N. Korea says it will whipe the US off the map.

Yeah, let's invade North Korea. Let's ignore how they got the materials to make nukes. Good ol' Donnie Rumsfeld, and his company. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280441337.html

The US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, sat on the board of a company that three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts of build nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
You know what you can do with light water nuclear reactors? You can make Plutonium 239, which can be used to make nuclear weapons.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Yeah, let's invade North Korea. Let's ignore how they got the materials to make nukes. Good ol' Donnie Rumsfeld, and his company. [/QUOTE]

Another reason, I hate government period...

[quote name='Koggit']I posted it, but then realized it prevented embedding, tried to un-embed it but couldn't, so deleted my post[/QUOTE]

Great find dOOd. Easily highlight of my day. lol
 
As much as i hate Rummie, it wasn't his company. He was employed by that company, but it isn't like he controlled everything it did.

Before anyone uses the same reasoning on Cheney and Haliburton, not the same things.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']As much as i hate Rummie, it wasn't his company. He was employed by that company, but it isn't like he controlled everything it did.

Before anyone uses the same reasoning on Cheney and Haliburton, not the same things.[/QUOTE]

He was on the board of directors. He had enough influence. Apparently he also lobbied his friends for the contract.

Many members of the Bush administration are on record as opposing Mr Clinton's plans, saying that weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from the type of light water reactors that ABB sold. Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the state department's number two diplomat, Richard Armitage, both opposed the deal as did the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, whose campaign Mr Rumsfeld ran and where he also acted as defence adviser.

One unnamed ABB board director told Fortune magazine that Mr Rumsfeld was involved in lobbying his hawkish friends on behalf of ABB.
Click to expand...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/09/nuclear.northkorea
 
WTF... there's these "Taste of Korea" commercials on and they are sponsored by the Korean Government. They don't say north or south...

I can't find much on the net about this either...
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']
267387351_437be39b1f.jpg
[/QUOTE]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQTykNTP9YE[/media]
 
[quote name='souljah420']i might take your stance and point of view a little more seriously, except you spelled wipe with an h u jackass[/QUOTE]

To much Family Guy.
 
Its just hot air. They're intensifying their rhetoric as they prepare for a transfer of power to Kim's son.

A war with North Korea would mean millions of dead South Koreans. And the Chinese are not about to stand by and let us invade the buffer zone between them and us. The only thing they can do right now is to not play Kim's games anymore.
 
If NK were to nuke the US, everybody else would nuke NK. After all, how long before NK decides they're a threat too? If Kimmie wants to control his hunger stricken people, try giving them food. Stop fear mongering. if the US wnated to attack, we'd jhave already have.

Of ourse, this is all Bush's fault. While he was chaisng imaginary nukes in Iraq, he was laughing at the notion of NK having nukes. Had he focused on them, there'd be no problem today. If you ignore the kid with his hand in the cookie jar, don't complain when he takes the cookies.
 
The U.S. has to take any threats toward Japan seriously, since ignoring them would breach the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. I don't encourage or support war, but if the U.S. government wants to keep the treaty, it needs to focus on protecting Japan. I don't want anything nuclear being dropped anywhere, it's lose-lose once the radiation and debris start spreading.
 
[quote name='Ather']If NK were to nuke the US, everybody else would nuke NK. After all, how long before NK decides they're a threat too? If Kimmie wants to control his hunger stricken people, try giving them food. Stop fear mongering. if the US wnated to attack, we'd jhave already have.

Of ourse, this is all Bush's fault. While he was chaisng imaginary nukes in Iraq, he was laughing at the notion of NK having nukes. Had he focused on them, there'd be no problem today. If you ignore the kid with his hand in the cookie jar, don't complain when he takes the cookies.[/QUOTE]

While Bush is certainly not blameless for the situation, our biggest mistake as regards North Korea policy was actually made by Clinton when he signed the Agreed Framework in 1994, which the North Koreans immediately started cheating on. Too bad we couldn't have done something meaningful BEFORE they got nuclear weapons...
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Nothing needs to be done about it. They probably accidentally said it. We, America, have forced them to view us like this.[/QUOTE]
Damn liberals.

We need to immediately attack North Korea for speaking threateningly towards us. We will try to kill the leader so as to end the war immediately but that will inevitably fail, leading to a protracted war that will not only kills millions of South Koreans in first days, but trigger a massive response that will kill millions of North Koreans. On their last limbs and clearly unable to deter any longer, I'm sure NK won't feel the need to take a nuke pot shot at Japan, Hawaii, China, or anywhere else, taking with them potentially a few tens of millions of people...

Assuming China doesn't get involved immediately for initiating a Korean conflict, one of the few things America could do that could seriously provoke and antagonize China into a defensive military action that could cause an honest to god war. I mean shit, if there's a more strategic point on the planet to China than the Korean peninsula, they sure don't know about it.

And I also like this train of thought because it completely dismisses the South Korean position and leadership on the issue, making them look like little more than tools and unable to do anything but serve the American agenda on their home soil. Double points because they've been stalwart hardcore American allies for over half a century now.

But what the fuck do I know. I only served in the 2nd Infantry Division at Camp Casey, South Korea in the US Army.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Speedracer, I am guessing you are being sarcastic, what do you think should or will be done?[/QUOTE]
Leave it to the South Koreans. They are easily one of our strongest allies in the world. It's their country, their neighbor, and their asses on the line if they make bad decisions.

