NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/

It finally admitted to having nukes and pulls out of the 6 nation talks.

“We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North),” the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

What fun!

We Are All Gonna Dieeee!!!! :(

Wow, the news is so big that we need two threads for it!
:D
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=396441

Wow, the news is so big that we need two threads for it!
:D
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=396441

Darn it. Missed by 14 minutes.

EDIT

Well at least MINE has the better title. *smugness*

so is america goin to go an invade korea since it has nuclear weapons. or doesnt it have enough natraul resorces that the president can make money from.

Darn it. Missed by 14 minutes.

EDIT

Well at least MINE has the better title. *smugness*
OOC: Agreed. :p

IC: They have nukes now?!






YAAAAAAAYY!!!!!! *parties till the end of never*
I'm all for nuclear proliferation. Every country has a right to own nuclear bombs. It's HOW nukes are used that counts. In RL, the plutonian empire would only keep nukes as "Instruments of Potential Scientific Research" (for lack of a better word).

wooo lets get building nuke bunkers.

americas gona start another cold war :D

one thing america could say get rid of your nuclear weapons if they didnt have any nuclear weapons it like saying to your friend u cant eat that and then u go out and eat it

Yep, N. korea now says it has nukes and Iran says they won't abandon their program, one step short of saying they have them.

Scary shit.

IMHO Dubya's policies are indirectly to blame for the latest batch of pledges to the nuclear club. Both N.Korea and Iran have been working on nukes at a feverish pace because they see it as the only sure way to keep from becoming the next Iraq.

Sad thing is they might be right.

And Kim Jong Il is the last person on this planet I want to see have his finger on the button. He's so fuckin nuts he just might push it.

Didn't they always admit to having nukes?

Everyone knew N Korea had them anyway. Nothing changes. Besides, we only invade countries that DON'T actually have weapons.

Lost Planet's right. That's exactly why Iran is speeding up it program.

so is america goin to go an invade korea since it has nuclear weapons. or doesnt it have enough natraul resorces that the president can make money from.
Most battle plans that involve N. Korea involve the use of nukes on them, even were they to try and conventionally invade S. Korea. If we end up goin to war with them now it will be to turn any and all potential military installations to glass. If I was one of the SK soldiers stationed at the DMZ I would be pushing for many many more very thick concrete lead-lined bunkers to hide in.

...

We're screwed.

...

We're screwed.

You said a mouthful, there.
:(

Most battle plans that involve N. Korea involve the use of nukes on them...

sssssshhhhh! You're not suposed to let the cat outta the bag... yet. ;)

One would have to wonder what special insight you have into US military battle plans, though.
:mp5:
:sniper:

sssssshhhhh! You're not suposed to let the cat outta the bag... yet. ;)

One would have to wonder what special insight you have into US military battle plans, though.
:mp5:
:sniper:
Given the disparity of forces and the way we've set our own forces up it's the logical conclusion. Especially as it would be the only way we would have a chance in hell of saving most of Seoul's civilian population given all the friggin conventional arty they have pointed at the city.

Another impotent gesture. :rolleyes:

The US would never invade N. Korea because they SAY they have WND. The reason is simple. The N. Korean military is larger than the American. Plus they would probably have the backing of China, which in numbers, puts the US Military to shame.
If the US can't totally defeat Iraq and Afghanistan, then how could they "take care of" the North Koreans??????????
Also, let's face it, the United States has a bad reputation in the world as being a bully. They probably wouldn't get much, if any, support from the rest of the world, except for Britian and South Korea.

The US would never invade N. Korea because they SAY they have WND. The reason is simple. The N. Korean military is larger than the American. Plus they would probably have the backing of China, which in numbers, puts the US Military to shame.
If the US can't totally defeat Iraq and Afghanistan, then how could they "take care of" the North Koreans??????????
Also, let's face it, the United States has a bad reputation in the world as being a bully. They probably wouldn't get much, if any, support from the rest of the world, except for Britian and South Korea.

The Koreans are not an intimidating military force. A million troops are useless without an airforce, which we could destroy in 15 minutes even with troops in Iraq. Add in the Korean's lack of naval power, and our surplus of it, and you have disaster for ole Kim.. Hell, our ships distributing aid to tsunami victims right now could do the job alone.

In modern times, air superiority wins.

The Koreans are not an intimidating military force. A million troops are useless without an airforce, which we could destroy in 15 minutes even with troops in Iraq. Add in the Korean's lack of naval power, and our surplus of it, and you have disaster for ole Kim.. Hell, our ships distributing aid to tsunami victims right now could do the job alone.

In modern times, air superiority wins.
*sighs* Any involvement at this point in NK would be to either protect Japan and SK or to stop them selling their nuclear secrets to other countries, although it appears that we are too late for the latter. Therefore the thing to be worried about is them nuking Japan or SK and protecting Seoul from their arty. Since taking out the arty in any small period of time would involve nukes, you might as well drop a few airburst fusion nukes over their main army as well. At this point we are trying to see if we can just get the government to collapse entirely and neutralize the country without firing a shot.

*sighs* Any involvement at this point in NK would be to either protect Japan and SK or to stop them selling their nuclear secrets to other countries, although it appears that we are too late for the latter. Therefore the thing to be worried about is them nuking Japan or SK and protecting Seoul from their arty. Since taking out the arty in any small period of time would involve nukes, you might as well drop a few airburst fusion nukes over their main army as well. At this point we are trying to see if we can just get the government to collapse entirely and neutralize the country without firing a shot.

I wasn't advocating war in any way, just pointing out the obvious, that is, that any number of NK troops won't save them in event of war.

Edit: I should add that if this whole NK nuke thing is part of a grand Bush administration conspiracy to goad Kim into nuking San Francisco through reverse psychology, then I'm behind it, 100%. ;)

Ahhh this is all such great news! The one thing I miss about my childhood is the ever-present threat of MAD. Now North Korea has established itself as the greatest threat to global peace since... well... since... Saddam Hussein a few months ago, and it's made me feel all warm inside that we can all relearn "duck & cover".

How lucky I am to be living in a house with a cellar that's 4 feet underground, surrounded on 3 of 4 sides with paint so old it's sure to contain lead.

*goes out to buy shitloads of tins of beans*

Ahhh this is all such great news! The one thing I miss about my childhood is the ever-present threat of MAD. Now North Korea has established itself as the greatest threat to global peace since... well... since... Saddam Hussein a few months ago, and it's made me feel all warm inside that we can all relearn "duck & cover".

How lucky I am to be living in a house with a cellar that's 4 feet underground, surrounded on 3 of 4 sides with paint so old it's sure to contain lead.

*goes out to buy shitloads of tins of beans*

Dont forget to get a can opener

The US would never invade N. Korea because they SAY they have WND. The reason is simple. The N. Korean military is larger than the American. Plus they would probably have the backing of China, which in numbers, puts the US Military to shame.
If the US can't totally defeat Iraq and Afghanistan, then how could they "take care of" the North Koreans??????????
Also, let's face it, the United States has a bad reputation in the world as being a bully. They probably wouldn't get much, if any, support from the rest of the world, except for Britian and South Korea.

larger is nothing without the fancy stuff (ships,planes big guns)
I doubt NK is able to put a higher defense budget then the US

ps we DID defeat Iraq's and Afganistan's goverments
It is differnet to destroy a nation then it is to try to rebuild the nation

Iran had better speed up then. Right now, my estimate is that the invasion starts in July.

I mean, put two and two together:

- Iran is “right at the top” of the administration’s list of world trouble spots. (Dick Cheney)

- "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." (Bush)

Lastly, if you weren't convinced,

- A US attack on Iran is "not on the agenda at this point." (Condi Rice)

Are the bombs flying yet?

Dont forget to get a can opener
We have two already. :)

Chine would not help NK. Haven't you ever played Mercenaries. China wants NK defeated so that they can control it. SK wants it too, which makes them enemies of China. And the Russian Mafia hasn't even shown up yet. C'mon, it's too early to talk about what'll happen.

Sergei: "BRING ME A MONKEY!"

- A US attack on Iran is "not on the agenda at this point." (Condi Rice)

Are the bombs flying yet?
I'm betting this means we'll let the Israelis attack the iranian's nuke sites and then if Iran declares war on Israel we'll just invade at the same time trying to get the populace to overthrow the mad mullahs.

I'm betting this means we'll let the Israelis attack the iranian's nuke sites and then if Iran declares war on Israel we'll just invade at the same time trying to get the populace to overthrow the mad mullahs.

I don't think we'd invade, even if we had the troops to spare. I think we'd let Israel bomb their infrastructure, offer cruise missile support, and let the revolution occur naturally, aiding the secular faction and stopping anyone crossing into Iraq or Afghanistan.. just a theory.

I think would would be really stupid to try to topple Iran. The region is unstable enough with Iraq trying to rebuild. What would it be like with a power vacuum in Iran. When Pres Bush first ran for election, he said he would not get into the "business of nation building". Seems to me that is all he has been doing.

I think would would be really stupid to try to topple Iran. The region is unstable enough with Iraq trying to rebuild. What would it be like with a power vacuum in Iran. When Pres Bush first ran for election, he said he would not get into the "business of nation building". Seems to me that is all he has been doing.
When Pres. Bush first ran for election, 9/11 hadn't decided to rain on his parade.

I'm betting this means we'll let the Israelis attack the iranian's nuke sites and then if Iran declares war on Israel we'll just invade at the same time trying to get the populace to overthrow the mad mullahs.


In that scenario, the populace may well unite behind the mullahs in the face of foreign hostile action on IranIran.

Yes, a fair deal of the Iranians hate their leadership, but they dislike the US and Israel more so, and a US-Israel assault will most likely see the protests against the mullahs dissapear and turn to national unity.

Secondly, invasion of Iran will not please the Shias in Iraq, who may well continue their uprising again, but this time with Al-Sistani's backing also, and the numbers would be bigger.

Back to North Korea.

I heard a while ago that China had 250,000 troops stationed on it's border with North Korea.

When I read this, the opinion was this was in reaction to reports of the mushroom clouds, and of pictures of Kim being taken down and placed underground which was at the time seen to be a pre-overthrow move by the North Korean military.

Later, the picture removal was explained as North Korea possibly building bunkers and placing valubles underground in preparation for a US attack.

Truth or lies? It does sound rather James Bondesque to me, but my point is, is that the assumption was at the time is that China were warning North Korea about getting any nuclear ideas, which would suddenly make China not so much the big (nuclear) power in Asia, because of a nuclear neighbour.

Also it could be a sign China might just annex North Korea if it does not like how things going.

But, it could also be a warning to the Bush: Invade North Korea, and it will be 1950 all over again, but worse.

This theory is partly because of a pact China has with North Korea, that if North Korea is attacked, China has to defend North Korea.

Personally, I don't think China will stand for a US controlled Northern Korea, and likes having North Korea as a buffer zone.

But, China will not like a North Korea that is nuclear and unstable, and China may move in.

However, it's risk risk for China either way. They are the fastest growing economy in the world, and getting involved with a war in North Korea be it against North Korea or China could affect it's apirations to be superpower.

When Pres. Bush first ran for election, 9/11 hadn't decided to rain on his parade.
I fully understand that, and I am a conservative BTW. My point is, I feel he is using our military to promote Democracy around the world. Our military should be used for our defense, not to "liberate" peoples from countries that are not willing to overturn their current government.

When Pres. Bush first ran for election, 9/11 hadn't decided to rain on his parade.

Yes, but neither Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan were behind the the September 11th 2001 attacks, Al-Qaeda was.

We Are All Gonna Dieeee!!!! :(


I'm not worried, if the world were to end today, I know that I am saved from the eternal fire and brimstone which awaits most of this doomed planet. If it is the will of the Sovereign Almighty to destroy the world then there is no use fretting over it.

Yes, but neither Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan were behind the the September 11th 2001 attacks, Al-Qaeda was.
The ruling government of Afghanistan, the Taliban was harboring Al Queda. That is why the US went into Afghanistan. I have no problem with that.

Ah good, now I'm waiting for Luxembourg. Admit it!

The ruling government of Afghanistan, the Taliban was harboring Al Queda. That is why the US went into Afghanistan. I have no problem with that.

Not really. The Taliban viewed Al-Qaeda with great suspicion, fearing that they would make a power grab for Afghanistan instead of just living there.

Mullah Omar had loathing for Bin Laden, seeing him steal the limelight from his 'leadership of Afghanistan'.

The Taliban were too scared to confront Bin Laden, they feared they would be overthrown, hence their refusal to hand him over. They were in fear.

Al-Qaeda cells reside in alot of countries, but I don't see bombs dropping there.

But this is for another thread.

Also, let's face it, the United States has a bad reputation in the world as being a bully. They probably wouldn't get much, if any, support from the rest of the world, except for Britian and South Korea.

I *very* much doubt South Korea would condone an attack on the North. To think it would is to misunderstand the relations between the two Korean states.

Oh, and I fully understand Iran and NK developing nukes. I'd be doing exactly the same were I in their shoes. Best way not to be invaded.

Oh, and I fully understand Iran and NK developing nukes. I'd be doing exactly the same were I in their shoes. Best way not to be invaded.


Sad, but true.

Not really. The Taliban viewed Al-Qaeda with great suspicion, fearing that they would make a power grab for Afghanistan instead of just living there.

Mullah Omar had loathing for Bin Laden, seeing him steal the limelight from his 'leadership of Afghanistan'.

The Taliban were too scared to confront Bin Laden, they feared they would be overthrown, hence their refusal to hand him over. They were in fear.

