NationStates Jolt Archive

Kim Jong Il defied the entire international community yesterday in firing seven test missiles. One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States. (Although the north's pride and joy failed 40 seconds after lift off.) In the days leading up to the tests the world's leaders called on Kim not to fire and warned about "stern action." However, now that the launch has happened, it seems like Japan is the only country doing anything about it. Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?

Kim Jong Il defied the entire international community yesterday in firing seven test missiles. One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States. (Although the north's pride and joy failed 40 seconds after lift off.) In the days leading up to the tests the world's leaders called on Kim not to fire and warned about "stern action." However, now that the launch has happened, it seems like Japan is the only country doing anything about it. Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?
What threat? Lil' Kim isn't going to launch a nuke at anybody.

What can we do? I mean really, yes, they didn't listen to what we said, but it wasn't necessarily an offensive action. We must wait and see what else happens.

What threat? Lil' Kim isn't going to launch a nuke at anybody.
I think the Sea of Japan may be in trouble, however.

Ever notice how small Kim Jong Il is?

http://i6.tinypic.com/1z4zi2a.jpg

Look how big that wine glass is compared to him.

One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States.

That's news to me.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41853000/gif/_41853154_north_korea_4_416x309.gif

I think the Sea of Japan may be in trouble, however.


I think we need to look into building more fall out shelters for the fish. :D

I think we need to look into building more fall out shelters for the fish. :D
And the water! It might get hurt!

Kim Jong Il defied the entire international community yesterday in firing seven test missiles. One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States. (Although the north's pride and joy failed 40 seconds after lift off.) In the days leading up to the tests the world's leaders called on Kim not to fire and warned about "stern action." However, now that the launch has happened, it seems like Japan is the only country doing anything about it. Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?
Oh yes. We are scared shitless of a tinpot wanker who couldn't find his own ass with both hands even if most of his fellow wankers helped him! :rolleyes:

That's news to me.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41853000/gif/_41853154_north_korea_4_416x309.gif



...what...did alaska secede from the union in the past 12 hours or something..last time i checked that was a state.


the missile has a range of 9000 miles...which actually reaches deeper into the united states than alaska, actually into the mid west which is about 9000 miles from north korea.

And the water! It might get hurt!


SOMEBODY CALL THE A.C.L.U.
WATER HAS RIGHTS TOO!!!!

Kim Jong Il defied the entire international community yesterday in firing seven test missiles. One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States. (Although the north's pride and joy failed 40 seconds after lift off.) In the days leading up to the tests the world's leaders called on Kim not to fire and warned about "stern action." However, now that the launch has happened, it seems like Japan is the only country doing anything about it. Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?
If anybody lauches a nuke, they'll soon find themselves a pariah country in the international community.

There's a reason we're trying to prevent the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Say what you like about Kim Jon Il being a cruel tinpot dictator; but to launch a nuke againt his country means killing hundreds of thousand of innocents.

If anybody lauches a nuke, they'll soon find themselves a pariah country in the international community.

There's a reason we're trying to prevent the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Say what you like about Kim Jon Il being a cruel tinpot dictator; but to launch a nuke againt his country means killing hundreds of thousand of innocents.


...thank you captain obvious.

SOMEBODY CALL THE A.C.L.U.
WATER HAS RIGHTS TOO!!!!
Where's Green Bay?!?! They would have a field day with this!!!

Say what you like about Kim Jon Il being a cruel tinpot dictator; but to launch a nuke againt his country means killing hundreds of thousand of innocents.
Aye. The "stern action", as far as I know, was to stop trading with NK completely, or at least in materials that could be used to build missiles.

If anybody lauches a nuke, they'll soon find themselves a pariah country in the international community.

There's a reason we're trying to prevent the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Say what you like about Kim Jon Il being a cruel tinpot dictator; but to launch a nuke againt his country means killing hundreds of thousand of innocents.
We'll of course, but, do you thinks he cares? If I remember right, Korea hates America and the west almost as much as bin laden. I don't think he or his people would feel to sorry about doing that.

We'll of course, but, do you thinks he cares? If I remember right, Korea hates America and the west almost as much as bin laden. I don't think he or his people would feel to sorry about doing that.


you know...why not nuke them and kill off all the people...Kim already has millions of north koreans starving to death. your right...its obvious he doesnt care about his people. any more than...say...americans care about the world cup.

Kim Jong Il defied the entire international community yesterday in firing seven test missiles. One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States. (Although the north's pride and joy failed 40 seconds after lift off.) In the days leading up to the tests the world's leaders called on Kim not to fire and warned about "stern action." However, now that the launch has happened, it seems like Japan is the only country doing anything about it. Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?

Too scared? People like you would be the first ones yelling and screaming that we went into Korea. Its people like the Democrats that are bitching that we aren't doing anything, but if we did they'd whine we didn't go to the UN first. All the UN is gonna do is point its finger at North Korea and tell them how they were a bad boy and need to stop doing that. I think we need to screw the UN and get China, Japan, the U.S., South Korea, and Russia to bomb hell out of North Korea, start an invasion to remove this maniac from power. He is clearly a threat to the WORLD! He has violated countless orders and resolutions barring him from using these missles. The longer we wait the more of a threat they become to surrounding countries. To tell ya the truth, this is scary, it really is. A maniac is running a country threating to set of missles capable of reaching Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alaska, Canada. He needs to be stopped. And report is, as of yesterday, Kim was planning on setting off another 3 to 5 missles.

...what...did alaska secede from the union in the past 12 hours or something..last time i checked that was a state.

Oh pshaw ... who cares about polar bears?

Oh pshaw ... who cares about polar bears?
But the caribou?!?!

...thank you captain obvious.
This is worth repeating. Your sarcasm aside, you certainyl must realize a lot of retards are always saying "OMFG!!! N00k them!!! TURN THEIR COUNTRY INTO PLATE GLASS!!11!!1!Eleven!!"

Those morons need to be reminded there are countless civillian lives at stake.

Too scared? People like you would be the first ones yelling and screaming that we went into Korea.

People like me...? I'm a neo con war hawk who is on the verge of foaming at the mouth because I want to start bombing so much. (but like the post above this one says...civilian lives are at stake...and in a communist dictatorship...the people believe in the government because thats what they're told. so bombing innocent civilians is relitavely unfair. i actually think it would be more benificial just to send in a special ops force to assassinate kim.)


....technically...we are still at war with north korea...we never signed a peace treaty...just an armistice. and an armistace doesnt end a war, a peace treaty does. so really, its not illegal

But the caribou?!?!



caribou...polar bears...how soon we forget the snowy owl. :rolleyes:

But the caribou?!?!

Damnit! We must protect them at all costs! Kim must be stopped!

how soon we forget the snowy owl. :rolleyes:

Screw them ... they still owe me money.

you know...why not nuke them and kill off all the people...Kim already has millions of north koreans starving to death. your right...its obvious he doesnt care about his people. any more than...say...americans care about the world cup.
Uhhh, did I say anything about nukeing him or anybody? All I said was that I don't think Korea would care about killing the innocent. Hell you just prove he doesnt even care about his own people so why would he care about the US?

That's news to me.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41853000/gif/_41853154_north_korea_4_416x309.gif
You forget the Jet Stream can add hundreds of knots of speed and could effectively double the range of the Tapedong 2. But it only needs to get halfway there if they airburst the weapon and use it as a huge EMP.

And they've threatened nuclear war with the of the USA, China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea if any of them try anything with them. So yeah, they launch again I say we shoot it down and if its a live warhead we nuke them back to the Jurrasic period.

People like me...? I'm a neo con war hawk who is on the verge of foaming at the mouth because I want to start bombing so much.


....technically...we are still at war with north korea...we never signed a peace treaty...just an armistice. and an armistace doesnt end a war, a peace treaty does. so really, its not illegal

I didn't say it was illegal. I fully agree Kim needs to get nuked to hell and back. I'm just saying, the Democrats are already having a cow over Iraq and Afghanistan. Korea next? They'd be hiring hitmen to try to kill Bush. Sheehan will be on the news more than she already is. Her voices already annoys me enough.

caribou...polar bears...how soon we forget the snowy owl. :rolleyes:
And the otters...the love of my life. I'm sorry! Forgive me, Monsieur le Loutre!

Sanctions'll do. Period.

Sanctions'll do. Period.

Ya. They've done just fine haven't they? Korea is not gonna get on its knees and appoligize because we won't give them food or money. Kim could careless. Sanctions are only going to fuel the fire. You need to take him out of power before its too late.

Those morons need to be reminded there are countless civilian lives at stake.

And just a little comment....I know there's civilians there. But you forget that I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT FOREIGN CIVILLIANS!


And yes, I guess the liberals that seem to plague this website would paint me a neo-con warhawk who wants to dominate the world.

Come to think of it, I might just be that. Who knows, but then again I'm not politician. I call it as I see it, wear my heart on my sleeve, and don't care who sees it.


Also, on a side note, captured files were just declassified showing a pre-9/11 Taliban-Iraqi alliance. Add that to the WMDs we found and everything Bush said is now proven right. BOO YAH WHINEY BITCHES!

It would not make a lick of sense to Nuke North Korea...the have had 50 years to build underground fortresses in the mountains. To nuke them would be nuking a mountain, it wouldn't work. A ground burst would be absorbed by the mountains, and air burst would only effect the mountain right below it.

Besides, it aftermath would effect Japan, South Korea, China(do not, I repeat, do not, piss off China)Russia, Alaska, and the West Coast of Canada and the US. All of that to nuke a mountain.

And just a little comment....I know there's civilians there. But you forget that I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT FOREIGN CIVILLIANS!


And yes, I guess the liberals that seem to plague this website would paint me a neo-con warhawk who wants to dominate the world.

Come to think of it, I might just be that. Who knows, but then again I'm not politician. I call it as I see it, wear my heart on my sleeve, and don't care who sees it.


Also, on a side note, captured files were just declassified showing a pre-9/11 Taliban-Iraqi alliance. Add that to the WMDs we found and everything Bush said is now proven right. BOO YAH WHINEY BITCHES!


Amen to the one that watches conservative tv.

And just a little comment....I know there's civilians there. But you forget that I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT FOREIGN CIVILLIANS!


And yes, I guess the liberals that seem to plague this website would paint me a neo-con warhawk who wants to dominate the world.

Come to think of it, I might just be that. Who knows, but then again I'm not politician. I call it as I see it, wear my heart on my sleeve, and don't care who sees it.


Also, on a side note, captured files were just declassified showing a pre-9/11 Taliban-Iraqi alliance. Add that to the WMDs we found and everything Bush said is now proven right. BOO YAH WHINEY BITCHES!
The taliban are not al qaeda, and I'd like to see a link to an article about the documents.
We didn't find WMD.
Bush was wrong about virtually everything.

