It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner
yea but I'm talking about the SOUTH Koreans. So Kim threatens Anchorage and Seattle. We attack NK. And 100,000 S. Koreans are killed along with a significant portion of their infrastructure. That makes sense to you?
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: chr0naut
That has absolutely no bearing on the current situation, even if that is true. And I am not advocating the use of nukes, either. But we cannot, at all costs, even if it means some American lives, let this nutcase get better delivery systems. He's already threatening Alaska. I guess it's going to take threatening Washington, DC first, huh, before anything is done? No. Hell no. Your smart ass little comment means nothing. Not in context.
But more importantly, let's stick with the story here. And the story is that that's what I am hearing. A preemptive strike is well on its way to having grass roots level support. And little Kim better watch out if the American people get overwhelmingly behind that notion.
Threatening is not killing.
The US & NK are both playing brinkmanship games. The US has done the same with Russia and China and even its allies (like Britain) for years. What happened in those instances of threat?
You are suggesting an actual response where very many lives will be lost.
It doesn't matter what accident of birth put them on what continent, they are all people and the vast majority who would die would be non-combatants.
All to assuage your fears?