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.

 

North Korea missile: US says it will use military force 'if we must'

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: boredhere74

You've been a member here for 3 years, you should know the rules by now yet here you are complaining about them and trying to circumvent them. I don't expect you to be here for very much longer with that attitude.




posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

When that nation is developing/has developed nuclear weapons, and the launch capacity to reach the continental US.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I agree with all of that.

I'm anti war unless we're attacked. (since WWII only twice if you count the gulf of Tonkin. And the other attack wasn't by a country. )

We lose to many lives, money and resources to enrich the agenda of a very few.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: introvert

When that nation is developing/has developed nuclear weapons, and the launch capacity to reach the continental US.


I apologize. Are you saying that when a nation has done that, we have the authority and obligation to engage them, with military force?



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


...Unless someone is incredibly stupid, nothing is going to happen.


My thoughts too

On the stupid scale range,
'incredibly' must rate around 11, no ;p



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: seagull

I agree with all of that.

I'm anti war unless we're attacked. (since WWII only twice if you count the gulf of Tonkin. And the other attack wasn't by a country. )

We lose to many lives, money and resources to enrich the agenda of a very few.


I agree with you to a degree. Just not sure I would want them to attack us first with an ICBM.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: residentofearth
It's funnier everyday when country sized compared to New Jersey is threathing the whole world.


This thread is about the USA threatening North-Korea.
So are you laughing at the USA?



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: jtrenthacker

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: seagull

I agree with all of that.

I'm anti war unless we're attacked. (since WWII only twice if you count the gulf of Tonkin. And the other attack wasn't by a country. )

We lose to many lives, money and resources to enrich the agenda of a very few.


I agree with you to a degree. Just not sure I would want them to attack us first with an ICBM.


Assuming they're close, they're still using liquid fueled fixed location missiles.

Until they switch to hidden solid fuel we're fine.

If you are speaking under the umbrella of defending South Korea and Japan, it would be a different argument. One I am opposed to, but technically we're bound to protect them by treaty.
edit on 5-7-2017 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Sorry, about that, I didn't quite finish my thought on that... Trying to multi-task...trying...failing.
--------

Depending upon the circumstance, yes.

Would you rather them launch a nuclear tipped missile headed generally east? God alone knowing where it's going to land? I submit, not a good thing to let happen.

A test of "new" technology without the nuke? Obviously not. Testing a nuke underground? A bit more dicey, but probably not. But that first one? I'd have to say it ought to be considered, yes.


edit on 7/5/2017 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

As long as we can detect them fueling, we're fine, as you say. They can be warned off, or hit while still in the pre-launch phase, or what ever the technical term is.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Damiel


Any use of military force against NK will likely result in a response from NK towards Seoul, South Korea with conventional artillery at the very least. Seoul has a population of nearly 50 million people who would be at risk from such an attack/retaliation, including a large U.S. Military presence.

Even if they didn't fire back at the target across the DMZ, a unilateral military strike on North Korea would invite a response from both China and Russia, and possibly considerable sanctions against the U.S. mainland by world trading partners sufficient to plunge the globe into a financial recession.

If NK retaliates with nukes against SK or Japan, the outcome would be far worse and I don't imagine the world as we know it would survive in any form those reading this post could recognize or adapt to.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull



Depending upon the circumstance, yes.


This is where the issue becomes tough to discuss. We could go back and forth for hours on what those circumstances should or could be. Though, I bet you and I could come to a reasonable compromise. Are the people in charge that reasonable?

I hope so.



Would you rather them launch a nuclear tipped missile headed generally east? God alone knowing where it's going to land? I submit, not a good thing to let happen.


Of course not, but I would hate to get the US involved in another conflict born of political fear mongering.

We have great intelligence and technology. I suspect we would be privy to something like that well in advance. Perhaps that is my own naivety.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I'm sure we would.

The relationship, or lack thereof, with North Korea is a weird one. Technically, we're still at war with them. Essentially we're in an almost seventy year rain delay... I'd just as soon they call it, y'know?

I've friends in South Korea, they live in Seouls suburbs. I'd kinda like to see 'em again someday.

My own personal opinion is this: Unless we get incontrovertible evidence that the midget is about to launch a nuclear tipped missile...leave him alone. Ignore him into oblivion. South Korea can deal with him, and with Japan, rather easily.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Of course not, but I would hate to get the US involved in another conflict born of political fear mongering.


But that's the name of the game.

How many countries have we struck post WWII? How many of them attacked first?

And now Americans are unphased by us being at war. Nothing at home is any different.

We'll continue to keep these types of countries on the back burner should the Middle East magically resolve itself.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I have no doubt that it would result in payback from NK !

Seoul, Tokyo ..anywhere in "Eastern Asia"
could wake up with, i dunno, a gas atttack (?) as retalliation
Anything, really ...

But that's supposing that the US didn't show any restraint

a reply to: 0zzymand0s



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull



My own personal opinion is this: Unless we get incontrovertible evidence that the midget is about to launch a nuclear tipped missile...leave him alone. Ignore him into oblivion. South Korea can deal with him, and with Japan, rather easily.


That is reasonable and I agree.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Because we dont brainwash our kids with nursery rhymes that fantasize about the destruction of America... that might be the reason, idk though



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: CriticalStinker

As long as we can detect them fueling, we're fine, as you say. They can be warned off, or hit while still in the pre-launch phase, or what ever the technical term is.


Preemptive strike



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MaestroMind

Stage where the missile, or missiles, are still being fueled... There's a term for it, but my brain has had a bit too much sun today...



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Because we dont brainwash our kids with nursery rhymes that fantasize about the destruction of America... that might be the reason, idk though


Nope. Instead we brainwash our kids with gender neutrality, safe spaces, and Pavlovian/Skinnerian conditioning.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join