U.S. being in the wrong concerning the Iraq War (which is debatable on certain points) and N. Korea being in the wrong in threatening/starting a nuclear war.

I think you're trying to make an arguement based on the fact that I have an American flag next to my avatar rather than the actual point of the thread.

Dude, that’s just lazy. I never drew equivalency between the US and North Korea. I gave an example to point out that the people cannot be held strictly responsible for the policies of their government, even in a democracy. I could have used a lot of different policies from a lot of different countries, but I chose the US invasion of Iraq because it’s a very simple case as government was lying to the population, removing much of the blame from the population. This tied in nicely with the situation in N Korea where propaganda of the government is tremendous.

There no attempt made at equivalency between the two countries, none hinted at or implied. You read it into my post for reasons entirely your own. Whether it was sidetrack the discussion, because you’re really keen to see nutball leftism where there is none, or because you have no concept of how two things can be seen with similar qualities without being compared overall. I don’t know, but it’s something you need to work on.

Actually, I dont.

One thing I DO know is...that your posts really dont have much to do with the point of this thread in the first place.

The initial point here was honestly to determine whether or one one should be concerned with the state of affairs in Korea.....just to let you know. Something you might want to work on is reading comprehension....this thread isnt about flaming one another, its about analysing the state of affairs in the East.

Thank you drive thru.

Deadshane1 wrote:Actually, I dont.

One thing I DO know is...that your posts really dont have much to do with the point of this thread in the first place.

The initial point here was honestly to determine whether or one one should be concerned with the state of affairs in Korea.....just to let you know. Something you might want to work on is reading comprehension....this thread isnt about flaming one another, its about analysing the state of affairs in the East.

Thank you drive thru.

I wasn't driving through. If you read my post you would see that. I questioned your suggestion that the North Koreans should be accountable for the actions of their government, a very big issue in determining what level of response is appropriate to a government out of control. I then asked you what your proposed solution to the problem is. Lastly I pointed out that your assumption about China standing by the US/Japan/South Korea or by North Korea would depend a lot on who was doing the attacking.

At no point did I stray from your original topic. The only change in the topic came when you misinterpreted my post and started a ditty about how the US is better than North Korea, which, while true, had absolutely nothing to do with anything.

In the interests of giving everyone a second chance, I'm happy to restate my point here for you, so you can see they're very much on topic, so that you can consider them and reply;
Point 1; it isn't fair to judge a population by its government. While the government of North Korea is very bad, that doesn't mean you can completely ignore the well-being of its people when considering policy towards the country.
Point 2; While it is true that North Korea is the bad guy, what exactly do you propose we do? Right now containment is managing to stop loads of people being killed, and the regime is inherently unstable so there is always a chance of a more reasonable government taking control.
Point 3; Your assumption that China is on our side now is dubious. China's allegiance depends entirely on the facts on the ground, and who is threatening the preferred Chinese state of things.

sebster wrote:
Point 1; it isn't fair to judge a population by its government. While the government of North Korea is very bad, that doesn't mean you can completely ignore the well-being of its people when considering policy towards the country.

Fine, however, this whole line of debate started when luna chastised me for calling them a "piss-ant" little country that was bat-sh!t crazy. Surely a horrendous insult to the populace, however, while here on an informal forum, thats really a perfectly acceptable way to describe THEIR GOVERNMENT. Obviously I wasnt talking about the populace in the first place, but someone chose to deviate from the point here and take issue with what I said.
So, can we get on with the real issues then?

Point 2; While it is true that North Korea is the bad guy, what exactly do you propose we do? Right now containment is managing to stop loads of people being killed, and the regime is inherently unstable so there is always a chance of a more reasonable government taking control.

I personally dont propose anything, my initial question is whether or not westerners need to be concerned with the state of affairs in the east. Proposals about what should be done is an interesting subject as well however.

Point 3; Your assumption that China is on our side now is dubious. China's allegiance depends entirely on the facts on the ground, and who is threatening the preferred Chinese state of things.

I never said that China is on our side. I stated that they approved the U.N. Sanctions...which is a fact.

Deadshane1 wrote: Fine, however, this whole line of debate started when luna chastised me for calling them a "piss-ant" little country that was bat-sh!t crazy. Surely a horrendous insult to the populace, however, while here on an informal forum, thats really a perfectly acceptable way to describe THEIR GOVERNMENT. Obviously I wasnt talking about the populace in the first place, but someone chose to deviate from the point here and take issue with what I said.

I didn’t make any comment on Luna telling you off for offending them, I didn’t think it was relevant either. I don’t know how much of an emphasis Luna was putting on ‘insult’ compared to ‘they’re actually still people even if their government is crazy’, but I thought it better to focus on the latter. Which is a real issue, and a very important one, because we have to remember that the North Korean government isn’t just holding Seoul to ransom, but also the people of North Korea.

I personally dont propose anything, my initial question is whether or not westerners need to be concerned with the state of affairs in the east. Proposals about what should be done is an interesting subject as well however.

Well, then, the answer is yes, we do need to be concerned, but also that we already are concerned and are doing things. There have been multiple attempts to stop the North Korean nuclear weapons program (and while they have failed, this has been due to both sides failing to keep the deals).

I never said that China is on our side. I stated that they approved the U.N. Sanctions...which is a fact.

Garret was talking about how quickly North Korea would be defeated, but that they had a powerful ally in China. You posted that China won’t stand with N Korea on this one.

My point was that it really depended on what ‘this one’ is. If it’s a North Korean invasion of South Korea then yeah, I’d agree that China won’t help them at all. If it’s missile strikes or even an invasion of North Korea, well then the Chinese position is not so certain.

Japan and South korea are the 2 countries in danger.

Even they aren't stupid enough to shoot at China.
South Korea and Japan are within range of their ballistic missiles with large population centres for maximum damage.
And neither country have nukes to shoot back at them.

Sigh, flame shield up. As a long time U.S. airman and war vet, who comes from a long time military familiy, I'd like to add my two cents.

(Warning long read)

First. I yelled as loud as I could something should have been done about North Korea and not Iraq. They were close to having nukes then, and we all knew Iraq didn't. They have been giving nuke info to Iran ever since, and now they do have at least 2-3 nukes...at least. Yes It would have been been messy, but America was still at the hight of it's power then and China still depended on our imports, and Russia wasn't yet the glass tiger it is today. Yes I was the only bleeding heart Dem crying for war with N.Korea instead of Iraq, I still belive it was the right thing to do.

Second. People love to discount any other countries bar the few involved. Noth korea is a nation alone. Russia and China still depend on global trade to survive. Joining north Korea in a war with the UN would Alienate them from the rest of the world, they just cant depend on each other, and China doesn't have the materials to move there massive man power anywhere, or the sea power to protect them from being raked by fire or the air pwer to sink America's HUGE Two ocean armada. Why would they go to war with the biggest consumer of thier goods, wreaking thier own markets. Or enen endanger the pay back of debt? Just for the sake of a mad man who thinks he is a god ina land of starving people? The chinese are many things, stupid isn't one of them.

Thirdly: the millitary has had half a damn century to dig into South Korea, do you think the only plan they have is OMG WTF. This has been the war hawks like Cheney dream of. there has been over that time enough balistic fire power to char the north and blanket the sky.

Do not be mistaken about the last two wars. Basicly fought with one portion of one branch (marines) and held with one portion of another (Army). I can't impart on you the hell all four branches of the U.S. military can bring down on a area. With no reservations, the full backing of the American people, and the rest of the western world it's massive landmass mafely tucked away and fully tuned to military production, and all bases around the world focused on on point, and the 50 years of military advancement over any other country. I swear if the rest of the world knew what we could do we'd have no friends. Noth korea could stop one mass tank push from one of Texas's armored companies. all thoes millions of men would be slaughter by tanks firing depleted uranium from 2 miles away. China wouldn't fire at South korea or Japan, or risk war with Nato and every other country they have defence pacts with, and making sure they ruined thier new found economic clout.

