Just on FOX News N.Korea Officially says it will be Nuclear War if USA attacks them or strikes

Originally posted by bramski
Put it this way. Bush invaded Iraq on the premise that they might have WMD. Now NK has threatened to use Nuclear missiles if the US pisses them off. The only difference is that NK doesn't have any oil and it actually has the balls to fight back so I don't think we'll see any military action anytime soon.

The Simple Fact that there long range Missle exploded 35-45 seconds after lift off makes me think the Koreans are simply a joke.If we Simply drop Food not Bombs on the Korean Populace I think we will Find they Correct there own problems starvation cows people If we Feed the populace then I could see Kim being Over thrown but right now his people a Starving.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A country can deal with alittle fallout they cant live with a direct nuclear war with either Russia or the US. Even China is outclassed by those two and I doubt they would try anything when they weigh alittle fallout versus direct nuclear war with a super power.

wrong , china has enough nukes to make the usa seriously poisoned - 24 is all it needs to destroy the usa , the fallout would cause enough casualities to cripple the health care system , and when targeting power stations would destroy the country economically (additional fallout and wrecked arable land)

Like it or not, when someone makes a threat, they become the "cause", & have the control.

Knowing the USA & our operative M.O. , when you are threatened, you have 2 choices.... you either let the other person /Country control the situation, & dictate how things are going, or you take initiative & because the "cause" yourself, & get an offensive mindset.

It's like in a fight. When someone says thay are willing to fight, They have made the 1st move, & thus are in control.... the only way to regain control is to take the threat seriously & strike immediately to put yourself in the "power" position.

With Kim making such a statement, he's letting US, & the WORLD know he's in control.

I wouldn't be surprised if we go to Korea with a mission & make a statement that "you are NOT going to tell US what the deal is"..... WE will be the ones who control the situation. Whether it be by military force, or what have you.

Nobody wants a Nuclear war.... but if we went in & wiped out their ability to fight, & shut down their weaponry, they would be forced to comply with OUR terms.

I don't think it would reach nuclear status, B ut I think Korea made a bad call by making that comment.

If we let them shoot at us, (just to "test") & they succeed in striking out country, that gives them leberage.

As a country, & needng to protect ourselves, the most powerful statement we can make is to strike hard & prove that you just don't mess with the USA.

Kim WANTS to engage in warfare.... but he'd be making a huge mistake, because we are more advanced in weaponry, & firepower.

We could set Korea back decades by launging an atatck.

It's like this. You get threatened & you either elt it go, or you do something about it.

North Korea threated us with Nukes a year after 9/11. Did you forget about that?? Its NOT "NEWS", its "OLDS".

Originally posted by Harlequin



wrong , china has enough nukes to make the usa seriously poisoned - 24 is all it needs to destroy the usa , the fallout would cause enough casualities to cripple the health care system , and when targeting power stations would destroy the country economically (additional fallout and wrecked arable land)

LOL you have a poor understanding of nuclear weapons they arent nearly that poweful. The US has nuked its own soil over a hundred times and fallout didnt kill anybody like you suggest. the US is far too large to be wiped out with some 200 odd nuclear weapons.

With 200 weapons your going to destroy maybe 200 cities if you choose to forget about military targets (which would be stupid) thats a huge hit but your not wiping out Russia or the US with that many. You need thousands to wipe out a country that size and only the US and Russia have nuclear arsenals that big

" 24 is all it needs to destroy the usa" LOL Thats classic not even if they were all Tsar Bombas would 24 wipe out the US.




[edit on 5-7-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Not had time to read the whole thread but how exactly is NK going to launch a nuclear strike on the US if it doesn't have a missile that will reach it? the only other option is a drop from a bomber which would surely be intercepted??

Originally posted by Tommio
Not had time to read the whole thread but how exactly is NK going to launch a nuclear strike on the US if it doesn't have a missile that will reach it? the only other option is a drop from a bomber which would surely be intercepted??

Never underestimate an enemy, especially NK. We made that mistake over half century ago.

This brings a whole new slant to the word "hypocrisy."

What I wonder is, Why haven't these neoCons been arrested and charged with "crimes against the nation" yet?

www.guardian.co.uk...
Friday May 9, 2003, The Guardian

The two faces of Rumsfeld -- 2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea; 2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons. [snip]

Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New Policies for Political Bickering – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 5/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

LOL you have a poor understanding of nuclear weapons they arent nearly that poweful.

Depends what he means by "destroyed".