I didn't say it was illegal. I fully agree Kim needs to get nuked to hell and back. I'm just saying, the Democrats are already having a cow over Iraq and Afghanistan. Korea next? They'd be hiring hitmen to try to kill Bush. Sheehan will be on the news more than she already is. Her voices already annoys me enough.



yeah i know you didnt mean it wasnst illegal. i just figured that somebody would read that and say "OH IT WOULD BE AN ILLEGAL WAR."

The taliban are not al qaeda, and I'd like to see a link to an article about the documents.
We didn't find WMD.
Bush was wrong about virtually everything.
Which is why he's the butt of a lot of jokes.

The taliban are not al qaeda, and I'd like to see a link to an article about the documents.
We didn't find WMD.
Bush was wrong about virtually everything.


You listen to the news too much. And yes there were WMD's found. A warehouse was found with mustard gas and other chemical agents in it. Recent declassified information says that in April, I believe, these agents were found. So you're wrong.

As for the Taliban it basically was al Qaeda. The leaders in the Taliban had strong connections to those in al Qaeda including bin Laden. The supplied the Taliban with money, weapons, and military training. So again, you are wrong.

Sanctions'll do. Period.


how do you figure...they didnt work in '98. and they didnt stop this launch...why waste more UN money and time on sanctions. i say just take out the fat little chink before he does any damage.

yeah i know you didnt mean it wasnst illegal. i just figured that somebody would read that and say "OH IT WOULD BE AN ILLEGAL WAR."

Oh ok. I understand. And you're completely right. And as a second point, in October of 2001, congress passed a bill giving Bush all power to protect America and its allies from terrorism and to protect freedom. Just thought it'd throw that point in too.

And just a little comment....I know there's civilians there. But you forget that I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT FOREIGN CIVILLIANS!


And yes, I guess the liberals that seem to plague this website would paint me a neo-con warhawk who wants to dominate the world.

Come to think of it, I might just be that. Who knows, but then again I'm not politician. I call it as I see it, wear my heart on my sleeve, and don't care who sees it.


Also, on a side note, captured files were just declassified showing a pre-9/11 Taliban-Iraqi alliance. Add that to the WMDs we found and everything Bush said is now proven right. BOO YAH WHINEY BITCHES!



WAIT WOAH...we found WMDs!!!!!!!!!!! where did you hear that becasue that is music to my ears. like im not even kidding.

Ya. They've done just fine haven't they? Korea is not gonna get on its knees and appoligize because we won't give them food or money. Kim could careless. Sanctions are only going to fuel the fire. You need to take him out of power before its too late.

But someone more brutal and not as Dim witted could take his place

"You listen to the news too much. And yes there were WMD's found. A warehouse was found with mustard gas and other chemical agents in it. Recent declassified information says that in April, I believe, these agents were found. So you're wrong.

As for the Taliban it basically was al Qaeda. The leaders in the Taliban had strong connections to those in al Qaeda including bin Laden. The supplied the Taliban with money, weapons, and military training. So again, you are wrong."

I remember that, it was a warehouse with some chemicals in it that was it. The Taliban are back in power and running afghanistan they have been since we left, very few of the leading members were actually arrested and by the admittance of interogators most of the ones we did arrest were just grunts.

WAIT WOAH...we found WMDs!!!!!!!!!!! where did you hear that becasue that is music to my ears. like im not even kidding.

Yes. Its news to you because its only been said on the news once. I heard it last night on Fox News. They did a thing on it. Mustard gas and other agents were found in a warehouse in Iraq. The information was just recently declassified and allowed for public information. If you give me a sec I can find the article and more infor for ya.

But someone more brutal and not as Dim witted could take his place

"You listen to the news too much. And yes there were WMD's found. A warehouse was found with mustard gas and other chemical agents in it. Recent declassified information says that in April, I believe, these agents were found. So you're wrong.

As for the Taliban it basically was al Qaeda. The leaders in the Taliban had strong connections to those in al Qaeda including bin Laden. The supplied the Taliban with money, weapons, and military training. So again, you are wrong."

I remember that, it was a warehouse with some chemicals in it that was it. The Taliban are back in power and running afghanistan they have been since we left, very few of the leading members were actually arrested and by the admittance of interogators most of the ones we did arrest were just grunts.

Since when did we leave Afghanistan? That's news to me. Last time I heard Afghanistan had a prime minster and elections. Learn the facts so you don't look dumb. You made that stuff. You pulled it from your ass. The Taliban has been kicked out of Afghanistan and many of them have been arrested. Take a visit to Cuba if you don't believe me.

Dude, those were from the early 90s...they could probably only give a human a rash...Maybe it would kill if they used all of it, but you can say the same about raid.

Besides, what ever happened to Iraq getting uranium from Libya? I believe Colon Powell said that was a reason for the war.

Ladies and gents. Read away. Chemical weapons have been found.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200726,00.html

Dude, those were from the early 90s...they could probably only give a human a rash...Maybe it would kill if they used all of it, but you can say the same about raid.

Besides, what ever happened to Iraq getting uranium from Libya? I believe Colon Powell said that was a reason for the war.

No. You're wrong again. Read the article on Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200726,00.html

That shows you're wrong. If you still think you're right, lets see sources.

Since when did we leave Afghanistan? That's news to me. Last time I heard Afghanistan had a prime minster and elections. Learn the facts so you don't look dumb. You made that stuff. You pulled it from your ass. The Taliban has been kicked out of Afghanistan and many of them have been arrested. Take a visit to Cuba if you don't believe me.

There was a very long documentry called "Here's one we invaded earlier" on British station Channel 4 about Afghanistan. That had many interviews with Afghani people and it also showed who really ruled the country also How the heroine industry had boomed since the invasion. The democratically elected leader by his own admission said he had very little power because he constantly feared for his life. There was a show on Discovery about Gitmo and interrogations in Afghanistan. Interrogators stated that most of the prisoners were just hauled off the streets by the western alliance as the most the terrorist looking people they could find, they were paid even if the person had nothing to do with terrorism or insurgency. They also stated that most of the people they had in custody were just footsoldiers.

...thank you captain obvious.


That remark is sig worthy.

Also, on a side note, captured files were just declassified showing a pre-9/11 Taliban-Iraqi alliance.
By "alliance" do you mean "Donald Rumsfeld's policies gave them both weapons"?

Ladies and gents. Read away. Chemical weapons have been found.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200726,00.htmlAh, leave it to Faux News to spin 500 canisters that either have or used to have sarine gas in them into the dangerous weapons of mass destruction that would have annihilated us if we hadn't taken out Saddam.

Your source is a bunch of men arguing? Oh please.

Those weapons were degraded were they not? That means they were OLD! Bush went to war saying that Iraq was making WMDs or in the process of making WMDs and the word nuclear was thrown around multiple times.

There was a very long documentry called "Here's one we invaded earlier" on British station Channel 4 about Afghanistan. That had many interviews with Afghani people and it also showed who really ruled the country also How the heroine industry had boomed since the invasion. The democratically elected leader by his own admission said he had very little power because he constantly feared for his life. There was a show on Discovery about Gitmo and interrogations in Afghanistan. Interrogators stated that most of the prisoners were just hauled off the streets by the western alliance as the most the terrorist looking people they could find, they were paid even if the person had nothing to do with terrorism or insurgency. They also stated that most of the people they had in custody were just footsoldiers.

Let me tell you about that network. It only tells you what it wants you to hear. You only heard half the story. The true story is there is no Talbian. Ya you can't go walking your dog down the street, but women can show their face, men and women can vote, you can hold a job, you can speak your mind without being shot. You listen to the liberal network. Try listening to the other side as well.

As just a personal pet peeve off topic....sorta, it humors me and angers me when people from other countries try to explain what's going on in the United States without even being in the country or seen it before. Listening to the news is pointless, seeing its more corrupt than the own government. Anyway, back on topic.

I believe Colon Powell said that was..


*STOP* colon...COLON!!!!! a colon is a body part. Maybe you mean Colin Powell? :rolleyes:

Let me tell you about that network. It only tells you what it wants you to hear. You only heard half the story. The true story is there is no Talbian. Ya you can't go walking your dog down the street, but women can show their face, men and women can vote, you can hold a job, you can speak your mind without being shot. You listen to the liberal network. Try listening to the other side as well.

As just a personal pet peeve off topic....sorta, it humors me and angers me when people from other countries try to explain what's going on in the United States without even being in the country or seen it before. Listening to the news is pointless, seeing its more corrupt than the own government. Anyway, back on topic.


I really really really want to back you right now...but you did get your source from the "convervative" network.

Ah, leave it to Faux News to spin 500 canisters that either have or used to have sarine gas in them into the dangerous weapons of mass destruction that would have annihilated us if we hadn't taken out Saddam.

Aren't you the one that believes there were no WMD's? O that right, when the evidence is right in front of you ignore it and say Bush is a liar. Looks to me that he wasn't suh a liar to me.

Your source is a bunch of men arguing? Oh please.

Those weapons were degraded were they not? That means they were OLD! Bush went to war saying that Iraq was making WMDs or in the process of making WMDs and the word nuclear was thrown around multiple times.

Did you not read the article? Obviously not seeing as these weapons were made within the last 10 years and capible of killing thousands.

http://www.bamn.com/doc/2003/030304-e-nowar.asp


OK...i was looking for the text of bush's '03 war declaration to see just exactly what we went to war for...and i found this...and...damn. its just funny.

Let me tell you about that network. It only tells you what it wants you to hear. You only heard half the story. The true story is there is no Talbian. Ya you can't go walking your dog down the street, but women can show their face, men and women can vote, you can hold a job, you can speak your mind without being shot. You listen to the liberal network. Try listening to the other side as well.



The guy who presented the show was pretty consverative and Discovery liberal? C'mon...
Women still can't show there faces
Yes, they can vote but it dosen't mean anything will happen
An election campaign is when a guys burst out of a van with a 20 guys in balaclavas armed with AK47s and shout into the street
the only person who seemed free to speak his mind was a drug dealer.

I am quiete open to consverative views, criminals should get tougher jail terms and innocent people should be able to own guns without so much red tape but you have to face facts the Taliban run Afghanistan.

The true story is there is no Talbian. Ya you can't go walking your dog down the street, but women can show their face, men and women can vote, you can hold a job, you can speak your mind without being shot.

Well ... except for all that nasty bombing ...

Aren't you the one that believes there were no WMD's? O that right, when the evidence is right in front of you ignore it and say Bush is a liar. Looks to me that he wasn't suh a liar to me.That's because you watch Faux News ;)

EDIT: So who were you before, if you claim to have known what I said earlier?

There is a huge difference bewteen Nuclear weapons and old mustard gas...

I don't think that anybody has any right especialy this country to tell anyone else weather or not they can have nuclear weapons or power or whatever If the US wants to tell the other countries of the world not to have any then the US should get down off there high horse and destroy the US'S own nukes. That being said I don't think that anyone should have any nukes at all.

There is a huge difference bewteen Nuclear weapons and old mustard gas...

A little mustard gas on rye with pickles and corned beef is a nice thing.