Noth korea would fall quickly and alone, with only one or two south Korean cities damaged.

LunaHound wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
One mad man does not speak the will of a whole nation.

Isnt this essentially a dictatorship we're talking about here? If so, I think one mad man does INDEED speak the will of a whole nation.


...Keep THAT in mind.

Just because he can dictate the whole country, that doesnt mean the rest of the country approves of it.
if anything , they are too scared of their own lives to resist.

Keep THAT in mind before you go insult a whole nation and their people.

Who the cares what the rest of the country thinks? They are irrelevant.

A people can lose it's will to fight, offer aid and info to the enemy, and become resistance/inflitrators and informants, and guides and scouts. Soldiers can defect. Winning the hearts of the people is more important than winning the war, look at Iraq.

All thats irrelevant if they shoot off a nuke, or threaten to shoot off a nuke.

Ignore them like you would a child throwing a fit. If SK wants, sell them a surplus boomer. Same for Japan. Lets make this a profit making venture baby.

But if NK fires one missile that goes over US territory, even "accidentally," even just a non-nuke test, mirv them with 200 warheads. Then send the satellite pics to Iran with a hand written note "threaten us and you're next, hugs and kisses, Obama."

No more of this 'send a message' crap.

And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Cheese Elemental wrote:And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Gone...and I wont lose a wink of sleep.

There are no innocents if they threaten my family em. Seriously.

NK civilians? SK moves forces into NK. The NK survivors are freed from generations of oppression. Korea is united in democracy.

Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice...

Frazzled wrote:There are no innocents if they threaten my family em. Seriously.

NK civilians? SK moves forces into NK. The NK survivors are freed from generations of oppression. Korea is united in democracy.

Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice...

You'd be surprised at how entrenched in their beliefs the minds of Koreans can be (speaking from the perspective of a Korean-American).

That being said, I highly doubt that I'll see a unified Korea in my life-time.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Gone...and I wont lose a wink of sleep.

What? They're innocent people who've done nothing to anyone. The majority of them are living in poverty. They have every right to live. How would you feel if it was 23 million Americans who were in danger?

You can't blame a nation for their leader's faults. You say they practically worship Kim, but that's what they've been indoctrinated to do. The average NK civilian probably doesn't know much about the outside world.

Eh, I wouldn't argue with them, they live by the age old saying: Do it to them before they do it to you.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Gone...and I wont lose a wink of sleep.

What? They're innocent people who've done nothing to anyone. The majority of them are living in poverty. They have every right to live. How would you feel if it was 23 million Americans who were in danger?

You can't blame a nation for their leader's faults. You say they practically worship Kim, but that's what they've been indoctrinated to do. The average NK civilian probably doesn't know much about the outside world.

Wait I thought the US was hated across the world because of George Bush. But we can't blame NK because its leader is threatening to nuke everyone and really really throwing a fit? You're sending mixed messages Cheesey!

Eh, I wouldn't argue with them, they live by the age old saying: Do it to them before they do it to you.

Remember its not the US re-declaring war every few days, throwing missiles and threatening to nuke everyone. I'm saying leave them alone, which you should support. Don't threaten don't this, don't that but use the big stick if needed.

No, what you suggested was nuke the place if they test-fire anywhere near U.S. soil.

I mean, with the superior air force America has, couldn't you just bomb the hell out of their parliament building and effectively decapitate the nation, allowing foreign governments to help the country back into a stable condition?

OK, allow me to be clearer. I think a pre-emptive military strike against government and military targets would put and end to this nuclear war nonsense, but nuking the country is going over the top. No need to make the civilians suffer for the government's screw-ups.

Pre-emptive strikes only work against a nation when you can find the targets. NK has developed a whole network of underground tunnels, caverns and even airbases (only the runways are outside, and those are camouflaged). Certainly all the nuke research stuff is buried deep in the northern mountains.

This is one of the reasons that NK is still a threat, even though most military analysts agree that past the likely carnage and mass slaughter of roughly the first 7 to 10 days, NK would fall like wet tissue paper. They're pretty impossible to knock out with air power like we did in Iraq. Heck, just look at Afghanistan for a lesson in the limitations of bombing!

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, what you suggested was nuke the place if they test-fire anywhere near U.S. soil.

I mean, with the superior air force America has, couldn't you just bomb the hell out of their parliament building and effectively decapitate the nation, allowing foreign governments to help the country back into a stable condition?

OK, allow me to be clearer. I think a pre-emptive military strike against government and military targets would put and end to this nuclear war nonsense, but nuking the country is going over the top. No need to make the civilians suffer for the government's screw-ups.

If they attack the US they should die. What part of that is difficult to understand? What part fo that is wrong. It is the fundemantal duty of any government to protect its people from attack. Everything else is secondary.

NK can avoid that by not attacking us. Most other countries manage to do that. See how easy it is?

Not to mention the fall out that would effect friendly nations in the area. America's goal is to bring freedom to people, not free them from their mortal coil. We'd slaughter them, and become a real life version of Khorn Berserkers and Nightlords. Show them that their god is false, or better, Americans have to power to kill gods. Rip Kim down off of his golden throne and bring in the four dark american gods of Greed, Lust, Gluttony, and Pride. Death to the false god, let the galaxy burn.

Frazzled wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, what you suggested was nuke the place if they test-fire anywhere near U.S. soil.

I mean, with the superior air force America has, couldn't you just bomb the hell out of their parliament building and effectively decapitate the nation, allowing foreign governments to help the country back into a stable condition?

OK, allow me to be clearer. I think a pre-emptive military strike against government and military targets would put and end to this nuclear war nonsense, but nuking the country is going over the top. No need to make the civilians suffer for the government's screw-ups.

If they attack the US they should die. What part of that is difficult to understand? What part fo that is wrong. It is the fundemantal duty of any government to protect its people from attack. Everything else is secondary.

NK can avoid that by not attacking us. Most other countries manage to do that. See how easy it is?

I said civilians. Over 23 million innocent people who have no chance of a life if the U.S. goes and butchers them all. At least you have evacuation plans in place, and plenty of space to go...

And nuclear fallout is a big problem. It would drift over into SK and possibly China and Japan if they're unlucky.

Remember the last time America used atomics on civilian targets? It was a pointless attack in the first place, since Japan had been pushed back, but no, the retards in American top brass had to go and annihilate two cities packed full of civilians.

Not even George W. Cheney would launch nukes if NK launched one in aggression (much less Obama); the fallout factor is simply too high when we're talking about the Korea peninsula. Our allies wouldn't want us too either.

If NK launched a surprise attack via conventional warfare it will be the bloodiest conflict since the last Korean War however eventually American and allied forces will topple the NK war machine. With our air superiority and well established counter attack plans we can fly in over a thousand different bombing missions per night and it'd requite this kind of effort due to the Korean terrain and size of the NK military.

If NK put a nuke smack in the middle of the continental U.S. today, you can bet your sweet _____ that tomorrow, there would be NO N. Korea, but a parking lot where they used to be.

I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
I said civilians. Over 23 million innocent people who have no chance of a life if the U.S. goes and butchers them all. At least you have evacuation plans in place, and plenty of space to go...

Evac plans? I must've missed that meeting. If we were getting nuked, our government wouldnt warn the populace before hand...what would be the point. If you're at ground zero, you could run, but you'd prolly just die tired.

And nuclear fallout is a big problem. It would drift over into SK and possibly China and Japan if they're unlucky.

Yea, sorry about that...at least we took care of SK actually getting NUKED instead of having to simply deal with radiation instead. We'll do what we can for you otherwise.

Remember the last time America used atomics on civilian targets? It was a pointless attack in the first place, since Japan had been pushed back, but no, the retards in American top brass had to go and annihilate two cities packed full of civilians.

