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 has no reason to construct nukes

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Before you read keep in mind that I used "Korea" as a substitute for North Korea.

If Korea shoots the missile at the US they must be prepared to face complete obliteration of their country by more powerful US nukes. So if you want to shoot it then your going to die and if part of the blast goes through the borders of China, they might use it as an excuse to nuke America thus starting a chain reaction of events that will destroy the world. This would happen if the US retaliates at China Russia, will nuke the US because the time something like this will ever happen Russia will indeed have greater relations with China unless those realations are that significant right now. Korea is using these nukes for their own protection b/c what would be any other reason to build a nuke? But they arent protecting theirselfs b/c if they use it they will automatically be a target for US and its allies. But they need it for protection against the US. Well it doesnt make any difference b/c being protected by the US only is they way I see it insignificant because they are making theirselves a bigger target for the world in a bigger event called thermonuclear war. So Korea, this nuke you are building will not make you safer in fact you will be among one of the targets already in the computers of the much more powerful American nuclear launch sites. And also you will be facing utter embarrassment b/c when you are finished constructing your nuclear missile launch sites the US will have their own airborn antinuke laser systems that will destroy your ICMBs and then make you black dust by their missiles. Also during your nuclear strike upon America your launch sites will be destroyed too. And America has subs which can also add more sneaky firepower and you dont. So no matter what happens, Korea will be destroyed.




posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Well, nutcases never really need a reason, do they? They operate on logic different than our own.

Its not like Kim Jong is dealing with a full deck or is on the same plane of reality as the rest of us.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Exlpain yourself.................................
........................................................



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
You forgot another HUGE reason for building nukes, and more importantly, the missle technology to deliver them.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ North Korea is flat broke and some of the only income they earn is from military exports (rockets and missles and supporting tech.) to other countries.

That is a big part of the reason the US is so miffed about them having these weapons.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
North Korea by building nukes makes them a bigger target for not just the USA but other ones concerned like Japan.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Its not like Wildcat is dealing with a full deck or is on the same plane of reality as the rest of us Either!
Bravado and Rhetoric.........and a great measure of stupidity!
No-one wins a nuclear war!




posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
As long as North Korea has nukes it will never be attacked by the U.S first. Hence North Korea did the "right" thing by building nukes.

Relevant Point…
Look at Saddam he got rid of all his WMD's, not only did the U.S invade and destroy him but they kicked the weapons inspectors out prematurely rather than complete their work which would-could have cleared Iraq of having WMD's. They did the invasion early on the pre-text that the reason why the U.N inspectors hadn’t found anything was because the Iraqis were messing them around; hence an invasion was necessary because it was the only way to disarm Iraq of its WMD's (inspections were futile as well as useless).

That was their propaganda line; maybe there's no propaganda about it; maybe it was their truthful opinion. But though their statements point that way their other statements like "regime change" and all of histories (documented) actions do not.

If you think about (regardless of whether you think regime change was the right idea) it really does look like we will invade a country because it doesn't have WMD's. I'm not denying there are opinions to the country, and I'm not debating whether or not they are correct. But I am emphatically pointing out they are just opinions.

Hence…
Would you as Kim 2 really put the future of your dictatorship in the balance for the opinion that the U.S won't invade a country it could really do with invading (from it's point of view) if that country gets rid of its WMD'. Especially if that opinion had already been contradicted by its track record? Saddam trusted that opinion and now we have created the track record that contradicts that opinion.

If North Korea did not have WMD’s I would certainly support almost ANY imminent invasion. I might not support the Iraq war, I might believe that Saddam was and theoretically still is a better leader for that country than almost anyone we (the West) could hope to find; but I would still support a North Korea invasion.
Because it’s truly a country so evil it stretches the imagination. A real curiosity as far as providing a world that’s almost an exact replica of the one described in the infamous pages of George Orwell’s 1984.
However because it has biological and (now nuclear weapons) I would not support its invasion. I know that almost everybody in that country; and perhaps as many across the border (not to mention a sizable number in Japan) (probably at least a million) would die. It cannot therefore make economic, political or humanitarian sense to destroy that country by engaging it in war. I hate to say it but it’s only because it has WMD’s. (Chemical ones don’t really count in my book; as many of our conventional ones are far more powerful (literally and certainly militarily).

People talk of invading Iran; but as long as it has a couple of kilograms of anthrax (with which to scatter over Israel) I think the best hope is to bring them down economically. And even that won’t work fully; perhaps therefore this is only a political move (rather than a workable-practical option for change).

Now if you want to talk about something stupid that North Korea did; then their missile launches would have to the thickest of the list. You can justify not converting to capitalism on the grounds that all that is important is the quality of the furniture and architecture in your palace, and that it would be a shame to risk it all if the conversion could risk empowering your people for a real peoples revolution. In fact you can justify many weird conclusions the North Korean regime arrives at. But as far as weapons of mass destruction their logic was spot on. Never will we be the first to invade them (unless there really was no choice; and why would that come about (in real reality)?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
Exlpain yourself.................................
........................................................


Kim Jong is a nutter. He works on a completely different train of logic than sane, healthy people do.

Therefore, in his eyes, he has all the reason he needs to build nukes. Cuz hes crazy, paranoid, and evil.

What reason to nutjobs need anyway?



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by wildcat
Exlpain yourself.................................
........................................................


Kim Jong is a nutter. He works on a completely different train of logic than sane, healthy people do.

Therefore, in his eyes, he has all the reason he needs to build nukes. Cuz hes crazy, paranoid, and evil.

What reason to nutjobs need anyway?


Could you link a professional psychologists report for the forum to see that backs up this statement please?


Seriously though - deny ignorance and all that - there is a popular perception that the guy is nuts because of how he runs his country. But if thats the case then the same could be said of many countries leaders, couldn't it? If he doesn't know any other way to act than how he does, does that make him mad?

[edit on 27-7-2006 by neformore]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join