Al-Qaeda cells reside in alot of countries, but I don't see bombs dropping there.

But this is for another thread.
Osama Bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. Why would we invade some other country to get him? Although using this logic would dictate the need to go into Saudi Arabia since the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were from that country. Oh well, can't invade everyone. :sniper:

Now North Korea has established itself as the greatest threat to global peace since... well... since... Saddam Hussein a few months ago

Saddam was never a threat to global peace.

Well, current evidence shows that you HAVEN'T got Bin Laden. :p

Actually, the N Koreans already HAVE missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads to the west coast of the United States.

Unfortunately, all of this crap could have been avoided. The US, under Clinton, brokered an agreement where we were going to pay NK off with food and resources, in exchange for abandoning their nuke program. When Bush took office, He decided that we didn't need to do it.

Because of this, NK restarted their weapons program. So, if the nukes fly, blame Bush.

Osama Bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. Why would we invade some other country to get him?

Well let's see. Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan, yet you invade Iraq...

Oil, perhaps?



Although using this logic would dictate the need to go into Saudi Arabia since the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were from that country. Oh well, can't invade everyone. :sniper:

No, can't invade and kill everyone on the planet, just the odd country here and there.....*sigh* such a nuisance that, eh?

Actually, the N Koreans already HAVE missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads to the west coast of the United States.

Unfortunately, all of this crap could have been avoided. The US, under Clinton, brokered an agreement where we were going to pay NK off with food and resources, in exchange for abandoning their nuke program. When Bush took office, He decided that we didn't need to do it.

Because of this, NK restarted their weapons program. So, if the nukes fly, blame Bush.
You are completely wrong. Know the facts before posting. NK admitted that they had restarted their Nuke program after the US confronted them with the evidence. They broke their agreement. Why would the US continue to provide food and resources when NK broke the agreement?

Didn't they always admit to having nukes?

Its one thing to say it! It could be a bluff. North Korea has done that before.

The US would never invade N. Korea because they SAY they have WND. The reason is simple. The N. Korean military is larger than the American. Plus they would probably have the backing of China, which in numbers, puts the US Military to shame.

The last time Chinese troops fought American troops, they lost 1 million soldiers and were tossed right out of South Korea. Now that N.K. has nukes, China will be scared. I do not think they'll back him if there is a war.

If the US can't totally defeat Iraq and Afghanistan, then how could they "take care of" the North Koreans??????????
Also, let's face it, the United States has a bad reputation in the world as being a bully. They probably wouldn't get much, if any, support from the rest of the world, except for Britian and South Korea.

Afghanistan is pretty much a total victory now. Iraq has an insurgency that is being taken care of by Iraqi and American soldiers. North Korea will be taken care of if they try to start anything. One nuke and Pyongyang is gone! South Korea would fight them hard and fast as well. The Brits? They'll defend them too. America? We will most assuredly defend South Korea. The US has something along the lines of 12 Carrier Battle Groups. Can you imagine the air power we could bring?

I think would would be really stupid to try to topple Iran. The region is unstable enough with Iraq trying to rebuild. What would it be like with a power vacuum in Iran. When Pres Bush first ran for election, he said he would not get into the "business of nation building". Seems to me that is all he has been doing.

A terror attack that kills 3000 of your citizens would do make you change your positions really fast.

Yes, but neither Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan were behind the the September 11th 2001 attacks, Al-Qaeda was.

Al Qaeda Stronghold=Afghanistan

Saddam was never a threat to global peace.

No just to the region in which he occupied. He had Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Syria, Jorda, Iran, Israel, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Yemen looking over their shoulders.

Why do you think we had troops in Saudi Arabia in the first place? It was to protect Saudi Arabia from an invasion from Iraq and to toss Hussien from Kuwait.

At least we know for sure that Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons...

Hey, North Korea, were F***ed.

You want to know who supplied nuclear material to North Korea....it wasn;t pakistan....it was the grand ol USofA.....Billy thought that giving them nuclear material would make them stop developing it, so they just enriched it in nuclear plants....very easy to do....

Actually, the N Koreans already HAVE missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads to the west coast of the United States.

Unfortunately, all of this crap could have been avoided. The US, under Clinton, brokered an agreement where we were going to pay NK off with food and resources, in exchange for abandoning their nuke program. When Bush took office, He decided that we didn't need to do it.

Because of this, NK restarted their weapons program. So, if the nukes fly, blame Bush.

Check your facts again. They may have signed this agreement but before Bush stopped the Food and resources, North Korea admitted to a Nuke program. That was when he halted them.

Thanks Clinton for giving North Korea the time needed to build Nukes.

Most battle plans that involve N. Korea involve the use of nukes on them, even were they to try and conventionally invade S. Korea. If we end up goin to war with them now it will be to turn any and all potential military installations to glass. If I was one of the SK soldiers stationed at the DMZ I would be pushing for many many more very thick concrete lead-lined bunkers to hide in.

Excuse me sir, but as a yet undeployed Missile and Space Operations Apprentice in the United States Air Force I call that bullshit. The United States has no interest in actively using tactical or strategic nuclear ordinance.

Our Nuclear arsenal is strictly a deterrence only. Even if we used our smallest payloads, the entire sub-continent would be enviromentally devistated. Poisoned drinking water and food supplies, a cloud of nuclear radioactivity drifting across South Korea, India, China or Japan, depending on the weather.

The bombs we use now are alot different from the ones we used in World War II. We'd be signing our own death certificates.

Oh, just so you guys know, most if not all the guys who sit at the control stations of our strategic nuclear weapons think Revelations is a bunch of crap. Not that they arn't worshipping Catholics, Christians and Baptists, I myself am a Buddhist and I've met quite a few of them, all nice people.

It's kind of a silent requirement, that in order to be assigned the responsibility controling the weapons that could possibly end the world, you do not believe that the end has been prophesized by a book that has been mistranslated, misinterpreted and generally taken way to seriously by a bunch of people who COMPLETELY misunderstand the original intention of the prophets who wrote it.

Otherwise, why not turn the key?

If the world did actually end, it would be in a flash. The United States has a nuclear device in an undisclosed location which if detonated would render the entire Earth inhospitable to even single celled bacteria.

And thats all I'm allowed to say with current security rules and regulations.

Well let's see. Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan, yet you invade Iraq...

Oil, perhaps?

Getting tired of this line. Proof that we went in for oil please?


No, can't invade and kill everyone on the planet, just the odd country here and there.....*sigh* such a nuisance that, eh?

Well tough luck!

You are completely wrong. Know the facts before posting. NK admitted that they had restarted their Nuke program after the US confronted them with the evidence. They broke their agreement. Why would the US continue to provide food and resources when NK broke the agreement?

Here here!

The last time Chinese troops fought American troops, they lost 1 million soldiers and were tossed right out of South Korea. Now that N.K. has nukes, China will be scared. I do not think they'll back him if there is a war.

Actually, it was UN troops, not US troops.
Equally, the Chinese and North Koreans tossed the US and the rest of the UN out of North Korea.

That is how you have the present day borders.




Afghanistan is pretty much a total victory now.?

Karzai's power does not go much further than Kabul, indeed some call him 'The Mayor of Kabul'.

Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is run by warlords, drug barons, and remnant of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

The country is largely in a mess, 4 years after the US led invasion. Opium, banned under the Taliban, has made a resurgence, that has hit the streets of the US and Europe.


Iraq has an insurgency that is being taken care of by Iraqi and American soldiers.


50 members of the Iraqi Security forces have been killed in the past two weeks, and US Soldiers continue to die also.

The insurgency is growing stronger.





One nuke and Pyongyang is gone!

People like you disturb me. So ready to flippantly describe and then disregard the consequences of of a nuclear strike on a populated city in six words.

Very disturbing.

I fully understand that, and I am a conservative BTW. My point is, I feel he is using our military to promote Democracy around the world. Our military should be used for our defense, not to "liberate" peoples from countries that are not willing to overturn their current government.

i Heartily concur....I only support liberating people who are rising up themselves. And i am for going into the sudan.

You want to know who supplied nuclear material to North Korea....it wasn;t pakistan....it was the grand ol USofA.....Billy thought that giving them nuclear material would make them stop developing it, so they just enriched it in nuclear plants....very easy to do....

Yep! It was supposed to be used for power only. Thanks a heap Bill Clinton, you just gave North Korea the tools to make nuclear weapons. I'm going to place the blame of this at your feet.

Getting tired of this line. Proof that we went in for oil please?




Well tough luck!
No one said anything about oil but you. Something you want to get off your chest? Like how you know he went to Iraq for oil?
He said Bin Laden is not in Iraq but Pakistan...but Bush invaded Iraq. Confusion abounds.

Getting tired of this line. Proof that we went in for oil please?


Iraq had second biggest oil fields in the world before invasion.

Saudi Arabia, with large oil reserves for US consumption, now regarded as hostile after the September 11th 2001 hijackings, where the majority of the hijackers were Saudi Arabians, and funding appears to have come from shadowy rich Saudis in the kingdom.

US Soldiers guarded Oil Ministry in Baghdad, as Iraqi looters ran rampant elsewhere.




Well tough luck!

America not being able to invade every nation? Yes, Thankfully.

No one said anything about oil but you. Something you want to get off your chest? Like how you know he went to Iraq for oil?
He said Bin Laden is not in Iraq but Pakistan...but Bush invaded Iraq. Confusion abounds.
Actually, he was responding to a post about going in for oil....dumbass

Actually, it was UN troops, not US troops.
Equally, the Chinese and North Koreans tossed the US and the rest of the UN out of North Korea.

Who did most of the fighting? American Troops! Who did Chinese troops fight more? American Troops.

That is how you have the present day borders.

Yep because North Korea and China got tossed back behind the 38th Parallel



Karzai's power does not go much further than Kabul, indeed some call him 'The Mayor of Kabul'.

I've heard this but I'm not believing it.

Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is run by warlords, drug barons, and remnant of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

And yet things have been relatively quiet in Afghanistan.

The country is largely in a mess, 4 years after the US led invasion. Opium, banned under the Taliban, has made a resurgence, that has hit the streets of the US and Europe.

And Afghanistan is trying to put an end to it!




50 members of the Iraqi Security forces have been killed in the past two weeks, and US Soldiers continue to die also.

This I know but it is being taken care of.

The insurgency is growing stronger.

And they took a major hit with the elections.







People like you disturb me. So ready to flippantly describe disregard the consequences of of a nuclear strike on a populated city in six words.

Very disturbing.

Truth hurts! If North Korea does anything, kiss Pyongyang goodbye!

No one said anything about oil but you. Something you want to get off your chest? Like how you know he went to Iraq for oil?
He said Bin Laden is not in Iraq but Pakistan...but Bush invaded Iraq. Confusion abounds.

Hmmmm did you read the quote that I quoted?

Well let's see. Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan, yet you invade Iraq...

Oil, perhaps?

He stated oil BastardSword! I know for a fact that we didn't go in there for Oil. Why should we?

Your right though, he did say we invaded Iraq and if he hadn't tacked on the "Oil, perhaps" at the end of it, I wouldn't have bother responding. Selective seeing I see.

You are ready to protect Seoul by nuking Pyongyang (which is some 200 km from Seoul)? Interesting strategy. Good luck with it.

Iraq had second biggest oil fields in the world before invasion.

And this is your proof how? Did you know that we found explosives on the Oil Wells?

Saudi Arabia, with large oil reserves for US consumption, now regarded as hostile after the September 11th 2001 hijackings, where the majority of the hijackers were Saudi Arabians, and funding appears to have come from shadowy rich Saudis in the kingdom.

I won't argue you here!

US Soldiers guarded Oil Ministry in Baghdad, as Iraqi looters ran rampant elsewhere.

Its an economic asset to the Iraqi people.



America not being able to invade every nation? Yes, Thankfully.

Good. Because I'm glad that we can't either but there are nations taht should.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/

It finally admitted to having nukes and pulls out of the 6 nation talks.

What fun!

IIRC, there were some people on this forum who didn't believe that North Korea had any, or were trying to build any.

This would make things a lot easier for the US to go and get the UN to really crush them with sanctions - and even justify an invasion - as you don't need any other evidence other than:

"They Admit They Have Them"

Who did most of the fighting? American Troops! Who did Chinese troops fight more? American Troops.

Quite self centered, aren't you? There were more South Korean troops fighting in that war, than American troops, if you wan't to go in size of force, use that one.



Yep because North Korea and China got tossed back behind the 38th Parallel!

They were tossed to the frontier of China.. then there was this big counter attack, that pushed UN troops to the 38th parallel.. check history.



And they took a major hit with the elections.

They did? How is that? How did the elections disrupted their attacks? Seems everything is going the same.. except that now, you may have a second Shiite dominated islamic country in the area!




Truth hurts! If North Korea does anything, kiss Pyongyang goodbye!

Do you know how many innocent civilians live in Pyongyang?

Who did most of the fighting? American Troops! Who did Chinese troops fight more? American Troops.

Oh yeah! The British holding of hills from Chinese attacks! That was nothing! The UN coming to save America's arse when they were getting it kicked by the North Koreans! So easily forgotton...




Yep because North Korea and China got tossed back behind the 38th Parallel.

Thanks to the UN. And North Korean and China tossed the UN the other side of it.







I've heard this but I'm not believing it.


Ok, stick your fingers in your ears and hum your favourite tune, and it will all go away, ok?



And yet things have been relatively quiet in Afghanistan.


You have no idea. Afghanistan has so eaily been forgotten....again.



And Afghanistan is trying to put an end to it!