I don't think that anybody has any right especialy this country to tell anyone else weather or not they can have nuclear weapons or power or whatever If the US wants to tell the other countries of the world not to have any then the US should get down off there high horse and destroy the US'S own nukes. That being said I don't think that anyone should have any nukes at all.

I agree, but you don't disarm before everyone else is.

I don't think that anybody has any right especialy this country to tell anyone else weather or not they can have nuclear weapons or power or whatever If the US wants to tell the other countries of the world not to have any then the US should get down off there high horse and destroy the US'S own nukes. That being said I don't think that anyone should have any nukes at all.



AHH you see thats where your wrong...you dont understand that a few years ago north korea signed a pact saying that it would not seek nuclear arms. that is a legally binding agreement that the north korean diplomats put their signatures on. they have breached their binding agreement by developing nuclear weapons. if they hadnt signed that little piece of paper...then you would be right...but with those signatures...they signed away their right to posess nuclear weaopns.

Mustard gas, lol! How long did they searched for that? Looong. The must have been tons of it... (yes, sarcasm)

Nuke North Korea. Hm... Kill millions of innocent people.. For what? North Korea winn never launch an nuclear attack against US/South Korea/Japan/Whatever, because few minutes after that they would be nuked too. They really just protect themselves against USA. They have nukes = USA will not attack.

"On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm."
~Bush's 48 hour speech (Ultimatim before the war)


HAHAAHAHAHAHAHA LIBERALS.....THE UN SAID SADDAM HAD WMDs HAHAHAHAH BUSH DIDNT LIE!!!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

"On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm."
~Bush's 48 hour speech (Ultimatim before the war)Got a link to that so we can read the rest of the context?

Mustard gas, lol! How long did they searched for that? Looong. The must have been tons of it... (yes, sarcasm)

Nuke North Korea. Hm... Kill millions of innocent people.. For what? North Korea winn never launch an nuclear attack against US/South Korea/Japan/Whatever, because few minutes after that they would be nuked too. They really just protect themselves against USA. They have nukes = USA will not attack.


1) ballistic missile defence system
2) if they dissarm why do they have to fear the US, or any other country.

if they get rid of the nukes and missiles then they have no need for protection against the US.

remember children: Kim Jong Il is a communist dictator who employs propaganda to sway his people so that they support him. you probably shouldnt listen to him when he goes on one of his insane rants about why he needes nukes.

Got a link to that so we can read the rest of the context?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html


yup

Kim Jong Il defied the entire international community yesterday in firing seven test missiles. One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States. (Although the north's pride and joy failed 40 seconds after lift off.) In the days leading up to the tests the world's leaders called on Kim not to fire and warned about "stern action." However, now that the launch has happened, it seems like Japan is the only country doing anything about it. Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?

We can't do anything. Should we need to defend ourselves we're stuck in Iraq. Those of us who suggested perhaps we save the military strength for when it's needed were called un-American.

I agree, along with some others, that military action is needed, but "Nuke North Korea!" is nothing but overblown hyperbole.

N. Korea is a paper tiger of a military, which is why they're desperate to come up with measures to intimidate nearby nations into non-intervention...We don't need nukes to defeat them.

Remember, a few years ago, the Taepodong flew over Japan...It's no guarantee that the missiles will continue to be as ineffective as they were two days ago during the testing....With effective long-range firepower, they could affix even non-nuclear warheads (like conventional explosives or chemical/bio-weapons), and aim them at naval forces in the area, which threatens to cause more casualties if necessary actions are ever taken against N. Korea....Also, these types of missiles will approach targets faster than the usual Scuds they use....Which will make Allied targets in the area even more vulnerable to a devestating strike.

If we wait long enough, and do nothing to stop him, he will eventually be able to play nuclear blackmail with nations around the planet, and threaten the freedom of the South Koreans...

Kim Jong Ill has already stated that any sanctions will result in "all-out countermeasures"...A threat of pre-emptive attack, and a subsequent War....If we capitulate, he will arm himself until his regime is unassailable to any outside N. Korea. If he is invaded after this, you can bet he will make any such war very costly for the victors...He will be able to proliferate nuclear weapons around the world with impunity, to whichever clients he chooses, wether they be other nations, or terrorist groups...We cannot allow an insane totalitarian dictator to hold the world hostage.

We can't do anything. Should we need to defend ourselves we're stuck in Iraq. Those of us who suggested perhaps we save the military strength for when it's needed were called un-American.
We are not "stuck" in Iraq....We have a total military force strength of about 1 to 1.5 million troops, many of them already based near North Korea...

Also, only about 2% of troops are ever fired upon or injured.

True that you can't disarm before everyone else does especially not if your the USA to many ppl hate this country for it to be safe but I just don't think the US has the right to tell anybody what to do thats why pppl don't like this country ppl are nosey and they tell everybody what to do that's why nobody likes it. Besides didn't the US have a little bit of trouble last time they went to korea to start something.

On a side note mustard gas is not a wmd and they never did find them. I can't beleive u are all still argueing about this everybody knows why he went to war he was just trying to show off to his daddy. Also about the war in afghanistan gw is just as bad as kim as far as I am concerned why you ask because he could give a damn about innocent civillians in this country. Just like I said look at the war in afghanistan after 9/11 if he really cared about innocent ppl he wouldn't have let osama go. But no he had to go show off to his daddy. He doesn't care about anything but money if he did he wouldn't have been smoozing to the saudi prince a family "friend" even thought something like 17 or 18 of the hijackers were saudi if this was about ppl and not money then it would maybe have been war with saudi and not anybody else.

1) ballistic missile defence system
2) if they dissarm why do they have to fear the US, or any other country.

if they get rid of the nukes and missiles then they have no need for protection against the US.

remember children: Kim Jong Il is a communist dictator who employs propaganda to sway his people so that they support him. you probably shouldnt listen to him when he goes on one of his insane rants about why he needes nukes.

Oh yeah he does propaganda but you know who else is good at handing out propagana is the US.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html


yup
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.Aha, 500 canisters of degraded sarine gas.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.Not in itself a lie, but needless fearmongering.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.Are the 500 canisters worth it?
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.500 canisters that the Faux link said the Iraqis claimed they couldn't find anymore do not constitute a chemical weapons program.
Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.Well what do you know? He lied after all!
Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people.That man has his priorities straight! :D
And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail.Of course, it must be perfectly alright for the President of the US to do something like that...
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.A direct contradiction to what the Downing Street memos say.

Amazonia, have you ever heard of a comma?

You know what smart ass we are talking about possibly millions of ppl dying and jerks like you come in and talk about grammer. Really what good is grammer if u are dead?:upyours:

Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?
Other countries are like the French, they're too scared to do anything. But the US, I guarentee you the US is not too afraid to nuke N.Korea(which I might add is completely justified at this time) because we understand the world has changed after 9/11, something other countries dont get. So I think we should nuke them before they threaten the world by using nuclear weapons. freedom must be defended before it is threatened.

It's easy for somebody in the US to talk about other countries being afraid to do anything or just say nuke people. 1st.) because nobody has ever blown up your backyard. And I hope you have fun when everybody decides they have had enough of the US's bull.

Nothing justifies killing milions of ppl. The last person that thought something justified killing millions of People. Was hitler do you like him? And you know if you defend freedom before it is attacked then you are not defending you are attacking and ppl don't historically like ppl defend before being attacked in anyway.

You know what smart ass we are talking about possibly millions of ppl dying and jerks like you come in and talk about grammer. Really what good is grammer if u are dead?:upyours:

Well right now you're not, so it might be of some use. It might also make people take you just a wee bit more seriously. :)

Back on topic, if worst comes to worst, we send in the Marines. It worked the first time. Nuclear weapons aren't really such a grand idea in this case. We've got the South Koreans directly to the south, and the Japanese to the east. Wind patterns might carry some of the fallout to them, and that's not exactly a good thing.

And no sending the marines in last time did not work remember had it of worked then there wouldn't be a north and south korea there would just be a Korea like Vietnam we lost that one.

Those weapons were degraded were they not? That means they were OLD!

Yes, they were degraded. However, chemical weapons like sarin and Mustard gas take hundreds of years to fully degrade. These weapons found ARE STILL deadly, even if it takes a concentration 12% more potent. One thing about these weapons you also forgot is that Saddam said he never had these weapons, even the degraded stuff. i know about this because I live in Huntsville, Alabama where on Redstone Arsenal here WE STORE SARIN, MUSTARD GAS, AND OTHER STUFF HTOUSANDS TIMES MORE DEADLY. then there's the Anniston Army depot where they destroy some of these weapons. We have a lot of chemical weapons here and so I've talked to the experts about this.

And then you also forget that we found the infrastructure to make Anthrax that could be activated within a week and produce literally tons of the stuff per year.

And then there's also the roadside bomb the insurgents screwed up with ACTIVE Sarin in it launched the same day we killed Saddam's sons. The only reason it didn't go chemical was they screwed up fusing the chemical component.

Or the Al Asmoud (or however the hell you spell it) 2 missiles the french sold them that could theoretically reach New York city if launched polarly.





but back to the main point, North Korea is becoming a menace to the security of the region and needs to be pacified some way or another. I prefer the sure-fire method of liquidating their entire leadership and military. After all, a headless and fangless snake poses no threat unless you tie it into a noose.

You listen to the news too much. And yes there were WMD's found. A warehouse was found with mustard gas and other chemical agents in it. Recent declassified information says that in April, I believe, these agents were found. So you're wrong.

As for the Taliban it basically was al Qaeda. The leaders in the Taliban had strong connections to those in al Qaeda including bin Laden. The supplied the Taliban with money, weapons, and military training. So again, you are wrong.
Link to it or I'll assume you're lying.

And no sending the marines in last time did not work remember had it of worked then there wouldn't be a north and south korea there would just be a Korea like Vietnam we lost that one.

Eh, not quite. The Marines won their battles. The Army lost a lot of theirs. Thus, the Marines had to head back south to clean up th resulting mess. If you notice, by the time the U.S. entered in full force, most of South Korea was under Northern occupation. After the Marines spearheaded the landing at Incheon and proceeded to take Seoul, that changed quite radically.

It's easy for somebody in the US to talk about other countries being afraid to do anything or just say nuke people. 1st.) because nobody has ever blown up your backyard. And I hope you have fun >when everybody decides they have had enough of the US's bull.
Thats not true, the revolutionary war, spanish war, french war, and the mexican war were all fought in our backyard. So was the start of the war on terror. It wasnt until G.W. Bush came along that people realized its better to fight them over there so we dont have to fight them over here.


Nothing justifies killing milions of ppl. The last person that thought something justified killing millions of People.
Again, not true. YOur thinking in a pre-9/11 mindset. It is completely justified to defend freedom, you do like freedom right?

Was hitler do you like him? And you know if you defend freedom before it is attacked then you are not defending you are attacking and ppl don't historically like ppl defend before being attacked in anyway.
No, being on the offense in the best defense.

