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.

 

South Korea Will Not Launch Until We Do.....

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

He can guarentee hitting South Korea and assuming he only has one or 2 bombs you have to ensure you hit your target.

Shooting at the US would have a very bad success rate if you only have one missle.
edit on 6-7-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard

But do you really want to get even closer to Armageddon???

What is the mathematical probability that one of the nearly dozen nuclear powers doesn't lose a war and launch. If we are looking decades or centuries ahead???

What happens when every country has thousands of nukes??

What's the chance things don't escalate then??



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
I bet his shady "wag the dog" social psychology scientist public relations people will have him grow a Hitler moustache towards the end of all this...

(The stache Hitler obvs stole from Chaplin btw...)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


Good points there, and I'm no expert on hardware.

It just doesn't make sense to trust a few precious nukes to missiles when there is a simpler and less risky way to deliver them.

I did see the Trinity Anniversary atom bomb documentary, a cannon fired a shell and a short time later; a mushroom cloud in the distance . . .

From memory the South Africa and Pakistan developed nuke cannon shells.

But anyway, I just reckon the ballistic missiles of NK is maybe both sides playing a game when the question of delivery is right there now.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

If I was constantly belligerent, threatening and provocative against my neighbor, waving my guns around, starving my children and pets, forcing them to work, I wouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I'd be in jail.

By the way, that was a sh** comparison and you know it.
I don't have the ability to kill millions and leave radioactive craters where cities used to be.
edit on 6-7-2017 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I think some people are unaware that the Korean war is still ongoing and never ended in anything but a temporary ceasefire.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Yea the threat of nuclear Armageddon just totally changes the math..

That is so ridiculously the worst case scenerio that I can literally not come up with anything worse that a large scale nuclear exchange like fi the us and Russia launched at each other.

Dan Carlin a historian even proposed that the threat of nuclear Armageddon is so dire , that maybe the US should have conquered the world in that 5 year gap when we were the only nuclear power and everyone else was reeling from WW2.

The only way to ensure you never have a large scale exchange is to only have one nuclear power.

And what is worse than that??

Hitler ruling the world or a Russia vs the US type exchange??

Well hitler will die and maybe the next generation will be better.. with nukes there is no "next generation.."

Americans in the 50's were not crazy for building bomb shelters, we have just forgotten that sword of damacles is still sitting directly above our necks.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Even having 8 makes a Russia vs the US type exchange , long term almost inevitable and then we are playing for the species people. There will be no "next generation"... not likely.


What if the future of the human race depends on developing psychokinetic abilities.
What if the only way to do that is to subject the human race to tons of dna
destroying radiation over many generations. Through hardship we grow stronger.
What if our future selves know this and have been traveling back in time in
order to make it happen.



On topic: Really no telling what kim might do. For all we know he could be terrified of death and
ends up never doing single suicide attack. All his saber rattling could be his way of making sure he
is kept fat and happy.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
NK will not be attacked Untill there is no choice left kim will have to do more then shoot a a island accross his bay .
US attacks NK then china will have no choice but to step in and then Russia .
It would be better to stage a coop . let his own people take him out ( and be sure no one sees the US dirty hands .)
Honstly my guess is this is exactly what will happen .
No one wants ww 3 no ones that crazy and kim could very well being it to that just by anyone attacking him .
Ps kim knows this he is not crazy just paranoid with good reason



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: midnightstar

I think with a coup Kim still launches.. hypothetically him launches my might keep Russia and China at bay...

Everyone knows what happens to the dictator in a coup..

So from the point you are pretty sure your about to be beaten to death.

Why not write yourself into the history books on the way out.
edit on 6-7-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lil' Kim strikes me as one who would take out everybody around him should the worst happen. I think he is crazy, suicidal and evil. Look at how he treats his own people. Had many people killed, inc. his own brother & other relatives.

Anyone like that needs to be dealt with asap. Not with more sanctions and endless rounds of diplomacy. They don't work with him. And never will.

We need to either have him taken out or take out his weapons.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: DAVID64

Tell me David, because no one seems to answer this question when I ask them, maybe you will enlighten me...


Would you let your neighbour decide what guns you can and can't have to defend your home?



If you constantly threaten your neighbors then periodically fire your gun in their direction. Expect a visit by the police to confiscate said fire arms when they place you under arrest. Because you have rights to defend your self you dont have rights to threaten others. North Korea is constantly threatening it's neighbors and the UN has deemed them a threat. Is it time for the police to show up??