That would be hard to do. If Karzai goes against the druglords, who are very powerful with their own armies (the same druglords who made up elements of the Northern Alliance) he will fall. He has their support for now.






This I know but it is being taken care of.


It's not.



And they took a major hit with the elections.


Not really. The bombing have continued, and dissafection may arise from elements of the populace due to the election results.





Truth hurts! If North Korea does anything, kiss Pyongyang goodbye!

So eager to see nuking of a city, that is the only truth of yours that hurts the rational people of the world.

Do you know how many innocent civilians live in Pyongyang?

Do you know how difficult it is to oust a warlord without collateral damage. I knowo it sounds cold and heartless, but how many civillian s live in seoul, in new york, in Bangkok, what is keeping NK from attacking them, they surely aren't going to get brutally slandered for doing things as an agressor. They WANT to ill the civillians. Unless you want to rally behind that lunatic ward churchill and say they are all combatants.

Do you know how many innocent civilians live in Pyongyang?
Every war has casualties.

And this is your proof how? Did you know that we found explosives on the Oil Wells?


The proof is in the deterioating Oil rich Saudi relations with the US, who need anew oil supplier.

The proof is in the Iraqi oil fields. The explosives were planted in an attempt to negate the war's aims: oil.




Its an economic asset to the Iraqi people.


And America.





Good. Because I'm glad that we can't either

A glimmer of common sense shining through. There is hope for you after all.

If indeed NK, has nukes, then the question is: How to deal with it?

- Invade? Well, that would risk a nuclear war. But since NK can't have that many nukes, if invasion is going to be done, it must be done fast :P

- Diplomatic isolation? Well.. they are already isolated..

- Economic Isolation? Same thing

- Do nothing? Well.. unless they attack us first, this may be an option, and we will all live under a MAD. But that may give time for NK to build more nukes. Offcourse, bear in mind, that even the craziest regime wants to stay alive, and NK knows that if they attack, they loose. It may be wise to well, live with NK having nukes, and try to isolate them further.

Do you know how difficult it is to oust a warlord without collateral damage. I knowo it sounds cold and heartless, but how many civillian s live in seoul, in new york, in Bangkok, what is keeping NK from attacking them, they surely aren't going to get brutally slandered for doing things as an agressor. They WANT to ill the civillians. Unless you want to rally behind that lunatic ward churchill and say they are all combatants.

You wish to see a city nuked so a city is not nuked.

I do not understand.

You wish to see a city nuked so a city is not nuked.

I do not understand.
If it is the only option, yes.

If indeed NK, has nukes, then the question is: How to deal with it?

- Invade? Well, that would risk a nuclear war. But since NK can't have that many nukes, if invasion is going to be done, it must be done fast :P

- Diplomatic isolation? Well.. they are already isolated..

- Economic Isolation? Same thing

- Do nothing? Well.. unless they attack us first, this may be an option, and we will all live under a MAD. But that may give time for NK to build more nukes. Offcourse, bear in mind, that even the craziest regime wants to stay alive, and NK knows that if they attack, they loose. It may be wise to well, live with NK having nukes, and try to isolate them further.

WE could isolate them, but does that mean the rest of the world? China for one is a thriving economy that is backing them in the region. How many others are there?

I do not wish any ill to anyone, but if war is inevitable, i would like to be able to strike first.

If it is the only option, yes.

So...because nobody wants to see a city nuked, a city is nuked.

Hmm. Interesting theory.

I do not wish any ill to anyone, but if war is inevitable, i would like to be able to strike first.

What makes you think war is inevitable?

Nuking a city would be very bad. The problem is if you even use one nuke on a country as small as NK It's going to seriously fuk up that country for a very long time. So unless you're going to build a very tall wall all around NK to keep them from going anywhere, you have to kill pretty much the entire country so they can't get revenge, because seriously, if NK gets nuked and they have the ability to return the favor, they will with everything they have. It won't be like Iraq where US waltzes in and pushes the old govt out. NK is in most part jungle which is going to be a bitch to fight in. (like we tried last time)

And as a US citizen at age 16, I really hope we don't invade Korea or Iran because then we would have to bring the draft back.

I also think its not going too well in Iraq, but Afganistan is doing pretty good (or so I've heard)

Do you know how many innocent civilians live in Pyongyang?

Since the mid-1990s (under a policy adopted by Clinton), the official US policy for a major attack by North Korea on the South (conventional or otherwise) will result in an immediate counterattack using nuclear weapons on over fifty targets in North Korea.

This policy has not been publicly changed.

In modern war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians. I don't recall Bomber Harris of WW II fame being brought before the Hague for planning and ordering the deliberate incendiary bombing of civilians.

This is not a deterrent policy. Due to the fact that North Korea, even with conventional weapons alone, could kill millions of people in Seoul in a few hours from the start of a North Korean attack, there will not be any time for negotiations.

The United States will be under pressure to bring hostilities to an immediate halt. Nuclear weapons fit this requirement perfectly.

If indeed NK, has nukes, then the question is: How to deal with it?

- Invade? Well, that would risk a nuclear war. But since NK can't have that many nukes, if invasion is going to be done, it must be done fast :P

- Diplomatic isolation? Well.. they are already isolated..

- Economic Isolation? Same thing

- Do nothing? Well.. unless they attack us first, this may be an option, and we will all live under a MAD. But that may give time for NK to build more nukes. Offcourse, bear in mind, that even the craziest regime wants to stay alive, and NK knows that if they attack, they loose. It may be wise to well, live with NK having nukes, and try to isolate them further.
What would you propose the world community do when NK sells one of it's nukes to a terrorist organization that will use it?

In modern war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians.

Too right! Children incenarated to ashes, or having 90% burns with their limbs blown off and orphaned!

All of them are the enemy! Guilty as hell! Nuke them all!! They deserved it!

Kill them all.

What makes you think war is inevitable?

Never said it was, i just said if, meaning, in the future if it is, sry for not specifying.

And as a US citizen at age 16, I really hope we don't invade Korea or Iran because then we would have to bring the draft back.

They won't bring the draft back, it would take MAJOR military action to bring back the draft. We have enough in reserve to mop things up in iraq & Afghanistan when we could send in regulars (rather archaic term i know) to do fighiting in Iran and/or Korea, though i doubt it will come to that.

Too right! Children incenarated to ashes, or having 90% burns with their limbs blown off and orphaned!

All of them are the enemy! Guilty as hell! Nuke them all!! They deserved it!

Kill them all.

You are making the mistake of thinking that war is a legal matter.

There is no innocence or guilt.

Wow, what next, cuba admits it has cigars? :rolleyes:

You are making the mistake of thinking that war is a legal matter.

There is no innocence or guilt.

Murder is murder, and war is guilty of the cold blooded kind.

They won't bring the draft back, it would take MAJOR military action to bring back the draft. We have enough in reserve to mop things up in iraq & Afghanistan when we could send in regulars (rather archaic term i know) to do fighiting in Iran and/or Korea, though i doubt it will come to that.
I'm not so sure. The National Guard is becoming depleted, no one is signing up to go into the Nat Guard. Our full time military is having problems as well, that is why soldiers enlistments are being "extended". As much as I hate John Kerry, he was correct about a "backdoor" draft. I would have serious doubts about our ability to deploy troops into another theater.

Murder is murder, and war is guilty of the cold blooded kind.

Go shove a hamster up our ass and flee to your little utopia. There is no such thing as absolute peace, and when there is, i fear that day, because it is a faux peace. Peace through power seems evil, but it is true and it always will be, either through power or ignorance.

I'm not so sure. The National Guard is becoming depleted, no one is signing up to go into the Nat Guard. Our full time military is having problems as well, that is why soldiers enlistments are being "extended". As much as I hate John Kerry, he was correct about a "backdoor" draft. I would have serious doubts about our ability to deploy troops into another theater.

People are too self-centered to enlist anymore. They have no sense of duty anymore. It's sickening. That is why they are trying to get a $15k signing bonus for the guard. Noone will stay for the draft if ther eis one anyway...they will all run to canada.

I'm not so sure. The National Guard is becoming depleted, no one is signing up to go into the Nat Guard. Our full time military is having problems as well, that is why soldiers enlistments are being "extended". As much as I hate John Kerry, he was correct about a "backdoor" draft. I would have serious doubts about our ability to deploy troops into another theater.

The official US policy on defending against a massive North Korean attack (nuclear or conventional) is the immediate use by the US of over fifty nuclear weapons.

This was a Clinton policy. Still appears to be in effect.

How many National Guard troops will we need to occupy a radioactive wasteland?

If this is still true, the US will not need any additional troops to occupy North Korea. Because there won't be anyone alive there.

http://www.korea-is-one.org/article.php3?id_article=1038

The United States had active contingency plans as recently as 1998 to drop up to 30 nuclear warheads on North Korea in case of an attack on Seoul, according to declassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. government departments.
Japan’s Kyodo News Agency reported Sunday that as part of the U.S.’ "scenario 5027," 24 F15-E bombers flew simulation missions at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina to drop mock nuclear bombs on a firing range in Florida between January and June 1998.

It quoted the intelligence reports as saying that AWACS and KC-135 mid-air refueling planes also took part in the drills to prepare pilots for missions against North Korea from air bases in the U.S.

The revelation follows claims by an opposition party lawmaker last month that the U.S. drew up plans to launch preemptive strikes on key targets in North Korea in 1994. Labeled "scenario 5026," it identified 756 targets that could be taken out by U.S. B-2 stealth bombers and F-117 stealth fighters in order to disable Pyongyang, especially its suspected nuclear weapons capabilities.

The report also comes amid concerns that re-elected U.S. President George W. Bush will take a tougher line with North Korea during his second term if it refuses to scrap its nuclear weapons programs.

The newly declassified documents also showed the U.S. kept nuclear weaponry in South Korea until at least 1998, despite officially claiming it had withdrawn all nuclear warheads in 1991, Kyodo reported.

Washington had conducted drills on the use of nuclear weapons in South Korea since 1958 and in one case fired a mock nuclear weapon at Kunsan Air Base along the southwestern coast of South Korea in 1991, the reports said.

(Korea Times, November 7)

The official US policy on defending against a massive North Korean attack (nuclear or conventional) is the immediate use by the US of over fifty nuclear weapons.

This was a Clinton policy. Still appears to be in effect.

How many National Guard troops will we need to occupy a radioactive wasteland?
Who will be handling all of the surviving refugees? The Boy Scouts?

Go shove a hamster up our ass and flee to your little utopia. There is no such thing as absolute peace, and when there is, i fear that day, because it is a faux peace. Peace through power seems evil, but it is true and it always will be, either through power or ignorance.

I pity you. I pity you for observing that war is normality, and that war must be undertaken in every action, and that without war, life is not worth living and peace is evil compared to war.

War through power is evil, and it is waged by those filled with hatred, greed and ignorance or all three.

You tell me to shove a hamster up my 'ass'.

Grab your gun, and sign up for war.

We will see how much you love war, how great killing on a mass scale is, as you are sprayed in the raw blood of ripped veins of fallen bodies. Of seeing your first dead child, hopes of adulthood vanquished from the judgemental barrel of a rifle or the decisive shrapnel of a grenade.

Ongoing grinding of the war machine, using death as it's fuel.

Yeah, go to war. you'll love the killing that war has, after all, you consider it normal apparently.

Who will be handling all of the surviving refugees? The Boy Scouts?

I think you don't understand. There won't be any survivors. For the week or so after the detonations, there will be areas of North Korea that will be around 6000 rads/hour. No one, not even in an armored vehicle with filters, would be able to remain in the area.

You couldn't rescue anyone, or even go there to watch them die. And you certainly couldn't evacuate them.

You are probably thinking of destruction on the scale of Hiroshima. That was an 18 to 20 kiloton bomb - a very small bomb.

The US would probably be using the B83 (since the plan calls for using F-15E fighters to deliver the bombs). This has a yield as high as 1200 kilotons. That's about 60 times more explosive power than the Hiroshima bomb. And there would be at least 24 (and probably more - some articles I've read say 50 or more) detonations, some of which would probably be at ground level to eliminate underground North Korean facilities.

So the whole place would be a radioactive hot spot - probably zones of it would be uninhabitable for at least six months.

What refugees?

Grab your gun, and sign up for war.

Been there, done that.

We will see how much you love war, how great killing on a mass scale is, as you are sprayed in the raw blood of ripped veins of fallen bodies.

Seen it. Although most of what I saw was Iraqis huddling in a trench while a 20mm cannon kept them from leaving the trench, and a combat engineer vehicle went down their line and buried them alive by the hundreds. 1991 - not present day. I was a casual observer.

They were, of course, given about 10 minutes to make up their mind whether or not to surrender. The ones who surrendered got their first hot meal in weeks, a shower, and a place to sleep. The ones who didn't surrender were buried alive. They had a choice, and time enough to make one.

Of seeing your first dead child, hopes of adulthood vanquished from the judgemental barrel of a rifle or the decisive shrapnel of a grenade.

Never shot a child, but seen plenty of them dead. Perhaps their parents should have overthrown the government before it got them into a losing situation

Ongoing grinding of the war machine, using death as it's fuel.

No, death is not its fuel. Money and power. If you can get the money and power with a minimum of death, it's still good. If war was all about death, and fueled by death, the US would use nuclear weapons all the time.

Yeah, go to war. you'll love the killing that war has, after all, you consider it normal apparently.
Like I said, been there, done that. It is normal. Not saying I love it - but I'm not saying I hate it either.