Ladies and gents. Read away. Chemical weapons have been found.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200726,00.html
"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions, which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve gas."Degraded. Great. This proves what we already knew. Saddam once had chemical weapons. As of the start of the current war, however, he did not. He had leftover residue.

He had leftover residue.
Which he could have used to destroy America.

Kim Jong Il defied the entire international community yesterday in firing seven test missiles. One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States. (Although the north's pride and joy failed 40 seconds after lift off.) In the days leading up to the tests the world's leaders called on Kim not to fire and warned about "stern action." However, now that the launch has happened, it seems like Japan is the only country doing anything about it. Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?
And, pray tell, under which treaty is that illegal? `Cause I'm dying to know so I can cite it to various offenders, starting with the US.

AHH you see thats where your wrong...you dont understand that a few years ago north korea signed a pact saying that it would not seek nuclear arms. that is a legally binding agreement that the north korean diplomats put their signatures on. they have breached their binding agreement by developing nuclear weapons. if they hadnt signed that little piece of paper...then you would be right...but with those signatures...they signed away their right to posess nuclear weaopns.
A legally binding argument that can be rescinded with a notice.

AS far as I'm concerned the US government need to give Canada back 5 billions in illegal fines on softwood before they can whine about a broken treaty.

Yes, they were degraded. However, chemical weapons like sarin and Mustard gas take hundreds of years to fully degrade. These weapons found ARE STILL deadly, even if it takes a concentration 12% more potent. One thing about these weapons you also forgot is that Saddam said he never had these weapons, even the degraded stuff. i know about this because I live in Huntsville, Alabama where on Redstone Arsenal here WE STORE SARIN, MUSTARD GAS, AND OTHER STUFF HTOUSANDS TIMES MORE DEADLY. then there's the Anniston Army depot where they destroy some of these weapons. We have a lot of chemical weapons here and so I've talked to the experts about this.

And then you also forget that we found the infrastructure to make Anthrax that could be activated within a week and produce literally tons of the stuff per year.

And then there's also the roadside bomb the insurgents screwed up with ACTIVE Sarin in it launched the same day we killed Saddam's sons. The only reason it didn't go chemical was they screwed up fusing the chemical component.

Or the Al Asmoud (or however the hell you spell it) 2 missiles the french sold them that could theoretically reach New York city if launched polarly.





but back to the main point, North Korea is becoming a menace to the security of the region and needs to be pacified some way or another. I prefer the sure-fire method of liquidating their entire leadership and military. After all, a headless and fangless snake poses no threat unless you tie it into a noose.
You're paranoid. Saddam was never a threat to the USA. He was a thug, and thugs don't try to attack the police station. They'd much rather keep on breathing. I wish Saddam was back in power and had tons of Anthrax and VX to keep the Iranians in line.

Also were Saddam's chemical weapons as pure as American ones? Probably not. Contaminants degrade them quicker. Were Saddam's chemical weapons stored in nice, environmentally controlled conditions? Nope. They would have degraded to the point where they'd be low grade bug spray.

And making tons of Anthrax isn't all that hard. You can buy the equipment on Ebay.

On a side note mustard gas is not a wmd and they never did find them.

Wrong on both accounts.
1) We did find them. Read the White house press Release/declassified documents about this. link to follow.
2) The use of mustard gas is EXPRESSLY prohibited by the Geneva convention of 1918 as a weapons of mass destruction as are all aerosol-based weapons such as sarin, Hydrogen Cyanoide, VX, and anything more toxic than the CS Tear Gas used to disperse crowds.
3) (ooh boy....the hippy messed with the wrong person on this one) The Marines DID NOT SCREW UP IN KOREA! TO QUOTE A KOREAN INSTRUCTIONAL PAMPHLET, "Do not attack those with yellow legs." At the time marines WERE THE ONLY SERVICE to use khaki leggings and made them distinctive to the enemy, and expressively feared by them. At Choisin Resevior, the Marines under Chesty Puller's command were surrounded, outnumbered 22-1, low on supplies, and fighting in sub-freezing temperatures. Not only did his forces rejoin the American lines but killed over 17500 enemies while losing less than 1200 men (wounded, captured, or killed). so, no they didn't screw up in the least.
4) For some reason you just don't strike me as anything but a pre-pubescent teen at best who wants "love and peace" for everybody but does not understand the price that must be paid for such peace. Wars are always going to happen and nobody understands that more than those who fight those wars. Let me explain something to you nice and easy, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPRESS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS IF IT WEREN'T FOR GOOD MEN WHO LIVED, DIED, AND KILLED IN THESE WARS YOU SO DESPISE! I am enlisting as of February of '07 and I WILL GO FIGHT. I am backing up my views with my life quite literally, what are you doing to make sure as few people die as possible?

Kim Jong Il defied the entire international community yesterday in firing seven test missiles. One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States. (Although the north's pride and joy failed 40 seconds after lift off.) In the days leading up to the tests the world's leaders called on Kim not to fire and warned about "stern action." However, now that the launch has happened, it seems like Japan is the only country doing anything about it. Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?


I guess the US stationing PAC-3 antimissile systems in South Korea and Japan is "doing nothing".

I guess the US stationing AEGIS ships armed with SM-3 antimissile systesm in the waters off North Korea is "doing nothing".

I guess the US monitoring North Korean launch facilities with satellites and spy aircraft is "doing nothing".

And using the tracking radars of the Ground Based AntiBallistic Missile System is "doing nothing".

Yeah, keep thinking that.

Kim Jong Il will not launch a nuclear attack, because if he did, we would. If he somehow managed to keep us from launching the nukes we got laying around everywhere, there are other countries that would nuke them too. Eventually, the nuclear weapons would cause mass irradiation.

It won't be the end of the world, just the end of humans.
Thats why no one but religious fundamentalists are likely to launch nukes.
North Korea is claiming use as deterrance; both the US and USSR actually used this their own policies for a long time without getting into a war with each other.

As for Saddam, we found no weapons of mass destruction that we were looking for. The chemical weapons have were too old and degraded to have been usable, something the white house has claimed. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein did not have a religious-based government. He made minor concessions to muslims to keep them from going Jihad on him, but he made them angry with putting women in positions of power, as well as having a system of law based more on Europe and the U.S.. We actually sold him several of those weapons he used on his own people, and those chemical weapons we found probably say "Made in the U.S.A."

If anything, Saddam would have been an ally in helping us hunt down terrorists. Instead, we attacked, for no good reason, a country that has never been hostile toward us. Just because terrorists are in a country, doesn't mean the government is harboring them. Otherwise, we harbored terrorists in Miami.

The United States has been unknowingly harboring as many, if not more terrorists than Iraq, we know we have weapons of mass destruction, and we are known throughout the world as a hostile nation if you don't think like us.

I understand completely why Lil Kim wants to protect his sovereign nation from us by having nuclear deterrance.

Also were Saddam's chemical weapons as pure as American ones? Probably not. Contaminants degrade them quicker. Were Saddam's chemical weapons stored in nice, environmentally controlled conditions? Nope. They would have degraded to the point where they'd be low grade bug spray....*snip*

Agreed, they would have degraded. however degraded does not mean harmless. Would you want these weapons sitting in your backyard seeing as they are degraded? I mean its just bug spray after all, so it can't do too much to you.

Let me inform you a little about "bug spray". VX Nerve gas, the most toxic substance known to man (more lethal than radiation) started out as an insecticide. as few as five parts per million of VX can kill a person if inhaled, and 15 ppm to the touch is lethal under two minutes.

Again, I refer to the US Army's manuals on chemical weapons.

It's easy for somebody in the US to talk about other countries being afraid to do anything or just say nuke people.
First of all, nobody is seriously going to consider nuking them unless they use an actual nuclear weapon...Second, we were'nt afraid to nuke Japan when it was necessary...

1st.) because nobody has ever blown up your backyard.
The Revolutionary War. (General mayhem.)
The War of 1812. (White House burned down.)
The Civil War. (Fort Sumter and other sites around the U.S.)
World War 1 (The Bombing of the Lusitania.)
World War 2 (Bombing of Pearl Harbor.)
War on Terrorism (Bombing of embassies, planes flown into WTC and Pentagon, and one downed plane on the way to D.C.)

Crack open a history book sometime....It will really help cure your ignorance.

Nothing justifies killing milions of ppl. The last person that thought something justified killing millions of People. Was hitler do you like him?
Millions died to take Hitler down...We killed millions of Japanese (part of the Fascist Axis) to prevent them from growing too powerful, millions of Soviets died to take the Nazis down, and to do that, we had to kill millions of Germans....We nuked Japan to prevent millions of innocent civilian deaths and hundreds-of-thousands of U.S. soldier deaths that would've resulted from a land-based conventional invasion...

Millions died so that others around the world could live in peace and freedom, free from the terror of totalitarianism and genocide.

And you know if you defend freedom before it is attacked then you are not defending you are attacking and ppl don't historically like ppl defend before being attacked in anyway.
If we had'nt pussy-footed around with Germany, we could've attacked first and saved millions of lives in the process, not to mention taking down a deadly dictator....In order to defend yourself on the fast, modern battlefield, you should attack first, before your enemies are prepared...

Also, you should drink a nice, tall glass of Grammar before you post next time, mmm'kay?

thats right, lets nuke 'em! lets kill milions of innocent people to kill one, who'll probably be in a bunker hiding! grand design, true american spirit!

Killing thousands to save millions. Sounds like a plan to me.

Only 214,000 people died in the two times nukes were actually used. They stoppped a war that could have killed millions.

Killing thousands to save millions. Sounds like a plan to me.

Only 214,000 people died in the two times nukes were actually used. They stoppped a war that could have killed millions.
or not, you know as Japan was on the verge of abdicating anyways.
Not to mention that your 214,000 figures excludes all the3 problems with radiation that still maim to this day.

It's simple really, "to nuke or not to nuke?" should always be answered thusly: not to nuke.

I dont think America and the U.N. are too scared to act on this threat.

They probbably believe the following (best put this way):

A. They've never nuclear-tested their nuclear weapons have they?

B. North Korea should realise that they could fire one Nuclear Missile, right?
America can launch ten Nuclear Missiles, perhaps more. And after the American's nuked Japan, everyone knows that most of their Missiles *ARE* real.

That's my theory anyway.. Also, Japan's acting on this because one of Korea's missiles landed in Japanese Naval Territory, and they've taken it as a provocative action.

Screw them ... they still owe me money.
They owe you money too?

Mr. Il, you have my permission to take out the damned owls. Anything else, and you're deader than a man who simultaneusly (damned long words...) shot up enough heroin to kill himself, while jumping off a 900ft cliff, shooting himself in the mouth with a .50 AE DEagle just before the drugs/landing kill him...

Boy, that took forever to type!

or not, you know as Japan was on the verge of abdicating anyways.
Only if you advocate revisionist history...

Not to mention that your 214,000 figures excludes all the3 problems with radiation that still maim to this day.
Not comparable to millions dead, sorry.