Pointless attack? If I remember correctly it saved thousands of American lives, lives that would've been spent on a long and bloody invasion of the mainland Japan.

You have no clue man.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Remember the last time America used atomics on civilian targets? It was a pointless attack in the first place, since Japan had been pushed back, but no, the retards in American top brass had to go and annihilate two cities packed full of civilians.

I hate to derail this thread, but you're wrong. Japan had been pushed back to the main island. Estimates were that 1,000,000 (that's one million) American servicemen would die in the invasion, and that Japan would lose many times that in military and civilian casualties. Plus, after (iirc) Saipan, the concern was the Japanese civilians would commit mass suicide rather than surrender to the Allies. The Japanese believed the Emperor was a divine being, and he (basically) told them that they would not go to heaven if they surrendered.

As the grandson to a US Marine stationed in the Pacific, I'm glad they dropped the bombs. The number of deaths was significantly less than if the Allies had tried to invade the home island. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic, but it certainly saved lives. What else was the US to do? Blockade the island for 20 years? Let the civilian population starve and not have raw materials for manufacturing? Let the Japanese fly sorties against the blockade?

You need to pay more attention in history class.

I am sure the Chinese will fully support a launch of US nuclear missiles at north-east Asia.

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, what you suggested was nuke the place if they test-fire anywhere near U.S. soil.

I believe that if any sort of nuclear weapon is launched over American Territory it is considered an immediate Act of War. As it should be.



Here is my big question: Why do you all care about the impoverished North Korean "innocents?" Does their existence actually matter to you? Personally, I don't think the world would miss 23 million people. It is a rounding error in the world population.

Kim Jong-il is threatening to toss around nukes for no reason other than he wants people to think he is powerful and mighty. Someone who would do that should be put down like a dog, and buried in an unmarked grave. There is no compromise when it comes to nuclear weapons. They have a finality that no other power on this planet has. Nuclear attack is not something that should be an idle threat, or even a serious one execpt in the most dire of circumstances. They are a last resort weapon for a reason.

I fully support blowing the total and complet $#!7 out of North Korea if even a test missile travels over our territory.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

So I suppose if they hit our country with a nuke we should just ask them "why?" and "please dont do it again."

Call me kooky but something about that doesnt really sit well.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

Last time someone attacked the US, there was pretty good support for the invasion of Afghanistan. The time before that, there was a lot of support to go to war with Japan.

Mind you, I'm not advocating the pointless slaughter of the population of North Korea. However, if they all die in a US counter-attack, it'll be tragic, but I won't complain about it either.

If any nation launches a weapon at the US, the reprisal will be swift and brutal and eliminate the potential for a second strike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I find it ironic that Cheese is bemoaning the deaths of North Koreans in a retaliatory strike, but not the deaths of American civilians in the first strike.

dietrich wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

Last time someone attacked the US, there was pretty good support for the invasion of Afghanistan. The time before that, there was a lot of support to go to war with Japan.

Mind you, I'm not advocating the pointless slaughter of the population of North Korea. However, if they all die in a US counter-attack, it'll be tragic, but I won't complain about it either.

If any nation launches a weapon at the US, the reprisal will be swift and brutal and eliminate the potential for a second strike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I find it ironic that Cheese is bemoaning the deaths of North Koreans in a retaliatory strike, but not the deaths of American civilians in the first strike.

Ironic isnt quite the word that I would've used.

To risk derailing the thread some more, the nukes were absolutely necessary against Japan. Why? Because it didn't take ONE nuke for the Japanese Empire to realize they would be slaughtered in a war they were destined to lose; it took TWO nukes for Japan to admit defeat showcasing a type of national mentality that belongs more in the medieval ages than in the 20th century.

As for nuking NK if they nuked us I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen especially since a NK attack on the contentinal US would likely be intercepted; NK nuke technology would also simply be outmatched by our conventional weapons which we'd send by the thousands over NK if they were dumb enough to do such a thing. Like the firebombings over Europe and Japan, our conventional weapons would exceed NK's nukes by an exponential factor in terms of destruction.

However this is all just more saber rattling; NK needs money and attention and they know no one is going to feth with them until they make the first strike.

Deadshane1 wrote:Ironic isnt quite the word that I would've used.

It was the first one that came to mind that wouldn't have resulted in a warning from a Mod.

I see it as this....

You're probably right (Cane) about the missle being intercepted....and in all honesty, if a single nuke hit the continental U.S., likely we would NOT hit them with Nuclear weapons.

What the U.S. WOULD probably do after a Nuclear strike (successful or not) on U.S. soil is spend every bit of conventional ordinance that we have on that country in a retalitory strike before a full-on invasion. Leveling it before our troops go in to wade thru the wreckage.

Anyway you slice it...NK would be DONE.

Whilst I am a liberal, I do sometimes wonder how far certain nations of the middle east and far east assume they can push the west before the indulgent parent finally loses it's temper with the abusing teen and strikes back. Posturing like this isn't it. But if a nuke was unleashed on an american city, the US would not be satiated until a very much larger returning fire was dropped all over NK, maybe not nukes but it would be monumental and would wipe clean most areas of population of that nation.

The West stays it's hand for the most part, I am thinking this isn't going to go on forever. And if I'm realistic and lost family in a nuke attack on GB, I'd be screaming for us to wipe the offending nation off the planet and send a clear message to anyone else.

But in that area, China would be the worry, that dragon must be left to sleep.

There is a point where war becomes genocide. I'm all for pounding them flat, but to wipe out the north for the sake of population control is just that. Not even the USA has the right to condemn a entire people to death because they are starving and impoverished. Break their backs destroy thier will to fight, crush all who stand before you, But don't wipe and innocent people out because thier leader is nuts. You are talking about murdering 23 million people because of one man. Women, children, the elderly, the infirm, honest hard working family men. The armies lives are forfiet. innocents will die, but whole sale genocide will only prove our enemies right

Why do you all care about the impoverished North Korean "innocents?" Does their existence actually matter to you? Personally, I don't think the world would miss 23 million people. It is a rounding error in the world population

You sir, are an black hearted, inhuman monster. You represent the mindset that Islamic terrorist claim all westerners have. "Your life doesn't matter because you are poor and far away." Too many others in our past have said that about one people or another, they were all well known monsters, and you deserve your place right alongside them.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

If they hit the US with a nuke, we wouldn't give a good god about the rest of the world. Remember how the US went berserk when two buildings went down? I hate to tell you this, thats US policy-MAD. It kept the world safe for about fifty years. If you think otherwise you're delusional. I think NK is acting crazy but its crazy smart. Even they wouldn't try to throw a nuke at us, but they'd try everything just short of that.

NK would be radioactive in wat 35 seconds? I 'm sure there's at least one boomer parked off NK. It would be pretty much automatic.

sexiest_hero wrote:Sigh, flame shield up. As a long time U.S. airman and war vet, who comes from a long time military familiy, I'd like to add my two cents.

(Warning long read)

First. I yelled as loud as I could something should have been done about North Korea and not Iraq. They were close to having nukes then, and we all knew Iraq didn't. They have been giving nuke info to Iran ever since, and now they do have at least 2-3 nukes...at least. Yes It would have been been messy, but America was still at the hight of it's power then and China still depended on our imports, and Russia wasn't yet the glass tiger it is today. Yes I was the only bleeding heart Dem crying for war with N.Korea instead of Iraq, I still belive it was the right thing to do.

One of the big issues with the attack on Iraq was leaving the US less capable in other regions, true. However, you're talking about it being either North Korea or Iraq, and are discounting the option to not invade anyone.

Noth korea would fall quickly and alone, with only one or two south Korean cities damaged.

