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.

 

War Is Coming To U.S. Soil !!!!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by nawkturn
A war with Nk is again a one sided one, but I am still considering the implications it may have. In his article, Kim forgot to consider France and India, before putting NK as the so called fourth only nation after USA, Russia, 'china'. The due respect to china still wonders me here. Probably a covert support from china in case of war? I see a devastation if our troops go war. Iraq's dust hasn't settled yet. Damn I wonder if the boys have any positive morale in reserve


The war in Iraq and Afghan was meant to be ONE sided..
And neither of them had the amount of heavy weapons, arty, chem/bio that nkorea does.

Sure the US can bomb the bajeez's outta Nkorea..
but when those arty shells start raining down on Seoul, and the troops charge the DMZ zone into Skorea... it will turn into another ground battle.

And as much as a economic ally China is to the US, I heard a good point from a logical thinking

'' what would china prefer, a smoldering destoryed Nkorea, or a nuclear nkorea ''

The USA isnt going to be given a green light to flatten nkorea.

I dont beleive Nkorea have the ABILITY to test anyways..
the supposid key day they were meant to test didnt even FINISH before they had officials in china speaking about a cease if the US held talks.

Its just a carrot...
I believe, much like Saddam.. the Nkorea desperatly wants world wide recognition.
but at the same time, needs to appear big bad and mean to keep neighbors under the guise that if u mess with us, we do have the ability to hit you hard.



The war in Iraq was one sided. We obliterated a nation's army in less than 3 months with less than 300 casualties. But then when our Gov had to shift the focus onto defeating an ideology and not a sovereign nation, because we went there under more or less false pretenses, we started getting the casualties via our occupation (call it what you will). IMO a war on terror is like declaring war on sadness, it doesn't reside in any one given area its something that transcends borders.

Now if we got in it with N Korea because of them launching anything at us we don't need to provide any evidence of a threat to our nation and we can't get it wrong because everyone will see their WMD's. Under this scenario we would absolutely crush them the likes of which has never been seen even if we don't go nuclear, and we wouldn't need to occupy n Korea after, S Korea would likely step in and take over so to speak. I know their people are very brainwashed but once they start getting food, regardless of freedom, and have a functioning society I believe they would welcome the change.



shd

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Dunno how relevant this is but there are nukes out there that well, they are very bad. Just one dropped on Scotland would melt the Tower of London (which means, everything in between would be toast, flat as a pancake... no more great britain, gone, all gone, with one bomb).

Undo? where did you learn you Geography? the UK isnt that small that a single nuke will destroy it. According to FAS (Federation of American Scientists) even a 4MT nuke dropped from a plane will just about destroy LA (I'm not 100% sure on my American city sizes so please check out the page.)

So if your saying that the UK is smaller then LA (Which i can say it is not) then please check your facts before posting.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Distortion
Under this scenario we would absolutely crush them the likes of which has never been seen even if we don't go nuclear, and we wouldn't need to occupy n Korea after, S Korea would likely step in and take over so to speak. I know their people are very brainwashed but once they start getting food, regardless of freedom, and have a functioning society I believe they would welcome the change.
If the US started bombing, there would be no South Korea to take over after the war. Hundreds of thousands of civilians would be dead and that's not even taking into account a nuclear response.

Only a fool would start a war with them but we all know Bush is that and a lot more.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
On balance and with respect, what do you think about the fact that thousands can illegally enter the US through its border with Mexico? There is no security issue here, on US soil?

And looking at what's happening along that border as well as associated states..I'd say that a war has already started.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Ross Cross]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I'm very curious to see how this situation will play out, and how will this affect the coming elections? We invaded a country on the premise of WMD's, now we have a country who announces it's posession of WMDs of the worst kind, as well as it's intention to use them directly against us. So, logically, if the US does not take military action, people will begin to realise that WMD's were not in fact the determining factor in the invasion of Iraq.

IMO, KJI is calling Bush's bluff, and Iran is taking notes. Another concept to consider is the idea of 'secret deals' being cut between NK and others, including Iran, Russia, and even China. Even if the Taepedong test wasn't a staged failure, who's to say they haven't obtained delivery vehicles (or the associated tech.) from a more militarily advanced state?

