NationStates Jolt Archive

Between Iran and North Korea, which is the bigger threat?

North Korea allegedly already has Nuclear weapons and Iran is well on there way of making Nukes. So, who is really the bigger threat?

Between Iran and North Korea, which is the bigger threat?

North Korea allegedly already has Nuclear weapons and Iran is well on there way of making Nukes. So, who is really the bigger threat?

Threat to who?

Threat to who?

When the leader of Iran states publicly how Israel needs to wiped off of the map..........sounds pretty much of a threat to me...That being said, no they have no real needs on developing Nukes.

As for North Korea, they are indeed a threat to S. Korea, Japan, and Yes even the US.

Threat to who?Seconded.
To whom?
North Korea allegedly had nuclear weapons with a range great enough to hit the United States. Iran doesn't have any, by anyone's estimates.
So, I'd say, North Korea is the bigger threat.

Neither is a threat.

When the leader of Iran states publicly how Israel needs to wiped off of the map..........sounds pretty much of a threat to me...That being said, no they have no real needs on developing Nukes.

As for North Korea, they are indeed a threat to S. Korea, Japan, and Yes even the US.

Why is a threat to erase Israel a threat to you?

Why is a threat to erase Israel a threat to you?

I like Israel, I'm not sure what Israel has ever done to you but as for America, we will always defend Israel, period.

If America were to unleash Israel, they would inevitably wipe out Iran.

I do not like Israel. If erasing Israel is what Iran only needs nukes for I am all for letting them have nukes. And if the American taxpayer wishes to pay for a defensive war for Israel then that is also OK.

If America were to unleash Israel, they would inevitably wipe out Iran.Nah. Iran is too populous and too far away for that to happen.

If America were to unleash Israel, they would inevitably wipe out Iran.

As if.
Israel is just a tiny tiny group of people in a tiny tiny territory but with a big big mouth.

Neither really but I’d say North Korea is the most threatening on the not a threat scale because its run by the military (and is at a cease fire with the U.N at the moment)

And again Iran isn’t developing Nukes and if it is it certainly isn’t anywhere near gaining them!

Also since when have the only countries that are a threat been nuclear I still shit my pants at night from the Scottish trying to break up our union!

As if.
Israel is just a tiny tiny group of people in a tiny tiny territory but with a big big mouth.:rolleyes:

Biggest threat? Iran, hands down. Everyone is shitting themselves over their nuclear program. What they don't realize is that they have a MASSIVE conventional military and they are located ON TOP OF the worlds oil supply.

North Korea can't get a missile over the horizion consecutively yet.

Biggest threat? Iran, hands down. Everyone is shitting themselves over their nuclear program. What they don't realize is that they have a MASSIVE conventional military and they are located ON TOP OF the worlds oil supply.

But their main threat is missiles. Their army would have to be aquatic-bound to get here, and our navy trumps theres.

And the oil?

North Korea can't get a missile over the horizion consecutively yet.

But they have them. Iran doesnt, and doesnt even have the nuclear capability to make missiles. Or the economy to make them.

North Korea poses no threat to the US. Japan and South Korea -- maybe. But unlike Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il is not crazy enough to launch a nuke against the US, and economic sanctions against North Korea would have almost no effect on the world economy. Iran, on the other hand, produces a large quantity of the world's oil -- without it, prices would skyrocket. Also, Iran funds terrorists groups which are killing scores of civilians -- North Korea is not.

But their main threat is missiles. Their army would have to be aquatic-bound to get here, and our navy trumps theres.

the fact that Iran can trap the American navy in the Gulf doesn't sounds too pleasing to me (and that’s allot of pricey ships)

And the oil?

Gulf strait cut that and no oil and other things can pass through (also Iran tends to be quite gifted when it comes to oil)

Or the economy to make them.

what makes you say that?

But unlike Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il is not crazy enough to launch a nuke against the US, and economic sanctions against North Korea

you really do overestimate Mr Kim don't you which is besides the point North Korea is run by the military which Mr Kim can get a huge amount of support from if he does launch an attack

and the reason economic sanctions would do nothing is the fact that we’ve had them for about 50 odd years now (kind of comes from being at war for 50 years)

Between Iran and North Korea, which is the bigger threat?

North Korea allegedly already has Nuclear weapons and Iran is well on there way of making Nukes. So, who is really the bigger threat?

The United States of America.

Neither is a threat.
Seconded!!

The United States of America.
I'll second that too!!

I'll go against the trend and say Iran. Although North Korea talks big sometimes, have you read what Kim Jong-Il likes? Tall blondes and Western films. He's not going to give up that lifestyle to fight over a few kilometers on the Korean peninsula.

Ahmadinejad, on the other hand... he's like Fred Phelps with nuclear warheads.

I'll second that too!!