It's simple really, "to nuke or not to nuke?" should always be answered thusly: not to nuke.
It should certainly be the last resort, certainly, but trading millions of dead on both sides for only 214,000 on one side, was definitely an acceptable bargain...Those were harsh days.

That's news to me.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41853000/gif/_41853154_north_korea_4_416x309.gif

Dont know if anyone said this yet, that image shows the taepodong 1 missile back in 1998, however it does show a taepodong 2 missile, but almost all other estimates put the distance at ~ 5600-9000miles with the potential to hit Chichago, and it can hit the western US with almost certanty, thats theoretically of course seeing as they have trouble getting it that ~ 100 miles to Japan

Agreed, they would have degraded. however degraded does not mean harmless. Would you want these weapons sitting in your backyard seeing as they are degraded? I mean its just bug spray after all, so it can't do too much to you.

Let me inform you a little about "bug spray". VX Nerve gas, the most toxic substance known to man (more lethal than radiation) started out as an insecticide. as few as five parts per million of VX can kill a person if inhaled, and 15 ppm to the touch is lethal under two minutes.

Again, I refer to the US Army's manuals on chemical weapons.
No need. I know a little about organophosphates. I also know that storing them, mixed with other chemicals and under temperature extremes for long periods of time, will render them much less toxic. Still harmfull, even lethal at what a normal person would consider a small dosage, but a poor choice as chemical weapons because they aren't lethal enough when spread over a large area because only a very tiny dosage will be inhaled or absorbed through the skin of anyone in that huge area.

or not, you know as Japan was on the verge of abdicating anyways.
Not to mention that your 214,000 figures excludes all the3 problems with radiation that still maim to this day.

It's simple really, "to nuke or not to nuke?" should always be answered thusly: not to nuke.

Or not. They had already started fighting to the last man. Suicide squads and all that.

And as for radiation that kills today: During the year after the bombing, approximately 40,000 U.S. occupation troops were in Hiroshima. Nagasaki was occupied by 27,000 troops. Upper limit dose estimates for those troops are 0.03 rem for Hiroshima, 0.08 rem for Nagasaki, and 0.63 rem for the Nishiyama area. We measure radiation that causes sickness in Grays. A gray is a hundred rems. 1 gray just causes an upset stomach.

Only if you advocate revisionist history...
Geez. I'm getting pretty sick with the level of education in the States and I'm not even living there.

Not comparable to millions dead, sorry.
IF it would have lead to millions of death. That's a big if.

It should certainly be the last resort, certainly, but trading millions of dead on both sides for only 214,000 on one side, was definitely an acceptable bargain...Those were harsh days.
Indeed they were harsh days. But these days are not harsh days. Nuke should never be employed. Ever.

It's easy for somebody in the US to talk about other countries being afraid to do anything or just say nuke people. 1st.) because nobody has ever blown up your backyard. And I hope you have fun when everybody decides they have had enough of the US's bull.

Nothing justifies killing milions of ppl. The last person that thought something justified killing millions of People. Was hitler do you like him? And you know if you defend freedom before it is attacked then you are not defending you are attacking and ppl don't historically like ppl defend before being attacked in anyway.



YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!! I LIVE IN NEW YORK....SOMETHING DID GET BLOWN UP IN MY BACKYARD.

I guess the US stationing PAC-3 antimissile systems in South Korea and Japan is "doing nothing".

I guess the US stationing AEGIS ships armed with SM-3 antimissile systesm in the waters off North Korea is "doing nothing".

I guess the US monitoring North Korean launch facilities with satellites and spy aircraft is "doing nothing".

And using the tracking radars of the Ground Based AntiBallistic Missile System is "doing nothing".

Yeah, keep thinking that.


i am a neo-con war hawk...if you had read the post you would know that. and i am asking where is the action promised in all the rhetoric before the launch...i have seen no stern action. becasue as far as i know...none of the things you talked about...yabe been used. excet the spy aircraft which have been flying overhead for 50 years and are nothing new.

Geez. I'm getting pretty sick with the level of education in the States and I'm not even living there.
:rolleyes:

IF it would have lead to millions of death. That's a big if.
You just can't stop revising history to fit your "Blame America First" worldview...

Indeed they were harsh days. But these days are not harsh days. Nuke should never be employed. Ever.
I disagree.

If, say, it were impossible to dig out most of the N. Korean artillery pieces aimed at our soldiers and Seoul, we could use a tactical nuke, conceivably....I don't believe we'll need to, but it's a possibility.

or not, you know as Japan was on the verge of abdicating anyways.
Not to mention that your 214,000 figures excludes all the3 problems with radiation that still maim to this day.

It's simple really, "to nuke or not to nuke?" should always be answered thusly: not to nuke.


uhh that radiation was gone by 1970....those werent even nukes...a nuclear bomb is different than an atom bomb. yes..there is a difference. and atom bombs loose radiation faster than nuclear bombs.

How on I think no one should nuke anyone. Its not the poor citizen's of N Korea fault that they have a crazy leader that is a dictator. Yes something has to be done, but it can be done thru diplomatic channels at this junction. Applying more pressure, thru China is a good direction. Then again I believe maybe its time the US talks to N Korea directly and try to hammer their problems out. Force should only be used if N Korea actually attacks S Korea or actually if one of its missile hits Japand then deffinetly a Nato combined force perhaps could be used, first some airstrikes of course to depose of this ruthless dictartor.

No need. I know a little about organophosphates. I also know that storing them, mixed with other chemicals and under temperature extremes for long periods of time, will render them much less toxic. Still harmful, even lethal at what a normal person would consider a small dosage, but a poor choice as chemical weapons because they aren't lethal enough when spread over a large area because only a very tiny dosage will be inhaled or absorbed through the skin of anyone in that huge area.

That does not answer my question. Would you be willing to have these weapons buried in your backyard?


Now as far as invading Japan, the operation was known as X-Day. The projected American casualties were between 1 and 10 MILLION AMERICAN MEN! It was widely accepted that the entire Japanese people, culture, and island would be utterly destroyed due to our experiences on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines, and Tarawa where the Japanese fought to the last man, rigging their dead with explosives, and committing suicide over capture. On Okinawa entire families jumped over the cliffs and died rather than be captured.

and to paraphrase Carlos Mencia, "Don't f--k with America. We'll nuke your ass. We'll connect you to a guy in japan with three penises and five balls if you don't believe me."

How on I think no one should nuke anyone. Its not the poor citizen's of N Korea fault that they have a crazy leader that is a dictator. Yes something has to be done, but it can be done thru diplomatic channels at this junction. Applying more pressure, thru China is a good direction. Then again I believe maybe its time the US talks to N Korea directly and try to hammer their problems out. Force should only be used if N Korea actually attacks S Korea or actually if one of its missile hits Japand then deffinetly a Nato combined force perhaps could be used, first some airstrikes of course to depose of this ruthless dictartor.
You know what, if they didnt want a dictator, they shouldnt have elected one. Therefore they get what they get, its like when the germans elected Hitler.

or not, you know as Japan was on the verge of abdicating anyways.

I assume you mean they were on the verge of surrendering. The Japanese Emperor cannot, in fact, abdicate - he serves until his death.

Your statement is simply false. Japan had no intention whatsoever to surrender - their government had already planned a defence against the inevitable US invasion (Operation Olympic). The chosen doctrine was the Kanto Plain Strategy.

While having some level of complexity, the Strategy can be broken down into two simple phases.

1. US Forces are allowed to land on the main island of Honshu. While stiffly opposed at the point of landing to inflict maximum casualties, no real attempt to stop the landing is made.

2. Japanese forces are held back until the American military enters the Kanto Plain, the relatively flat, bowl-shaped are on which Tokyo sits. Being the centre of government, it would be a primary target. Once the US force are fully on the plain, the entire population of Honshu (or everyone who could be shipped in, at least) attacks them with whatever weapons can be scrounged up (primarily bamboo spears and tree loppers). Remaining regular army units serve as battlefield police, shooting anyone who attempts to avoid attacking the Americans.

The Kanto Plain Strategy was being prepared for implementation when the Hiroshima bomb was detonated. Even then, the Japanese Government refused to even talk to the US regarding an end to hostilities. Only after the US proved it's capabilities by striking Nagasaki were the war mongers sufficiently discredited that Emperor Hirohito, in possibly his only major policy decision during his rule, was able to force his ministers to accept surrender.

To suggest the Japanese were willing to surrender before then, or that the Atomic Bombing of Japan did not save milions of lives on both sides, is laughably false.

Killing thousands to save millions. Sounds like a plan to me.

Only 214,000 people died in the two times nukes were actually used. They stoppped a war that could have killed millions.

you make it sound like a few thousands is a mere colloteral. never mind the consequences followed after the bombs, which include full scale war followed by NK nukes on seoul and tokio. smart eh? you've seed wind in korean war, now harvest a storm.

Now as far as invading Japan, the operation was known as X-Day. The projected American casualties were between 1 and 10 MILLION AMERICAN MEN! It was widely accepted that the entire Japanese people, culture, and island would be utterly destroyed due to our experiences on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines, and Tarawa where the Japanese fought to the last man, rigging their dead with explosives, and committing suicide over capture. On Okinawa entire families jumped over the cliffs and died rather than be captured.
See? That kind of loss (on both sides), would be utterly unacceptable...As harsh as the bombings were, we saved them a ton of grief...

You know what, if they didnt want a dictator, they shouldnt have elected one. Therefore they get what they get, its like when the germans elected Hitler.
Ugh, such ignorance....Ill was not elected, he was the heir to his fathers' dictatorship....Sweet motherfucking Jesus H. Christ...

You know what, if they didnt want a dictator, they shouldnt have elected one. Therefore they get what they get, its like when the germans elected Hitler.


So your answer is to kill millions of North Koreas in a Nuclear strike? How about the radiation that will spread to China, S Korea and Japan?

So your answer is to kill millions of North Koreas in a Nuclear strike? How about the radiation that will spread to China, S Korea and Japan?
yeah, well if you drop the bomb in the middle of North Korea the Radiation will only spread inside N.Korea so thats fine. ANd even if a little gets into S.Korea, thats fine too because there are alot of N.Korea agents there.

you make it sound like a few thousands is a mere colloteral. never mind the consequences followed after the bombs, which include full scale war followed by NK nukes on seoul and tokio. smart eh? you've seed wind in korean war, now harvest a storm.
North Korea has no nukes yet....They only have conventional warheads.

Ugh, such ignorance....Ill was not elected, he was the heir to his fathers' dictatorship....Sweet motherfucking Jesus H. Christ...
Oh really!? do you not know most the worlds leaders are elected?

uhh that radiation was gone by 1970....those werent even nukes...a nuclear bomb is different than an atom bomb. yes..there is a difference. and atom bombs loose radiation faster than nuclear bombs.

If you know nothing on a subject, please SHUT UP on it. Nuclear and Atomic, in this context, are synonyms. And in fact, most modern bombs are cleaner than the old style U-235 and Plutonium bombs they used on Japan.

The term Thermonuclear is sometimes applied to Fusion or H-Bombs. Those are quite different.

