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 Korean ICBM

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by wondernut

we have devistationg weapons that are not nuclear, the MOAB for example
lets say we carpet bomb both nations with these puppies, no fallout!


Exactly. And you find it strange that other countries want to defend theirselves.




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by rai76
And above all, the US was crazy enough at that time (well your governmet is still) to use it and that sets an example!


Read some history books. The use of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved lives, both American and Japanese, in the long run. You can use the fire bombing of Tokyo as an example. Don't forget Okinawa and the civilian suicides there. It was estimated that the invasion of Japan would cost 1 million American lives and as many as 10 million Japanese lives. This is in compairison to 140,000 in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki.


Ok, so you suggest now that it is and was normal to use atom boms cause it save lives? Ok, now im lost here. So lets start nuclear wars than cause they do atually save lives, wow that's a new perspective!



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rai76

Originally posted by wondernut

we have devistationg weapons that are not nuclear, the MOAB for example
lets say we carpet bomb both nations with these puppies, no fallout!


Exactly. And you find it strange that other countries want to defend theirselves.


umm, no. that's a misinterpretation of what i said.

everyone was talking about how stupid people were for saying the US can wipe these nations off the earth in 20-30 min because it would create fallout that would harm us

i meerely wanted to point out that we have other methods of destroying things that have little to no reprecussions on the envionment in which WE live



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rai76
Ok, so you suggest now that it is and was normal to use atom boms cause it save lives? Ok, now im lost here. So lets start nuclear wars than cause they do atually save lives, wow that's a new perspective!


how did you totally miss his point???
had we not ended the war immediately we would have lost 1M americans and 10M japs
instead of this we ended the war with 2 nukes and lost 210,000 people instead of a combined 11,000,000 people

this a savings of over 10 million lives

for the benifit of the whole, sacrifices must be made is the concept here

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Wondernut,

I understood your point very well actually. But it's more the fact that you have these things and god know what kind of .... you have more! So why worry then about a little test they do.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rai76
Wondernut,

I understood your point very well actually. But it's more the fact that you have these things and god know what kind of .... you have more! So why worry then about a little test they do.


because they are not planning to use these things to quickly end a war and save lives in the process
they are planning to test these things to see if they can hit us
when they know they can then they will launch them because their leadership is so insane to believe they can win

would you let mentally ill people carry guns?
how about someone that threatened to shoot you or your friends?
now if you saw that person trying to get a gun you'd probably try to stop him knowing of his previous threats
in the process he'd get pissed at you and want to attack you too.

eventually he gets a gun
ok, now he's trying to get bullets so he can shoot you
your only option is to (well in the real world call the cops) prevent him from getting bullets and shooting you and your friends

so since you'd stop the crazy guy with a gun why is it wrong to stop the crazy guy with a nuke?



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Wondernut,

I really don't think this leader is so stupid as you suggest. Even if his test will succeed and he has the possibility to send it directly to New York, he will not just launch it and do it. He know his country will be attacked and his regime will be over. He is only testing this nuke to use it to defend himself, not more than that.

Your comment about that it was better to end the war inmidiatly by two nukes, i don't know what to say to that. In my eyes it is still in insane. You could have also attacked important buildings infrastructure etc etc. But sending a nuke and kill 214.000 people, im sorry.

And maybe maybe they can win. I've heard that North Korea has one of the biggest armies if it comes to far, because everyone is so devoted to this stupid leader and im not talking about the material they have. It wont be the same as in Iraq or Afganistan. And China already said that if North Korea will be invated by the US they will shoose the side of North Korea. Are you going to use nuclear bombs again?



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
First. No Japan isn't able to defend itself. Part of the settlement of WWII was that Japan is only allowed to have a self-defence force. If North Korea starts lobbing missiles Japan doesn't have the ability to eliminate that threat.



Technically, that's true about Japan having a "self defence force". But, when you look at what exactly that "self defence force" is, you'll see it is a very well equipped and modern military, with a pussy name and restricted by their national constitution.