The US has a very, very powerful military. North Korea has an utterly disfunctional, third world military. But North Korea also has an immense concentration of artillery pieces within striking distance of Seoul. Your idea that only one or two South Korean cities would be damaged is true, but it would also be millions of lives. And for what? At this point there is some sabre rattling and nothing else, yet people are talking about invasions and nuclear strikes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Who the cares what the rest of the country thinks? They are irrelevant.

They're people. It's a good thing to not kill people. I didn't just make that up, most religions agree with me. Because it is a good thing to not kill people, not killing North Koreans becomes a consideration. Therefore your statement above is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:All thats irrelevant if they shoot off a nuke, or threaten to shoot off a nuke.

Ignore them like you would a child throwing a fit. If SK wants, sell them a surplus boomer. Same for Japan. Lets make this a profit making venture baby.

But if NK fires one missile that goes over US territory, even "accidentally," even just a non-nuke test, mirv them with 200 warheads. Then send the satellite pics to Iran with a hand written note "threaten us and you're next, hugs and kisses, Obama."

No more of this 'send a message' crap.

Dude, settle down. The North Koreans can't control a missile aimed at Japan. Unless you think the calesthenics program has gotten skilled enough to throw a nuke at LA, it isn't a possibility. So take a step back, count to five and start talking about real world possibilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Whilst I am a liberal, I do sometimes wonder how far certain nations of the middle east and far east assume they can push the west before the indulgent parent finally loses it's temper with the abusing teen and strikes back. Posturing like this isn't it. But if a nuke was unleashed on an american city, the US would not be satiated until a very much larger returning fire was dropped all over NK, maybe not nukes but it would be monumental and would wipe clean most areas of population of that nation.

That thing where you talk about one group of countries as mature, responsible adults, and the other group as immature teens... that's the kind of mindset that produces the messed up relations we have. The parent is more powerful and therefore assumes it must be more sensible. The child acting up to gain a measure of control over itself. It's a pretty analogy, albeit perhaps not as you intended.

Meanwhile, no, a nuke cannot be unleashed on a US city. It's a non-option, and doesn't need to be discussed.

Sebbie, what I am referring to is if they launch stuff at the US.

Thats an attack. An attack should be met with no mercy.

And how do we know they can't throw a nuke? They have a nuke, they have missiles as they are continuously launching.

Frankly if they don't have the capacity we should hit them right now, this very second, before they can.

OOH Hiroshima mayor is displeased with North Korea. Now NK will likely declare war on Hiroshima itself, shortly after announcing that the new designated Dear Leader in fact was the one who invented the internet.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.f2acd17e4d1a4dffa33ba0d23e5b9c74.1f1&show_article=1

sebster wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Whilst I am a liberal, I do sometimes wonder how far certain nations of the middle east and far east assume they can push the west before the indulgent parent finally loses it's temper with the abusing teen and strikes back. Posturing like this isn't it. But if a nuke was unleashed on an american city, the US would not be satiated until a very much larger returning fire was dropped all over NK, maybe not nukes but it would be monumental and would wipe clean most areas of population of that nation.

That thing where you talk about one group of countries as mature, responsible adults, and the other group as immature teens... that's the kind of mindset that produces the messed up relations we have. The parent is more powerful and therefore assumes it must be more sensible. The child acting up to gain a measure of control over itself. It's a pretty analogy, albeit perhaps not as you intended.

We, according to our understanding of human rights and freedoms afforded the individual, technological advancement and our tolerance of those who would not tolerate us, frankly we are the adult nations. You cannot take a dictator, who liquidates thousands of people on a whim or ruthlessly puts down opposition, who's country is economically poor and militarily overgunned as it's very populace starve, as an equal at the table.

These nations are conducting genocide, brutalising their own populace, that's the sort of thing we were doing in the dark ages, we grew up, they have not, indeed in the case of the countries of the middle east, many nations under Islam seem to be actively regressing into medieval witchhunting, ignorant persecutions and the denial of basic human freedoms.

We are more sensible than NK or Somalia or Chechnya or the many nations under extreme islamic law. We are more advanced and civilised. We are constantly threatened with things that if the roles were reversed, their culture or government would have nuked us long ago or just enslaved us.

So, how long do we reframe from serious response? I wonder that if the very hypothetical topic we are discussing here were to come to pass, that unwillingness to really attack these less morally advanced governments would evaporate and whilst I do try to maintain my willingness to embrace other cultures and seek to understand when I encounter what I do not agree with, if it does come down to the 'them or us' situation, I would not hesitate to condone unparralleled aggressive action.

sexiest_hero wrote:

Why do you all care about the impoverished North Korean "innocents?" Does their existence actually matter to you? Personally, I don't think the world would miss 23 million people. It is a rounding error in the world population

You sir, are an black hearted, inhuman monster. You represent the mindset that Islamic terrorist claim all westerners have. "Your life doesn't matter because you are poor and far away." Too many others in our past have said that about one people or another, they were all well known monsters, and you deserve your place right alongside them.

You can believe that if you want, I call it something else: Being a realist. I don't give a flying rat feth about those people. They have ZERO influence on my existence. I have no reason to care about them. THey don't care about me, I don't care about them. They DO NOT MATTER in my life. AT ALL.

There are what, 6.3 BILLION people in this world? More? I care about less than a hundredth of a percent of those people. Why? BEcause they don't matter to me. It isn't because I hate them, it is because they DON'T matter to me. They do not influence me. THey do not interact with me. Why waste my time and energy caring about people who do not know or care about me?

Seriously, most people need to drop the pretense that "everyone matters." No one actually believes that, do they? It is just something people say to "say the right thing." I don't fall in that category. I say what I mean, not some panty-waste pandering to the too easily offended populace of the world.

Aaaaaaand the thread is now about idiot warmonger hawks shouting at other idiot warmonger hawks about a country whose capabilities and intentions they know little about.


Nice to know fraz and deadshane don't care about asian peoples lives.

And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Gone...and I wont lose a wink of sleep.

And you wonder why people the world over hate us. Hint: It's you.

Oh I care. I care about South Korea, and Japan, and every other democracy in the world. I have great concern. I also am not espousing war with them nor attacking them in any way.

Unless they attack us.

Good to see you don't care about all those lives Shuma-wait weren't you the one espousing full-on invasion of North Korea? Pick a side dude.

Why yes, I do believe Shuma is actively calling for the invasion of North Korea. I guess Shuma doesn't care about all those civilians who would be killed when the capitalist dog Americans invade.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/241809.page

ShumaGorath wrote:
The fact that we have not intervened in North Korea before simply shows the U.S. populace (it's government only represents it) as an uncaring and cowardly lot, too obsessed with gays and mexicans to do anything productive for the world anymore.

and this:

Invade North Korea. China will back off. They will put everything they have on high alert and after we keep on punching the korean military in the face they will back off. China doesn't give a damn about Korea. They only care about national sovereignty, and even then not enough to do anything about it. The moment they isolate themselves from their only economic market their own populace will burn their country down.

and this:

Iran has nukes because of weak willed idiots in washington patting bush on the back. Pakistan is a serious problem. However their human rights situation is far from dire, and they have enough restraint not to use them. Having nukes doesn't mean you need to be invaded. The only country on the list of "needs to be invaded" with nukes is north korea, and thats because you all waited too god damn long.

No nation will go to nuclear war over Sudan or Darfur. No nation will go to war over Korea. No nation will go to war over Iran, and none did for Iraq. The big bad reds in china don't care as long as we keep buying and I'm happy to buy as long as economic revitalization keeps on making them a better country.

Who's the evil warmonger again?

Frazzled wrote:Sebbie, what I am referring to is if they launch stuff at the US.

Thats an attack. An attack should be met with no mercy.

But they haven't actually done it. They can't do it. You're talking about how awesomely devestating you'd be if North Korea did something they have no capability of doing.

And how do we know they can't throw a nuke? They have a nuke, they have missiles as they are continuously launching.

