Deucalion Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 "It promised to use "cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means of the DPRK" and said the "merciless operation of its revolutionary armed forces in this regard has been finally examined and ratified"." BBC I wonder about a North Korean terrorist nuclear attack on the US mainland? Fire a missile from the east coast, 30 minutes later detonate a miniature device in LA/San Fransisco? Can you imagine the poo-storm following this?
Trav Le Bleu Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 "It promised to use "cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means of the DPRK" and said the "merciless operation of its revolutionary armed forces in this regard has been finally examined and ratified"." BBC I wonder about a North Korean terrorist nuclear attack on the US mainland? Fire a missile from the east coast, 30 minutes later detonate a miniature device in LA/San Fransisco? Can you imagine the poo-storm following this? You sir, are an evil genius. It seems to me however that Kim Wrong-Un actually believes his own propaganda.
ADK Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 As long as we don't waste any money on them i don't care.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 As long as we don't waste any money on them i don't care. I don't think they have any centre-backs.
leicsmac Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 As long as we don't waste any money on them i don't care. There's around 2-3,000 English teachers (and engineers) from the UK there in South Korea right now. Not to mention almost 70 million people (in both North and South total) on the peninsula as a whole. We should care about this.
MPH Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 I do wonder how many of those 1 million soldiers would surrender the moment they had the chance to get away from North Korea. Valid point. I think at the first sight of a hot meal and hot shower thwy will run like shergar in the Derby The original Korean war was a proxy war, where China was fully backing the North Korean invasion led by the fear of having US military bases so close to their own country. Things have changed, but there's no doubt that china is the lynchpin of this whole situation. They won't publicly side with the US because of their differences, but they know N Korea will get decimated if they were to attack the US, which would again lead to a US controlled Korean peninsula - which they don't want either. Therefore China will quietly continue to facilitate a regional stalemate. This is a modern day extension of the cold war, and I just can't see it actually going anywhere further than stupid threats It absolutely serves china's purpose to have the US's attention elsewhere than them... whilst they 'quietly' grow into the biggest superpower in the world... As long as we don't waste any money on them i don't care. NK are already receiving food/ aid in return for ditching their nuclear warhead aspirations back in 2008 ( not that they have been abiding by that agreement but anyway..).. so other than the millions of lives at risk the international community is already funding them as they ignore the starvation of their people in favor of their Songun ( military first) policy. But yeah... whats there to care about?
BoneDog Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 So now owd Bin Laden's dead I take it this Jong guy is the new bogeyman?
Webbo Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 So now owd Bin Laden's dead I take it this Jong guy is the new bogeyman? Tbf he's the one threatening to nuke everyone.
MPH Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 for anyone wanting a little insight on NK here is a documentary the Nat geo channel did on north Korea.. posing as the crew of a man travelling the worl giving free eye operations they got inside North Korea. It was taken about 4 years ago... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4
BoneDog Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Tbf he's the one threatening to nuke everyone. Maybe, but I think that the agencies of the West know he isn't going to do it unprovoked. I'm pretty sure that the survival of his regime is a top priority for him. I reckon he's been given the go ahead to act it up or something like that. Or maybe he's giving it the big un because he knows they're coming for him and he may be trying to warn them off. I've seen snippets over the years that suggests provocation from the South and the US. It all seems to be happening at a point in time when there are what could be seen as aggressive moves being made in the areas surrounding China, while the US is bolstering forces in the same areas - from the Philipines to North Australia. This NK stuff all seems a bit too convenient. There are many things closer to home in the UK and US that people should be worried about rather than this new bogeyman pimp. He's getting too much credit.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 I'm starting to wonder whether eliminating them before they can do anything is better than the USA retaliating. I am aware of the possible consequences though China and Russia's relationship with NK are becoming increasingly strained
ADK Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 I'd be pretty pissed off if i was South Korean and the US launched a first strike.
Deucalion Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 You sir, are an evil genius. It seems to me however that Kim Wrong-Un actually believes his own propaganda. Why thank you. I wondered how long it would be before anyone noticed !! Seriously though, you might have a point. Whereas his dad always knew it was propaganda, I wonder whether the y'un en (geddit?) has been so indoctrinated that he believes NK can take on the rest of the world?
leicsmac Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Why thank you. I wondered how long it would be before anyone noticed !! Seriously though, you might have a point. Whereas his dad always knew it was propaganda, I wonder whether the y'un en (geddit?) has been so indoctrinated that he believes NK can take on the rest of the world? I doubt it, again purely because the rest of the NK leadership know they're walking on eggshells right now and they have everything to lose from a potential conflict. If it came to it I actually think they'd off him before he ordered a war, purely because of the deep shit it would get them all into. What's the point in having a figurehead who singlehandedly destroys your brutal authoritarian regime and wrecks your reasonably comfortable lives in a moment of ego? In the interests of self-preservation, some of the higher-ups in the NK regime won't let this get out of control.
The Doctor Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Well, they need to shut the **** up before this becomes less some crazy internet thing, and more of a reality. Fucking kangaroos.
acooling08 Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 I think the only message to come from this saga is we need to keep Trident just in case.
leicsmac Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 I think the only message to come from this saga is we need to keep Trident just in case. I don't think we'd ever have to use Trident against the NK's. If (whatever Power is out there forbid) it came to needing to send in a 100-million-degree message, the US would do it without our help. The nuclear game has changed in the last 10-15 years. The threat of full-scale nuclear holocaust is pretty much over: instead the new threat is a small group of ideological nutters somehow getting their hands on a viable bomb and sticking it in a city. Trident can't really respond to that - who would it retaliate against? I'm for keeping some kind of nuclear deterrent just in case the world changes again, but I do think in this day and age Trident seems awfully obsolete.