I must solemly agree.

Iran is the biggest threat to US which is the biggest threat to every nation in the world. Because no matter who you are, if you mess with the US, serious s**t will go down the next week. If someone came along and made the US a totalitarian corporate police state, the world would be screwed.

So, in a sense, all the Mideast stuff may be helping the non-american west and East.

Because no matter who you are, if you mess with the US, serious s**t will go down the next week.

I think your in more trouble if you just stay in your own borders and allow the weapons inspectors....

The United States of America.

If that's how you feel, so be it

I must solemly agree.

Iran is the biggest threat to US which is the biggest threat to every nation in the world. Because no matter who you are, if you mess with the US, serious s**t will go down the next week. If someone came along and made the US a totalitarian corporate police state, the world would be screwed.

So, in a sense, all the Mideast stuff may be helping the non-american west and East.

Damn straight, that's why it's in everyones best interest "Not to mess with us"

North Korea poses no threat to the US. Japan and South Korea -- maybe. But unlike Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il is not crazy enough to launch a nuke against the US, and economic sanctions against North Korea would have almost no effect on the world economy. Iran, on the other hand, produces a large quantity of the world's oil -- without it, prices would skyrocket. Also, Iran funds terrorists groups which are killing scores of civilians -- North Korea is not.Unlike Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il isn't just a figurehead without power.

I like Israel, I'm not sure what Israel has ever done to you but as for America, we will always defend Israel, period.

If America were to unleash Israel, they would inevitably wipe out Iran.

yes cause america has been wonderfull at keeping israel under control.
/sarcasim.

I do not like Israel. If erasing Israel is what Iran only needs nukes for I am all for letting them have nukes. And if the American taxpayer wishes to pay for a defensive war for Israel then that is also OK.


Well, okay then. You just advocated killing several million people just because you don't like israel.

I love that constructive line of reasoning.

*Looks for the "ignore" button*

Unlike Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il isn't just a figurehead without power.

Unlike Kim Jong-Il, the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi state is much more fanatical than even Ahmadinejad.

Unlike Kim Jong-Il, the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi state is much more fanatical than even Ahmadinejad.

Yes. Damn those militristic, violent Kurdish fanatics!

Neither country is particularly threatening. North Korea got atomic bombs for use as a deterrent. Iran, if it is indeed pursuing weapons - is far from clear - is clearly far from getting them.

In all likelihood, Iran would use its nukes the same way every other country does, as a deterrent.

Kim Jong Il has a population that is willing to fight the US and the south Koreans; and a power struggle in the DPRK, if one were to occur, could be the trigger for war on the Korean peninsula.

Thankfully, Iran already has a sizable deterrent in term of its ability to disrupt the world's economy and oil supply. This should hopefully avoid a repeat of the colossal blunder in Iraq.

both are run by psychopaths, have stupid laws and inhumane punishments, but only north korea has nukes. so north kore is a bigger thread, unlike with iran I actally would support a war with north korea.

What's horrible is that the war in Iraq has made Irans hand so much stronger. Even if the insurgency stops and a government takes hold, Iraq has no ability to defend itself like it once did. Whereas Iraq was once a secular nation, it's now probably going to end up under religious law or, worse yet, anarchy.

The land-buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia is gone.

Neither is a threat.

Slightly favoring Iran. NK is just retarded...they have like no money and put it all into shitty missiles that don't even work. Sure they were supposed to land in the Sea of Japan, but it's kind of easy to plan for that...

What's horrible is that the war in Iraq has made Irans hand so much stronger. Even if the insurgency stops and a government takes hold, Iraq has no ability to defend itself like it once did. Whereas Iraq was once a secular nation, it's now probably going to end up under religious law or, worse yet, anarchy.

The land-buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia is gone.

no. religious law is as bad as it gets. anarchy is better than that. this is making me very sure that bush is an imperialist. he must be impeached.

no. religious law is as bad as it gets. anarchy is better than that. this is making me very sure that bush is an imperialist. he must be impeached.

I don't know. Anarchy in some places wouldn't be all that bad. Anarchy in the mid-east is people trying to impose different religious laws on each other. There's nations in the world where the government is completely theocratic and it's actually peaceful.

I don't know. Anarchy in some places wouldn't be all that bad. Anarchy in the mid-east is people trying to impose different religious laws on each other. There's nations in the world where the government is completely theocratic and it's actually peaceful.

i know that. but islam theocracies are just barbaric. we must rid the world of them. thats why i think iran should have been targeted, not the secular (compared to most of the mideast) iraq.

no. religious law is as bad as it gets. anarchy is better than that. this is making me very sure that bush is an imperialist. he must be impeached.