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dianajune

Honestly I'm not sure if your average person doesn't launch when faced with knowing they will be beaten to death in the streets.

At that point it's either launch and get in the history books, or go quietly and be forgotten firth with.

That said I see the logic in not wanting him to have 1000 nukes when he finally does get ousted
.
Even if that means he launches one now..


edit on 6-7-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: DAVID64

Tell me David, because no one seems to answer this question when I ask them, maybe you will enlighten me...


Would you let your neighbour decide what guns you can and can't have to defend your home?



If you constantly threaten your neighbors then periodically fire your gun in their direction. Expect a visit by the police to confiscate said fire arms when they place you under arrest. Because you have rights to defend your self you dont have rights to threaten others. North Korea is constantly threatening it's neighbors and the UN has deemed them a threat. Is it time for the police to show up??


Just like the US threatens everyone in the world? What make it on for the US to use threats but not any other country?



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard

The US doesnt threaten countries on a daily basis and we certainly dont threaten the use of nuclear weapons. N. Korea has a right to threaten whomever they wish. Those countries have a right to return the favor.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

A former senior international nuclear watchdog official has raised the possibility of North Korea having nuclear warheads small enough to fit on intercontinental ballistic missiles, a U.S. broadcaster reported Thursday.

It is possible for the North to have held considerably elaborate and miniaturized nuclear warheads with less than 500 kilograms given its technology and manpower, Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general for safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Radio Free Asia. He said that more than a decade has passed since the North conducted its first nuclear test in 2006.

The North has pressed ahead with its nuclear program as a major task, into which it has put talented manpower and huge resources, Heinonen pointed out, while recalling that it has produced plutonium since the 1980s, even before the nuclear test.


Source

Only thing is, Yonhap went on to say that the deployment of NK's ICBM's would be 1-2 years down the road. I believe that NK proved otherwise the other day. Given what I read in this and other Yonhap reports, it appears as though they are trying to "calm-monger."

On Twitter I found this comment, courtesy of "Defcon Warning System:"


So many are concentrating on North Korea's accuracy without considering that an INACCURATE nuke on your soil is just as bad.


Source

Lastly, check this out:


Tens of billions of dollars spent over three decades have still left the Pentagon with no reliable way to shoot down nuclear-tipped missiles approaching the U.S. homeland — a vulnerability that has taken on sharp new urgency after North Korea’s Independence Day test of its first ICBM.

Instead, the missile defense system designed to shield the United States from an intercontinental ballistic missile — a diverse network of sensors, radars and interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California — has failed three of its five tests, military leaders acknowledge.

Even the two successful ones were heavily scripted. “If the North Koreans fired everything they had at us, and we fired at all of the missiles, we’d probably get most of them,” said Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia nonproliferation program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “But is ‘probably get most’ a good day or a bad day?”


Source

So, things are looking rather bleak at the moment. I'm not sure why we would advertise that our missile shield is not ready. How encouraging that must be for Lil' Kim.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: DAVID64

Tell me David, because no one seems to answer this question when I ask them, maybe you will enlighten me...


Would you let your neighbour decide what guns you can and can't have to defend your home?


Perhaps you should read up on the Agreed Framework that NK willingly signed. No country has told NK to stop making subs, planes, rifles, artillery, etc. Just nukes. Considering that NK invaded SK, and their history is rife with unstable leaders threatening SK on a yearly basis, I don't think it's unreasonable to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands.

Iran has said repeatedly it will nuke Israel into glass. Their leadership has also made it clear it would be unwise to allow them to have nuclear weapons. Because they are not threatening Israel, they are threatening the entire world. Same goes with NK. They are not threatening the U.S., they are threatening the entire world with nuclear devastation. Unless you really think just a couple nukes will fly back and forth, and that will be the end of it.

Consider this: if NK stopped funneling money into weapons and nuclear programs, and instead, focused on improving the quality of life for its citizens, do you -really- think that the U.S. or ANY country is a threat to them? Of course not. And in fact, SK and the U.S. would quite possibly help them in the long run.

You keep implying they need protection. They only need protection because of their actions. Unlike the middle east, where there are resources that often drive agendas that lead to wars, NK has precisely jack-squat in resources that would be worth invading for. No one really cares about that country, other than the fact they keep threatening a fiery nuclear death.

I feel bad for the citizens of NK - I couldn't care less about their repressive and wicked government, nor their demands. The PEOPLE of NK are in no danger from the U.S. or South Korea. The government can go to hell, and I can only laugh at anyone who supports that twisted, deranged "dynasty" of killers and criminals.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join