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 Says Diplomacy is Over - Nuclear War May Start at Any Moment.

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Ohanka
They've said it 823 times in the past, I see no reason for the 824th to be any different.


Only difference between then and now is that they are likely capable of doing it thanks to past administrations.

A child pointing a water pistol and threatening to shoot is meaningless. A child pointing a loaded gun is a different matter.


That's excellent, real-world logic, WhyWhyNot.




posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: introvert
Let Kim do whatever he damn well pleases. He's only trying to put his country in a position to where they wont be messed with by the Western powers.

We don't need to take any action unless we have 100% certainty that they are going to act on their threats.


That's the way I feel too. From the restraint we've shown, I believe that President Trump and his generals feel the same way.


I wish Trump's language and rhetoric matched those feelings.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

If my neighbor "said" he was going to shoot me? No, I couldn't shoot him it would be murder.

If my neighbor told everyone in town he was going to kill me, then came out in the yard and fired a few rounds over my other neighbors house, then pointed a gun at me? I would be willing to take that shooting to court actually.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: introvert
Let Kim do whatever he damn well pleases. He's only trying to put his country in a position to where they wont be messed with by the Western powers.

We don't need to take any action unless we have 100% certainty that they are going to act on their threats.


What would you describe as 100% certainly. What would your redline be?


That is a hard line to draw as I am not in a position to know their exact capabilities and intent.



There is only one answer to this whatever the intent and capabilities. That is if they move an inch on anyone its show time. Besides al this extra Korean geographical, if you will, movement is all designed to make aggression toward south Korea easier.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
I think Trump said, "fire and fury, etc" It's not similar, but exactly the same thing...Cashew anyone?


I think the U.N. (and other) sanctions are starting to have a disruptive effect on North Korea.

In just the past 7 days, the Nation has threatened 1.) Guam 2.)Australia, and now the U.S. East Coast.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: whywhynot


A child pointing a water pistol and threatening to shoot is meaningless. A child pointing a loaded gun is a different matter.


If your neighbor—or anyone for that matter—says he's going to come to your house and shoot you, does that give you the right to go to his house and shoot him first?


Is your analogy set within a country with enforced laws? If so the answer is no I report the threat to the authorities and rely on them to handle it.

If your analogy is set within a lawless country with no functioning authority system then the answer is that I protect my family at all cost which very may likely include a preemptive strike.

Now ask yourself, does NK and the US have a functioning authority system over them?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dianajune


I don't understand why Trump refuses to do a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.


There is currently no active war with NK. Why start a war?


I say do a pre-emptive strike before Kim nukes us or uses an EMP satellite, etc.


So, war to prevent war?





I believe we are still in a state of war, only it seems to be on vacation, on hold.


Technically, yes.

That's beside the point, since there has been no actual physical conflict.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: introvert
Let Kim do whatever he damn well pleases. He's only trying to put his country in a position to where they wont be messed with by the Western powers.

We don't need to take any action unless we have 100% certainty that they are going to act on their threats.


That's the way I feel too. From the restraint we've shown, I believe that President Trump and his generals feel the same way.


I wish Trump's language and rhetoric matched those feelings.




This is not about Trump my son. That is Trump as a handler of some new condition. This thing with North K has been going one way before you were born. Get u mind around that.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: dianajune

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dianajune

And you undoubtedly know that an attack on the US wold occur otherwise?

Point remains: war to prevent war?

Sounds like warmongering.


Nope. I call it protecting one's country from an immediate threat.





Point is: How do you know the threat is immediate?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: whywhynot


A child pointing a water pistol and threatening to shoot is meaningless. A child pointing a loaded gun is a different matter.


If your neighbor—or anyone for that matter—says he's going to come to your house and shoot you, does that give you the right to go to his house and shoot him first?


No, you form a coalition and Call it NATO, and then you take he's property and inslave his Family.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dianajune

To repeat myself:

If your neighbor said he was going to shoot you, does that give you the right to go to his house and shoot him first?

That question would have to include your neighbor constantly pointing a loaded gun at you, and occasionally firing a shot over your house to be a fair comparison.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: introvert
Let Kim do whatever he damn well pleases. He's only trying to put his country in a position to where they wont be messed with by the Western powers.