North Korea has no nukes yet....They only have conventional warheads.
yes, they do. They even said so

North Korea has no nukes yet....They only have conventional warheads.

there are other means to get nukes, not just by developing them. otherwise missiles that can carry warheads would be worthless, would they be not?

yeah, well if you drop the bomb in the middle of North Korea the Radiation will only spread inside N.Korea so thats fine. ANd even if a little gets into S.Korea, thats fine too because there are alot of N.Korea agents there.

I LOL'D on this response, no dude, it will spread trust me, unless well ok how about this if its a small tactical nuke aimed at N Korea's capital cool with that? evil grin:mad: hey it will kill him and minimize civilian losses then again it won't look good on the world stage heh.

yes, they do. They even said so
Kim is a known liar...We know he only has a couple bombs, but that they won't fit on any of their missiles, even their newest one.
there are other means to get nukes, not just by developing them. otherwise missiles that can carry warheads would be worthless, would they be not?
North Korea is a known exporter of nuclear goods, not an importer...Besides, they already have a few bombs, but they can't be attached to anything, so they're not a threat yet...If we let it go on, though, it will be a credible threat...
I LOL'D on this response, no dude, it will spread trust me, unless well ok how about this if its a small tactical nuke aimed at N Korea's capital cool with that? evil grin hey it will kill him and minimize civilian losses then again it won't look good on the world stage heh.
Um, Pyongyang is full of civilians...Not exactly minimizing casualties there, are you? ;)

It'd look terrible on the world stage, not just because it'd be a barbaric overreaction, but because it would be completely wasteful, detrimental to the environment, and completely unnecessary...

A conventional invasion will work just fine. His military is large, but weak. (compared to us.)

It seems that most of you still view Nuclear Weapons as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki days, and the days of Nuclear testing in the 50's, it is not like that. Look it up, the size of the explosion of a Nuclear Warhead now adays is smaller than that of the initial atomic bombs, with the capabality of being increased if necessary. The new "Nuclear Bunker Busters" drill into the ground with the same ideas as a Bunker Buster, then detonate underground, destroying the target area completely, the near by area very little and spreading little to no radiation. Nukes are not the big bad evil weapon you seem to view them as, infact most nukes that have been developed recently, and the nukes that hold the largest portion of our stockpiles are significantly less powerful than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. We do however have some nukes in our stock piles with devastating power, however they are very old and will soon become unusable, most being developed in and before the early 1960's.
To show you Numbers:
Little Boy 1945 (Hiroshima) 15kt
Fat Man 1945 (Nagasaki) 29kt
Ivy Mike 1954 (First Thermonuclear device tested) 10mt
Nuclear Bunker Buster 2006 .3 kt, 1.5kt, 5kt, 10kt, 60kt, 170kt, 340kt (all less than Ivy Mike, and the potential to be significantly less than Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

Kim is a known liar...We know he only has a couple bombs, but that they won't fit on any of their missiles, even their newest one.

North Korea is a known exporter of nuclear goods, not an importer...Besides, they already have a few bombs, but they can't be attached to anything, so they're not a threat yet...If we let it go on, though, it will be a credible threat...

Um, Pyongyang is full of civilians...Not exactly minimizing casualties there, are you? ;)

It'd look terrible on the world stage, not just because it'd be a barbaric overreaction, but because it would be completely wasteful, detrimental to the environment, and completely unnecessary...

A conventional invasion will work just fine. His military is large, but weak. (compared to us.) hehe I know a conventional invasion would be best, hehe that was a silly thread. Then again the other person saying radition will not spill was not very smart bright ;) Sigh another war though, that would suck, I'm so tired of the Iraq crap..already now a Korea one..sigh.

That does not answer my question. Would you be willing to have these weapons buried in your backyard?


Now as far as invading Japan, the operation was known as X-Day. The projected American casualties were between 1 and 10 MILLION AMERICAN MEN! It was widely accepted that the entire Japanese people, culture, and island would be utterly destroyed due to our experiences on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines, and Tarawa where the Japanese fought to the last man, rigging their dead with explosives, and committing suicide over capture. On Okinawa entire families jumped over the cliffs and died rather than be captured.

and to paraphrase Carlos Mencia, "Don't f--k with America. We'll nuke your ass. We'll connect you to a guy in japan with three penises and five balls if you don't believe me."I wouldn't want a case of Raid or Black Flag bug spray buried in my back yard, but they don't count as chemical weapons.

Now please explain why you're bitching about Japan to me.

North Korea is a known exporter of nuclear goods, not an importer...Besides, they already have a few bombs, but they can't be attached to anything, so they're not a threat yet...If we let it go on, though, it will be a credible threat...

now i dont think he'll be exactly telling everyone he bought weapons on black market, will he? yes, push him on. he's a paranoid, mearly a human being, not a machine. when he breaks we'll see how credibile our speculations on such secretive country really are. and i'm sure we dont want to see that do we?

I LOL'D on this response, no dude, it will spread trust me, unless well ok how about this if its a small tactical nuke aimed at N Korea's capital cool with that? evil grin:mad: hey it will kill him and minimize civilian losses then again it won't look good on the world stage heh.
but using a large nuke will ensure the threat is really gone. using a small one wouldnt be smart militaryly

now i dont think he'll be exactly telling everyone he bought weapons on black market, will he? yes, push him on. he's a paranoid, mearly a human being, not a machine. when he breaks we'll see how credibile our speculations on such secretive country really are. and i'm sure we dont want to see that do we?
We have sattelite coverage of the area...If he puts it on some sort of transport, such as a plane, boat, car, or train, it will be targeted with a cruise missile instantly....He won't get a chance to set it off.

We have sattelite coverage of the area...If he puts it on some sort of transport, such as a plane, boat, car, or train, it will be targeted with a cruise missile instantly....He won't get a chance to set it off.

somehow i know he is aware of that. i doubth he'll be so careless. besides covereing entire country all the time might be hard, no?

So lets say the leader of N Korea sends a agent with a suitcase bomb to Manhattan, how can we detect that? Like a terrorist might do?

but using a large nuke will ensure the threat is really gone. using a small one wouldnt be smart militaryly

But better politically. And if we have laser-guided missiles that can not only target a particular car in a parking lot, but put it into a particular passenger's lap, then we can take the guy out with conventional weapons and minimal civillian casualties. Why use a hammer when a scalpel will do?

But better politically. And if we have laser-guided missiles that can not only target a particular car in a parking lot, but put it into a particular passenger's lap, then we can take the guy out with conventional weapons and minimal civillian casualties. Why use a hammer when a scalpel will do?

Well they can do that to Fidel Castro also but they haven't ---just cause I like some socialism don't mean I like Fidel Castro type communism meh. He really should go also, Cuba would be so much better without him.

But better politically. And if we have laser-guided missiles that can not only target a particular car in a parking lot, but put it into a particular passenger's lap, then we can take the guy out with conventional weapons and minimal civillian casualties. Why use a hammer when a scalpel will do?
Exactly...

Also, i'd like to add that taking out Kim before or during an invasion will help prevent any nuclear devices from being moved and/or detonated, seeing as North Koreans are used to following orders from a supreme commander, rather than using their own brains...If it were to be moved, he would have to give the order to move it up close to U.S. forces...No Kim, (hopefully) no bomb.

Funny...

Sadam was an imminent threat to the World, the Middle East, the USA, and his society; yet this dictator Kim isn't? Not that I am in favor of war ever, never mind unilateral actions, but simply confused as to how mainstream news casters can keep a straight face in the camera preaching NK is not an imminent threat to the USA after plaguing us with this Administration's prewar Iraq propaganda.

Simply baffled. Our memory and attention span is sooooo bad!

If anybody lauches a nuke, they'll soon find themselves a pariah country in the international community.

There's a reason we're trying to prevent the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Say what you like about Kim Jon Il being a cruel tinpot dictator; but to launch a nuke againt his country means killing hundreds of thousand of innocents.

He is already a pahria since in 1964 despite taking concessions from Clinton not to build nukes he turned around and built them anyway and laughed at the treatys he signed and called the west a buch of fools ( admitedly they did look like a bunch of fools...they believed him and gave him billions in aid and soft water reactors along with other concessions then shoved it up all there ass's :D ) Then he gave the world the finger a said ...do something now and I will nuke Japan !

So unless you have a catagory below even international parhia...'Lil Kim could care less what you call him as long as you submit to his will .

He is on my list of people who need killing .

YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!! I LIVE IN NEW YORK....SOMETHING DID GET BLOWN UP IN MY BACKYARD.
Okay I will give you that one but let me know when somebody blows up an entire city. okay because thats what a war in the backyard is. You and everybody else in the US with the exception of the millitary is living thousands of miles a way from any war and/or conflict.

so n korea had wmd's, unlike iraq, are we going to invade?

Wrong on both accounts.
1) We did find them. Read the White house press Release/declassified documents about this. link to follow.
2) The use of mustard gas is EXPRESSLY prohibited by the Geneva convention of 1918 as a weapons of mass destruction as are all aerosol-based weapons such as sarin, Hydrogen Cyanoide, VX, and anything more toxic than the CS Tear Gas used to disperse crowds.
3) (ooh boy....the hippy messed with the wrong person on this one) The Marines DID NOT SCREW UP IN KOREA! TO QUOTE A KOREAN INSTRUCTIONAL PAMPHLET, "Do not attack those with yellow legs." At the time marines WERE THE ONLY SERVICE to use khaki leggings and made them distinctive to the enemy, and expressively feared by them. At Choisin Resevior, the Marines under Chesty Puller's command were surrounded, outnumbered 22-1, low on supplies, and fighting in sub-freezing temperatures. Not only did his forces rejoin the American lines but killed over 17500 enemies while losing less than 1200 men (wounded, captured, or killed). so, no they didn't screw up in the least.
4) For some reason you just don't strike me as anything but a pre-pubescent teen at best who wants "love and peace" for everybody but does not understand the price that must be paid for such peace. Wars are always going to happen and nobody understands that more than those who fight those wars. Let me explain something to you nice and easy, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPRESS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS IF IT WEREN'T FOR GOOD MEN WHO LIVED, DIED, AND KILLED IN THESE WARS YOU SO DESPISE! I am enlisting as of February of '07 and I WILL GO FIGHT. I am backing up my views with my life quite literally, what are you doing to make sure as few people die as possible?

