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 U.S. considering limited pre-emptive strike

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou


GENEVA (Reuters) - North Korea accused the United States on Tuesday of seeking to aggravate the situation on the divided Korean peninsula by “deploying large nuclear assets” nearby and lay the ground for a possible pre-emptive strike against it.

That how the uS operates. Moves into a country, establishes a military presence and brings in nukes. They did this in Germany , Turkey, they are doing it in Korea, too.

Its an open threat, threaten to destroy uS and we set them off, ala Alamo.




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

If we attacked NK it wouldn't be a global anything. That's doom porn being sold by the media. They said the same thing if we attacked Syria. We attacked Syria almost a year ago and we're still waiting for Russia to start WW3 in retaliation like the media and so many users on here thought they would. Russia and China aren't going to risk their own destruction over a minor, troublesome ally like North Korea.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Yes it would. Syria was taken over by terrorists, the place was already destroyed when US got there.

The thing is: NK isn't at war. It will be if U.S. launch this preemptive attack.

And how can we be so sure they have nuclear capabilities AND intentions of hitting the US, as the government is insisting?

Should we just trust the government?



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: face23785

Yes it would. Syria was taken over by terrorists, the place was already destroyed when US got there.

The thing is: NK isn't at war. It will be if U.S. launch this preemptive attack.

And how can we be so sure they have nuclear capabilities AND intentions of hitting the US, as the government is insisting?

Should we just trust the government?



Oh ok, so all the previous predictions of "If the US does this it will start WW3" were wrong, but you've really got it nailed down this time. I'll just trust you, an armchair analyst.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
the US doesn't want anyone else to develop nukes whilst the POTUS just removed a previous EO restricting nukes development. iirc, the us plans to up its arsenal, the only power to recklessly use nukes before exhausting all options, is going to up its nuke armament..

under what pretenses is the US going to preemptively attack another country when they have never ever done anything to the US?
the rules if war must have changed...


I totally disagree with your statement saying the US recklessly used nukes. I would even suggest it was the most humane thing to do considering the options. During WWII, the Japanese were fanatics. The Bonsai charge, Kamikaze attacks, and jumping off cliffs/suicide over being captured are prime examples of their mindset. Invading the Japanese mainland was projecting 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead and between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths. Although it's impossible to know the exact number of deaths caused by the two nukes, most historians estimate it was 250,000 on the high end. Looking at the numbers, many more lives were saved, on both sides, by using the nukes instead of NOT using them. I know it seems crazy to say it was more humane to use the nukes, but once you consider the projected numbers it was the most humane option.




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JustaBill




projecting 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead and between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths


Just asking you to clarify this sentence for me. I don't see any consistency with these numbers. one of these numbers has to be incorrect. (or I'm still a little foggy this morning)
1.7 - 4 million dead
800,000 dead
5-10 million dead



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: JustaBill




projecting 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead and between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths


Just asking you to clarify this sentence for me. I don't see any consistency with these numbers. one of these numbers has to be incorrect. (or I'm still a little foggy this morning)
1.7 - 4 million dead
800,000 dead
5-10 million dead



No problem, it's early here too. Casualty doesn't mean death only. Casualty, used above, implies injured, thus clarifying up to 800,000 dead. I may have worded it poorly, if so apologies.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: JustaBill

Fair enough. Thank you. (opens energy drink)




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: JustaBill

Fair enough. Thank you. (opens energy drink)



You're more than welcome. Got an extra one? (If not, fluffs pillow)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

I think we should be worrying about something else Russia is developing or has developed a 100 Megaton Nuclear torpedo seeded with isotope Cobalt-60 .



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: JustaBill

originally posted by: odzeandennz
the US doesn't want anyone else to develop nukes whilst the POTUS just removed a previous EO restricting nukes development. iirc, the us plans to up its arsenal, the only power to recklessly use nukes before exhausting all options, is going to up its nuke armament..

under what pretenses is the US going to preemptively attack another country when they have never ever done anything to the US?
the rules if war must have changed...


I totally disagree with your statement saying the US recklessly used nukes. I would even suggest it was the most humane thing to do considering the options. During WWII, the Japanese were fanatics. The Bonsai charge, Kamikaze attacks, and jumping off cliffs/suicide over being captured are prime examples of their mindset. Invading the Japanese mainland was projecting 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead and between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths. Although it's impossible to know the exact number of deaths caused by the two nukes, most historians estimate it was 250,000 on the high end. Looking at the numbers, many more lives were saved, on both sides, by using the nukes instead of NOT using them. I know it seems crazy to say it was more humane to use the nukes, but once you consider the projected numbers it was the most humane option.