Japanese Military

Please, do your research before spouting off that "Japan isn't able to defend itself". I think they are more than capable. They're just not allowed to invade anyone....



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rai76

I really don't think this leader is so stupid as you suggest. Even if his test will succeed and he has the possibility to send it directly to New York, he will not just launch it and do it. He know his country will be attacked and his regime will be over. He is only testing this nuke to use it to defend himself, not more than that.



Rai,
In no way is a nuke a defensive weapon.
Any WMD is a purely ofensive weapon.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
This is a test –

Assume the following:
You live in a free democratic industrialized society (U.S.A., Japan etc. you fill in the blank).
You are the leader of your country and your countries military.
The dictator of a poor starving enslaved population has somehow acquired a nuclear weapon.
This dictator after many years of threats and after demonstrating their self to be near insanity launches an ICBM towards one of your largest cities.
You know that this dictator has nuclear weapons and has said many times that they will use them without hesitation.
This missile may or may not have a nuclear warhead.

What would you do?



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
North Korea is testing a "product".

They wish to show that they have the technology and that it is for sale to the highest bidder.

If you have the cash then they will sell you a couple of long range missiles that can reach out and "touch someone".

They may even sell you the nuclear warheads to go with them.

If there are no buyers, then they will use the "threat" of selling them (nuclear capable), to extract concessions from the U.S and it's allies. (Blackmail).

They want cash. Lots and lots of cash. Not war.

They may be able to overrun South Korea for a short period, but other than that they are incapable of doing any other serious damage to anyone else using conventional means.

They are just advertising their "wares" in an attempt to make the US, and others pay "protection money".

Go ahead and let them fire. If they wish to waste a perfectly good missile then let them. As long as the warhead is inert.

If part of it hits the US then I would fire one back at them.

But............ Inside of it's warhead, I would put a propaganda payload that would be filled with millions of leaflets, that would shower over their capital, and when translated it would read; "Boom!.......haha....just kidding..... Uncle Sam".



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This is a test –

Assume the following:
You live in a free democratic industrialized society (U.S.A., Japan etc. you fill in the blank).
You are the leader of your country and your countries military.
The dictator of a poor starving enslaved population has somehow acquired a nuclear weapon.
This dictator after many years of threats and after demonstrating their self to be near insanity launches an ICBM towards one of your largest cities.
You know that this dictator has nuclear weapons and has said many times that they will use them without hesitation.
This missile may or may not have a nuclear warhead.

What would you do?


Bow down on one knee, say a prayer to my God for the things that I'm about to do, and then proceed to glass every square inch of that country. By the time I was finished, there wouldn't exist one single moving bacteria inside of those borders, let alone anymore loonies trying to acquire nukes to attack me and mine with. You canNOT allow mentally unstable people to come into possession of nuclear weapons. And if what one person a few posts ago said was true, that China supports NK, then why is it that China doesn't aid NK in acquiring said nukes? Answer is because they know he's as cracked as everyone else does. China won't support him anymore than anyone else will. No one likes that crazy quack.

TheBorg



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg

Bow down on one knee, say a prayer to my God for the things that I'm about to do, and then proceed to glass every square inch of that country. By the time I was finished, there wouldn't exist one single moving bacteria inside of those borders, let alone anymore loonies trying to acquire nukes to attack me and mine with. You canNOT allow mentally unstable people to come into possession of nuclear weapons. And if what one person a few posts ago said was true, that China supports NK, then why is it that China doesn't aid NK in acquiring said nukes? Answer is because they know he's as cracked as everyone else does. China won't support him anymore than anyone else will. No one likes that crazy quack.

TheBorg


I'd do the same.

I'm still fishing though. I want someone who believes the answer would be more diplomacy to explain what they would do and how they would guarantee the safety of their citizens? Would they actually do nothing and risk possibly millions of lives? If so how would they justify that?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
China gives only limited support to North Korea. Most of it is in the form of energy and food.

If they totally abandon North Korea then they would have to militarize their border even further to prevent millions of North Koreans from trying to defect into China in search of food.