Not that I would trust a white house press release statement from this admin but I'll look into.(If they lied once they will do it again they are politicians u know.)Did I say the marines screwed it up because if I did that wasn't how I meant it. Besides I love soldiers they certainly didn't do anything wrong jst their jobs. I meant some general maybe macarthur I don't remember who screwed it up he had it almost won and then lost it on the border. I am not a hippy or a pre pubescent anything. And I know war is just something that happens I wish it didn't and I would like love and peace but I am not Naive I know that war has and probably will always happen because people don't A.) know how to mind there own buisiness.B.) Won't get along with people who are diffrent if they don't want to.C.) Somebody is always going to want more. Good for you do what you think you need to do. But let me ask you what is the point of having all these freedoms givin to us by the men and women who have died for this country if there is nobody around to use it wouldn't that kind of mean they died in vain for freedoms that nobody uses. I plan on joining the peace corps and doing someother things. I don't just want peace for peace's sake. I just don't like seeing innocent people die that is all. But again nothing against soldiers my dad was in Vietnam and in the first gulf war and my mom was in the first gulf war. So I love soldiers they are generally great people. and some of my best freinds are there right now. In fact I know 1 person that has died there(Iraq), and 2 people that were injured. so yeah I'm not just some Ignorent Naive hippy like you all think I am I just think that people should be at least decent to each other we are all just people. Althought I am not standing up for these guys osama,saddam,kim there asses I know but you shouldn't have to kill a whole country because the leadership are a bunch of asses.

Thats not true, the revolutionary war, spanish war, french war, and the mexican war were all fought in our backyard. So was the start of the war on terror. It wasnt until G.W. Bush came along that people realized its better to fight them over there so we dont have to fight them over here.


Again, not true. YOur thinking in a pre-9/11 mindset. It is completely justified to defend freedom, you do like freedom right?

No, being on the offense in the best defense.

And in any of these wars was there say suich a thing as a bomber or planes, and the war on terror was started here 2 buildings does not constitute a war now if new york city had been leveled then yes that I will claim a war in the backyard. And 9/11 has nothing to do with saddam that was gw's show off to daddt moment. As for N. Korea if they haven't even attempted to bomb the US then thats called jumping the gun the US does not live in the japan sea. So there you go you just can't go dropping nucluer bombs on ppl because you think they might possible one day 20 years from now bomb you.

Exactly...

Also, i'd like to add that taking out Kim before or during an invasion will help prevent any nuclear devices from being moved and/or detonated, seeing as North Koreans are used to following orders from a supreme commander, rather than using their own brains...If it were to be moved, he would have to give the order to move it up close to U.S. forces...No Kim, (hopefully) no bomb.

So , so long as the American troops are fine thats all right?
Poor Seoul.

So , so long as the American troops are fine thats all right?
Poor Seoul.
You people keep acting like Seoul is going to be levelled....We have the firepower necessary to destroy any massed artillery that could fire upon it...Even if it takes a nuclear bunker-buster, you can bet we'll do our best to protect Seoul.

Remember when the media was fear-mongering about what the battle would be like in Baghdad? I remember reading an article in the LA Times about how the upcoming battle for Baghdad would be "Z0MGTheNextSTALINGRAD! WEEZ ARE DOOOOOmeds!"

They said the same thing about Falluja...The media is notorious for overblowing the risks of going to war with our enemies, both because of the doctrine of "If it bleeds, it leads", and because of their extremist anti-war bias.

To those advocating nuking North Korea under ANY circumstances: nuclear fallout won't magically stop at the border. In nuking NK, you're also nuking South Korea, Japan, China and perhaps Russia. Do you really want to piss those people off?

if they get rid of the nukes and missiles then they have no need for protection against the US.


Yes, we all saw how the lack of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles protected Iraq, Vietnam, Phillipines and other assorted nations which the US went around thumping on because they had a bigger army.

The only thing we (the US) will do about it is some finger shaking and possibly a stong worded leter. Other than that, we won't do anything.

You people keep acting like Seoul is going to be levelled....We have the firepower necessary to destroy any massed artillery that could fire upon it...Even if it takes a nuclear bunker-buster, you can bet we'll do our best to protect Seoul.

Nuclear bunker busters are not as safe as you think they are. For one, you forget the immediate radiological effects it will have on groundwater tables. Second, the tests to date haven't really given any useable data, in fact, I believe there hasn't been approval for the construction of a working version yet either.

And even if it works, unless one uses something with the payload of a Davy Crockett and the ability to burrow up to over 200 or so feet underground, the resulting radioactive fallout would spread quite far and wide, irradiating places in South Korea, Japan, China and Russia, maybe more depending on the winds. None of these countries would be pleased.

And lastly, North Korean artillery may be massed, but at the same time, quite spread out across the whole border. You may try to take them out, but removing all North Korean artillery before they level a big chunk of Seoul is impossible. Considering that what, half the population of South Korea lives in Seoul, the casualties from even a short period of bombardment before the guns are silenced would be staggering.

Okay I will give you that one but let me know when somebody blows up an entire city. okay because thats what a war in the backyard is. You and everybody else in the US with the exception of the millitary is living thousands of miles a way from any war and/or conflict.


let me put this into perspective...my cousin is in baquba right now. yeah my FAMILY is in iraq.

Yes, we all saw how the lack of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles protected Iraq, Vietnam, Phillipines and other assorted nations which the US went around thumping on because they had a bigger army.


UN resolution 1441 stated that saddam hussein had nukes. It was unanimously voted on by the UN.

and the phillipines...please that was over 100 years ago, nobody who was alive during that war is alive today. and if they are they were either a fetus or an infant. and we thumped all over england twice...with a smaller army. and are you saying WWI and WWII were unjustified?

Nuclear bunker busters are not as safe as you think they are. For one, you forget the immediate radiological effects it will have on groundwater tables. Second, the tests to date haven't really given any useable data, in fact, I believe there hasn't been approval for the construction of a working version yet either.
And you forget that they used to sell radioactive water. Said it would be good for your health, they did. Thing was that they would only flash it before sending it out at first, so by the time it got to where it was going, it would be as cold and calm as the day it was pumped. You'd have more to worry about from the dust that a nuclear bunker buster would kick up. They run into the same problem when it rains at Chernobyl. The rain kicks up dust. If you inhale that dust you'll get cancer.

And even if it works, unless one uses something with the payload of a Davy Crockett and the ability to burrow up to over 200 or so feet underground, the resulting radioactive fallout would spread quite far and wide, irradiating places in South Korea, Japan, China and Russia, maybe more depending on the winds. None of these countries would be pleased.
They're working on a conventional bomb that decends slowly with a parachute firing small bombs in sequence to make a tunnel right down to the bunker. And then there is always the option of securing the surface and just using a big drill to get a conventional bomb to the bunker. And there are those kinetic kill rods they could drop from space. They'd need an awful lot because they tend to explode on impacty but there'd be no radiation. I know all of these are either still being developed or would be very difficult but they're no impossible.

And lastly, North Korean artillery may be massed, but at the same time, quite spread out across the whole border. You may try to take them out, but removing all North Korean artillery before they level a big chunk of Seoul is impossible. Considering that what, half the population of South Korea lives in Seoul, the casualties from even a short period of bombardment before the guns are silenced would be staggering.
Yes, but we've got an awful lot of missiles. Fire them all at once and clear the border. If a hidden gun fires it gives away its position. Losses would probably be acceptable. 20% or lower.

Forget Iran, Nuke NK and send in the marines. If that missile had actually gotten close to Hawaii it would have been tantamount to a declaration of war.



http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060707/3/2mty8.html

N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii - report

TOKYO (Reuters) - A North Korean missile launched on Wednesday was aimed at an area of the ocean close to Hawaii, a Japanese newspaper reported on Friday.

Experts estimated the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile to have a range of up to 6,000 km, putting Alaska within its reach. Wednesday's launch apparently failed shortly after take-off and the missile landed in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan, a few hundred kilometres from the launch pad.

But data from U.S. and Japanese Aegis radar-equipped destroyers and surveillance aircraft on the missile's angle of take-off and altitude indicated that it was heading for waters near Hawaii, the Sankei Shimbun reported, citing multiple sources in the United States and Japan.

North Korea may have targeted Hawaii to show the United States that it was capable of landing a missile there, or because it is home to the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific fleet, the paper said.

An alternative explanation might be that a missile could accidentally hit land if fired towards Alaska, the report said.

A separate report in the Mainichi Shimbun daily cited U.S. and Japanese government officials as saying a piece of the Taepodong-2 missile fell off immediately after take-off, strengthening the view that the launch was a failure.

UN resolution 1441 stated that saddam hussein had nukes. It was unanimously voted on by the UN.

A resolution that came about as a result of US intelligence cherry picking.


and the phillipines...please that was over 100 years ago, nobody who was alive during that war is alive today. and if they are they were either a fetus or an infant. and we thumped all over england twice...with a smaller army. and are you saying WWI and WWII were unjustified?

The Phillipines invasion may have been over a 100 years ago, but US habit of sending troops all over the world to secure US interests, often to the detriment of the locals, has persisted. Along with the idealogy of "White man's burden". We see it even today. Except it's called things like "exporting democracy" and "liberating an oppressed people". 30 years ago, it was called "keeping the red tide back"

So long as that attitude holds, America will continue to do what it professes not to do. Nation build.


And you forget that they used to sell radioactive water. Said it would be good for your health, they did. Thing was that they would only flash it before sending it out at first, so by the time it got to where it was going, it would be as cold and calm as the day it was pumped. You'd have more to worry about from the dust that a nuclear bunker buster would kick up. They run into the same problem when it rains at Chernobyl. The rain kicks up dust. If you inhale that dust you'll get cancer.

Depending on how close the bomb is to the groundwater, the effects of radioactive particles entering the water is about as bad. Especially since you do end up drinking it in the end. Either way, I already mentioned the dust factor. China, Japan and South Korea would NOT be happy at the idea of radioactive fallout.


And then there is always the option of securing the surface and just using a big drill to get a conventional bomb to the bunker.

That's daft. If you can secure the surface, you can simply storm the bunker entrance.


And there are those kinetic kill rods they could drop from space. They'd need an awful lot because they tend to explode on impacty but there'd be no radiation.

The "Rods from god" project they proposed way back then. Still sounds like a porno movie. And they don't have anything on the board approaching that. The closest they have is that naval railgun project they want for their X destroyer.


Yes, but we've got an awful lot of missiles. Fire them all at once and clear the border. If a hidden gun fires it gives away its position. Losses would probably be acceptable. 20% or lower.

This assumes that it is a pre-emptive action. And a lot of missiles does not equate getting all the artillery. Britain tried the same trick in WWI to clear out entrenched Germans, using as much artillery as it could bring to bear.

It failed miserably.

These guns will be protected not only by being hidden, but with trenches and dugouts too. Getting them all in one shot is a ludricous idea short of nuclear strikes or perfect intelligence. The former is untenable and the latter is laughable.

Besides, would losses be acceptable if say, it was Redmond, or perhaps Virginia, Washington DC, New York, Chicago or some major US metropolitan city that was expected to lose 20% of it's civilian population?

Is it alright because it's happening to someone else and not US citizens?

Remind me to take that view the next time a whole bunch of US citizens die then. 50,000 Americans died in an earthquake? Oh, it's only 2% of it's total population. No great loss.

Besides, would losses be acceptable if say, it was Redmond, or perhaps Virginia, Washington DC, New York, Chicago or some major US metropolitan city that was expected to lose 20% of it's civilian population?
Yes. Yes it would still be acceptable.