24 cities nuked certainly wouldn't kill off the population, on the other hand the US that survived would be a very different place, with a crippled economy and millions of wounded & refugees spilling out of the impact zones.

Think of the chaos after 9-11 and multiply it a few thousand times, then add fallout.
It would not be something the US could just shrug off in a year or two. It would take decades to recover from.

Originally posted by joshai2334
This brings a whole new slant to the word "hypocrisy."

What I wonder is, Why haven't these neoCons been arrested and charged with "crimes against the nation" yet?


www.guardian.co.uk...
Friday May 9, 2003, The Guardian

The two faces of Rumsfeld -- 2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea; 2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons. [snip]

Oh was that the same nuclear reactor Clinton's gave to N Korea in his deal with N Korea which also included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil all in hopes they would halt their nuclear weapons program?

How did that work out? So blame Clinton for that one and trying to appease Kim Jong Il.


BTW light water nuclear reactors cannot be used to make nuclear fuel for nuclear weapons. They can only produce peaceful energy

Originally posted by xmotex

LOL you have a poor understanding of nuclear weapons they arent nearly that poweful.

Depends what he means by "destroyed".

24 cities nuked certainly wouldn't kill off the population, on the other hand the US that survived would be a very different place, with a crippled economy and millions of wounded & refugees spilling out of the impact zones.

By destroyed I mean destroyed by its very definition -"de·stroy -1. To ruin completely; spoil, 2. To do away with; put an end to 3. To subdue or defeat completely; crush.

I mean it the same way the USSR and US meant destroyed in M.A.D. They werent talking about Russia hitting 24 cities in the US with nukes.

I have no clue what other people think it means, but thats what it means. You wouldnt say 9-11 Destroy NYC would you? I hope not because it destroyed the WTC.

Of course 24 nukes would be many times worst then 9-11 but it would not destroy the US like Harlequin made it seem. It wouldnt even come close to killing most of the population and it could all be rebuilt. In 1958 alone we nuked Nevada about 40 times and Nevada is a pretty nice place to live. Heck look how fast they rebuilt Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The USSR didnt plan to hit the US with some 10,000 Nuclear weapons during the Cold War for no reason. They knew what they were doing when they planned to destroy the US.

What would happen to China if they tried that now that would be a destroyed country.

[edit on 5-7-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
LOL you have a poor understanding of nuclear weapons they arent nearly that poweful. The US has nuked its own soil over a hundred times and fallout didnt kill anybody like you suggest. the US is far too large to be wiped out with some 200 odd nuclear weapons.

" 24 is all it needs to destroy the usa" LOL

Thats classic not even if they were all Tsar Bombas would 24 wipe out the US.

it is unfortunate you have a limited *SNIP* level of understanding about target`s for limited arsenel`s - the power of the weapon wouldn`t play as an important role as the salting of the weapon , of which it must be taken as read that chinese weapons are salted.

and the targets - that much is obvious - the power stations of course - look at the damage caused by the release of material at chernobyl , so therefore with 24 power stations targeted and destroyed the release of fallout would be 1000X and more than ALL of teh `tests` that have been performed.

oh and none of teh larger devices were ever tested above ground in conus - only on or under (or even in the air above) the atoll`s in the pacific.

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: WOT Posting Conduct – Please Review Link.

[edit on 5/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

That war just won't happen.

Why?

Since the Korean War, the US is not interested into attacking countries that have a military might of any kind... it's been aiming its attacks at poor and weak countries like Iraq, Salvador, Chile and Afghanistan. It's still the same game of the big goon attacking the tiny nerd in the school playground. They've failed with Vietnam, and with a military might that was about 3 times the size of today's US military, so how do you think they'll defeat a country they also failed to invade in the '50s?

Originally posted by Harlequin

it is unfortunate you have a limited *SNIP* level of understanding about target`s for limited arsenel`s - the power of the weapon wouldn`t play as an important role as the salting of the weapon , of which it must be taken as read that chinese weapons are salted.

watch the language we have childern that post on ATS

So now China is using (cobalt-59) or (Zinc-64) laced nuclear weapons? no such device has ever been tested and there is zero evidence any have been produced by any country So theres no way of even telling if they would work like Leo Szilard dreamed it up decades ago.

I would love know how you know China has such weapons.

But hecking since your claiming China has weapons based on pure speculation and that you have zero proof for, why not China having Anti-matter bombs Or maybe singularity weapons while your at it.

