Anne Coulter calls for nuking of N. Korea

Some of the posts here are absolutely insane. I hope it's one big joke. Does any understand strategic doctrine, MAD?

Big question to ask - you nuke N. Korea - how do nuclear powers react.

Originally posted by NavyDog
Big question to ask - you nuke N. Korea - how do nuclear powers react.

Depends on the reason, but under pretty much any circumstances other than us unprovoked attacking them.....Nothing.

They have saber rattled and threatened war so many times a few well placed low yield strikes followed up by a bloody but brief mop-up would be met by some bitching and moaning and maybe some sanctions but thats about it. If we could produce evidence (even made up) of Kim planing to attack the South or Japan no one would care. Kim is almost making it too easy with his threats.

What country would be willing to go to a NUCLEAR war over LIL Kim? No one. Not even China, they would talk tough while getting some trade deals (pay offs) on the side and that would be that.

The truth be know NO ONE including China wants a madman with Nukes there, I will be suprised if China doesnt take them out if we dont.

Dont get me wrong I wouldnt want to see it happen but NK will will either implode or explode sooner or later.

[edit on 7-1-2005 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by NavyDog
Big question to ask - you nuke N. Korea - how do nuclear powers react.

Depends on the reason, but under pretty much any circumstances other than us unprovoked attacking them.....Nothing.

Dont get me wrong I wouldnt want to see it happen but NK will will either implode or explode sooner or later.

[edit on 7-1-2005 by Amuk]

it sucks, but I really can't say much more than my original post - however you are wrong

*Edited to shorting quote* Amuk

[edit on 7-1-2005 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Big deal, I call for the nuking of North Korea. Not out of lust, but out of necessity.

I can see the logic in that position, but you do not think that there can be other ways to control and manipulate them?

Also, do you think it would be worth a first strike if it meant, say, LA was nuked in the process? I mean, the NKs can nuke some American cities, and the major reason behind nuking NK is to prevent them from nuking US cities. But nuking them means that they absolutely will attempt to strike back, do you think they can be stopped in time?

Also, a nuke strike on NK, some people are forgetting, it need not be on cities, short of where the leadership is, there isn't much sense in nuking the cities. Its the military instalations that need to be destroyed, particuarly the ones controlling their nukes, and the million man army on the DMZ. Thats vital, because there can't be any troop build up prior to the nuke strike that will alert them, and without a build up, they will simply over run the US and SK troops on the dmz, wiping them out in all probability. So the nuke strike has to wipe their retaliatory capability in one stroke.

Actually, c.f. scorched earth might be workable here. Remove as many US troops from the DMZ as possible, essentially abandon the penninsula. Then strike to destroy their nuke response capability and some of their regular army and leadership. Then reassemble the Army that was in waiting. It will take time, and they NKs will overrun and slaughter the SKs, but once the army arrives, it will be able to easily defeat a starving leaderless NK army. Hmm, intruiging.

Originally posted by NavyDog
you nuke N. Korea - how do nuclear powers react.

They (meaning the former Soviets and the Red Chinese) have to make a decision at that point. Is the US also attacking them, has it made an outright bid for global domination or not, and are any nukes in the air or any possible strikes on them in the works right then? I would think that they'd have to figure, no, they themselves are not in danger, because they themselves have a deterent nuke force, whereas the NKs only had an offensive small scale attack force. They'd also probably figure that, if the US was planning on attacking them at anytime, that they'd coordinate it so that the old Soviets, China, and NK were nuked in a first strike.

The NKs are a proxy for the Soviets, at least when they were around. Might not be any sense in engaging in global thermonuclear war over a proxy. If the Americans had used nukes in Vietnam, the Russians needn't have responded in kind. Similar thinking might apply to the NK situation.

Of course, this requires intense contact with the Russians and Chinese. It would not be worth eliminating all of the NK nukes only to be wiped out by combined Russian and Ukranian nukes. So it would require absolute certainty as to how their leadership will react, which is not really something that can easily be counted on. The Russians might not be particularly threatened, but how would the Chinese, already tense over Taiwan react? They might reason that teh US was willing to go to war over SK, and that it might do the same for Taiwan. On the other hand, if they can be convinced that the Americans are deterred by Chinese nukes, then that should be sufficient.