Sanctions'll do. Period.
But Russia and China just told everyone no about that. They still believe that Kim will actually be sane enough to have peace.

Yes. Yes it would still be acceptable.

I think you'll find that a great deal of politicians would disagree with you. Political realities and all that.

From a purely military perspective, it may be acceptable. From a national standpoint, particularly in a democratic nation. No.

But Russia and China just told everyone no about that. They still believe that Kim will actually be sane enough to have peace.

Kim will do everything short of killing himself to boost his influence. If he starts a war, he know's he'll be spanked nine ways from Sunday. Al Capone didn't get to be mob boss by shooting up FBI offices or army bases.

US, Japan and South Korea should exercise restraint and work towards peace.:cool:

Yes, they were degraded. However, chemical weapons like sarin and Mustard gas take hundreds of years to fully degrade. These weapons found ARE STILL deadly, even if it takes a concentration 12% more potent. One thing about these weapons you also forgot is that Saddam said he never had these weapons, even the degraded stuff. Even Faux News disagrees with you:
One thing I would like to add, though, is I do believe what Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said is inaccurate. The inspectors started with a declaration by Iraq that it had over 100,000 chemical weapons either filled or unfilled. And Iraq tried to explain what it had done with those weapons. The inspectors investigated extensively what happened to, again, over 100,000 filled and unfilled chemical weapons.

Iraq said, very clearly, we don't know where all of them are. They even gave a case of 550 that they could not find after the Gulf War. So...

Funny...

Sadam was an imminent threat to the World, the Middle East, the USA, and his society; yet this dictator Kim isn't? Not that I am in favor of war ever, never mind unilateral actions, but simply confused as to how mainstream news casters can keep a straight face in the camera preaching NK is not an imminent threat to the USA after plaguing us with this Administration's prewar Iraq propaganda.

Simply baffled. Our memory and attention span is sooooo bad!Apart from the fact that the US military is stretched a bit thin at the moment to comfortably handle both Iraq and North Korea, North Korea seemingly has weapons of mass destruction, instead of just being alleged to have them.

They said the same thing about Falluja...The commercial media is notorious for overblowing the risks of going to war with our enemies, both because of the doctrine of "If it bleeds, it leads", and because of their extremist anti-war bias.Fixed it.

Some people seem to have this notion that nuclear weapons are magical. You press the button and a millisecond later it hits it target, without anyone realising or being able to react. :rolleyes:


You people keep acting like Seoul is going to be levelled....We have the firepower necessary to destroy any massed artillery that could fire upon it...Even if it takes a nuclear bunker-buster, you can bet we'll do our best to protect Seoul.

Forget Iran, Nuke NK and send in the marines. If that missile had actually gotten close to Hawaii it would have been tantamount to a declaration of war.

Some people seem to have this notion that nuclear weapons are magical. You press the button and a millisecond later it hits it target, without anyone realising or being able to react. :rolleyes:

Well, I postulate that they are the same people who believe in the utter infallability of the United States and attribute godlike power to it's military arm.

Maybe an acquaintanceship with some geo-political reality and actual capabilities of hardware would sort it out.

Well, I postulate that they are the same people who believe in the utter infallability of the United States and attribute godlike power to it's military arm.

Maybe an acquaintanceship with some geo-political reality and actual capabilities of hardware would sort it out.


So lets go and bomb Korea,
that would be a good place to start -
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb

Help Korea, help help Korea...

( sung to the tune of Help me Rhonda! )

So lets go and bomb Korea,
that would be a good place to start -
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb

Help Korea, help help Korea...

( sung to the tune of Help me Rhonda! )

lmao

I've said it before, and i'll say it again.. you rock ;)
:fluffle:

UN resolution 1441 stated that saddam hussein had nukes. It was unanimously voted on by the UN.

The same UN resolution that stated that the UN security council will determine what to do and when to act (and not only one member who has decided to invade nevertheless)?

Are you telling me you justify breaching UN resolution 1441 on UN resolution 1441? That's a novel idea.

lmao

I've said it before, and i'll say it again.. you rock ;)
:fluffle:

I should try... tango. Not a clue how I'd do...

:fluffle:

I should try... tango. Not a clue how I'd do...

:fluffle:

:confused:

:confused:
what does it take to tango?
:fluffle:
*considers unconfusing*

what does it take to tango?
:fluffle:
*considers unconfusing*

the ability to dance.. and i'm crap.... ha!... "it takes two baby... it takes two baby... just me and you". lalalala (i'm humming that out loud)

ah :)

the ability to dance.. and i'm crap.... ha!... "it takes two baby... it takes two baby... just me and you". lalalala (i'm humming that out loud)

ah :)
Hehehe! It worked!
*does happydance* :fluffle:

I found this thread incredible...

Who elected American as world police (Team America summed it up!!)

Why can't other nations posses what America has?

Until recently France was blowing up the South Pacific islands with tests - Paris nuked.....I think not

China has weapons, terrible human rights etc but is everyones friend because of the size of the future marketplace

Come on America...killing civillians because you don't agree with their policies make YOU the dictator - the next regime change should be 'Bush out'

I found this thread incredible...

Who elected American as world police (Team America summed it up!!)

Why can't other nations posses what America has?

Until recently France was blowing up the South Pacific islands with tests - Paris nuked.....I think not

China has weapons, terrible human rights etc but is everyones friend because of the size of the future marketplace

Come on America...killing civillians because you don't agree with their policies make YOU the dictator - the next regime change should be 'Bush out'

I had been trying to say that but you know how they can get jump down ur throat and all.

let me put this into perspective...my cousin is in baquba right now. yeah my FAMILY is in iraq.

Would you calm down I wasn't personally talking about u. And I said besides the millitary. If there civillians then they would no what it was like and u to if you lived there. But eah try reading a little more of the post.

Okay I will give you that one but let me know when somebody blows up an entire city. okay because thats what a war in the backyard is. You and everybody else in the US with the exception of the millitary is living thousands of miles a way from any war and/or conflict.
let me put this into perspective...my cousin is in baquba right now. yeah my FAMILY is in iraq.
Geez, that makes you perfectly aware of what a war in your backyard is. You sure have a telepatic link to your cousin to explain to you how war is fought. I know this because my mother is a nurse and that makes me capable of performing elective surgery.

Or, you know, you didn't refute her(or his) point at all.

Aren't you the one that believes there were no WMD's? O that right, when the evidence is right in front of you ignore it and say Bush is a liar. Looks to me that he wasn't suh a liar to me.



Did you not read the article? Obviously not seeing as these weapons were made within the last 10 years and capible of killing thousands.

*sigh*

Let's look at some things from your article, shall we?

But it's clear, or it seems to be clear, that these weapons were not available to Saddam in 2003 when we were going to war.

Let's take a look at that. So there were weapons there, but Saddam didn't have them? So no, Saddam didn't have WMDs, eh?

"Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion."

And you accuse others of ignoring the facts? Did you even read the whole article?

Although I will admit it was said that they could still be lethal, even if degraded.

Well I don't know that anything that comes out of this admin can be counted as inteligent.

I'm going to sum up everything I feel in one post:
1) The war in Iraq is justified. I am going over there and if you don't agree shut up so as to deny hope to the enemy.
2) We never signed peace treaty with Korea, just a cease fire. North Korea's invaded South Korea four times since including the deadly 1969 incursions.
3) Kim Jung Il was never voted into power, nor was his father.
4) Treaties Kim Jung (mentally) Il has broken includes his 1994 and 1998 treaties with the USA forbidding missile launches such as this, The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of 1964, and other treaties with its neighbors.
5) The targeting of the Tapadong-2 missile at American soil is not only an act of war but a down right invitation to an ass kicking contest where the NKs are standing on one foot.
6) If you don't like this, I frankly don't care. Remember the 1st Amendment is a 2-way street

UN resolution 1441 stated that saddam hussein had nukes. It was unanimously voted on by the UN.
The hell it did!

Go read it. (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm) It says absolutely nothing about Saddam having nukes.

1) The war in Iraq is justified. I am going over there and if you don't agree shut up so as to deny hope to the enemy.

One: No, it wasn't.
Two: Huh?

Kim Jong Il defied the entire international community yesterday in firing seven test missiles. One of which was a long range missile which had the ability to reach the United States. (Although the north's pride and joy failed 40 seconds after lift off.) In the days leading up to the tests the world's leaders called on Kim not to fire and warned about "stern action." However, now that the launch has happened, it seems like Japan is the only country doing anything about it. Are the US and other countries too scared to do anything about this threat?

Bush hasnt done anything because even a dumbass like him knows that if he launches nukes e will be glassed by every other nation on earth.

I should try... tango. Not a clue how I'd do...

:fluffle:
Tango is fun! :)

1) The war in Iraq is justified. I am going over there and if you don't agree shut up so as to deny hope to the enemy.
And what are you going to do there?

What are the real objectives?

Safeguarding their freedom with martial law, summary executions and a puppet government?

If the US really wanted Iraq to be self-determined, it'd pull its troops out and give a massive reperations package, in the billions of dollars, and a huge apology.

And I will continue to support the Iraqi freedom fighters until that happens.
2) We never signed peace treaty with Korea, just a cease fire. North Korea's invaded South Korea four times since including the deadly 1969 incursions.
"North Korea is in some wars with its closest enemy shock".
3) Kim Jung Il was never voted into power, nor was his father.
Nor was Bush Jr.
4) Treaties Kim Jung (mentally) Il has broken includes his 1994 and 1998 treaties with the USA forbidding missile launches such as this, The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of 1964, and other treaties with its neighbors.
Yeah, and the USA has broken several UN Human Rights laws, as well as pissing all over the UN's decision that the Iraq war is illegal.

Neither side are saints when it comes to international treaties.
5) The targeting of the Tapadong-2 missile at American soil is not only an act of war but a down right invitation to an ass kicking contest where the NKs are standing on one foot.
Oh yeah. I can really see the US in a position to do anything. As soon as you fire a nuclear missile at North Korea, you become a pariah state. You cannot go in there by land due to the minefields and the large North Korean army and hence no land can be taken from them, making any war pointless.

The US can't lay a single finger on North Korea, and it needs to remember that.
6) If you don't like this, I frankly don't care. Remember the 1st Amendment is a 2-way street
Yeah, just remember that international friendship is a two-way street as well. The US Government really needs to re-learn that lesson quickly.

Yootopia I like you really my type of cinicism. lol;)

Vain and embarassing dick-waving? Best dealt with by pointing at it and laughing.


Best dealt with by... castration.

From the Hobos' Poop Deck, the definitive Post Mortem of this thread:

Some people were scornful, some were angry, some really didn't seem to think it made any difference that NK tested some missiles.
Several people agreed that nuking NK would be fun and practical, apart from pissing off China and Russia, and sacrificing Seoul.
There was a short debate, on topic.
Someone mentioned Iraq.
The U.S. servicemen weighed in.

End of debate. No-one is going to nuke NK.

Thankyo.