Last year I went hunting in Zimbabwe (animals, not people). Nice place, rotten people. You were pretty safe as a tourist there. But the day is coming when there's going to be a bloodbath. Already, it's really not safe to be in opposition to the government there - people disappear and are found hacked into little pieces on the street. It's war. If I apply Western standards to that country it looks like a pile of shit. But to them, it's something that has to be worked out.

The official US policy on defending against a massive North Korean attack (nuclear or conventional) is ...NK will not strike first...same with Iran...

For anything to happen WE HAVE TO START IT...

I am hesistant to support waiting, as more time will allow more nuclear weapons to be created. But then again, why start a war for sure now, when we do not know if(when) one will be started later?

I think the best plan of action for now would be to focus on preparing our troops and lay citizens for different types of attacks, while continuing with any negotiations that would convince contries(NK, Iran, etc) to stop producing mass destruction weaponry. By doing so we will be covered on both fronts and can reduce casualties if a conflict arose.

I think you don't understand. There won't be any survivors. For the week or so after the detonations, there will be areas of North Korea that will be around 6000 rads/hour. No one, not even in an armored vehicle with filters, would be able to remain in the area.

You couldn't rescue anyone, or even go there to watch them die. And you certainly couldn't evacuate them.

You are probably thinking of destruction on the scale of Hiroshima. That was an 18 to 20 kiloton bomb - a very small bomb.

The US would probably be using the B83 (since the plan calls for using F-15E fighters to deliver the bombs). This has a yield as high as 1200 kilotons. That's about 60 times more explosive power than the Hiroshima bomb. And there would be at least 24 (and probably more - some articles I've read say 50 or more) detonations, some of which would probably be at ground level to eliminate underground North Korean facilities.

So the whole place would be a radioactive hot spot - probably zones of it would be uninhabitable for at least six months.

What refugees?
Do you honestly think that there would be no chaos on the peninsula? South Korea will be a mess. Troops will be required to maintain order. You make it sound as if every person in NK will be vaporized. The surrounding regions will be in turmoil as well.

NK will not strike first...same with Iran...

For anything to happen WE HAVE TO START IT...

You're probably one of those people who said that North Korea wasn't really doing anything with its nuclear program other than making peaceful nuclear power.

The only reason I want them to start something first now is to see the look on your face.

Do you remember who attacked first in the Korean War?

They're pulling out of talks indefinately. I think it's time to destroy their runways and air defenses. Let them know we can hit them any time we want, nukes or no nukes.

You're probably one of those people who said that North Korea wasn't really doing anything with its nuclear program other than making peaceful nuclear power.those people are maybe your imaginary friends...
get my a Link where anyone in NS (seriously)says that NK nuclear program is not for Nukes...

If I was the President of NK...you bet your ass I would be trying to get Nukes...same if I was the Pres of Iran, or Syrya or SaudiArabia,...etc.

Never shot a child, but seen plenty of them dead. Perhaps their parents should have overthrown the government before it got them into a losing situation.

Yeah, well maybe they have attempted, but they dissapeared off the street and were found hacked to pieces as you say happens in Zimbabwe, and that tourists financially supporting the regime by going on holidays in the country undermined their struggle, as you demonstrate here:


Last year I went hunting in Zimbabwe (animals, not people). Nice place, rotten people.


No, death is not its fuel. Money and power. If you can get the money and power with a minimum of death, it's still good. If war was all about death, and fueled by death, the US would use nuclear weapons all the time.


Money and power is a fuel I agree, but so is death, the purpose of war besides money and power is to kill one another, thus death.

The US does not have to use nukes all the time to show war is fuelled by death, normal munitions are destructive enough.



Like I said, been there, done that. It is normal. Not saying I love it - but I'm not saying I hate it either.


I would say war is usually where hatred, ignorance and a grab for power is widespread. But it's never normal.

those people are maybe your imaginary friends...
get my a Link where anyone in NS (seriously)says that NK nuclear program is not for Nukes...

If I was the President of NK...you bet your ass I would be trying to get Nukes...same if I was the Pres of Iran, or Syrya or SaudiArabia,...etc.

It wouldn't help you. Do you actually think it would stop the United States from destroying your country and all of its inhabitants?

It wouldn't help you. Do you actually think it would stop the United States from destroying your country and all of its inhabitants?
when are we going to destroy Russia, or China or France?

never...unless we can make their nukes dissapear...

Do you honestly think that there would be no chaos on the peninsula? South Korea will be a mess. Troops will be required to maintain order. You make it sound as if every person in NK will be vaporized. The surrounding regions will be in turmoil as well.

A substantial portion of the North Korean population will be killed by heat and blast.

However, over the next few days, even if only a few of the 1200kt bombs are ground bursts, substantial areas will be well over 6000 rads/hour.

Those people won't be vaporized, but they'll die of radiation poisoning inside of a day. That will, in combination with the other casualties, eliminate most of the North Korean population.

If you pick a day when the wind blows west to east, South Korea won't be affected by anything except the initial North Korean attack (which would probably entail the destruction of Seoul and its inhabitants).

One key indicator that the US will be using nukes (and is anticipating North Korean attack) is that instead of sitting up on the DMZ, American troops and bases have been moved a substantial distance south. They have also been reduced in number, and multiple PAC-3 batteries have been deployed.

I would bet that if North Korea attacks, most of its population will be dead by the time the sun comes up the next morning.

when are we going to Destroy Russia, or China or France?

never...unless we can make thier nukes dissapear...
Russia and China have more nuclear weapons and more conventional forces. Plus they are much less likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists. France isn't going to sell nukes to anybody, and they are technically still an ally. NK will sell anything for hard currency. Hell, their main exports are weapons sold to rogue states and illegal drugs sold around Asia. Not exactly a good record to build trust on.

... if North Korea attacks...NK will not strike first...an neither will Iran.

NK will not strike first...an neither will Iran.
But both those regimes are likely to transfer nuclear weapons to terrorists. One for money, the other for ideology.

Russia and China have more nuclear weapons and more conventional forces.....
conventional forces are worth shit...when you are facing a Nuclear country like France...

isnt this somewhat hypocritical of the United States to be so flustered about North Korea having a nuke or two? doesnt the US have enough nukes to destroy the world over and over again? :confused:

But both those regimes are likely to transfer nuclear weapons to terrorists. One for money, the other for ideology.nuclear technology is sold around...where do think NK or Iran Got it from?

Terrorists? They will get the Technology sooner or later....maybe already have it...Nothing you say or do will change that...

conventional forces are worth shit...when you are facing a Nuclear country...
Screw it. I'll give you that one, but what about my other points? Russia and China have more nuclear weapons, making a war against them less feasible. Also they are much less likely to sell their nukes.

I think you need to take into account what would happen to the world economy. There would be a good chance that NK would lob a nuke into Japan. What do you think that would do to the stock markets. The answer to the NK problem is not nuclear war. Hopefully, the regime will crumble on it's own. How much more starvation can those people take?

nuclear technology is sold around...where do think NK or Iran Got it from?

Terrorists? They will get the Technology sooner or later....maybe already have it...Nothing you say or do will change that...
So we shouldn't try to slow it down? Give ourselves time to defeat our enemies before they become too powerfull?

isnt this somewhat hypocritical of the United States to be so flustered about North Korea having a nuke or two? doesnt the US have enough nukes to destroy the world over and over again? :confused:
Yeah, and we're pretty responsible about handling them. Even after 9/11 when many Americans were calling for a nuclear attack on Afghanistan our government didn't use them.

... France isn't going to sell nukes to anybody, and they are technically still an ally.
If France stays on course...in the coming decades we will have get the EUs permission to fart.

I think you need to take into account what would happen to the world economy. There would be a good chance that NK would lob a nuke into Japan. What do you think that would do to the stock markets. The answer to the NK problem is not nuclear war. Hopefully, the regime will crumble on it's own. How much more starvation can those people take?

You must not read the NKPA news. They say that if the world (and the US in particular) doesn't stop imposing sanctions on them, and doesn't stop trying to starve them, and keeps trying to demand inspectors, they will use their nukes.

That's why they made them.

So if the US does nothing except let the UN and IAEA proceed with what would obviously be more sanctions, are you going to blame the US for what happens next, or will you blame the UN?

Or will the UN wuss out and stop enforcing sanctions against countries that violated the NPT?

Probably wuss out. That's what has historically happened.

Emboldened by that, what do you think North Korea will ask for next?

dp

Yeah, and we're pretty responsible about handling them. Even after 9/11 when many Americans were calling for a nuclear attack on Afghanistan our government didn't use them.

but only because of the threat of international sanctions...

i dont really think that afghanstan applies to this because the US invaded afganastan to get Bin Laden...not because the afgan goverment was the instigators of 9/11 (although the taliban wasnt exactly enemies of bin laden)

Yeah, and we're pretty responsible... Only one country has ever actually Nuked people.

What would you propose the world community do when NK sells one of it's nukes to a terrorist organization that will use it?

And your saying the USA wont do the same? Corruption and Propaganda are Powerful things, don't under estimate them.

You must not read the NKPA news. They say that if the world (and the US in particular) doesn't stop imposing sanctions on them, and doesn't stop trying to starve them, and keeps trying to demand inspectors, they will use their nukes.

That's why they made them.

So if the US does nothing except let the UN and IAEA proceed with what would obviously be more sanctions, are you going to blame the US for what happens next, or will you blame the UN?

Or will the UN wuss out and stop enforcing sanctions against countries that violated the NPT?

Probably wuss out. That's what has historically happened.

Emboldened by that, what do you think North Korea will ask for next?
I will not blame the US. Blame should lie with China for not policing their region. The UN does not enforce sanctions as it is, which is why we are in Iraq. This is a very complex issue, and I would hope that our government will take into account all of the repercussions of a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula.

I thought we established North Korea had nukes when they blew a hole in a mountain a while back

Do you know how difficult it is to oust a warlord without collateral damage. I knowo it sounds cold and heartless, but how many civillian s live in seoul, in new york, in Bangkok, what is keeping NK from attacking them, they surely aren't going to get brutally slandered for doing things as an agressor. They WANT to ill the civillians. Unless you want to rally behind that lunatic ward churchill and say they are all combatants.

Wait a second, let me get this Right, you are Denouncing a Government, because it has the Ability to attack other Nations, Which it hasn't yet Threatened ( With the exception of the USA and Allies. ) However you and your Government believe it is true and just to invade Nations who have done nothing wrong at all? I think i see double Standards here or am i going Blind, Tooth for a Tooth, Leg for a Leg. May i point out, the North Koreans haven’t been in any War since the Korean War, and have pulled out of the Nuclear non Proliferation Treaty giving the Nation the Rights to possess Nuclear Weapons...

Only one country has ever actually Nuked people.

hahahaha man that is so true!

And your saying the USA wont do the same? Corruption and Propaganda are Powerful things, don't under estimate them.
Are you serious? Do you have any idea how much security our nuclear arsenal is under? That has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever read.

hahahaha man that is so true!
There never would have been a Hiroshima if there wasn't a Pearl Harbor.

conventional forces are worth shit...when you are facing a Nuclear country like France...

Given the fairly small number and limited range of the nuclear forces of France, and the fact that you have to be able to actually deliver those weapons raises several problems if they were going to use them against conventional forces.

let's say, as an example, that you were being invaded by the US.

of course, they would know that you have them. You had better fire them quickly, because the US has the conventional ability to destroy anything that moves or sits still.

This means that you have to find something to shoot at. Well, shooting at US forces is easier said than done. If you shoot missiles at a naval force, they have a system to shoot down the missiles. You would also have to locate the fleet itself, which might be difficult. And forget sending French aircraft - they are going to get shot down.

French submarines are the international butt of jokes - the most noise of any submarines on the planet. So they have to fire their missiles (accurate enough only for cities) or risk being lost before they can fire them.

If you hesitate, it is very likely that in a very short period of time, not only are your nuclear forces destroyed, but your command and control systems, including the upper executive portion of national government, has either been destroyed or effectively isolated.

Fire at American cities, and it's a full scale nuclear war. France loses. A lot of other non-nuclear Europeans also really upset. And maybe not just at the Americans.

Just because you have nuclear weapons no longer means that you have the ability to stop the US from attacking. Given the technological leaps made by the US, the US may actually believe it possible to engage in air attacks (which you can't stop using nukes without nuking your own people) and destroy a country, its government, and its assets.

You could have a whole warehouse full of nuclear weapons - and all it would be is a fat, expensive target.

Only one country has ever actually Nuked people.
Yes, more than half a century ago. Since then we have been attacked on our own soil, with our civilians as the target, and we didn't resort to nuclear weapons despite the many calls for their use from among the population.

Yes, more than half a century ago. Since then we have been attacked on our own soil, with our civilians as the target, and we didn't resort to nuclear weapons despite the many calls for their use from among the population.
This is somehow a good thing? Irrelevant

And your saying the USA wont do the same? Corruption and Propaganda are Powerful things, don't under estimate them.
I know the USA won't sell nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization. Even one we use. We don't want more nukes out there. It would be against our national interests. Plus we don't need the money.

Wait a second, let me get this Right, you are Denouncing a Government, because it has the Ability to attack other Nations, Which it hasn't yet Threatened ( With the exception of the USA and Allies. ) However you and your Government believe it is true and just to invade Nations who have done nothing wrong at all? I think i see double Standards here or am i going Blind, Tooth for a Tooth, Leg for a Leg. May i point out, the North Koreans haven’t been in any War since the Korean War, and have pulled out of the Nuclear non Proliferation Treaty giving the Nation the Rights to possess Nuclear Weapons...

May I point out that a state of War (subject to a ceasefire) still exists between North Korea against the United Nations? Note that I didn't say the United States. I said the United Nations.