Big deal, I call for the nuking of North Korea. Not out of lust, but out of necessity.

If the idea wasnt to reunite Korea Nukes would be the best option. North Korea would fall like the Soviet Union if we stopped giving them aid every time they blackmailed the world.

This is my first post, I've been visiting here for about 2 months and have enjoyed many of the discussions that have provided both insights and information on numerous subjects, but this? First, to Annie"Oakley" Coulter and all those who support this idea of "nuking" North Korea can I ask you "where is the fallout going to go?" Will it be the the U.S. governments 60th anniversary gift to Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Tokyo and northern Japan can get in on the action this time! Second, I know a few Republicans and all are good people and I'm sure most of you here under the GOP flag are just the same; honest, law-abiding, hardworking individuals who contribute to the ongoing story of America, however, 90% of your politicians and talking heads are nothing more than tin soilders. Ann Coulter is a prime example, when faced with a viscious drive by "pieing" during a speech, did Ann stand her ground? Did she go on the offensive and make a preempted strike like she always declaring the U.S. military should do against every other nation that doesn't tow the neocons line? No, she ran like the coward! Coulter, Bush, and Cheney are all cut from the same cloth, talk tough as long as they're not in the crosshairs and when the heats on run for dark corners like cockroaches. So here I am, I'm an American and I'm a liberal and unlike most Dems, if you want it come and get it! Don't sing it, Bring it!

.....I want to see Ann & Rush Limbaugh married! I wonder how long they can put up with eachothers crap....the punishement....

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Countermeasures]

Originally posted by MERC

Originally posted by Wask
You people actualy cheer on this hate monger and think the murder of millions of innocents is a good thing? Nothing but a racist nazi whore. WHen is someone going to shoot her in the face?

[edit on 7-1-2005 by Wask]

[edit on 7-1-2005 by Wask]

LOL!
Well said.

OK, This is going a little too far. Anyone who takes her seriously is just "out-of-it". Ann is a "flamer" for those who don't get it. Like Rush, she gets "instant gradification" from sticking it to Libs. She nor I really think "nuking NK" is any solution. Reality is NK is getting very unstable due to mass hunger. Their prez keep whipping up the masses with anti US garbage. It is no secret the US missile defense system in the Pacific is geared toward NK. They are so dangerous even GW has to "pay attention".

Now to more serious things.....Ann is too skinny and a "blonde". Give me a "firey redhead" anytime. Haaaaaaaa

Ok, I'm back. For all you America-haters, I take great joy in maintaining U.S. Army helicopters for a living. Anyway, I'm off and back home.

First off, what's mad got to do with it Seal? I didn't know N.K. was anywhere near an equal yet. The other powers? Like...China? France maybe. Yeah, they'll suffocate us with arrogance and white flags.

Back to China. Here's what we do:

The birds are in the air, the warheads tailored to be as small and clean as possible and with air bursts rather than ground bursts. Minutes before detection by the Chinese, our president calls their leader and says, "The birds are in the air and there is no returning them. Little Ill Kin is about to get the antidote. We have already amassed tons of food in S. Korea to rush aide in there to start feeding his starving people. While some will die as this isn't perfectly surgical, it is the best thing humanitarian and it will stabilize the region.
We have no need in real estate in your region, so you rush in with aide as well. In a few weeks, you are in charge of the aide, we slip you some cash to help out, and in a few months we also leave S. Korea as North Korea is no longer a threat.
Want to play ball?"

As far as the statement of shooting Ann for nothing more than words and mourning the idea of ridding the N. Koreans of their plight, you sure are a big mouth when it comes to shooting a woman in the face, Wask. Big man. So, what's your big idea, big, tough woman killer? Navel gaze for 50 more years while the people starve and the insane folks can hit your Mecca, S.F. California with precision? LOL! I can't get over a boy suggesting shooting a woman in the face! I've never even thought of that for Barbara Boxer or Hillary Clinton!

Fiery redheads. There's an idea. I haven't given half of my belongings to one of them, yet.
On second thought, at my age, I can't afford to share anymore.

Ok, people, while we talk about nuking or no nuking third world countries with nuclear power, let me remind you that US and other world leaders has allowed these third world countries to get to the place they are now.