There are millions of innocent North Koreans starving to death because a few elites wish to retain their absolute control of the country.

If that control starts to slip away, or they fall even further into poverty then their mentality may be similar to that of the Japanese, or Germans prior to WWII.

They may see war as their only choice. Without additional land, resources, food , and energy supplies, then they may strike out in an attempt to gain more revenues and land.

They are not stupid. They know that if they attack China they are toast.
China is their only friend and even they are wary of giving the North Koreans too much support.

North Korea is isolated and in major trouble. Their leaders are convinced that they can retain control if only they had more revenue.

The only way they can generate such revenue is by selling drugs, missile and nuclear technology, and accepting humanitarian aid from the South, and other countries.

The problem is that we (The US) do not need North Korea as another financial burden, such as Iraq is.

The North Koreans realize this and are exploiting the missile and nuclear issues to the hilt.

Our best response is to contain them as much as possible and let them "wither on the vine".

If they go nuclear on someone then we should try and eliminate their leadership and army as quickly as possible without ever setting foot in the country.

It should be more of a "regional issue", with China, Japan, and South Korea dealing with either the situation as it is now,................. or they can sweep up the leftovers.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Let's make this interesting. The US needs to park an Aegis cruiser off of North Korea and shoot down the missile as soon as it is in international airspace. That would make on hell of a statement.


It sure would be nice to know which direction they will be testing that weapon in, if they really plan to test it. I would love to see the USA run a test out in international waters by trying to shoot it out of the sky. Past tests they have had were largely unsuccessful.

There is a good chance that they already know the capacity of this missle and are not testing anything, but rather arming it and preparing it for use. That isn't to say that they are you going to use it, but they will be displaying their ability to wage war if provoked. Either way, it is a big political statement, whether this info was leaked or not.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rai76

Your comment about that it was better to end the war inmidiatly by two nukes, i don't know what to say to that. In my eyes it is still in insane. You could have also attacked important buildings infrastructure etc etc. But sending a nuke and kill 214.000 people, im sorry.


with what? there were no precision guided munitions at that time.

I dont think you understand the Japanese....they have a code of honor that says ever man, woman, and child will fight to the death. period!

they damn well meant it too....they are 10x as fanatical as the arabs and none of them would of hesitated to fight tooth and nail.

I have alot of respect for the Japanese and I am cautious of them, I hope them to be truly US allies, which I think they are. and I would feel sorry for any army fighting against them.

The Russians were terrified of the Japanese......they would not even give a declaration of war until they were certain the US was going to drop the atom bomb.

The japanese took several islands from the russians, and the russians were not too eager to go through that kind of fighting again.

NK should be very wary of Japan, in fact I wouldnt be surprised if the japanese didnt already have nukes. they bought alot of soviet plutonium at the end of the cold war.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

I'm still fishing though. I want someone who believes the answer would be more diplomacy to explain what they would do and how they would guarantee the safety of their citizens? Would they actually do nothing and risk possibly millions of lives? If so how would they justify that?


I would justify diplomacy the same way I would in various other similarly black and white hypothetical moral quandaries: via intent.

Millions may or may not die if I allow the attack to proceed. Millions will die if I counterattack. If my intent is to save lives, the only option that allows any possibility of not killing millions on one or both sides, is the diplomatic option.

I would further justify it by the fact that I see no distinction between the people living in the hypothetical adversarial nation and the people in my own. The value of the lives of "my" people does not outweigh the value of any other human life. The value of every human life is equal, in my view.

I believe there is always a means of avoiding conflict, and I don't believe that potential vanishes instantly upon the initiation of conflict, either. I believe we simply have yet to discover how to utilize this capacity. The world's leaders haven't learned how to feel, much less utilize, genuine empathy for what they see as adversaries. At best, they feel it for their own people. By choice, I feel it for everyone. Because of this, someone dying in another country is no different than my brother or sister dying. This isn't a religious belief on my part, but it is what I have faith in: the capacity for humanity to do that which seems impossible, and become more than what it is today. The faith I have in humanity may seem as irrational and baseless as some believe people's faith in God to be. However, people respect others' religious faiths, so I hope mine is worthy of the same.

