62 replies to this topic

[Sakura Blossoms]

So...nuclear war is it

http://news.yahoo.co...-215634792.html

[shadow_Uzumaki]

I really feel bad about South Korea right now, I'm more worried about them than the US...

[Baguette]

Until we get those anti-missile defense systems set up on the west coast, I'd be more worried for the U.S.
It's speculated that California may be their first target.

...I live in California.

[merryGOflava]

Until we get those anti-missile defense systems set up on the west coast, I'd be more worried for the U.S.
It's speculated that California may be their first target.

...I live in California.

noooo!!! darnit... >:U

[Gravenimage]

Honestly how many times have Kim Jon has said he's going to fire nuclear missiles to the US? All I say is he's" all talk and no action" a dog barking with no bite. What's stopping him from unleashing his" mighty arsenal" especially to their enemy neighbor South Korea? Or maybe he's doing in it to get attention. I feel sorry for the people of NK they've been brainwashed by this man who I see as unfitted for president thinks he's the most notorious and more dangerous than Bin Laden or Husseim (in truth I think he's just dumb and he's only interested in following daddy's footsteps). He won't do it he's not that stupid to fire nuclear missiles, for one they will NEVER reach US soil (we've seen the test results of the missiles he fired embarrassing the country further). If he does fire the missiles to South Korea he knows very well the US and its allies will retaliate in return and he'll be looking at the possibility that his country will be taken out in a split second before China reacts to the attack.

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.

[Baguette]

Honestly how many times have Kim Jon has said he's going to fire nuclear missiles to the US? All I say is he's" all talk and no action" a dog barking with no bite. What's stopping him from unleashing his" mighty arsenal" especially to their enemy neighbor South Korea? Or maybe he's doing in it to get attention. I feel sorry for the people of NK they've been brainwashed by this man who I see as unfitted for president thinks he's the most notorious and more dangerous than Bin Laden or Husseim (in truth I think he's just dumb and he's only interested in following daddy's footsteps). He won't do it he's not that stupid to fire nuclear missiles, for one they will NEVER reach US soil (we've seen the test results of the missiles he fired embarrassing the country further). If he does fire the missiles to South Korea he knows very well the US and its allies will retaliate in return and he'll be looking at the possibility that his country will be taken out in a split second before China reacts to the attack.

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.

[alexander]

I don't know if Korea is that crazy to start an war they know very well they can't win. Especially since they lost support from their last ally, China. If you ask me, maybe it's better if we just bombard that country before they have an chance of causing irreparable damage. With crazy leaders like that we really shouldn't take any chances.

[Baguette]

I don't know if Korea is that crazy to start an war they know very well they can't win. Especially since they lost support from their last ally, China. If you ask me, maybe it's better if we just bombard that country before they have an chance of causing irreparable damage. With crazy leaders like that we really shouldn't take any chances.

And kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians along the way?

Edited by Baguette, 04 April 2013 - 03:12 AM.

[alexander]

And kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians along the way?

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.

[Baguette]

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 reisk worth it?

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.

[Kyuudaime]

If they are serious, they'd pretty much be wiped out in 48 hours.

[Sakura Blossoms]

If they are serious, they'd pretty much be wiped out in 48 hours.

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 -.-

[Strangelove]

If they are serious, they'd pretty much be wiped out in 48 hours.

That, Lord Frieza likes.

[alexander]

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.

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.

[Greed-Sama]

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.

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.

[Jake]

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.

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.

Agreed.

[Kamina-Yoshi]

I kind of like how people automatically assume the United States would gain an instant victory in twenty-four hours, considering they couldn't win over farmers with Kalishnekov's and RPG's in about ten years, on three separate occasions.

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.

[Jake]

I kind of like how people automatically assume the United States would gain an instant victory in twenty-four hours, considering they couldn't win over farmers with Kalishnekov's and RPG's in about ten years, on three separate occasions.

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.

[Sakamaki Izayoi]

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?

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.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Newest update on the situation - http://news.yahoo.co...-062418562.html

Video report - http://news.yahoo.co...-080000455.html