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.

 

Trump should respond to North Korea's ICBM launch

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I disagree, this bloke from NK is crapping his pants about US intentions.

NK is situated right next to both China and Russia, neither of whom are in favour withe US and therefore the rest of the world.

The US would love to have reason to 'accidentally" drop a nuke or two on the 'wrong side' of the NK border as they are the only two countries that stand in the way of the "New American Century" a described by Wolfowitz.

He is not stupid nor is he insane. The people around him would take 'care' of him if they thought he was and will take care of him if they think he was to become so.

Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative who was Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Bush regime, declared:
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” - Paul Craig Roberts.




posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

Has Bush been reelected?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit


Many countries have been invaded, many countries are under threat - should they all get nukes as a deterrent? Just being near NK isn't "threatening" them. If that was the condition for which nukes were an acceptable defense every country on the planet would probably have them.


Every country on the planet does want them. Not all of them have the industrial base to build them, however. As for being under threat, Korea has been invaded by China and Japan, and has been a Cold War battlefield between the United States and the Soviet. Union, all of which are nuclear powers (albeit Japan remains "undeclared"). I am not defending the inhuman regime, merely pointing out that it has legitimate concerns. It has been a mistake in the past for the United States to presume to dictate who may and may not develop nuclear weapons. Those weapons come with a cost, and DPRK cannot afford it. If we let Kim have his cake he will eventually be forced to eat it.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Azureblue

Has Bush been reelected?



Would it make any difference if he was or does it make any difference that he wasn't?

Why is China surrounded by US milittree bases? Why are US troops on Russia's borders, a highly provocative move?

Surely any rational observer of US and international politics must know the US is the most warlike nation on earth?



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

US troops are placed where countries fear their neighbors. There were no US troops in Chechniya, Ossetia or Ukraine... what happened there?



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

I am not defending that country, I am explaining their motivations. If you do not understand a situation you cannot solve it. The Korean Peninsula has been invaded many times by its neighbors. Any regime would want a deterrent. Nuclear weapons also provide prestige, which goes a long way to justifying the de facto legitimacy of a regime, however retrograde.
edit on 3-12-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
16
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join