The affects of religious law, and its ethics, is really dependent on the doctrine those in power follow. Unfortuantely for the world, the two power religions at the moment are hell bent on converting individuals, and kiling them in the process. More peaceful religions, like judism, would actually be rather peaceful

no. religious law is as bad as it gets. anarchy is better than that. this is making me very sure that bush is an imperialist. he must be impeached.

i know that. but islam theocracies are just barbaric. we must rid the world of them. thats why i think iran should have been targeted, not the secular (compared to most of the mideast) iraq.

You want to erradicate an entire religion from the worlds population and you call islam barbaric.HA

Iran is the biggest threat.

Not in itself, but because it is being used as a straw-man by the Bush administration to allow the US govt to continue to screw the rest of the world and the citizens of the US.

The sooner the Neo-cons are out, the safer everyone will be.

The affects of religious law, and its ethics, is really dependent on the doctrine those in power follow. Unfortuantely for the world, the two power religions at the moment are hell bent on converting individuals, and kiling them in the process. More peaceful religions, like judism, would actually be rather peaceful

Judaism is peaceful? Try telling that to the Canaanites. The fact is that no theocracy is able to deliver peace and freedom, for the simple reason that religion constructs rules of self-governance that are entirely unenforceable and oppressive when applied by any third party.

An example, people often label Buddhism a 'religion of peace', but if we were to look at nations ruled by pious Buddhists: Sri Lanka, an oppressive state where strife is prevalent, Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge and the new Thai junta.

Fact: No religion is peaceful as long as there are other religions.

Also, Iran funds terrorists groups which are killing scores of civilians -- North Korea is not.

North Korea thinks its far more effiecent to murder their own citizens,
sometimes for counter-revolutionary activity, but mostly for singing 'all hail the dear leader' exactly 1/32nd out of key on the 23rd time they have sung the song that day.

oh and thinking a second Korean war would have no impact, just imagine 1/2 of south korea's industry wrecked along with a few missiles lobbed into Tokyo just for good measure.......

You want to erradicate an entire religion from the worlds population and you call islam barbaric.HA

I don't mean to sound racist, but I think they want to kill ALL other religions.

At least, that is what the Islamic fundies take "jihad" to mean.

Fact: No religion is peaceful as long as there are other religions.

Exceptions:

Jainism (don't hurt any living thing)
Taoism (don't interfere with The Way)
Wicca (pagans)

Exceptions:

Jainism (don't hurt any living thing)
Taoism (don't interfere with The Way)
Wicca (pagans)

But there's other religions in the world, so people who follow those religions will recieve hostility from at least a small group.

Unlike Kim Jong-Il, the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi state is much more fanatical than even Ahmadinejad.Yeah, Bush certainly is. Neither Kim Jong-Il nor Ahmadinejad have started any wars recently.

Exceptions:

Jainism (don't hurt any living thing)
Taoism (don't interfere with The Way)
Wicca (pagans)

No exceptions. Followers of these faiths are human, thus potential murderers. And, if they are smart enough, they will be able to use these religions to justify their violence.

Iran , simply because of location . NK is surrounded by huge armed forces and would be anhilated in hours..Iran is surrounded by a bunch of huge countries making billions of dollars off it in arms sales and oil and tech. With a bunch of others not in the money circle babbling at it .


Not even close .

Judaism is peaceful? Try telling that to the Canaanites. The fact is that no theocracy is able to deliver peace and freedom, for the simple reason that religion constructs rules of self-governance that are entirely unenforceable and oppressive when applied by any third party.

An example, people often label Buddhism a 'religion of peace', but if we were to look at nations ruled by pious Buddhists: Sri Lanka, an oppressive state where strife is prevalent, Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge and the new Thai junta.

I used the term More Peaceful, i acknowledge all religions commit atrocities in attempt to perserve or spread their beliefs. At least Judism's dominate beliefs arent focused on conversions like the Christians and Muslim fundementals. I just mentioned Judism because its the only monotheistic religion of the three that appears more peacefull, but then again a pack of hungry bears in a forest seem more peaceful then the other two.

I don't mean to sound racist, but I think they want to kill ALL other religions.

At least, that is what the Islamic fundies take "jihad" to mean.

Yes Fundementals but not the bulk of the entire religion. But that doesn't change the fact that to destroy an entire fellowship of people isn't barbaric, just because the other guy wants everyone else gone as well...and people wonder why muslims have become so militant over the years

Iran , simply because of location . NK is surrounded by huge armed forces and would be anhilated in hours..Iran is surrounded by a bunch of huge countries making billions of dollars off it in arms sales and oil and tech. With a bunch of others not in the money circle babbling at it .


Not even close .

Annihilated in hours by whom? The 30,000 dead us soldiers in the DMZ? All the dead people in seoul?


NK has one of the world's largest standing armies, including an enormous artillery force and nuclear weapons. That army is very motivated and very vicious.