It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: neutronflux
First of all --- they haven't. As a matter of fact they are not even able to successfully launch an ICBM in a test scenario. Long way to go to get that nuke designed to successfully mount. And let's say they did. And let's say they launched. And let's say all our anti-missile technology fails. And let's say one or more successfully detonate on U.S. soil. What would happen next?
All interested parties (NK, China, Russia, Japan, SK, Philippines) have been told that if NK launches at the US (also likely including our allies), we will respond with overwhelming force leaving no gov't or Kim private asset standing.
NORTH KOREA PROBABLY CAN’T STRIKE THE US YET—BUT IT’S STILL PLENTY SCARY
www.wired.com...
Experts think the radius within which North Korea could reliably target includes South Korea, Japan, and possibly Guam and parts of China and Russia.
North Korea's Threats Revitalize Preemptive Strike Debate In Japan
www.forbes.com...
North Korea fired four missiles simultaneously just last month, and three of them landed in what Japan claims as its exclusive economic zone. In fact, the government announced that it was the closest ever splashdown to Japan’s mainland to date. The North Korean regime is poised to carry out yet another nuclear test. Taken together, these circumstances represent what Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has called a “new level of threat” that demands clarity on preemptive strikes by and in defense of Japan.
Some of Japan’s most prominent national security space advocates are leading the charge on the preemptive strike front, and are gaining ground particularly in light of North Korea’s recent actions. One of them, Hiroshi Imazu, who chairs the Research Commission on Security for the LDP, recently gave the Prime Minister a proposal to bolster BMD. But many see the actual protection from BMD for the Japanese homeland as a grand and ever more expensive fiction, tilting Japan toward supplementing it with preemptive strike options.
National Security
A North Korean ship was seized off Egypt with a huge cache of weapons destined for a surprising buyer
www.washingtonpost.com... -buyer/2017/10/01/d9a4e06e-a46d-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.a2d61d33bea8
Armed with this tip, customs agents were waiting when the ship entered Egyptian waters. They swarmed the vessel and discovered, concealed under bins of iron ore, a cache of more than 30,000 rocket-propelled grenades. It was, as a United Nations report later concluded, the “largest seizure of ammunition in the history of sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”
originally posted by: Plotus
a reply to: Plotus
"Hear me, fellow outsiders / purveyors of sanity, the battle to take down the Two Party System must begin now."
Look at the Supreme Court.... there are 9 Justices ? It avoids a tie and with the 9th and last vote, some serious scrutiny is employed. The two party has become a Bane.
originally posted by: Tempter
originally posted by: Plotus
a reply to: Plotus
"Hear me, fellow outsiders / purveyors of sanity, the battle to take down the Two Party System must begin now."
Look at the Supreme Court.... there are 9 Justices ? It avoids a tie and with the 9th and last vote, some serious scrutiny is employed. The two party has become a Bane.
So let's write an amendment to fund permanently a third party. If more choice is the answer, let's fund three more. Why stop there?
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: neutronflux
If we can sell weapons internationally then why cant they?
I mean how hard is this hypocrisy stuff to overcomb?
originally posted by: Tempter
originally posted by: Plotus
a reply to: Plotus
"Hear me, fellow outsiders / purveyors of sanity, the battle to take down the Two Party System must begin now."
Look at the Supreme Court.... there are 9 Justices ? It avoids a tie and with the 9th and last vote, some serious scrutiny is employed. The two party has become a Bane.
So let's write an amendment to fund permanently a third party. If more choice is the answer, let's fund three more. Why stop there?