The resolution concerning the United Nations use of force to resolve the Korean conflict is still in force, IIRC.

We should consult our local forum "I'll find the truth" expert, Zepp. I'm sure the war is still on - the question is, are the UN resolutions still in force?

This is somehow a good thing? Irrelevant
It demonstrates that we show restraint with our nuclear might.

Are you serious? Do you have any idea how much security our nuclear arsenal is under? That has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever read.

Where do you think Isreal got its Nuclear technology from.....?

Screw it. I'll give you that one, but what about my other points? Russia and China have more nuclear weapons, making a war against them less feasible. I would never consider making a War against them...and viseversa...

Also they are much less likely to sell their nukes..they dont sell their nukes...not yet...
they sell the Knoledge...the technology...

When I say "they" It could be a number of people...including people in power...we are talking about shitload$$$ of money here.

Where do you think Isreal got its Nuclear technology from.....?
No idea. You tell me. I was unaware that it has been confirmed that Israel has nuclear weapons.

Yes, more than half a century ago. Since then we have been attacked on our own soil, with our civilians as the target, and we didn't resort to nuclear weapons despite the many calls for their use from among the population.

Who exactly would you use those nukes against? That's the problem with the 'terrorists', they aren't such nice cut-and-dry enemies like the Soviets.

Who exactly would you use those nukes against? That's the problem with the 'terrorists', they aren't such nice cut-and-dry enemies like the Soviets.
State sponsors of terrorism like the former Afghanistan regime, Sudan, Iran, Syria, etc.

It demonstrates that we show restraint with our nuclear might.
How so? we are the only one who has nuked anyone, I don't recall any other nations doing anything besides testing nukes which we did for a long time.

BRING ON COLD WAR 2

except n.korea to poor to keep up with the rest

State sponsors of terrorism like the former Afghanistan regime, Sudan, Iran, Syria, etc.

Well, apart from the US having sponsored terrorists when it suited their needs, they support Israel. That's, like, the biggest sponsoring of terrorism I've ever seen.

...that you were being invaded by the US..Whispering Legs...can you be invaded by the US?

can you invade yourself?

How so? we are the only one who has nuked anyone, I don't recall any other nations doing anything besides testing nukes which we did for a long time.
Do you even know why we dropped the bomb on Japan? Japan refused to surrender, they would have fought to the last man. A land invasion by Allied forces would have had over a million casualties. Even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan still refused to surrender. If dropping the bomb saved just one Allied soldier, I am all for it. Japan started the war, the US finished it.

No idea. You tell me. I was unaware that it has been confirmed that Israel has nuclear weapons.
yeah...well...there is a lot of things you need to learn...come back monday.

Whispering Legs...can you be invaded by the US?

can you invade yourself?
The opportunity for a sexual innuendo is too easy...

I would never consider making a War againt them...and viseversa...

they dont sell their nukes...not yet...
they sell the Knoledge...the technology...

When I say "they" It could be a number of people...including people in power...we are talking about shitload$$$ of money here.

Ocean, the war is still unresolved. You know, the war between North Korea and the United Nations. Resolution 90. Which authorizes the use of force under United States command.

There isn't a Peace Treaty in effect.

As for selling nukes, Dr. Khan of Pakistan has already sold the technology to anyone willing to pay even a paltry sum. So everyone knows how to build a fission device using HEU.

It is not likely that a US person could sell a fully constructed nuclear device.

There are too many people involved who are set up in such a way that institutional paranoia is designed to prevent such a thing.

Even if you did get hold of a modern US device, it would be essentially impossible to arm it. You would need to know (or accurately guess) several large numbers. And you have to get it right within a certain number of tries (the PAL is limited in the number of tries). Or the device disables itself (usually internally - but some are rumored to have a conventional self-destruct). In addition, the people holding the weapon do not have those codes, so they can't be made to give them to you.

You can't disassemble them outside of a special facility. Thermonuclear weapons have an internal section made of lithium-6 - which decomposes violently on exposure to the atmosphere. Cold War paranoia is in effect - the bomb knows when you try to open it - and it will know if you're doing it right.

You're better off trying to steal or buy a Pakistani warhead. Or now, North Korean.

If dropping the bomb saved just one Allied soldier, I am all for it. Japan started the war, the US finished it.

Yeah, those Untermenschen deserved to die. A million of their lives aren't worth one white life. Hah, and I thought *I* was the racist!

yeah...well...there is a lot of things you need to learn...come back monday.
Wow, you really know how to back up your argument. :rolleyes:

Yeah, those Untermenschen deserved to die. A million of their lives aren't worth one white life. Hah, and I thought *I* was the racist!
The Japanese murdered and raped more people in China than was lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Where is your outrage to that?

Wow, you really know how to back up your argument. :rolleyes:

Some Israeli scientist confirmed that. Google for it. Anyway, nobody was surprised. Rabid nationalism + racism + paranoia + powerful puppets = Nukes

Who exactly would you use those nukes against? That's the problem with the 'terrorists', they aren't such nice cut-and-dry enemies like the Soviets.
Hmm. That's a tough one.

Ok, I'll bite. Well, now North Korea openly admits they have nukes. They already have missiles, but just enough range to reach Los Angeles.

They could try and smuggle one in, but these are the size of large refrigerators - still, not impossible.

They could just sell one to al-Qaeda - and we know they would deny it later. They get to have someone else take the risk and get all the benefit.

If I was President, I would make a declaration that any detonation of a nuclear weapon inside the territory of the United States will result in an automatic full-scale nuclear attack with no warning on North Korea and Pakistan (the two nations most likely to fuck up and sell one).

I wouldn't be in the mood to ask "alright, who did that?"

Their weapons systems will be taken out prior to a launch. Of course, it will be fun showing off some new bombs we got. We'll turn S. Korea into an island.

The opportunity for a sexual innuendo is too easy...
LOL

Hmm. That's a tough one.

Ok, I'll bite. Well, now North Korea openly admits they have nukes. They already have missiles, but just enough range to reach Los Angeles.

They could try and smuggle one in, but these are the size of large refrigerators - still, not impossible.

They could just sell one to al-Qaeda - and we know they would deny it later. They get to have someone else take the risk and get all the benefit.

If I was President, I would make a declaration that any detonation of a nuclear weapon inside the territory of the United States will result in an automatic full-scale nuclear attack with no warning on North Korea and Pakistan (the two nations most likely to fuck up and sell one).

I wouldn't be in the mood to ask "alright, who did that?"


...Right. Good thing Russia is supporting Iran. At least the Arab nations will have someone with enough nukes behind them for the Americans to be forced to think twice about moves like *that*.

Their weapons systems will be taken out prior to a launch. Of course, it will be fun showing off some new bombs we got. We'll turn S. Korea into an island.
or a nuclear fallout wasteland

...Right. Good thing Russia is supporting Iran. At least the Arab nations will have someone with enough nukes behind them for the Americans to be forced to think twice about moves like *that*.

Russia's support for Iran does not imply support in the event of an American attack, conventional or otherwise.

That was like Russia "supporting" Iraq. Sure, Russia will sell you military equipment, and even give you military advice.

But not one Russian will die for you. They will shout at the UN, but they won't send any troops to defend you. And certainly won't risk nuclear war to stop the US from invading you.

Russia's support for Iran does not imply support in the event of an American attack, conventional or otherwise.

That was like Russia "supporting" Iraq. Sure, Russia will sell you military equipment, and even give you military advice.

But not one Russian will die for you. They will shout at the UN, but they won't send any troops to defend you. And certainly won't risk nuclear war to stop the US from invading you.
I dont recall russia supporting iraq anyway.

Russia's support for Iran does not imply support in the event of an American attack, conventional or otherwise.

That was like Russia "supporting" Iraq. Sure, Russia will sell you military equipment, and even give you military advice.

But not one Russian will die for you. They will shout at the UN, but they won't send any troops to defend you. And certainly won't risk nuclear war to stop the US from invading you.

Let's face it, currently, everyone but Israel and some ex-Commie countries hates the US. You will get no support from anyone anymore in the case of any wars. I'm also fairly sure that Russia will not tolerate the US detonating nukes right at their front door. In the end, you only need to remember one lesson: No empire, no matter how powerful, lasts forever.

I dont recall russia supporting iraq anyway.

They most certainly did. They even sent in GPS jamming devices in the lead-up to the most recent invasion (by the truckload - but the US neatly countered this by homing in on the jammers). They also sent a senior general and his staff to advise the Iraqi Army on how to defend against a US attack.

He left on the last flight out of Baghdad - with US permission.

Let's face it, currently, everyone but Israel and some ex-Commie countries hates the US. You will get no support from anyone anymore in the case of any wars. I'm also fairly sure that Russia will not tolerate the US detonating nukes right at their front door. In the end, you only need to remember one lesson: No empire, no matter how powerful, lasts forever.
Very true.

Calm down everyone, nothings changed

They most certainly did. They even sent in GPS jamming devices in the lead-up to the most recent invasion (by the truckload - but the US neatly countered this by homing in on the jammers). They also sent a senior general and his staff to advise the Iraqi Army on how to defend against a US attack.

He left on the last flight out of Baghdad - with US permission.

The best equipment and generals aren't of any use when the morale of the soldiers is so poor they'll tell the Americans everything they know for one dollar.

dp

The best equipment and generals aren't of any use when the morale of the soldiers is so poor they'll tell the Americans everything they know for one dollar.

The morale of the soldiers doesn't matter if the US has JSTARS and Stealth technology and the most advanced guided bombs in the world.

It is no longer possible for a conventional force to hide from JSTARS. If you move, they see you. If you stay still, they see you. And if they see you, the other planes come and destroy you.

Even the older US planes can wreak havoc. Just three (3!) B-52s using cluster munitions (the CBU-97, where each individual submunition will home in on anything metal) destroyed 2000 vehicles and killed or wounded 32,000 Iraqi soldiers in seconds (in a single pass).

The morale of those Iraqi soldiers had nothing to do with whether they lived or died. You must be one of those people like Sir Douglas Haig, who believed that if only the men had enough dash, they could get through the German machinegun fire in WW I. He was an ignorant ass - completely ignorant of technology and how to use it.

Iraq's most recent army NEVER HAD A CHANCE.

....
But not one Russian will die for....Granted no Russian is willilg to die for Iraq or Iran....
At the same time Americans are willing and do die for Israel...thats is why Israel is standing pretty.

Oh, i know you guys have been debating about how N. Korea stands no chance against the U.S., but I'll just add my two cents...

The United States would wipe the floor with NK. I mean, they'll prolly put up more of a fight due to their nukes, their extreme nationalism(If you didn't notice, people in NK are brainwashed to like Kim Jong-Il), their fight-to-the-death attitude, and large size. That's not to say they wouldn't ultimately be destroyed, but I think we'd prolly sustain about 10K deaths, and maye like 20-30K casualties.

Things we do have in our favor, however:

Military bases right across the Sea of Japan

The best Navy

The Uber-Airforce

The best equipment

The (almost) best training

Good morale

The backing of the world(this one is a maybe, depending on what NK does with those nukes)

We are going to have allies, such as S. Korea and Japan(maybe with Japan) go in with us.'

China will NOT go In the help NK. NK is just a thorn in China's side, and having that feisty little nation to the south go away would probably be good for it.

Also, unlike invading Iraq and Afghanistan, invading NK will not trigger a wave of terrorist attacks. No one likes North Korea, except for maybe the Cubans. But they couldn't do anything anyhoo.

Iraq's most recent army NEVER HAD A CHANCE.

If they hadn't surrendered before the fighting reached the cities, I'm fairly sure they would have.
I'll admit that no nation now has the financial resources to field an army as large and well-equipped as the US, so no nation today has any chance in a conventional war. Guerilla wars are another story altogether, however.

... You would need to know (or accurately guess) several large numbers. And you have to get it right within a certain number of tries (the PAL is limited in the number of tries). Or the device disables itself (usually internally - but some are rumored to have a conventional self-destruct). .
well I hope they gave him more than 3 tries...because he (the red button man) could blow the whole nuk-lear arsenal (self destruct device).

http://www.affenkrieger.de/gfx/monkey_gun.jpg
bush

Granted no Russin will die for Iraq or Iran....
At the same time Americans do die for Israel...thats is why Israel is standing pretty.

Most of the time, Israelis make the people who are fighting against them die for their cause. They are very, very good at it.

Most of the street fighting equipment and techniques we used in Fallujah came directly from IDF experience.

It reduced our casualty rate to not only a fraction of what we experienced in fighting insurgents in Vietnam, but an even lower fraction of what was predicted for urban combat.

Arabs, on the other hand, seem to excel at getting their premature entrance into the next world, and losing the battle in the meantime. The current joke goes something like this:

"What do you call an Arab in a tank?"

"A target"

"What do you call an Arab with an AK"

"A corpse"

You get the picture. Culturally, they seem to be unable to grasp the use of technology (I can leave the Egyptians out of that calculation because they were damn smart in 1973). But the more religious their devotion, the dumber they are in combat. To them, brave but futile gestures like standing in the middle of the street while you're shooting from the hip are expected behavior - and they laud their dead stupid heroes after he's blow into chunks by a 50 cal. Unfortunately, he doesn't do the tactical situation any good. So they lose.

well I hope they gave him more than 3 tries...because he (the red button man) could blow the whole nuk-lear arsenal (self destruct device).

http://www.affenkrieger.de/gfx/monkey_gun.jpg
bush


Awwww, that monkey is so cuuuuuuuuuuuuure!