24 nukes destroying the US that was classic though made me laugh. I would love to see how you came up with the Magic 24 number Perhaps you should get in touch with Russia looks like they can scrap 90% of there nuclear arsenal and still be fine.

Originally posted by Echtelion
That war just won't happen.

Why?

Since the Korean War, the US is not interested into attacking countries that have a military might of any kind... it's been aiming its attacks at poor and weak countries like Iraq, Salvador, Chile and Afghanistan. It's still the same game of the big goon attacking the tiny nerd in the school playground. They've failed with Vietnam, and with a military might that was about 3 times the size of today's US military, so how do you think they'll defeat a country they also failed to invade in the '50s?

During the Gulf War Iraq was the fourth largest military on the planet. So I dont know if I would call that a weak and poor country because it was really the dominant muslim force in that area at the time. Saddam had some of the best stuff you could buy on the market including Fiber optic defense networks he got from the Chinese.

In the Korea War N Korea got its butt kicked by the US then China (a few million chinese) & Russia (Russian MIG fighter pilots) etc.. saved them, same with Vietnam where do you think they were getting top of the line SAMs?. Heck we did it right back to the Soviets in Afghanistan when the US backed the mujahideen with billions in supplies cash and things like Stinger missiles and the great red army was sent packing by a bunch of goat herders. Same way the US was sent packing by a bunch of rice farmers.

When these little nations are backed by a super power its a whole different ball game.



[edit on 5-7-2006 by ShadowXIX]

quotes posted by maybenot

it seems like people are actually making progress in humanity on the internet, is creating so many people who have such a great understanding of the world,

REPLY: Unfortunately, that doesn't seen to be the case at all. What the heck is "progress in humanity? That's something that "we" can't do. It's up to the people in their respective countries to find some way to have the freedom and liberty we have. It has to be up to "the people" to choose for themselves. However, dictators/tyrants like Castro, Kim Jong, Chavez or Saddam will do everything they can to stop it; Which is why we're there (Iraq), so "the people" can decide.

I truly doubt that george bush and friends will just sit back and let a bunch of people who actually want to do something great for america ever get within a million miles of actual control

REPLY: So.... educate yourself, and get elected, as Bush did, then try to make a difference. One man can't stop you from doing that; well, maybe whoever is running against you can.
I'm almost afraid to ask what your idea is of "do something great for america".

Originally posted by zappafan1
quotes posted by maybenot

it seems like people are actually making progress in humanity on the internet, is creating so many people who have such a great understanding of the world,

REPLY: Unfortunately, that doesn't seen to be the case at all. What the heck is "progress in humanity? That's something that "we" can't do. It's up to the people in their respective countries to find some way to have the freedom and liberty we have. It has to be up to "the people" to choose for themselves. However, dictators/tyrants like Castro, Kim Jong, Chavez or Saddam will do everything they can to stop it; Which is why we're there (Iraq), so "the people" can decide.

I truly doubt that george bush and friends will just sit back and let a bunch of people who actually want to do something great for america ever get within a million miles of actual control

REPLY: So.... educate yourself, and get elected, as Bush did, then try to make a difference. One man can't stop you from doing that; well, maybe whoever is running against you can.
I'm almost afraid to ask what your idea is of "do something great for america".

zappafan1 I agree with you 100%, but we must not be hypocrats. I don't mean to get off subject but ,would you support bringing all the troops home? even if that means that a Civil War may break up? Affter all that was the way the founders of the U.S. found apropiate to to have the freedom and liberty we have.

As far as "Bush getting elected" what do you mean? elected by the supreme court?
If anything I will advise you to get elected the regular way. I will think it feels better at the end. Remember all the eggs crashing against the limo as Bush was going to the WH. Not a good moment to remember

you people here talk about this as if its real, as if there really are diplomatic relations between "countries" your never gonna understand whats going on thinking like that, this is a script, being played out, seriously,

this is a conspiracy site right? i do not see how people can talk about multiple conspiracy theories as if there are tens if not hundreds of seperate groups of people all vying for control of the world political scene. Its all a joke, all of it. Every last little thing on television isnt real. I dont know why this conversation goes on and on as it does. Pointing out little useless facts. The only freakin conspiracy is that people as a whole, are under control, that rhymes, people as a whole are under control. Are you one of the top ten ranking elite people in the world? No? your not? im suprised, then if your not, your under control, so you and six billion odd other people have little to no control over the collective path of humanity, and every second wasted talking about small details of the conspiracy is useless and pointless.

Looks as if THIS is the distraction that permits Ken Lay to get away.

My take on it.