North Korea has the craziest leader in the world. I say we take him out, whether with nukes or green berets or something. Hell, lets just send Rambo into the country to kill him.

Also, all you people saying that its wrong for us to attack NK after they kill hundreds of thousands of American lives are crazy. If they attack us, and the government does nothing, what kind of image would that send to the man that invented the internet? He would attack everyone.

So nuke em, nuke em, nuke em, but only after he attacks us.

But they haven't actually done it. They can't do it. You're talking about how awesomely devestating you'd be if North Korea did something they have no capability of doing.

Then whats the problem Sebbie? You say bloodlust when all I am saying is we ignore their tantrums unless they attack us. Firing a missile into US space is attacking us.
-If they can't do it then there's no issue.
-If they don't do it then there's no issue.

I'm mereley restating the policy of the US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, and Pakistan.

Sebster, as much as I usually agree with you, N.Korea is a different monster. Unlike Iraq, whom most of the known world knew didn't have WMDs. N.Korea has activly boasted about what it was trying to do, and has sold what they know to Iran, activly spreading the threat.

Edit: When I talk about possible damage it's only an honest response. millions would be killed but millions more saved. the south Korean capital has plenty of bunkers, I can only hope for the best.

Bcause they don't matter to me. It isn't because I hate them, it is because they DON'T matter to me. They do not influence me. THey do not interact with me. Why waste my time and energy caring about people who do not know or care about me?

Seriously, most people need to drop the pretense that "everyone matters." No one actually believes that, do they? It is just something people say to "say the right thing." I don't fall in that category. I say what I mean, not some panty-waste pandering to the too easily offended populace of the world.

Yeah tell that to every American soldier who has fought and died on some god-forsaken hell-hole for a people they didn't know. Or faced down russia to feed the people of Berlin. They were heros. The Panty-waste is the person who only cares about himself.

Can't we just, like, send Stephen Segal over there to kill him? Problem solved.

sebster wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:We, according to our understanding of human rights and freedoms afforded the individual, technological advancement and our tolerance of those who would not tolerate us, frankly we are the adult nations. You cannot take a dictator, who liquidates thousands of people on a whim or ruthlessly puts down opposition, who's country is economically poor and militarily overgunned as it's very populace starve, as an equal at the table.

You're assuming the levels of development are unrelated to the relative power positions. They're completely intertwined.

I'm not saying we have to ignore disfunctional, damaging or dangerous behaviour, not at all. But we have to understand why nations take such positions, and the best starting point is power relations. Long term these problems won't get solved by playing big daddy to naughty little middle eastern teenager.

But I was really going on the part of your answer where you mentioned the middle east. If you're just talking about the pariah nations like North Korea then we're probably talking past each other.

I am referring to the rogue nations, where human rights abuses are bread and butter (yes, I know, what about our 'allies' like SA, frankly no love for them either). So, if the levels of development are indeed related to power positions, the more powerful countries of the world, especially the west are the most developed, therefore they hold the goal the other nations should be striving for (again, no, not chronic obesity or teenage drug abuse, but the right to vote freely, receive schooling, crime prevention, the support of the state for those who need it). Instead we are confronted with national governments/dictators/states and regimes who are not only unwilling to deal with us, they want us to die long slow deaths or be subverted and reverted into the primitive state we've just agreed they dwell in.

The idea that we shouldn't 'patronise' them is difficult when they have 'tantrums' and cry out that they are going to nuke us or that we are all damned sinners and disbelievers and we will all drown in our own blood. They are societies that crave violence and are geared around the idea that might makes right. We have more might than they fully comprehend and consistently stay our hand. If the coalition had behaved as a middle eastern tyrant or religious fanatic in the Iraq war (a war I do not condone) then they would have nerve gassed the nation of Iraq and claimed it for oil production, public opinion in the West would never have stood for that, yet if Saddam had sent a large dirty bomb into a major city, if tyrants and extremists push against the west, I think we may find public opinion hardening and the west unleashing it's power somewhat more freely.

No no, Neither Team America nor G.I. Joe can stand against the might of Kim Jong Il's marble-lacking fury.

This is a job for Marbo.

Look at it this way... Sooner or later N korea is going to start a war with somebody and millions are going to die.

I say start it now and get it over with before they develop ICBM with more then a stone throws effective range.

Besides, Nobody is going to miss North Korea. The world could use a International Weapons Testing Area!

Who's the evil warmonger agai

I don't advocate nuking a toothless civilian population after it's expended every weapon of mass destruction it has. I don't advocate the slaughter of "27 million civilians". In fact quite the opposite, the thought sickens me, as does the thought of my countrymen in this "civilized" nation not giving a damn about the fates of the oppressed civilian population of North Korea.


So you guys are the evil warmongers. Not me. I don't advocate genocide.

Look at it this way... Sooner or later N korea is going to start a war with somebody and millions are going to die.

I say start it now and get it over with before they develop ICBM with more then a stone throws effective range.

Besides, Nobody is going to miss North Korea. The world could use a International Weapons Testing Area!

I agreed with you up until you became the tenth genocidal maniac to post in this thread. You were going pretty well up until that third sentence. You people are sick.

Now Now Shuma, Please point out where I said I want to nuke them into oblivion and kill every last man, women, and child?

I didnt. You jumped the gun on this one.

All I said in that third line is that if NK ceased to be (Cause it was taken over) nobody would miss it. And during the "War" the world would lob enough conventional arms at it that it might as well be a testing area.

It was supposed to be funny dude.

**EDIT**
Please note Shuma, im not trying to be rude here. Just pointing it out.

You also didn't mention evacuating N Korea before the "testing started. Talking about using a populated country for weapons testing = not the funneh.

jp400 wrote:Now Now Shuma, Please point out where I said I want to nuke them into oblivion and kill every last man, women, and child?

I didnt. You jumped the gun on this one.

All I said in that third line is that if NK ceased to be (Cause it was taken over) nobody would miss it. And during the "War" the world would lob enough conventional arms at it that it might as well be a testing area.

It was supposed to be funny dude.

In your defense, I found it funny.

mcfly wrote: In your defense, I found it funny.

Thank you Mcfly! At least somebody got it.

lord_sutekh wrote:You also didn't mention evacuating N Korea before the testing started. Talking about using a populated country for weapons testing = not the funneh.

Useing a populated country for weapons testing is called Modern Warfare. Has been that way since at least the 19th Century. Evacuating N Korea is a complete and unrealistic joke at best. It isnt going to happen and if/when war breaks out the general populace will pay the ultimate price for their leaders mistakes. Sad yes but thats the way the cookie crumbles im afraid.

The world we live in isnt perfect. Its time you all start getting used to it.

jp400 wrote:

mcfly wrote: In your defense, I found it funny.

Thank you Mcfly! At least somebody got it.

lord_sutekh wrote:You also didn't mention evacuating N Korea before the testing started. Talking about using a populated country for weapons testing = not the funneh.

Useing a populated country for weapons testing is called Modern Warfare. Has been that way since at least the 19th Century. Evacuating N Korea is a complete and unrealistic joke at best. It isnt going to happen and if/when war breaks out the general populace will pay the ultimate price for their leaders mistakes. Sad yes but thats the way the cookie crumbles im afraid.

The world we live in isnt perfect. Its time you all start getting used to it.

Using it for weapons testing would be pointless because you have plenty of open space in America anyway. Nevada desert maybe?

Besides, you can't judge a country by the faults of one man. Bush was an idiot, but I don't judge Americans based on that. The slaughter of innocent civilians in the name of advancing weapons is sick and wrong. They have every right to live. If you think weapons need to be tested, why don't you go and test them on your own civilians? You wouldn't be too eager to do that, I bet.

The world isn't perfect because barbarians like you encourage more pointless bloodshed. You make me sick. People like you are truly the worst example of humanity. If the power-hungry nations would just stop pointing nukes at each other and boasting how great their military is and how they should be in charge, the world would be better off.