Anyhoo, at least Bush is 10x better than Kim Jong-Il.

* thinks about how luckey we are not to be living in North Korea *

It reduced our casualty rate to not only a fraction of what we experienced in fighting insurgents in Vietnam, but an even lower fraction of what was predicted for urban combat.


The low casualty rate might also be due to the fact that the bulk of the freedom fighters slipped out of the city.

well I hope they gave him more than 3 tries...because he (the red button man) could blow the whole nuk-lear arsenal (self destruct device).

http://www.affenkrieger.de/gfx/monkey_gun.jpg
bush

The self-destruct doesn't cause a nuclear explosion. It is designed to disassemble the weapon and whoever is playing with it.

.
It reduced our casualty rate to not only a fraction of what we experienced in fighting insurgents in Vietnam, but an even lower fraction of what was predicted for urban combat.
and what was Predicted for urban combat ?? :confused:

Most of the time, Israelis make the people who are fighting against them die for their cause. They are very, very good at it.

Most of the street fighting equipment and techniques we used in Fallujah came directly from IDF experience.

It reduced our casualty rate to not only a fraction of what we experienced in fighting insurgents in Vietnam, but an even lower fraction of what was predicted for urban combat.

Arabs, on the other hand, seem to excel at getting their premature entrance into the next world, and losing the battle in the meantime. The current joke goes something like this:

"What do you call an Arab in a tank?"

"A target"

"What do you call an Arab with an AK"

"A corpse"

You get the picture. Culturally, they seem to be unable to grasp the use of technology (I can leave the Egyptians out of that calculation because they were damn smart in 1973). But the more religious their devotion, the dumber they are in combat. To them, brave but futile gestures like standing in the middle of the street while you're shooting from the hip are expected behavior - and they laud their dead stupid heroes after he's blow into chunks by a 50 cal. Unfortunately, he doesn't do the tactical situation any good. So they lose.


Not if the Arabs go get some soldiers from their friends the Pakistanis. Pakistan is the most powerful(in terms of military) Muslim nation in the world, with a large, well-trained, moderatly armed, couragous army. They also have one of the best Airforces in the Muslim world, not to mention the worlds only Muslim Nuklear Arsenal.

By the way, in the past wars, the Pakistanis fought like fanatics to defeat their enemies, and while they didn't win due to the fact that they were outnumbered about 8-1, they did make good tactical moves. Pakistanis learned that standing in the street won't kill Indians, so they got in their planes and tanks and decided to use them instead. Oh, and don't forget the mountains. The Mountains are a Pakistani Soldiers friend.

The self-destruct doesn't cause a nuclear explosion. It is designed to disassemble the weapon and whoever is playing with it.a chimp...

a chimp is playing with the most powerfull arsenal....a chimp is in charge.
not a good Time to live in the Big cities...

a chimp...

a chimp is playing with the most powerfull arsenal....a chimp is in charge.
not a good Time to live in the Big cities...

Bush is not THAT stupid. I HATE it when Partisan-ness ruins a perfectly good conversation. No one who is elected president is stupid. Sure, you may not agree with their policies, and they may not be Uber-smart, but you have to at least have a higher level of intelligence to run a country AND get elected Twice.

Bush is DEFFINETLY smart enough to know not to nuke his own cities. Sure, he'd nuke Pyongyang, Tehran, and Havana, but not his own cities.

Jeez....

Bush is not THAT stupid. I HATE it when Partisan-ness ruins a perfectly good conversation. No one who is elected president is stupid. Sure, you may not agree with their policies, and they may not be Uber-smart, but you have to at least have a higher level of intelligence to run a country AND get elected Twice.

Bush is DEFFINETLY smart enough to know not to nuke his own cities. Sure, he'd nuke Pyongyang, Tehran, and Havana, but not his own cities.

Jeez....

Bush is a mere puppet of the neo-cons, and their Jewish masters. He was just the most convenient candidate for them.

Bush is a mere puppet of the neo-cons, and their Jewish masters. He was just the most convenient candidate for them.

...

I really hope you are kidding. That's just...

Sad. Do you actually believe what you are saying?

and what was Predicted for urban combat ?? :confused:

The traditional math used to assume that to fight in urban terrain, you need 3 men for every 1 man you wish to dislodge. And that is if you accept roughly 50 percent casualties.

This held true for urban combat - but in WW II, Germans noticed that you could improve the odds. Or beat them.

Unlike Arab armies, who place ALL of their faith in Allah, and all of the rest on the "dash", US armies have been scientifically studying the matter.

Granted, it has taken decades to not only understand how to win in close combat, or what tools you need, but to educate the Army and Marines and convince them that it works.

Advanced body armor - making it impossible to hit a US soldier in the torso.
Better sights - the ACOG and Aimpoint - which work 24 hours a day when your enemy can't even see his own rifle sights when it's dark.
Better tactics - developed by the UK and Israelis
Better goggles - you can't be blinded by explosive fragments if you have your Wiley X goggles on.

Now you go up against insurgents with no training. They have no body armor. They have crude sights on their rifles. They have no means of communicating. And here come the Americans.

We didn't have a 3 to 1 advantage in people when we invaded Fallujah.

So we should have had our ass handed to us.

We did suffer casualties - several hundred - mostly wounded. By all rights, we should have lost everyone.

The insurgents - the ones who didn't run away at the start - were annihilated. They suffered over 90 percent casualties - with at least 2000 dead.

Want to pick a fight with the US in urban combat? It's just as deadly as picking a fight with the US on the sea, or in the air, or in open field tank warfare.

It won't matter if you have the best morale in the world.

Bush is not THAT stupid. I HATE it when Partisan-ness ruins a perfectly good conversation. No one who is elected president is stupid. Sure, you may not agree with their policies, and they may not be Uber-smart, but you have to at least have a higher level of intelligence to run a country AND get elected Twice.

Bush is DEFFINETLY smart enough to know not to nuke his own cities. Sure, he'd nuke Pyongyang, Tehran, and Havana, but not his own cities.

Jeez.... the silos are usually pre-programed(targets)...so they cant hit us...

That is not what I meant...what I meant is that if you leave a chimp playing with the codes...after a few tries (they will eat your bank card :D) it wil self-destruct etc...Living us open to a Mexican invasion. :D

I also implied a serious double sense...but if you didnt get the chimp joke...I dont see how can you get this one...

The traditional math used to assume that to fight in urban terrain, you need 3 men for every 1 man you wish to dislodge. And that is if you accept roughly 50 percent casualties.

This held true for urban combat - but in WW II, Germans noticed that you could improve the odds. Or beat them.

Unlike Arab armies, who place ALL of their faith in Allah, and all of the rest on the "dash", US armies have been scientifically studying the matter.

Granted, it has taken decades to not only understand how to win in close combat, or what tools you need, but to educate the Army and Marines and convince them that it works.

Advanced body armor - making it impossible to hit a US soldier in the torso.
Better sights - the ACOG and Aimpoint - which work 24 hours a day when your enemy can't even see his own rifle sights when it's dark.
Better tactics - developed by the UK and Israelis
Better goggles - you can't be blinded by explosive fragments if you have your Wiley X goggles on.

Now you go up against insurgents with no training. They have no body armor. They have crude sights on their rifles. They have no means of communicating. And here come the Americans.

We didn't have a 3 to 1 advantage in people when we invaded Fallujah.

So we should have had our ass handed to us.

We did suffer casualties - several hundred - mostly wounded. By all rights, we should have lost everyone.

The insurgents - the ones who didn't run away at the start - were annihilated. They suffered over 90 percent casualties - with at least 2000 dead.

Want to pick a fight with the US in urban combat? It's just as deadly as picking a fight with the US on the sea, or in the air, or in open field tank warfare.

It won't matter if you have the best morale in the world.


Ahhh, but what if you had good morale AND good weapons?

Sure, you'd loose, but you'd take out alot more of our troops than the insurgents did.

the silos are usually pre-programed(targets)...so they cant hit us...

That is not what I meant...what I meant is that if you leave a chimp playing with the codes...after a few tries (they will eat your bank card :D) it wil self-destruct etc...Living us open to a Mexican invasion. :D

I also implied a serious double sense...but if you didnt get the chimp joke...I dont see how can you get this one...

I do get the chimp joke.

Also...

Why would the Mexicans invade? They won't be able to fund an army large enough to get past ... the Rio Grande ^^.

I do get the chimp joke.

Also...

Why would the Mexicans invade? They won't be able to fund an army large enough to get past ... the Rio Grande ^^.
Some might say that they have already invaded...

Irag had the largest and most well trained army in the arab world untill 1991 when The US invaded them, and the Iraqi's also had alot of weapons from the US that they were pretty much given when they were fighting with Iran, they also had alot of really good soviet weapons.

China would not support N korea, it would be bad for business since they are currently the fastest growing econimic powerhouse in the world

Yes the US so far is the only country to have ever used nukes in combat, that is because we got them first (and not be very much) there has never been any doubt that the japanese army or the german's would have used them if they had developed them first

even if N korea used a nuke, I am sure the US would not have to resort to nukes to defeat them, the US still has enough conventional bombs left over from WW2 to turn the country into a rubble strewn wasteland

and lastly, you have to consider the source of the annoucement that N Korea has nukes, Kim is not exactly a stable person and he would say anything to stay in power, has he offered any evidence of these nukes or just said he had them

The proof is in the deterioating Oil rich Saudi relations with the US, who need anew oil supplier.

The proof is in the Iraqi oil fields. The explosives were planted in an attempt to negate the war's aims: oil.

Oh my god. State of it? You need to get off of it. They weren't planted at all. We would not do that because this was not about oil.



And America.

Iraqis




A glimmer of common sense shining through. There is hope for you after all.

Now if only you had common sense, then maybe we could have an intelligent debate.

and what was Predicted for urban combat ?? :confused:you need 3 men for every 1 man you wish to dislodge..
it was predicted that we get 3 GI killed for every insurgent killed?

Do you know how many innocent civilians live in Pyongyang?

How many live in Tokyo? How many live in Soel? How many live in Manilla? How many live in Beijing? How many live in Los Angelas? How many live in Seattle? How many live in Oakland? How many live in San Diego?

I do get the chimp joke.

Also...

Why would the Mexicans invade? They won't be able to fund an army large enough to get past ... the Rio Grande ^^.the mexican invasion was also a joke.
*grabs the tylenol*

And as a US citizen at age 16, I really hope we don't invade Korea or Iran because then we would have to bring the draft back.

The draft ain't coming back.

I also think its not going too well in Iraq, but Afganistan is doing pretty good (or so I've heard)

That's because your only hearing the bad news out of Iraq. Try looking up good news coming out of Iraq too. You might have a different picture.

Some might say that they have already invaded...

What?

They have crossed the border? O_o!?!?!?!?


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Ahhh, but what if you had good morale AND good weapons?

Sure, you'd loose, but you'd take out alot more of our troops than the insurgents did.

You would also need good training. The typical US infantryman gets to fire over 20,000 real rifle rounds a year in training. Add to that the blanks he gets to fire in combat exercises. The familiarization with tactics is extreme compared to most other nations. A group of US infantrymen is going to think faster, shoot more accurately, and move more quickly to take advantage of the situation than virtually any other group of insurgents.

Most other nations have standing armies - but those armies spend a lot of time hanging out in the barracks, polishing the brass.

Ever wonder why the US was concerned about shutting down the training camps of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?

Sure, you can still run an insurgency. But if you no longer have a decent training camp, your men will have to learn on the job. Which usually means that you're going to lose every skirmish you get into, and you'll be burying your friends at an ever increasing rate.

Think it's hard to recruit people for the US military? Sure. But unless you can overlook the fact that you probably won't survive, and you won't defeat the US, it's hard to convince yourself that insurgency is a good idea.

Maybe that's why the insurgency kidnaps GI Joe and says they have an American prisoner. And why they put a bomb on an Iraqi man who has Down's Syndrome, and convince him to walk into a crowd and blow himself up.

It's all they have left - directly facing the US troops at any level is certain death.

it was predicted that we get 3 GI killed for every insurgent killed?

No, in order to have a successful attack, you have to have three times as many attackers as defenders, and all other things being equal, the attacker will take 50 percent casualties.

The traditional teaching says that if you have less than the threefold advantage, the casualties go higher, and the chance of winning drops to zero.

Since you can't do the blitzkrieg thing in a city fight, the reporters and political wags were wagging their tongues, saying it would be a bloodbath for the Marines.

And they did take a few hundred casualties - mostly wounded.

But they didn't outnumber the insurgents by three to one.

The insurgents who remained took over 90 percent casualties - most of them dead.

The math did not come out the way the old textbook said it should. And the pundits who were predicting casualties on the scale we experienced in Vietname were completely wrong. Utterly wrong.

There has been a sea change in US infantry capability and tactics.

What?

They have crossed the border? O_o!?!?!?!?


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
I know, I know. It's hard to imagine people crossing our secure borderss. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and we're pretty responsible about handling them. Even after 9/11 when many Americans were calling for a nuclear attack on Afghanistan our government didn't use them.

Yep! We could've but we didn't. We're very responsible with our technology now that Clinton is out of office.

GO TEAM KOREA
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
Nuclear Rice them to death

You would also need good training. The typical US infantryman gets to fire over 20,000 real rifle rounds a year in training. Add to that the blanks he gets to fire in combat exercises. The familiarization with tactics is extreme compared to most other nations. A group of US infantrymen is going to think faster, shoot more accurately, and move more quickly to take advantage of the situation than virtually any other group of insurgents.

Most other nations have standing armies - but those armies spend a lot of time hanging out in the barracks, polishing the brass.