Devolve power back to the client state and let them take the lead. They're very capable.
 
I only watched part of the first vid that came up. First thing to pop in my head is Compensating much? Paranoid much? lol christ...
 
Kim Jong Il is an idiot. If he wants to blow up the US, he needs to build missiles that fly farther than Hawaii. This has been a cycle for a while. N. Korea does something stupid or makes a threat and they get concessions.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If North Korea wants to destroy us, they just need one EMP.[/QUOTE]
I doubt North Korea is building science vessels.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I doubt North Korea is building science vessels.[/QUOTE]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/BallisticMissileDefense/wm2512.cfm

In 33 minutes or less, life as we know it in America could end. That's how long it would take for an enemy ballistic missile launched from the other side of the world to hit the United States. If it carried and detonated a nuclear weapon high over the center of the country, the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) would literally fry the nation's electrical grid and all of the circuitry that powers our homes, businesses, hospitals, phones, cars, planes, traffic lights, ATMs, water supplies, and anything else not "hardened" against such attacks. The EMP Commission chairman has testified that, within just one year of such an attack, 70 percent to 90 percent of Americans would be dead from starvation and disease.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/BallisticMissileDefense/wm2512.cfm#_ftn1...

Pleasant dreams.

Hell, the radiation that thins out the herd might save the rest of us. Well, until the water pools keeping radioactive fuel cooled off run dry because nobody is supplying power to the electric pumps refilling the water pools.
 
Not saying that it isn't possible, but how come there has never been any type of attack using EMPs if they're so effective?

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.heritage.org/Research/BallisticMissileDefense/wm2512.cfm

In 33 minutes or less, life as we know it in America could end. That's how long it would take for an enemy ballistic missile launched from the other side of the world to hit the United States. If it carried and detonated a nuclear weapon high over the center of the country, the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) would literally fry the nation's electrical grid and all of the circuitry that powers our homes, businesses, hospitals, phones, cars, planes, traffic lights, ATMs, water supplies, and anything else not "hardened" against such attacks. The EMP Commission chairman has testified that, within just one year of such an attack, 70 percent to 90 percent of Americans would be dead from starvation and disease.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/BallisticMissileDefense/wm2512.cfm#_ftn1...

Pleasant dreams.

Hell, the radiation that thins out the herd might save the rest of us. Well, until the water pools keeping radioactive fuel cooled off run dry because nobody is supplying power to the electric pumps refilling the water pools.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='docvinh']Not saying that it isn't possible, but how come there has never been any type of attack using EMPs if they're so effective?[/QUOTE]

It would fuck up everyone's satellites.

An EMP would throw us back to the early 1800s technologically. Since most of us live in cities, and have no clue how to grow our own food, we would be screwed.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Not saying that it isn't possible, but how come there has never been any type of attack using EMPs if they're so effective?[/QUOTE]

1. An EMP would destroy you unless it is set off far away from yourself.

2. They're not as sexy as radioactive fire, but just as complicated to create and implement.

3. The EMP wouldn't affect any aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines on the other hemisphere of the world.

4. The EMP wouldn't affect NORAD or any of the dozens of top secret underground facilities in the continental US.

5. The EMP would reduce the ability for the US to ship you grain and keep your people or army placated.

6. The EMP would excuse any behavior the American people engage in to restore their society.

7. Perhaps, the American people are no more the enemy of the North Korean government than the Iranian people are no more the enemy of the American government.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']It would fuck up everyone's satellites.

An EMP would throw us back to the early 1800s technologically. Since most of us live in cities, and have no clue how to grow our own food, we would be screwed.[/QUOTE]

Good thing we're cutting and bargaining away our missile defense capabilities.
 
[quote name='depascal22']And how many EMPs does North Korea have?[/QUOTE]

As many nukes as they have. How many wouldn't fail and blow up in their faces, probably 0.
 
It's troubling to think of, but what can we do? Nuclear disarmament and friendlier foreign policies are important options but nobody will try them. An article I read (I forgot what it was called) stated the U.S. could have "whiped" out starvation and illiteracy with the money spent in Iraq. Imagine what the U.S. would look like to the world if it did that.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It's troubling to think of, but what can we do? Nuclear disarmament and friendlier foreign policies are important options but nobody will try them. An article I read (I forgot what it was called) stated the U.S. could have "whiped" out starvation and illiteracy with the money spent in Iraq. Imagine what the U.S. would look like to the world if it did that.[/QUOTE]

Answer: Terrible.

You can't sell happy people weapons and their repressive governments wouldn't buy advanced weapons systems to keep their unarmed, happy subjects underfoot.
 
I'm sure there would be plenty of residual funding for renewable energy and technological advances (the only positive aspect of defense spending). Using the Iraq money for smarter investments would not harm the U.S.

The "war on terror" was and is a terrible investment, I knew that when I was 17.
 
The war on terror was a horrible investment but war in general is good for the world economy. I know it sounds bad but there would be alot of people agitating for war even if there's complete world peace and a one world government.
 
I don't think the answer to the war/prosperity dilemma would be easy, just as dealing with North Korea is not easy. Responding to Jong Il is difficult because it's easy to fuel the fire and cause violence to escalate.

Usually I just throw my arms up and walk away from these discussions. It's easy to lose sight of your daily life when you think about the dismal progression of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top