Therefore, given the choice between intentionally and knowingly guaranteeing the deaths of millions of people I see as equally deserving of life as all others, and the possibility that no one has to die at all because the weapon isn't nuclear, I choose the latter. If it was nuclear, then even once attacked I would feel that retaliating only results in more deaths, since I only see there being one "side." For me, it isn't about "more deaths on their side," it's just "more deaths." Period. All war is civil war in my mind.

I do, however, believe current social, economic, and political structures, as well as the current level of understand humanity has of how the mind truly functions, prevent the full potential of diplomacy from being realized.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by AceWombat04]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Ace:

And therein lies the major problem with this; the US doesn't see eye to eye with anyone else in the world, except Great Britain and sometimes Russia. China's in our back pocket ONLY because we are their biggest financial supporter.

Regardless of my previous statements, I do feel the same way about people in general as you do. I don't want to kill millions of innocent people for no good reason. Those people did nothing wrong that I can think of, aside from allowing a corrupt regime to come to power. Sometimes, that kind of thing cannot be helped.

However, what I was saying in my last post is what I would do in the event that someone attacked my country with nuclear weapons. I'd have to respond. To sit and do nothing makes me an accomplice to the act, and I cannot in good faith and patriotism, do that to my fellow Americans, Humanity in general, nor my country. To do any less than responding, quelling the threat permanently, and reestablishing control of the situation would be grounds for Treason.

We are all, in one way or another, bound to our nation whether we like it or not. I personally love my country, and will do anything to make sure that she, and those that share her with me, stay free. Whether that means retaliating to a terrorist attack or anything else doesn't matter.

The key is in getting everyone on the same page with us. Everyone needs to feel that they belong. If they don't, then we're all doomed to failure in our quest for peace. I want it as badly as you do, but I feel that we just disagree in how it should be accomplished should something terrible happen. You would advocate no action, while I advocate pounding the attackers into the dirt. It's just a diifferent way of getting at the same thing.

Sorry for the long-winded post here, but I felt that I should at least explain myself. Besides, I don't want everyone here thinking I hate everyone, because I don't. As a matter of fact, I hate no one, even my worst enemy. I just am not going to take any crap from anyone over anything like that. If someone attacks my country, I have a right to defend it. That's actually my obligation as a citizen, as it is everyone else's.

TheBorg



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Here's the deal, the United States might have an imperialistic mind when in comes to global affairs dealing with the uprising of military proficiency, technology etc... But it's for a good cause. Since being able to breath fresh air out of their mother's womb, people in NK and the Middle East have been trained to hate America. So when these people have a whole country against the great nation of the U.S. we have every right to make decisions to try and stop them for our nations survival and self security. Now im not saying that countries don't have every right to advance every aspect of their country including the military, but when the leaders of these countries have been brainwashed into hating America, we have every right to take the necissary actions to ensure our preservation as a country and also allies of the U.S. And if it takes isolation and non-advancement of NK and the middle east's military/weapons, then so be it!

[edit on 20-6-2006 by str1fe]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Infowars.com has a piece that says North Korea has already had one of its missiles reach Alaska with the help of the US government.


infowars.com...
In March 2003, the Korea Times reported that the U.S. National Assembly included a startling admission in its final report regarding Pyongyang’s missile capabilities.

A nuclear-capable North Korean test warhead was found in Alaska.

``According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,’’ former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang’s missile capabilities.’’


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


They also mention that the missile will be launched in a months time, long enough to analyze the situation. I highly doubt they would launch an attack disguised as a test but stranger things have happened. I think Bush and them just want to keep the public and their thoughts rounded up in the sheep pen.

A random thing i overheard today from a marine, he was saying that all they have on television is Fox News and he is so sick of it. I thought that was interesting, i guess they don't want the truth to slip out.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join