But no, some power-abusing politician has to go and beat a horse that should have died ages ago. War doesn't resolve anything. Humanity needs to stop the warmongering and look at what they're doing with both eyes open.

And the off the deep end to nowhere award goes to...

*Drumroll*

Cheese Elemental! Come on down! From your high horse that is.....

No counter-argument? Pathetic.

How about you climb out of your little hole and try to think about other people for once?

LoL.

Oh please Cheese E. Your name fits your attempts to get me worked up.

Besides, its hard to argue something when your 1st reply is so far off based from what I actually said I cant believe you even said what you did.

If it would help I could break it down to kindy level for you!

It's not far off. You said that using a country for weapons testing is fine. I said it isn't.

You're not even trying to counter my argument now, because you have nothing. You can't justify your views.

Is your greatest argument really 'LoL'? Weak.

Oh I can, I just dont see the point in feeding a troll.



Besides, its fun to watch you spin your wheels.

I'm trying to have a debate here. You hide behind your excuses of me being a troll because you don't know what else to say.

OK, fine. Be a wuss. Don't contribute to the thread.

LoL.

Out of ideas, eh?

LoL. The refuge of the stupid.

And your now reported. Enjoy.

LoL at the two of you.

People like you are truly the worst example of the internet. If the power-hungry forum goers would just stop pointing flames at each other and boasting how great their e-peen is and how they should be in charge, the world would be better off.

LoL

Ork for the Win!

Myself, I could care less about Epeen power. I just dont see the point in carrying on a "Debate" when I know full well it would just turn into another flamewar with a kid I could care less about.

Tried to bow out and the kid kept pushing it. Now we will let the mods decide whats what.

Bow out? You said some extremely revolting things that no right-minded person should ever say, and you expect everyone to agree with your views?

If my people were threatened, I would put twenty three million of the offenders in the ground to save just ONE of my own. And it is my humble opinion that any other real man would feel the same regarding his people.

I would feel remorse for the loss of the innocent, but If it is between THEIR innocents and MY innocents, then I wouldn't have to think twice about what to do. And I imagine the other "monsters" that are making you folks "sick" feel similarly.


As a side note, just to link it up with 40k, the above philosophy is the PREMISE of the lore of the eldar race. And I have never heard anyone call the eldar disgusting black hearted monsters.

That's because they're not GRIMDARK enough to compete. Like the Tau. If they were in most sci-fi settings, they'd be considered quite evil I'm sure.

*facepalm*
But that's the issue here, the 23 million 'offenders' aren't doing anything. They haven't done anything to deserve death. I wouldn't trade that many lives for any one person. NOBODY. No life has more value than another.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
No life has more value than another.

That is relative to each and every individual. I would kill you in a heartbeat if it would save my brother, for example.

NVM

As would I, but this is a massive number we're toying with. 23 million. You could fill a city with that many dead bodies. Men, women, children, the elderly, the infirm, the innocent, the guilty, all human. Could you really kill them all in one stroke to save a single life?

Those who understand realize that you have no right to let them live!

I don't really see how 40k has any relevance to this.

Yes. Because any single one of my kinsmen is more valuable to me than the sum of 23million strangers in a place that I iwll never see and has never done a single justice to me.

Cheese Elemental wrote:As would I, but this is a massive number we're toying with. 23 million. You could fill a city with that many dead bodies. Men, women, children, the elderly, the infirm, the innocent, the guilty, all human. Could you really kill them all in one stroke to save a single life?

Umm , to remind you . They were able to go to war for a WMD that didnt exist.

Now there is actually one . You can bet there will be tons of additional propaganda to follow if it needed to be .

Human conscience? sure is noble to say, though too easily manipulated.

I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it.
Just like Bush yes?

What if you don't like your kinsman.

Would you kill 23 million people if doing so allowed you to kill someone you dislike as well?

I said I would kill many to save one, not that I would kill simply for the sake of killing.

What if that one person was about to kill 23 million of your guys himself, so that he could save his brother?

I often wonder what the history books will say about this. What do you get taught in school about the World Wars and all the other horrible conflicts that scar history?

Orkeosaurus wrote:What if that one person was about to kill 23 million of your guys himself, so that he could save his brother?

I would kill him. Despite the fact that he is doing what any real man should.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I often wonder what the history books will say about this. What do you get taught in school about the World Wars and all the other horrible conflicts that scar history?

Well lets just say who ends up to be #1 global power in the future.
If its USA , it'll stay the same.
If its anything else , you can bet the history book between 1990-2010 will not be the same.

Remember history = his story.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I often wonder what the history books will say about this. What do you get taught in school about the World Wars and all the other horrible conflicts that scar history?

imho, schools do not go into nearly enough detail about the causes and effects of wars. Its all quite generic, i assure you. I sure wish they would have told us that the australian warned us that the japanese were headed toward hawaii, and that FDR ALLOWED pearl harbor to happen, in order to give us an excuse to get involved; alas, those reports were only declassified recently. Not that the teachers would tell you that anyway.

eerily similar to what happened with bush.

War. War never changes.

"War.... War never changes."

Win!

Would you rather punch a baby in the face, or kick a baby in the face?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Would you rather punch a baby in the face, or kick a baby in the face?

What is your angle, sir?

And another thing, Luna, please stop being condescending. I do not appreciate it when people assume that all Americans sit in front of the idiot box and take in their daily helpings of propaganda, so that they dont have to think for themselves.

mcfly wrote:North Korea has the craziest leader in the world. I say we take him out, whether with nukes or green berets or something. Hell, lets just send Rambo into the country to kill him.

Also, all you people saying that its wrong for us to attack NK after they kill hundreds of thousands of American lives are crazy. If they attack us, and the government does nothing, what kind of image would that send to the man that invented the internet? He would attack everyone.

So nuke em, nuke em, nuke em, but only after he attacks us.

You realise that effectively your answer is to do even less than what's being done right now. Right now no-one is in any doubt there would be an immense response in North Korea were to nuke the US (exactly how that might happen outside of a Tom Clancy book no-one knows, but anyway). But there have also been steps taken to prevent North Korea furthering its capabilities, with various agreements and now sanctions.

You're talking about the obvious response to an impossible scenario, while disregarding all the work undertaken to prevent an attack. In effect, you're arguing 'do nothing'.

Falconlance wrote:
War. War never changes.

Yep its just human nature at their true vulnerable form. They'll be willing to believe in anything aslong as it make
their *conscience feel less guilty. We are despicable creature you know .

The witch hunt , centuries ago.
The Jews , decades ago.

And everyday , we eat meat . Oh how yummy they are , yet if we go to slaughter house we think thats cruel and sad.
Next day , " who is ready to go for some big mac? "

Frazzled wrote:Then whats the problem Sebbie? You say bloodlust when all I am saying is we ignore their tantrums unless they attack us. Firing a missile into US space is attacking us.
-If they can't do it then there's no issue.
-If they don't do it then there's no issue.

I'm mereley restating the policy of the US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, and Pakistan.

Pretending they can do it is playing around with fantasy. They can't, so there's no point. It's just an excuse to talk about how horrendous retaliation could be. Meanwhile there is a real discussion to be had about how the world can limit the expansion of North Korean capability, while leaving the door open for a change of government. It probably isn't as exciting as a conversation about how the US could totally smash up North Korea if they attacked continental US, but at least isn't make believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:Sebster, as much as I usually agree with you, N.Korea is a different monster. Unlike Iraq, whom most of the known world knew didn't have WMDs. N.Korea has activly boasted about what it was trying to do, and has sold what they know to Iran, activly spreading the threat.

Edit: When I talk about possible damage it's only an honest response. millions would be killed but millions more saved. the south Korean capital has plenty of bunkers, I can only hope for the best.