We the US and other world leaders are at fault for not halting in time the nuclear thread.

Now we want to cried "outrage" and how they "dare" well these countries including NK did not became nuclear threat over night somebody help them get there, obviously from other countries that had them already.

Past administration in our country and other world leaders are to blame for all that.

i think "your annie" is a sick, mad person, who should at least know what she is talking about. people with such arrogant attitude in their foreign policies should be as far aways from politics as possible.
a patriot?
HA!
a cunning, selfish, arrogant, evil snake if you ask me.




annie get your gun!

Originally posted by marg6043
Ok, people, while we talk about nuking or no nuking third world countries with nuclear power, let me remind you that US and other world leaders has allowed these third world countries to get to the place they are now.

After Japan was defeated in WWII, the United States got responsibility for South Korea, now a prosperous industrial democracy, while the Soviet Union took control of North Korea, now a dictorship where people are starving. And you still blame the U.S.! Unbelievable!

Originally posted by djohnsto77

After Japan was defeated in WWII, the United States got responsibility for South Korea, now a prosperous industrial democracy, while the Soviet Union took control of North Korea, now a dictorship where people are starving. And you still blame the U.S.! Unbelievable!

Where does it said that I blame US alone, I suggest that you read the post again.

People, world leaders had allowed the third world countries to become the threat they are now.

Periot.

I myself am in the military and I know little about what's going on...but I do know this.....North Korea, when given the chance, WILL nuke us if we don't take evasive action fast. There may be a warning but we will not be able to stop it. We need to disarm them now!

Yup. Someone should have done something a long time ago. Clinton did. He bribed them. They took the bribe and kept on doing as they pleased.

What, do you suggest we should have attacked militarily a long time ago? LOL! You would have just complained and threw rocks a long time ago, that's the only difference.

If you recall, for a long time we were in a Cold War, and to attack a Warsaw Pact ally would have triggered WWIII. Right after the Cold War, we were involved in Iraq part I. Afterward, Clinton was in office. Just when do you think we should have done something?

Never mind. This requires more analysis than rhetoric, and rhetoric is empty and useless and already fills much of this board.

Gosh, Soulja, sounds to me like you really, really don't like Miss Coulter! You mean you don't ever read her columns? You don't have even ONE of her books? Gee!
Seriously, she writes for those who already agree with her, her over-the-top comments and sarcastic wit is for humor's sake, nothing else.

OK, This is going a little too far. Anyone who takes her seriously is just "out-of-it". Ann is a "flamer" for those who don't get it. Like Rush, she gets "instant gradification" from sticking it to Libs. She nor I really think "nuking NK" is any solution. Reality is NK is getting very unstable due to mass hunger. Their prez keep whipping up the masses with anti US garbage. It is no secret the US missile defense system in the Pacific is geared toward NK. They are so dangerous even GW has to "pay attention".

Once again Doctor, I have to agree with you.
Let's just pray that the attention that George W is paying them is constructive, and not destructive. NK whether anyone cares to admit it or not is a formidable foe. Kim Il Jong is one half step away from being certifiable........ With Kim Il, and George W in an arm wrestling match, I tremble to think what could happen, IMO I think neither of them have a grasp on reality, yet they both have the authority to "launch. Scary.

Maybe America forgot to nuke russia and the world back in '45 when the usa had the monopoly on nukes, we wouldn't have this war on terror, America would be a center of civillisation in the midst of a stone-age world.

Originally posted by Odd

Originally posted by worldwatcher
girls, Dr. Horacid is just jealous he can't get beautiful intelligent open-minded women like us, he has to settle for ditzy Ann Coulter types instead.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by worldwatcher]

Open-minded my ass.... arrogant, self-aggrandizing women that can't take a bloody joke have never done much for me.

Saying that you are open-minded whilst calling anybody with a differing opinion "hate-filled" is simply dumb.

I, on the other hand, make no claims of open-mindedness, nor of humility... and I am sick and tired of you patting yourselves on the back because you met a guy that's willing to give you the time of day... so I thought I'd let you all know that, and bring a little more light into your worlds

how very interesting, you cast your judgement on me based on a post in which I am having fun with friends, instead of any of other one of my hundreds of post. thanks for sharing how you really feel.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by worldwatcher]