We don't need to take any action unless we have 100% certainty that they are going to act on their threats.


What would you describe as 100% certainly. What would your redline be?


That is a hard line to draw as I am not in a position to know their exact capabilities and intent.



There is only one answer to this whatever the intent and capabilities. That is if they move an inch on anyone its show time. Besides al this extra Korean geographical, if you will, movement is all designed to make aggression toward south Korea easier.


If they move an inch, it is not our place to push them back. Let China and Russia take care of it.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: whywhynot


A child pointing a water pistol and threatening to shoot is meaningless. A child pointing a loaded gun is a different matter.


If your neighbor—or anyone for that matter—says he's going to come to your house and shoot you, does that give you the right to go to his house and shoot him first?


Thats funny that you said that.
Happened to me once a few years back. Had a dispute with a neighbor about him and his guests partying loudly every week in his garage. Sometimes up to 6am the next morning. Anyway, calling the cops multiple times did not help.

One morning it escalated and he threatened to shoot me.
I called his bluff and told him to to go get his gun.
When he tried back peddling, I sent him to the hospital.

Why did I call his bluff and beat his a$$? because I knew that I if didn`t, it would never end.
He threatened me, and I may not have had the "right" to beat him up, but what if he did follow through?
Either way, I would`nt have let him reach his front door anyway.

After that, the partying and noise ended at 10pm, not a minute later.

Sometimes you gotta do what ya gotta do.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: gort51

Accept ..we ARE STILL fighting a war...I was there in 1986...AND we WILL HAVE to KEEP a base and troops there TO contain the DPRK from invading the SOUTH...
FACTS ...they REALLY can screw with your ideas.
DON'T feel bad, OTHERS ARE equally obtuse on this VERY thread...

edit on 16-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: dianajune

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dianajune

And you undoubtedly know that an attack on the US wold occur otherwise?

Point remains: war to prevent war?

Sounds like warmongering.


Nope. I call it protecting one's country from an immediate threat.





Point is: How do you know the threat is immediate?


you won't get a rational response.

you're talking to a mentalist who wants to 'strike' another country but not entirely sure why...



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dianajune

To repeat myself:

If your neighbor said he was going to shoot you, does that give you the right to go to his house and shoot him first?

That question would have to include your neighbor constantly pointing a loaded gun at you, and occasionally firing a shot over your house to be a fair comparison.



Not even that. In some cases and there is precedent, you can kill someone under certain conditions who even threatens you. In NK case that standing condition is historical and real......don't have to waite for them to launch.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot


Is your analogy set within a country with enforced laws?


The US has enforced and established laws.

It's set within sovereignty, whether individual private property or a state.


Now ask yourself, does NK and the US have a functioning authority system over them?


Yes, there is international law that restricts (or tries) unilateral or pre-emptive aggression against another sovereign nation. Whether that is or can be enforced is another matter.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: introvert
Let Kim do whatever he damn well pleases. He's only trying to put his country in a position to where they wont be messed with by the Western powers.

We don't need to take any action unless we have 100% certainty that they are going to act on their threats.


What would you describe as 100% certainly. What would your redline be?


That is a hard line to draw as I am not in a position to know their exact capabilities and intent.


Speak in non tech terms.

Do you strike when: a. They demonstrate nuclear capability. Or b. When the missiles are ready to launch and Kim say they will launch at any moment. Or c. When the missiles are in flight. Or d. Once they have landed and killed millions.

Hmmm



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dianajune

The U.S. needs to continue to show restraint with bombing North Korea, DianaJune. The U.S. knows that Seoul, South Korea is TOAST if we do that. N.K. has been building up armament for striking Seoul for 40 years. We couldn't stop that from happening without dropping H-bombs on North Korea...which would destroy Seoul as well.

As Defense Secretary Mattis said, "There are no good options". War is to be avoided at all costs.

What I wonder is why we haven't made a strike on Kim Jong himself. He's a big target that's always out and about. A sniper, poisoned dinner, or even a low yield cruise missile would get rid of him.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

When THEY are ENGAGED in war at the TIME?
Show me ONE LAW.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join