But why attack? Doing so is only ensuring the worst case scenario actually comes true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I am referring to the rogue nations, where human rights abuses are bread and butter (yes, I know, what about our 'allies' like SA, frankly no love for them either).

Then we're talking past each other. I read to much into your reference to the middle east.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:Look at it this way... Sooner or later N korea is going to start a war with somebody and millions are going to die.

We just had this. It was called Iraq. Please learn from that and don't kill millions more for no reason.


This thread is just odd. We have people talking about how the US should just sit back until attacked (which basically amounts to 'do nothing'). We have people talking about how we should attack now, damn the casualties. But there's no-one arguing for containment and quarantine to stop the building of weapons. It's really not that contraversial a policy.

sebster wrote:This thread is just odd. We have people talking about how the US should just sit back until attacked (which basically amounts to 'do nothing'). We have people talking about how we should attack now, damn the casualties. But there's no-one arguing for containment and quarantine to stop the building of weapons. It's really not that contraversial a policy.

This has been attempted and failed, which is only slightly worse than attempted and succeeded, because its a temporary solution anyway. Additionally, NK has stated that any further attempts at this will provoke their hostility.

Falconlance wrote:If my people were threatened, I would put twenty three million of the offenders in the ground to save just ONE of my own. And it is my humble opinion that any other real man would feel the same regarding his people.

Look, just stop it. Stop it. Stop it.

There is no threat to anyone person in the US from North Korea. It isn't a possibility, so stop pretending you need to be all manly about killing people to protect your own. They are not in danger.

sebster wrote:


There is no threat to anyone person in the US from North Korea. It isn't a possibility...

That has great potential to make the list of famous last words.

Alright you guys, my opinion on the matter is this: if North Korea attacks us, we should launch hundreds of nukes at them. It seems pretty clear that it's only a matter of weeks before North Korea launches nukes at our major cities, so I think the best usage of this thread is talking about just how many North Koreans America will kill in the ensuing war.

I think maybe six or seven million people from the nuclear blasts and fall out. Probably more from starvation and disease.

Falconlance wrote:imho, schools do not go into nearly enough detail about the causes and effects of wars. Its all quite generic, i assure you. I sure wish they would have told us that the australian warned us that the japanese were headed toward hawaii, and that FDR ALLOWED pearl harbor to happen, in order to give us an excuse to get involved; alas, those reports were only declassified recently. Not that the teachers would tell you that anyway.

No, no such documents have been released.

It's an idea that's been around for decades, and has never made much sense. If the Japanese sent a carrier fleet to attack Pearl Harbour it wouldn't matter if Pearl Harbour was prepared or not, the American people would have supported the war effort following an unprovoked attack. I mean really, do you think FDR would have heard about the attack, considered putting the base on alert, but then thought 'no, the Americans won't support to war after an unprovoked attack, better ensure the attack massacres countless Americans - then the people will support the war'. It makes no sense.

For what it is worth, the attack was likely born out of the cognitive dissonance of the opinions people had of the Japanese with the reality that they had managed a near perfect military strike. Faced between challenging their racist notions of the Japanese, they instead decided the Japanese only could have managed such through the betrayal of their own government. Not that people believing it now are racist. Nowadays the story keeps going because it is very exciting, and people rarely stop to consider whether exciting things are really all that plausible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Falconlance wrote:That has great potential to make the list of famous last words.

They can't get an accurate launch at Japan. How do you think they're going to hit the US? I mean honestly, what is going on here? Why are you all so insistant on believing something that no authority on the subject is even considering at all?

Falconlance wrote:
This has been attempted and failed, which is only slightly worse than attempted and succeeded, because its a temporary solution anyway. Additionally, NK has stated that any further attempts at this will provoke their hostility.

In case you haven't noticed all solutions to human problems are temporary for the simple fact that, at the end of the day, humans are still around to make more mistakes. Permanence is an illusion perpetuated by the limitations of memory.

More to the point, containment is pretty much the only sensible option in this case. Even a preemptive strike would end in much the same way as a defensive action: millions of civilian casualties, and a potential nuclear strike on Japan. All for absolutely no strategic gain.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Alright you guys, my opinion on the matter is this: if North Korea attacks us, we should launch hundreds of nukes at them. It seems pretty clear that it's only a matter of weeks before North Korea launches nukes at our major cities, so I think the best usage of this thread is talking about just how many North Koreans America will kill in the ensuing war.

I think maybe six or seven million people from the nuclear blasts and fall out. Probably more from starvation and disease.

Your opinion is completely misinformed. There will not be a strike at the US, it is not within the capabilities of North Korea.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Alright you guys, my opinion on the matter is this: if North Korea attacks us, we should launch hundreds of nukes at them. It seems pretty clear that it's only a matter of weeks before North Korea launches nukes at our major cities, so I think the best usage of this thread is talking about just how many North Koreans America will kill in the ensuing war.

I think maybe six or seven million people from the nuclear blasts and fall out. Probably more from starvation and disease.

Your opinion is completely misinformed. There will not be a strike at the US, it is not within the capabilities of North Korea.

I agree , they'll either:

aim at Japan , or S.Korea . they have no reason to aim at US.

dogma wrote:More to the point, containment is pretty much the only sensible option in this case. Even a preemptive strike would end in much the same way as a defensive action: millions of civilian casualties, and a potential nuclear strike on Japan. All for absolutely no strategic gain.

I've explained that three or four times. They don't want to get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:I agree , they'll either:

aim at Japan , or S.Korea . they have no reason to aim at US.

If it happened, it'd happen to Japan most likely. The nukes are there to threaten Japan, as they've held Seoul to ransom for decades with conventional weapons.

Funnily enough, the South Koreans have been the most apathetic about the North Korean nuclear weapons, because North Korea has had the capability to cause immense damage to South Korea with conventional weapons. It's Japan that has been the most concerned about a nuclear armed North Korea.

sebster wrote:
I've explained that three or four times. They don't want to get it.

The guy said he was willing to kill 23 million people in order to save a family member, so I'm pretty sure rationality is low on the priority scale.

sebster wrote:
They can't get an accurate launch at Japan. How do you think they're going to hit the US? I mean honestly, what is going on here? Why are you all so insistant on believing something that no authority on the subject is even considering at all?

They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
I've explained that three or four times. They don't want to get it.

The guy said he was willing to kill 23 million people in order to save a family member, so I'm pretty sure rationality is low on the priority scale.

That is logic unhindered by morality. Good and evil, right and wrong, are relative.

Falconlance wrote:

sebster wrote:
They can't get an accurate launch at Japan. How do you think they're going to hit the US? I mean honestly, what is going on here? Why are you all so insistant on believing something that no authority on the subject is even considering at all?

They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.

So now all CIA have to do, is do 1 Korean terrorist bombing on US soil , and we are good to go as a nation to nuke korean to oblivion?
ere we go again! Option is always nice to have :3

sebster wrote:Your opinion is completely misinformed. There will not be a strike at the US, it is not within the capabilities of North Korea.

lolitrolu

Falconlance wrote:
They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

Yeah, they killed less than 5,000 people in aggregate.

Falconlance wrote:
North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.

Allow me to list the reasons why such an event is beyond implausible.

1) Nuclear weapons are not small. We have the technology to fit them into backpacks, but North Korea does not.

2) Nuclear weapons are easy to detect in the course of normal transit inspections; something about emitting far more than normal levels of radiation.

3) This is the most important one. No nation, on Earth, would ever give nuclear weapons to a non-state actor. The potential for unintended consequences is simply mind boggling. Kim-Jong Il is not a rational man, but the rest of the North Korean government is certainly composed of rational men. His word may be law, but even the law has its limitations.

I have never once advocated the use of nuclear weaponry. That kind of bs is the end of everyone and an evanglical's wet dream. And i couldnt stand giving the church what they want.

Falconlance wrote:
That is logic unhindered by morality. Good and evil, right and wrong, are relative.