BoneDog Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 The nuclear game has changed in the last 10-15 years. The threat of full-scale nuclear holocaust is pretty much over: instead the new threat is a small group of ideological nutters somehow getting their hands on a viable bomb and sticking it in a city. And it seems that some world powers are trying to rush this process along and help create just that scenario. Regimes that were never a serious threat to any other nation are being toppled by mercenaries and fanatics who are funded, armed and shipped around by parts of the West - totally destabilising the region. We've been shipping them from Libya to Syria for example. These fanatics would have no chance of toppling any regime without the help they've recently received. Nations are now very unstable and terrorist types are running amok in parts, within sniffing distance of stacks of chemical weapons. The outcome will be no 'unforeseen circumstance' as we like to call it over here.
MPH Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 I'd be pretty pissed off if i was South Korean and the US launched a first strike. there is no way they would launch anything without the south koreans permission in that area... Yet at the same time NK need to pipe down in their threats against the US....The US would have a right to defend itself if someone is threatening it with nuclear weapons...
BoneDog Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Yet at the same time NK need to pipe down in their threats against the US....The US would have a right to defend itself if someone is threatening it with nuclear weapons... Is that a universal right, or does it only apply to superpowers? If that is a general rule then many countries over the last 60 years would have been well within their rights to attack the US mainland. The list of countries that various US regimes over the last 60 years have turned to rubble, or helped subjugate by backing brutal dictators is endless - including countries in Central and South America, Europe, Africa, The Middle East and Asia. Are the people of North Korea next? Does anyone really believe that NK could possibly launch any missile that would get anywhere near the US? The idea is surely a joke.
Zingari Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Is that a universal right, or does it only apply to superpowers? If that is a general rule then many countries over the last 60 years would have been well within their rights to attack the US mainland. The list of countries that various US regimes over the last 60 years have turned to rubble, or helped subjugate by backing brutal dictators is endless - including countries in Central and South America, Europe, Africa, The Middle East and Asia. Are the people of North Korea next? Does anyone really believe that NK could possibly launch any missile that would get anywhere near the US? The idea is surely a joke. 19 Arab hijackers controlled by OBL in a cave in Afghanistan managed to get 4 Huge lumbering passenger aircraft past the trillion dollar NORAD defence system hitting targets at the heart of the US . Surely a piddly little fast moving missile would get through easily ?
BoneDog Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 19 Arab hijackers controlled by OBL in a cave in Afghanistan managed to get 4 Huge lumbering passenger aircraft past the trillion dollar NORAD defence system hitting targets at the heart of the US . Surely a piddly little fast moving missile would get through easily ? Now you put it that way, I'm sure many people would probably believe so and wouldn't be hard to dupe, but the darned thing would be lucky to get halfway across the Pacific before it was obliterated!
Grewks Posted 5 April 2013 Posted 5 April 2013 19 Arab hijackers controlled by OBL in a cave in Afghanistan managed to get 4 Huge lumbering passenger aircraft past the trillion dollar NORAD defence system hitting targets at the heart of the US . Surely a piddly little fast moving missile would get through easily ? The point the other poster is trying to make is....Do North Korea actually have the technology in place to send the missile across such a distance? Evidence so far suggests not....North Korea has been constantly under observation from the U.S, Russia and China since the Cold War. Unless hidden, the launching system would have been discovered by now. Even if the launching device has been hidden, it means it has not been tested....So how do we know that the rocket will actually get the intended distance...we do not. North Korea would be incredibly stupid to attack any other country. They have no close allies, they used to have china, but now it is believed they have closer ties to the U.S than they do to North Korea. Russia are also frustrated with North Korea and have already threatened the state on behalf of the U.S. Once the regime in North Korea falls, the people will realize the brain washing which has taken place within the North Korean bubble. The threat of a world scale nuclear war has long disappeared. China, Russia and the U.S all realize that they need each other, and more importantly for us, they realize that they need Britain, as they need a close ally from Europe. Taking over or destroying a country no longer offers great financial rewards like it used to, in fact it is the total opposite, and is the reason a full scale nuclear war will not occur in the near future.
MPH Posted 5 April 2013 Posted 5 April 2013 Is that a universal right, or does it only apply to superpowers? If that is a general rule then many countries over the last 60 years would have been well within their rights to attack the US mainland. The list of countries that various US regimes over the last 60 years have turned to rubble, or helped subjugate by backing brutal dictators is endless - including countries in Central and South America, Europe, Africa, The Middle East and Asia. Are the people of North Korea next? Does anyone really believe that NK could possibly launch any missile that would get anywhere near the US? The idea is surely a joke. and which nations have the US turned to rubble with nuclear weapons exactly? Any pre-emptive strikes? I can only think of one or two CITIES that have been hit in retaliation.. There's countless other threads about other wars and theories and who's to blame for what exactly... But i love it how the US gets all the stick for anything they have been involved in.. people forget about all the atrocities countless empires have comitted pilaging nations of their sovreignty... However this discussion is about North Korea and their 'fearless' leader and one thing that can not be denied is that they are very publicly throwing around threats of nuclear strikes and THAT was what my post was about... Can they realisticly do it? I very much doubt it... the longest range of missle they currently have is of 4000km which can just about touch Alaska... If any nation is stupid enough to try however it would be NK. They believe so much of their own propoganda and hype they seem to think they are untouchable. Does any nation have a right to defend themselves? of course.. and Does the states have a right to respond to a nuclear threat? 100% too right they do.
Jaspa Posted 5 April 2013 Posted 5 April 2013 Now you put it that way, I'm sure many people would probably believe so and wouldn't be hard to dupe, but the darned thing would be lucky to get halfway across the Pacific before it was obliterated! You think North Korea will suddenly get the shakes Empteh? (cba getting a picture of a harp, but lets just pretend I could)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.