Ever wonder why the US was concerned about shutting down the training camps of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?

Sure, you can still run an insurgency. But if you no longer have a decent training camp, your men will have to learn on the job. Which usually means that you're going to lose every skirmish you get into, and you'll be burying your friends at an ever increasing rate.

Think it's hard to recruit people for the US military? Sure. But unless you can overlook the fact that you probably won't survive, and you won't defeat the US, it's hard to convince yourself that insurgency is a good idea.

Maybe that's why the insurgency kidnaps GI Joe and says they have an American prisoner. And why they put a bomb on an Iraqi man who has Down's Syndrome, and convince him to walk into a crowd and blow himself up.

It's all they have left - directly facing the US troops at any level is certain death.


Here are a few armies I think would put up a good fight against the U.S.:

Pakistan: They have a large army, good training, they are moderatly armed, , and get alot of action fighting insurgents, fighting the Indians in Border clashes, and blowing up Baluchi villages.

India: Very large army, okay training , moderatly armed, get alot of action fighting Pakistani's in Border Clashes, Insurgents, rebels, and the occaisional exchange of fire between them and Maoist rebels from Nepal.

Indonesia(sp?): Good sized army, well trained, well armed, get alot of Action fighting insurgents on its many islands, trying to break up battles between Christians and Muslims, and terrorists trying to blow up their government.

Great Britain: Small Army, Very-Well trained(arguably even better trained than the U.S.), Well armed, get alot of action following the U.S. everywhere, fighting Irish insurgents, and occasionally kicking some Argentine butt.

China: VERY large army, poorly trained, poorly armed, gets action fighting democratic protesters, looking dangerous to scare the Taiwanese, and fighting insurgents.

Russia: Large Army, moderatly well trained, well armed, gets action fighting Cechen rebels, South Ossetians, Georgians, ... baisically they fight alot of rebels.

Israel: Small army, very well trained, very well armed, get's alot of action fighting Arabs, Palestinians, and baisically all of their neighbors.

but only because of the threat of international sanctions...

Threaten by whom? The UN? HAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laugh. Incase you haven't noticed but only the UN Security council can bring about sanctions! Guess who has a veto :)

i dont really think that afghanstan applies to this because the US invaded afganastan to get Bin Laden...not because the afgan goverment was the instigators of 9/11 (although the taliban wasnt exactly enemies of bin laden)

True but then, people are irrational by nature.

Only one country has ever actually Nuked people.

And it ended WWII saving civilian casualites as well as military casualties.

I thought we established North Korea had nukes when they blew a hole in a mountain a while back

It wasn't a nuclear explosion! A nuclear explosion would've shown up on our satellites and it didn't.

There never would have been a Hiroshima if there wasn't a Pearl Harbor.

In someways accurate but also, look at the projected casualty figures for the US if we had to invade. They also looked into civilian casualties too. They discovered that the bomb was the best choice!

Besides, how many people died in Tokyo during the firebombings?

Here are a few armies I think would put up a good fight against the U.S.:

Pakistan: They have a large army, good training, they are moderatly armed, , and get alot of action fighting insurgents, fighting the Indians in Border clashes, and blowing up Baluchi villages.

India: Very large army, okay training , moderatly armed, get alot of action fighting Pakistani's in Border Clashes, Insurgents, rebels, and the occaisional exchange of fire between them and Maoist rebels from Nepal.

Indonesia(sp?): Good sized army, well trained, well armed, get alot of Action fighting insurgents on its many islands, trying to break up battles between Christians and Muslims, and terrorists trying to blow up their government.

Great Britain: Small Army, Very-Well trained(arguably even better trained than the U.S.), Well armed, get alot of action following the U.S. everywhere, fighting Irish insurgents, and occasionally kicking some Argentine butt.

China: VERY large army, poorly trained, poorly armed, gets action fighting democratic protesters, looking dangerous to scare the Taiwanese, and fighting insurgents.

Russia: Large Army, moderatly well trained, well armed, gets action fighting Cechen rebels, South Ossetians, Georgians, ... baisically they fight alot of rebels.

Most of these would be a matter of time. If they were smart, they would disband the major "conventional" portions of their military and prepare for an unorthodox campaign.

Any air battle, armor battle, or open warfare would be won by the US - regardless of the size of the opposition. I would think that the UK is too small to last. But they are the only ones who have troops that wear body armor as protective as the US. The new Interceptor body armor now makes it possible for US soldiers to do things in combat that would ordinarily get you killed.

And to excel in unconventional warfare, you would have to practice it yourself. It could be said, for instance, that the Russians suck at fighting rebels. Even now, they still fit the classical pattern, and their idea of fighting insurgents in an urban area is to level the entire city with bombers and artillery, then move in with flamethrowers to finish off everyone. Even then, they still lose a lot of people.

No idea. You tell me. I was unaware that it has been confirmed that Israel has nuclear weapons.

Israel has nukes? Why haven't they used them yet? I guess they don't have nukes if they haven't used them yet!

Well, apart from the US having sponsored terrorists when it suited their needs, they support Israel. That's, like, the biggest sponsoring of terrorism I've ever seen.

How is Israel a state sponser of terror? Oh that's right! They're terrorists from defending themselves from terrorists. How could I have forgotten that!

Besides, Palestine and Israel have a cease fire! I hope it holds and it brings about an actual peace.

Yeah, those Untermenschen deserved to die. A million of their lives aren't worth one white life. Hah, and I thought *I* was the racist!

How is he a racist?

Israel has nukes? Why haven't they used them yet? I guess they don't have nukes if they haven't used them yet!

Simple. They're too close to their enemies. They nuke the Palestines, they nuke themselves.

Here are a few armies I think would put up a good fight against the U.S.:

Pakistan: They have a large army, good training, they are moderatly armed, , and get alot of action fighting insurgents, fighting the Indians in Border clashes, and blowing up Baluchi villages.

India: Very large army, okay training , moderatly armed, get alot of action fighting Pakistani's in Border Clashes, Insurgents, rebels, and the occaisional exchange of fire between them and Maoist rebels from Nepal.

Indonesia(sp?): Good sized army, well trained, well armed, get alot of Action fighting insurgents on its many islands, trying to break up battles between Christians and Muslims, and terrorists trying to blow up their government.

Great Britain: Small Army, Very-Well trained(arguably even better trained than the U.S.), Well armed, get alot of action following the U.S. everywhere, fighting Irish insurgents, and occasionally kicking some Argentine butt.

China: VERY large army, poorly trained, poorly armed, gets action fighting democratic protesters, looking dangerous to scare the Taiwanese, and fighting insurgents.

Russia: Large Army, moderatly well trained, well armed, gets action fighting Cechen rebels, South Ossetians, Georgians, ... baisically they fight alot of rebels.

Israel: Small army, very well trained, very well armed, get's alot of action fighting Arabs, Palestinians, and baisically all of their neighbors.
China has a pretty good army. Israel probably has the best army in the world as far as the quality of each individual soldier goes. You may have overrated the British army a bit because they suffered unusually high losses against a poorly equipped third world army during the Falklands War.

Some Israeli scientist confirmed that. Google for it. Anyway, nobody was surprised. Rabid nationalism + racism + paranoia + powerful puppets = Nukes

Just like Iraqi scientists saying that Hussein was working on nuclear weapons. We know how that turned out.

...Right. Good thing Russia is supporting Iran. At least the Arab nations will have someone with enough nukes behind them for the Americans to be forced to think twice about moves like *that*.

How little you know of international affairs.

The arabs should be running scared right now because they know that if Iran gets nukes and a detonation happens, then Iran would be turned to glass.

WE could isolate them, but does that mean the rest of the world? China for one is a thriving economy that is backing them in the region. How many others are there?

I think that at this moment, NK is more of an embaracing cousin to the Chinese. I mean, China as all to gain with the current status quo; They sold their ideology, but bought 10% gronth a year, that gives them power. I don't think that they will squander this to support NK, just because they are both supposed to be "communist". The China today, is very different of the China that supported NK 50 years ago.


What would you propose the world community do when NK sells one of it's nukes to a terrorist organization that will use it?


"The price for peace is eternal vigilance"

Perhaps a more muscled approach of isolation will be necessary to prevent this. Still, should this happen, then I will support the attack on NK, all means necessary. But i find it doubtfull that NK would do this: Again, they may be mad, but they want to live, to hold on to power. NK leadership knows that if they were to piss off the west that bad, they wouldnt last a day.

China has a pretty good army. Israel probably has the best army in the world as far as the quality of each individual soldier goes. You may have overrated the British army a bit because they suffered unusually high losses against a poorly equipped third world army during the Falklands War.

mmm I must defend the Brits here, they were fighting a bazillion miles away from home, that war was an impresssive logistical achievement for the Brits.. and the argentinian army was hardly a third world army; Argentina was being supplied by the west (USA, France, etc.), and the military dictatorship that was running the country was giving lots of resources to the military.. hell, personally, though they made some stupid mistakes, i think that was a great victory for the british

Simple. They're too close to their enemies. They nuke the Palestines, they nuke themselves.

What about Damascus? Cairo? Ryihad? Baghdad?

I think that at this moment, NK is more of an embaracing cousin to the Chinese. I mean, China as all to gain with the current status quo; They sold their ideology, but bought 10% gronth a year, that gives them power. I don't think that they will squander this to support NK, just because they are both supposed to be "communist". The China today, is very different of the China that supported NK 50 years ago.

True. The consensus in China, both among the common people and the government, is that China was mistaken to support North Korea in the Korean War. However the government will not admit it because then it would lose face. North Korea's behavior is highly annoying to China, which has been developing strong economic, political, and cultural ties to South Korea. While China can't openly cut off its nominal friendship with North Korea, the Chinese will use all its power and influence to pressure North Korea from getting out of control.

Israel may have nukes...but they have no reason to use them; even their conventional forces open up a big can of whoop-butt on their neighbors.
:)

The insurgents who remained took over 90 percent casualties - most of them dead.
almost every civilean (Iraqui) man killed is deemed an insurgent by US military... :rolleyes:

What about Damascus? Cairo? Ryihad? Baghdad?

Israel has to many PR problems to nuke people.

Yep, N. korea now says it has nukes and Iran says they won't abandon their program, one step short of saying they have them.

Scary shit.

IMHO Dubya's policies are indirectly to blame for the latest batch of pledges to the nuclear club. Both N.Korea and Iran have been working on nukes at a feverish pace because they see it as the only sure way to keep from becoming the next Iraq.

Sad thing is they might be right.

And Kim Jong Il is the last person on this planet I want to see have his finger on the button. He's so fuckin nuts he just might push it.
Oh. My. God.

Bush is responsible? Which one? In case you have forgotten, these programs have been going on for the last 15 years or more. Bush was not in office then. What I think is that N. Korea has had these nukes for some time now, and are only coming out with the knowledge because G.W. has pushed the issue. Kind of what happened with the Irani hostage scandal while Carter was president? For years our civilians were in enemy hands. Carter was worthless. Reagan swears by all that is holy if he is elected he will go in guns blazing and pull our people out, and they'd better be unharmed. And the day before he is inaugurated, they were released. North Korea has had these nukes all through Clinton's two terms, possibly before. Iran is probably the same. Bush just happens to be doing something about it.

Amazing though. If he goes in, you Dems will scream that he has no right, even though the leaders of these nations are entirely unstable. And if he doesn't, then you will claim its because he and his administration couldn't profit from it. That kind of ignorance isn't worth arguing against.


But honestly, have you ever owned anything that was "made in Korea" that actually worked. I'm not that concerned...

Perhaps a more muscled approach of isolation will be necessary to prevent this. Still, should this happen, then I will support the attack on NK, all means necessary. But i find it doubtfull that NK would do this: Again, they may be mad, but they want to live, to hold on to power. NK leadership knows that if they were to piss off the west that bad, they wouldnt last a day.
If a nuke gets into the handsof a terrorist group, it may be too late to do something about it. Sometimes you can't wait for the mushroom cloud before acting.

Most of these would be a matter of time. If they were smart, they would disband the major "conventional" portions of their military and prepare for an unorthodox campaign.

Any air battle, armor battle, or open warfare would be won by the US - regardless of the size of the opposition.exactamente...If I was the Prez of Iran...I would be training for guerrilla war...I would buy lots of ...sniper long range...TNT.... water mines...portable anti Air...GPS jamming devices...nite vision...

hide it around....and wait for after the storm...

sell all my warplanes... they are of no use...

Simple. They're too close to their enemies. They nuke the Palestines, they nuke themselves.Why dont we nuke the Palestineans then? :D

Israel may have nukes...but they have no reason to use them; even their conventional forces open up a big can of whoop-butt on their neighbors.
:)

So very true! :)

Gotta love the Israeli Army.

exactamente...If I was the Prez of Iran...I would be training for guerrilla war...I would buy lots of ...sniper long range...TNT.... water mines...portable anti Air...GPS jamming devices...nite vision...

hide it around....and wait for after the storm...

sell all my warplanes... they are of no use...
Also, invest in some good public relations people to work on the sympathies of the American people.

Israel has to many PR problems to nuke people.

No kidding sherlock and half of, if not most of, it is undeserved.

True. The consensus in China, both among the common people and the government, is that China was mistaken to support North Korea in the Korean War. However the government will not admit it because then it would lose face. North Korea's behavior is highly annoying to China, which has been developing strong economic, political, and cultural ties to South Korea. While China can't openly cut off its nominal friendship with North Korea, the Chinese will use all its power and influence to pressure North Korea from getting out of control.
Not to mention that the government didn't officially aid North Korea even back then. Technically, "hordes" of Chinese swarmed over the border, ostensibly because US forces got too close. The government can't even be blamed for sending them. And now they are growing idealogically apart. Korea is one of the last of a dying breed in Asia, thank God.