No, logic which is unhindered by morality would suppose that if one of 'your people' were killed you would not respond. The attachment to family members is a moral one, and your insistence on acting on that attachment is an insistence driven by a moral code.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Falconlance wrote:I have never once advocated the use of nuclear weaponry. That kind of bs is the end of everyone and an evanglical's wet dream. And i couldnt stand giving the church what they want.

No one ever said you did.

What does religion have to do with any of this?

dogma wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

Yeah, they killed less than 5,000 people in aggregate.

Falconlance wrote:
North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.

Allow me to list the reasons why such an event is beyond implausible.

1) Nuclear weapons are not small. We have the technology to fit them into backpacks, but North Korea does not.

2) Nuclear weapons are easy to detect in the course of normal transit inspections; something about emitting far more than normal levels of radiation.

3) This is the most important one. No nation, on Earth, would ever give nuclear weapons to a non-state actor. The potential for unintended consequences is simply mind boggling. Kim-Jong Il is not a rational man, but the rest of the North Korean government is certainly composed of rational men. His word may be law, but even the law has its limitations.

I owe you respect but I will not take your word without a grain of salt, because I doubt that you are an expert in the security field, and i also doubt you (or anyone) can accurately judge what Kim-Jong Il will and will not do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Falconlance wrote:I have never once advocated the use of nuclear weaponry. That kind of bs is the end of everyone and an evanglical's wet dream. And i couldnt stand giving the church what they want.

No one ever said you did.

What does religion have to do with any of this?

that was in response to this

LunaHound wrote:So now all CIA have to do, is do 1 Korean terrorist bombing on US soil , and we are good to go as a nation to nuke korean to oblivion?
ere we go again! Option is always nice to have :3

I understand, what you are saying. I don't think north korea will launch nekes anywhere. The have no way of harming the united states. I doubt they would aim at Japan and leave the forces in the south un harmed. All of this is foolishness inmy mind. I only say if North Korea foolishly warms up a war that never ended, the damage would be moderate, (as they fant fire all bomes at once, and a troop build up will be detected before hand and quickly countered.) I honestly belive if the worst would happen, and I think it's all just sabre rattling, it would be a quick brutal war with less and 500,000 civilions dead, and even less Allied soldiers, as they would be bombed by bombers they can't hope to target, and ships they cant hope to damage. I have no hope, want or need for war.

I can tell everyone is getting tired; spelling has turned to gak.

Falconlance wrote:

sebster wrote:
They can't get an accurate launch at Japan. How do you think they're going to hit the US? I mean honestly, what is going on here? Why are you all so insistant on believing something that no authority on the subject is even considering at all?

They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.

They are all arguments that were used to justify the imminent need to invade Iraq. Post invasion, it turns out all the fantastical what-ifs were nothing more than fantastical what-ifs. In the end, a million people were dead and I'd hope people could at least draw a lesson from that balls-up; pre-emptive strikes are pretty dubious at the best of times, so you're intel better be rock solid about their capabilities and the intent to use it.

And no, 'we don't know what technology they might have so they totally might have a suitcase bomb and be about to send it over here' doesn't qualify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:lolitrolu

lots of laughs i trained russians over lopsided university?

Seriously, that's it. There's no rebuttal and no retraction, just internet acronym nonsense?

LunaHound wrote:

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Alright you guys, my opinion on the matter is this: if North Korea attacks us, we should launch hundreds of nukes at them. It seems pretty clear that it's only a matter of weeks before North Korea launches nukes at our major cities, so I think the best usage of this thread is talking about just how many North Koreans America will kill in the ensuing war.

I think maybe six or seven million people from the nuclear blasts and fall out. Probably more from starvation and disease.

Your opinion is completely misinformed. There will not be a strike at the US, it is not within the capabilities of North Korea.

I agree , they'll either:

aim at Japan , or S.Korea . they have no reason to aim at US.

But don't you know? America is the center of the world. Also they have incredible reason to aim at the U.S., we are their central opposition and the author of the naval blockades against them. They simply lack the ability. Anyway, I'm exiting this thread. It's awful.

sexiest_hero wrote:I understand, what you are saying. I don't think north korea will launch nekes anywhere. The have no way of harming the united states. I doubt they would aim at Japan and leave the forces in the south un harmed. All of this is foolishness inmy mind. I only say if North Korea foolishly warms up a war that never ended, the damage would be moderate, (as they fant fire all bomes at once, and a troop build up will be detected before hand and quickly countered.) I honestly belive if the worst would happen, and I think it's all just sabre rattling, it would be a quick brutal war with less and 500,000 civilions dead, and even less Allied soldiers, as they would be bombed by bombers they can't hope to target, and ships they cant hope to damage. I have no hope, want or need for war.

This is true. Assuming North Korea decidely to act in a completely self-destructive way the war would be very one-sided. As that is happening, the best we can do is try to contain the threat and continue hoping for a peaceful resolution. This is because the alternative is to go to war, which would only guarantee the worst case scenario from the current course of action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Falconlance wrote:I can tell everyone is getting tired; spelling has turned to gak.

My spelling is grate.

Sorry if the following problems have been addressed, I didn't finish reading the thread.

Cheese Elemental wrote:And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Worrying about civilian deaths is what causes many, many more deaths from the military. If you are in a war, the objective is to get the current government to step down.

General William T. Sherman wrote:War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Remember the last time America used atomics on civilian targets? It was a pointless attack in the first place, since Japan had been pushed back, but no, the retards in American top brass had to go and annihilate two cities packed full of civilians.

Deaths from the combined bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 240,000 people. source
Estimated deaths from a mainland invasion of Japan: 1,000,000 servicemen. source

Pointless attack? I beg to differ. The easiest way to force a country to concede is to attack it's civilians. I suggest you get your facts straight before you go rambling.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:lolitrolu

lots of laughs i trained russians over lopsided university?

"LOL. I have trolled you."

Orkeosaurus wrote:lots of laughs i trained russians over lopsided university?

"LOL. I have trolled you."

Too true. I pretty much just threw together everything you were railing on others about at the time.

ShumaGorath wrote:

But don't you know? America is the center of the world. Also they have incredible reason to aim at the U.S., we are their central opposition and the author of the naval blockades against them. They simply lack the ability. Anyway, I'm exiting this thread. It's awful.

Okok i'll rephrase it . They have no tactical / military power to attack USA , just Japan and S.Korea ( if there is a country to be attacked )

Falconlance wrote:
I owe you respect but I will not take your word without a grain of salt, because I doubt that you are an expert in the security field,

This is the internet, so the salt is understandable. That said, I've studied international security for 6 years now. My technical knowledge isn't perfect, but I know enough to know that you don't just pop a nuke in the trunk of your car and go for a Sunday drive with a side of mass destruction. They are big, they are heavy, and they are radioactive to varying degrees. This renders the prospect of bringing one into the continental United States quite daunting, especially given our level of border security.

And before someone brings up the drug trade, or illegal immigration: smuggling small packages of narcotics, or simply a human body, is in no way comparable to carrying a nuclear weapon.

Falconlance wrote:
and i also doubt you (or anyone) can accurately judge what Kim-Jong Il will and will not do.

Which should generally leave us in a state of mind which is not inclined towards war.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:
Worrying about civilian deaths is what causes many, many more deaths from the military. If you are in a war, the objective is to get the current government to step down.

That's the objective of total war. Most wars in history would be classified as limited wars because they were not conflicts of annihilation, or even political change.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Pointless attack? I beg to differ. The easiest way to force a country to concede is to attack it's civilians. I suggest you get your facts straight before you go rambling.

Attacking civilians can also galvanize resolve, as seen during the Battle of Britain. Striking civilian targets can be an effective coup de grace when dealing with an intractable foe (as with Japan), but is generally not the wisest decision when faced with a foe who is capable of maintaining the fight.

And on that note I am locking this thread for numerous complaints.