Not only that but the often used rebuttal that it was unethical to bomb civilians is ambiguous. Almost every Japanese family contributed to the war effort. Part of their war industry was decentralized. Citizens were literally building bombs, machining parts and running other parts of the war industry out of their homes. This made them legitimate targets under any rules of war you can think of.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You're spot on. Governments should never utilize the citizens in that capacity because it exposes them to the same conditions of war as any other form of war production.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JustaBill

Isnt the most humane thing to sue for peace !
or not enter into a war in the first place



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

If the United Nations worked the way it should, there should be a red line no country should cross. If they do, every country in the world should be required to put military and economic pressure on that country. Screw the voting, we have too many counties including the U.S. who want to protect their allies at any cost. Any leader who refused to back down should be systematically eliminated with any means possible. The few government leaders we have in this world have way too much power to threaten millions and billions of innocent lives with just a push of a button.

If the people of the world don't recognize they're being used as pawns to do the dirty work of our power hungry and evil leaders, then our very human existence will continue to be threatened. Divine intervention will be the only thing that will save us.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: JustaBill

Isnt the most humane thing to sue for peace !
or not enter into a war in the first place



Sure, if that was a logical option once the United States was attacked. We were not in war at the time so the United States entering the war was actually forced apon us, it wasn't a choice.

As far as suing for peace, that's been debated quite often. Some sources state talks began before the bombs were dropped. Other sources state anyone who made mention of surrender or peace would have been killed by fanatical military officers. Personally, I am truly torn on both issues and their validity. The Japanese viewed the Emperor as a god and a direct descendant of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. Taking that into consideration and their fanatical mindset at that particular time, I find it hard to believe Japan would have talked peace or surrender. Their mindset was to protect their "God" at all cost. That doesn't mean they didn't or wouldn't have.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: odzeandennz
the US doesn't want anyone else to develop nukes whilst the POTUS just removed a previous EO restricting nukes development. iirc, the us plans to up its arsenal, the only power to recklessly use nukes before exhausting all options, is going to up its nuke armament..

under what pretenses is the US going to preemptively attack another country when they have never ever done anything to the US?
the rules if war must have changed...



That's what you do when you feel like you're the police of the world.


How does one consider oneself to be morally superior when...

1. The US funded the Mujahadeen and gave them arms to kill Russian troops. The Russians were invited to fight against the Mujahadeen by the moderate Islamic government. Two Presidents lied about a Russian invasion and signed off on monetary and arms support. Reagan and Carter.

2. Now the US starves North Koreans because they support terror.

3. Hypocrisy.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I was just thinking last night that we're overdue for some more "We need to attack North Korea!" fear mongering. Glad to see we're back on schedule. Next up: "We need reasonable gun control legislation because somebody shot some people!"


GENEVA (Reuters) - North Korea may be only months away from being able to strike the United States with a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile and its atomic weapons program must be shut down, a senior U.S. disarmament official said on Tuesday.


A couple of months ago they were only weeks away. Six months ago they were only days away. Obviously NK's nuclear program is just a smoke screen. What they are really working on localized time warp fields.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustaBill
a reply to: face23785

You're spot on. Governments should never utilize the citizens in that capacity because it exposes them to the same conditions of war as any other form of war production.


I've read that the Japanese leadership was somewhat puzzled why Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 2 or 3 other cities hadn't been bombed yet because they were known to be important industrial zones for the war effort. What they didn't know was the US was specifically avoiding bombing them because they were candidates for the A-bomb. The military and scientists wanted to drop it on an undamaged city to be able to more accurately judge the completion of the destruction the bomb could cause.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Revolution9



They are forbidden a nuclear war. Neither God nor the Devil will permit it.


Phew, I'm glad to hear that.
What planet are you guys on! There is no G or D or either start or stop it! There will be action taken because it must be.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: JustaBill

Isnt the most humane thing to sue for peace !
or not enter into a war in the first place



Unfortunately, the real world isn't a philosophy class. Wars happen and hard choices have to be made. In the choice between millions of people killed, including hundreds of thousands of our own troops and a ton of civilians in a prolonged invasion, or dropping 1 or 2 bombs that kill a few hundred thousand people, there is no choice. And it's not like we drug Japan into the war. They attacked us.
edit on 6 2 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join