Not to mention that the government didn't officially aid North Korea even back then. Technically, "hordes" of Chinese swarmed over the border, ostensibly because US forces got too close. The government can't even be blamed for sending them. And now they are growing idealogically apart. Korea is one of the last of a dying breed in Asia, thank God.

Yes.

Officially, there never WAS a war in Korea. There was a police operation(by the U.N.) that then went to war against an agressive North, and then against Chinese forces that crossed into North Korea and re-conquered it in self-defence.

In other words, it was one of the most screwed up wars ever. The borders were practically unchanged, hundreds of thousands died for nothng, and all it did as get everyone even MORE pissed off at each other.

Doesn't a lot of this stem from Teddy Roosevelt's lack of interest in defending Korea way back when, or was that another country who didn't have any resources we really wanted?

Doesn't a lot of this stem from Teddy Roosevelt's lack of interest in defending Korea way back when, or was that another country who didn't have any resources we really wanted?

I think it stems from the fact that just 5 years earlier we had finished the bloodiest war in human history, and we were a bit weary(for the time) of loosing tens of thousands of soldiers in a war half-way across the globe.

Yes.

Officially, there never WAS a war in Korea. There was a police operation(by the U.N.) that then went to war against an agressive North, and then against Chinese forces that crossed into North Korea and re-conquered it in self-defence.

In other words, it was one of the most screwed up wars ever. The borders were practically unchanged, hundreds of thousands died for nothng, and all it did as get everyone even MORE pissed off at each other.

Sounds like the War of 1812!

Two years of fighting resulted in nothing. All conquered territory returned. This pissed off Canada more than the US! LOL!

BTW: Is there an actual peace treaty with the Brits or are we still legally at war?

Sounds like the War of 1812!

Two years of fighting resulted in nothing. All conquered territory returned. This pissed off Canada more than the US! LOL!

BTW: Is there an actual peace treaty with the Brits or are we still legally at war?

There was a peace treaty.

In fact, the Battle of New Orleans happened after the treaty was signed!

That's sad. One of the greatest military victories in out history happened because a British Admiral didn't know that the war was over. I doubt the people in New Orleans did either :).

There was a peace treaty.

In fact, the Battle of New Orleans happened after the treaty was signed!

That's sad. One of the greatest military victories in out history happened because a British Admiral didn't know that the war was over. I doubt the people in New Orleans did either :).

Oh, and it was three years of fighting.

There was a peace treaty.

In fact, the Battle of New Orleans happened after the treaty was signed!

That's sad. One of the greatest military victories in out history happened because a British Admiral didn't know that the war was over. I doubt the people in New Orleans did either :).

Really? The Treaty of Ghent wasn't really a peace treaty. It was more of an Armistace.

Really? The Treaty of Ghent wasn't really a peace treaty. It was more of an Armistace.

Ah well.

It's kinda like how we are still at war with N. Korea. The end of the war wasn't really an end. It was a cease-fire. We never went into full-fledged talks.

So really, the war is still going on!

almost every civilean (Iraqui) man killed is deemed an insurgent by US military... :rolleyes:

To be counted as an insurgent killed, captured, or wounded in Fallujah, you had to have been armed.

Otherwise, you don't count.

The disparity in American capability vs. virtually any nation's ability to defend is more extreme than any disparity that existed in the 20th century between any nation.

The disparity is probably equivalent to the difference between the ability of Samarkand (which had one of the largest, best equipped armies on Earth at the time), or the ability of Baghdad (almost as large, and better fortifications), or the ability of the Russian princes, all from the same time period, to defend against the Mongol Army.

Needless to say, the Mongol Army went through all of them like a hot knife through butter. Partly due to technological advances - partly due to excellent training and tactics, and partly due to the idiocy of the people they attacked - who thought that fancy uniforms, dress armor, impressive military parades, bravery, and God (or Allah) would carry the day.

The only reason the Mongols didn't make it all the way to France was the premature death back home of the Khan.

And, it wasn't until the Mamluks that anyone put a force together (using modern techniques and tactics) that anyone defeated the Mongols.

So far, no one is coming up with anything as advanced, or as well trained, on the same scale as the Americans.

Also, invest in some good public relations people to work on the sympathies of the American people.
they should hire him...

http://hoffmania.blogspot.com/RoveThumbNose.jpg

this guy is pretty good

http://hoffmania.blogspot.com/RoveThumbNose.jpg

My hero!

they should hire him...

http://hoffmania.blogspot.com/RoveThumbNose.jpg
HA HA Maybe he and Carville can team up if the money is right.

To be counted as an insurgent killed......you had to have been armed.WUAHAHAHAHA
ahhhhh....

thx WL, I needed a good laugh.

To be counted as an insurgent killed, captured, or wounded in Fallujah, you had to have been armed.

Otherwise, you don't count.

The disparity in American capability vs. virtually any nation's ability to defend is more extreme than any disparity that existed in the 20th century between any nation.

The disparity is probably equivalent to the difference between the ability of Samarkand (which had one of the largest, best equipped armies on Earth at the time), or the ability of Baghdad (almost as large, and better fortifications), or the ability of the Russian princes, all from the same time period, to defend against the Mongol Army.

Needless to say, the Mongol Army went through all of them like a hot knife through butter. Partly due to technological advances - partly due to excellent training and tactics, and partly due to the idiocy of the people they attacked - who thought that fancy uniforms, dress armor, impressive military parades, bravery, and God (or Allah) would carry the day.

The only reason the Mongols didn't make it all the way to France was the premature death back home of the Khan.

And, it wasn't until the Mamluks that anyone put a force together (using modern techniques and tactics) that anyone defeated the Mongols.

So far, no one is coming up with anything as advanced, or as well trained, on the same scale as the Americans.

Nuclear deterrance. You attack us, we nuke you, you nuke us, everyone loses. Some people consider the choice "everyone loses" better than the choice "we loose"

To be counted as an insurgent killed, captured, or wounded in Fallujah, you had to have been armed.

Otherwise, you don't count.

The disparity in American capability vs. virtually any nation's ability to defend is more extreme than any disparity that existed in the 20th century between any nation.

The disparity is probably equivalent to the difference between the ability of Samarkand (which had one of the largest, best equipped armies on Earth at the time), or the ability of Baghdad (almost as large, and better fortifications), or the ability of the Russian princes, all from the same time period, to defend against the Mongol Army.

Needless to say, the Mongol Army went through all of them like a hot knife through butter. Partly due to technological advances - partly due to excellent training and tactics, and partly due to the idiocy of the people they attacked - who thought that fancy uniforms, dress armor, impressive military parades, bravery, and God (or Allah) would carry the day.

The only reason the Mongols didn't make it all the way to France was the premature death back home of the Khan.

And, it wasn't until the Mamluks that anyone put a force together (using modern techniques and tactics) that anyone defeated the Mongols.

So far, no one is coming up with anything as advanced, or as well trained, on the same scale as the Americans.


And there are other (small scale, of course) cases of This.

For example: For a time the Egyptians were the best because they used advanced technology, like Chariots, on large scales and trained their men well. They were the dominant force in Western Civilization for about 2k years.

Then came Carthage, with their massive armies of Mercenaries and war elephants. They got the most technologically advanced weapons of the time, improved them, and then conquered half the medditerranean with their fleet(which was the best in the world)

Then the Romans came and created the first fighting force that could withstand the Carthaginians. At first they tried fighting with their weapons but that didn't go so well, so they took the Carthaginian ideas, molded them into Roman image, and defeated the once invincible juggernaut. Thats how the Romans came to glory: They would assimilate their enemies tactics and weapons into their army and crush all who opposed them.

Then came the Moors. With their advanced tactics, their fanatical beliefs, and their knowledge and wisdom, they overran North Africa and conquered Spain almost overnight. They stayed for the next fre hundred years.

Then came the Normans, who used cavalry and armor to the max and conquered large areas of land(including modern day france and Britain). They just ran over all their enemies.

Then came the Ottoman Empire. This great nation took Turkish knowledge, Roman tactics, Arab weapons, and a whole mesh of things to create an awesome Empire. Nation after nation fell to their armies, and not until a Pole,J Jan III Sobieski, defeted them at Vienna did they even begin to decline, and they still lasted another 300 years.

Then came the British, who conquered alot of the world. They used their industry, good musketmen, the power of gold, and their awe-inspiring navy to defeat all their enemies.

Then came us, the Americans. So, it is only a matter of time before a more techologcially advanced nation takes our place, but methinks that won't be for a while.

A lot of militaries are fighting the wars of the late 20th century - and the US is still planning to go further ahead into the future.

Their latest improvement has been in the fighting of insurgents. Pretty soon, it won't be possible to defeat the US as an insurgency.

Then the tyranny can begin.

A lot of militaries are fighting the wars of the late 20th century - and the US is still planning to go further ahead into the future.

Their latest improvement has been in the fighting of insurgents. Pretty soon, it won't be possible to defeat the US as an insurgency.

Then the tyranny can begin.

Mmmmmyessss.....

I find it a shame that, unlike the other empire in history, we aren't using our clout to gain territories or anything! I bet leaders from every past empire would be shaking their heads at us right now.

lol

You are just trying how far you can go before someone loses his/her cool with your posts, right WL?

Come on! You can tell me! I won't tell anybody, honest. :D

Mmmmmyessss.....

I find it a shame that, unlike the other empire in history, we aren't using our clout to gain territories or anything! I bet leaders from every past empire would be shaking their heads at us right now.

This is smarter and more subtle.

First, areas that are productive don't need to be subjugated by armed force. Here, we use the "free market" and "trade agreements" to co-opt whole populations who are too lazy to fight you and really enjoy sitting in a pub drinking good beer and watching football matches. Oh, and you can still keep your bases in their countries, and they have the illusion that you are an ally, or protecting them, or something like that. In any case, they don't have any idea that you really have PWN3D them.

So they are unwitting accomplices at the very least. Plus, they are more likely to do police-state actions such as put cameras up on every street corner and take away all the firearms so that when you do eventually own the place, no one will be able to resist (the UK). Meanwhile, their wimpy governments do a lot of handwringing, and stay out of your way. Then they ask for contracts in places you just took. Germany?

Second, you frighten mid-level countries into helping with the threat of "what happens if you don't like us". You know, no loans, CIA screwing with your elections (Venezuela), multinational corporations pulling out, and in the end, the US invades your country and pulls you out of a rat hole. See Libya groveling?

And for the lowest - places like Liberia and Sierra Leone, which are barely stable and don't really have any natural resources to offer - we'll worry about those places later. Let them rot.

lol

You are just trying how far you can go before someone loses his/her cool with your posts, right WL?

Come on! You can tell me! I won't tell anybody, honest. :D

I'm trying to say what others merely hint at.
You know, the US is trying to take over the world.
I think it's already too late to say it.
If that makes someone upset, well...

It's like the frog in the pot of water. Turn the heat up fast, and the frog jumps out. Slowly raise the heat, and by the time the water is boiling, the frog is already dead.

This is smarter and more subtle.

First, areas that are productive don't need to be subjugated by armed force. Here, we use the "free market" and "trade agreements" to co-opt whole populations who are too lazy to fight you and really enjoy sitting in a pub drinking good beer and watching football matches. Oh, and you can still keep your bases in their countries, and they have the illusion that you are an ally, or protecting them, or something like that. In any case, they don't have any idea that you really have PWN3D them.

So they are unwitting accomplices at the very least. Plus, they are more likely to do police-state actions such as put cameras up on every street corner and take away all the firearms so that when you do eventually own the place, no one will be able to resist (the UK). Meanwhile, their wimpy governments do a lot of handwringing, and stay out of your way. Then they ask for contracts in places you just took. Germany?

Second, you frighten mid-level countries into helping with the threat of "what happens if you don't like us". You know, no loans, CIA screwing with your elections (Venezuela), multinational corporations pulling out, and in the end, the US invades your country and pulls you out of a rat hole. See Libya groveling?

And for the lowest - places like Liberia and Sierra Leone, which are barely stable and don't really have any natural resources to offer - we'll worry about those places later. Let them rot.


Hmmm, that makes sense.

But why do it the hard way when you can do it the easy way?

I'll explain the easy way in pictures:

http://www.socosystem.com/media/pushthebutton_002.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/6846/mxlnch.jpg

http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/cyber.img/nuke.gif

http://www.cheryllavender.com/Surreal%20Apocalypse.jpg

http://www.ebertfest.com/two/grave_wasteland.jpg

http://www.henningscake.com/Smiley_Face.JPG

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/

It finally admitted to having nukes and pulls out of the 6 nation talks.



What fun!
Yes, it is. Quikly. Invade Iran.

Yes, it is. Quikly. Invade Iran.

Better yet. Invade Poland, Belgium, and France, and plunge Europe into years of death and destruction!

Better yet. Invade Poland, Belgium, and France, and plunge Europe into years of death and destruction!

But we like Poland, remember?

This is not news and I don't know why the media is treating it as such.

Didn't they always admit to having nukes?

Yep - 2 years ago, no less.

In a roundtable discussion with the United States and China in Beijing on April 24, 2003, North Korean officials admitted for the first time that they possessed nuclear weapons. Furthermore, North Korean officials claim to have reprocessed spent fuel rods and have threatened to begin exporting nuclear materials unless the United States agrees to one-on-one talks with North Korea.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/