Is North Korea Serious?!
#1
Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:37 AM
#2
Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:45 AM
#4
Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:50 AM
It's speculated that California may be their first target.
...I live in California.
noooo!!! darnit... >:U
#5
Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:59 AM
Quite honestly I'm surprise China still hasn't reacted to Kim's threat of" nuclear war" (or maybe they know him very well and they know he's bluffing ). Or maybe they don't want to get involve and they would like to remain neutral in this whole situation. The fact that they haven't tried to negotiate with Kim could be they're only wasting their time since he will refuse or they're really trying to ignore him pretending they don't know him.
#6
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:10 AM
Quite honestly I'm surprise China still hasn't reacted to Kim's threat of" nuclear war" (or maybe they know him very well and they know he's bluffing ). Or maybe they don't want to get involve and they would like to remain neutral in this whole situation. The fact that they haven't tried to negotiate with Kim could be they're only wasting their time since he will refuse or they're really trying to ignore him pretending they don't know him.
Don't speak too soon. Lil'Kim commands the third largest military force in the entire world, and beyond that, if even one of those missiles reach U.S. soil, the repercussions worldwide would be massive. Do you honestly think that the U.S. economy is fit for another war in our current state?
As for China, well, they did side with the UN and supported placing sanctions on N. Korea after the February 12 missile tests. But they really are stuck between a rock and a hard place within this situation. China is highly dependent on North Korea for their natural resources (particularly their minerals), but at the same time their economy is almost completely dependent on trade with the United States. They have to try to appeal to both sides.
#7
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:11 AM
#8
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:11 AM
And kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians along the way?
Edited by Baguette, 04 April 2013 - 03:12 AM.
#9
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:15 AM
And what if they launch warheads after all? They would be killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions all over the world. It could be the U.S, South Korea, Japan. Is that risk worth it?
Edited by alexander, 04 April 2013 - 03:17 AM.
#10
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:18 AM
So you believe that it is ethical to preemptively cause the death of many so as to prevent the risk of even more dying?
That is fundamental argument I cannot agree with.
Edited by Baguette, 04 April 2013 - 03:18 AM.
#11
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:18 AM
#12
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:24 AM
Less than 24 I'd wager. The US response would be near instantaneous. Of course no one in their right mind even wants to contemplate nuclear war (obviously NK and Iran are both out of their minds), as it would end badly for ALL involved -.-
#13
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:24 AM
That, Lord Frieza likes.
#14
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:28 AM
That is fundamental argument I cannot agree with.
This is war we are talking about. There is hardly any ethics involved. Enemies from either side hardly show any mercy in these situations. It might be easy to talk like that in peaceful times, but once conflit breaks loose, people end becoming more concerned of having the enemy on the other side dying before they get a chance to kill them instead. This is the ruthless cauculus. Sometimes you have no choice but to sacrifice an small number to preserve a bigger one. Don't think that I enjoy such a thing. I simply would ratter lose an smaller number instead of seeing half of the world burn because we were afraid to act.
#15
Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:53 AM
This. Not to mention. The U.S. wouldn't use nuclear weapons, so there would be no radiation fallout. As bad as the causalities would be for North Korea, nukes would destroy South Korea and Japan and affect the rest of the world.
#16
Posted 04 April 2013 - 06:49 AM
Agreed.
#17
Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:03 AM
Just calling it as I see it, folks; the U.S. Military is actually pretty bad. Technologically advanced, yes, but pretty bad. The only way the United States may win is if China does not enter the conflict, and I may assume that, perhaps, there is a secretive understanding between North Korea and China. China perceives the United States as a falling Great Power, and wants to take its place on the throne of the head Great Power (the super-power). After all, the United States is in debt, struggling to stay afloat, and has failed in ventures all over the globe. I can't blame them, especially considering the state of the United States' "allies" at the moment. Sure, the United States is China's "#1 Trade-Partner", but it can easily find new ones until the United States is done nursing its bruises from a war. In fact, I couldn't see how the United States would be able to survive without resuming direct trade with China after the war.
But those are just my observations as a history-major; take it on your own heed, as will the men in Beijing, Seoul, Pyongyang, and Washington.
#18
Posted 04 April 2013 - 09:09 AM
Just calling it as I see it, folks; the U.S. Military is actually pretty bad. Technologically advanced, yes, but pretty bad. The only way the United States may win is if China does not enter the conflict, and I may assume that, perhaps, there is a secretive understanding between North Korea and China. China perceives the United States as a falling Great Power, and wants to take its place on the throne of the head Great Power (the super-power). After all, the United States is in debt, struggling to stay afloat, and has failed in ventures all over the globe. I can't blame them, especially considering the state of the United States' "allies" at the moment. Sure, the United States is China's "#1 Trade-Partner", but it can easily find new ones until the United States is done nursing its bruises from a war. In fact, I couldn't see how the United States would be able to survive without resuming direct trade with China after the war.
But those are just my observations as a history-major; take it on your own heed, as will the men in Beijing, Seoul, Pyongyang, and Washington.
You are aware that before Desert Storm Iraq had the third largest standing army in the world, and we were able to beat them in less than 100 hours right?
You are confusing guerrilla groups with a standing army, guerrilla gropes use hit and run tactics while an actual military force has to stand and fight.
Take Vietnam for example, the NVA (North Vietnam Army) was a total joke, they were slaughtered every time they fought U.S. and NATO forces, the real threat was the Viet Cong, because they would pop up out of the Jungle fire a few rounds and run away, and every time they stood and fought us they were slaughter, you can ask any Vietnam vet who was involved in the Tet Offensive and they will tell you that it was a tactical failure for the VC who lost almost all of their men in the attack, while U.S. and NATO forces lost very few.
What prolonged the War so much was that the Johnson Administration insisted that we fallow UN guidelines, every time we got the NVA and the VC on the ropes, the North Vietnamese would agree to peace talks and use this time to resupply their forces and once they were properly supplied they would break off the peace talks and resume fighting, they did this because the Johnson Administration wouldn't allow are forces to attack, but once Nixon took office he stopped that and due to the way Nixon ran the war North Vietnam actually sent a message to one of out carriers asking what the terms of surrender were, the only problem was that about an hour before that the peace treaty was signed in Paris.
And as for the War of Terror, the problem is again the way were are fighting, while this may not be politically correct, what we should've done is do the same thing we did with the American Indians and the Japanese, we should've made it clear to the Arabs that if they wanted to continue to exist as a race they needed to throw down their arms and give up the ones who won't.
I am a history buff myself, as well as a military buff, and have read countless articles in books and online and watch the History channel almost religiously, as well as talking to people who in Vietnam and with my dad who also a history buff and talked with people who were in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.
#19
Posted 04 April 2013 - 09:57 AM
I dont know why launch warheads, US could just bombard their power source and they wont be able to launch a single missile.
I think U.S should plan carefully but the problem is if N.K explode an nuclear bomb on their own territory killing their own civilians then that piece of land would be inhabitated for decades.
#20
Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:54 PM
Video report - http://news.yahoo.co...-080000455.html
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users