Sure, in the event NK actually takes action, even as thin as we're spread now (which isn't as thin as many think), they will suffer like none have before, but sometimes we forget, KJI isn't "in it to win it". He's in it to cause death, destruction, and general pandimonium. He may not be 'all there', but he knows he can't win. Unfortunately, I don't think he cares, and he won't lay down peacefully.

Something wicked will happen. It's time. It's just the what, when and where that we are left to ponder.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I could care less about Kimmies little weapons. He can't even make a nuke that is small enough to fit on a missle and now he has every weapon that has ever been made. What is next kimmies black hole generator.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Perhaps we ought to consider the 'secret deal' scenario a little more carefully. We've got three differing reports that the yeild was less than a kiloton, then Russia announcing that the yield was between 5 and 15 kilotonnes. So everyone is fairly in line with one another, with the exception of Russia.

www.newscientisttech.com...



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The writer of the article in Asia Times has no concept of how big (not to mention organized) the US is compared with how puny and small North Korea is. The trial launch of their long range missle this year was a pathetic failure. They would have to take out every one of our nuclear missles for us not to blow their country to pieces in the event that they attacked us nuclearly or otherwise. In short the writer looks like an insane idiot. Probably Kim Jong himself.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shd

Undo? where did you learn you Geography? the UK isnt that small that a single nuke will destroy it. According to FAS (Federation of American Scientists) even a 4MT nuke dropped from a plane will just about destroy LA (I'm not 100% sure on my American city sizes so please check out the page.)

So if your saying that the UK is smaller then LA (Which i can say it is not) then please check your facts before posting.


We have nukes in excess of 25MT.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
The Soviets had a 100 MT in 1961, that reduced the amount of fallout while increasing the destructive power. The final analysis was that it was the equivalent of about a 50-57 MT bomb that yielded a 100 MT blast.

The Tsar Bomba ("King of Bombs")
The World's Largest Nuclear Weapon
nuclearweaponarchive.org...

In fact, the 50-MT bomb tested on 30 October 1961 was never a weapon. This was a one-of-a-kind device, whose design allowed it to achieve a yield of up to 100 megatons when fully loaded with nuclear fuel.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by undo]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Reading through this thread, what jumps out at me the most is the overwhelming arrogance and cocksure nature of the USA posters. I suppose this is a natural result of not having a war on our soil for so long. What keeps coming to mind is that 'pride cometh before the fall'.

As some others have pointed out, our borders are utterly open and undefended. If our enemies want small nukes here, they're here. We must also remember that NK is a complete vassal of China. NK's leader is playing just the role one would expect of an agent provocateur, doing China's bidding, with China's technology, while giving The Middle Kingdom cushion from the blame. Like our own 'madman' he's crazy like a fox.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Of course, just the fact that Kim HAS a nuke would be plenty of reason to BLAME him for any nuke that somehow detonated in the US.....



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
Reading through this thread, what jumps out at me the most is the overwhelming arrogance and cocksure nature of the USA posters. I suppose this is a natural result of not having a war on our soil for so long. What keeps coming to mind is that 'pride cometh before the fall'.

As some others have pointed out, our borders are utterly open and undefended. If our enemies want small nukes here, they're here. We must also remember that NK is a complete vassal of China. NK's leader is playing just the role one would expect of an agent provocateur, doing China's bidding, with China's technology, while giving The Middle Kingdom cushion from the blame. Like our own 'madman' he's crazy like a fox.


Pride and all that, is not a condition of an individual country. It's a human condition, virutally universal (on a global scale, i mean). Just for the record. The problem I see with all this is not related to pride as much as it being an endtime survival of the fittest scenario.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by resistor
Reading through this thread, what jumps out at me the most is the overwhelming arrogance and cocksure nature of the USA posters. I suppose this is a natural result of not having a war on our soil for so long. What keeps coming to mind is that 'pride cometh before the fall'.

As some others have pointed out, our borders are utterly open and undefended. If our enemies want small nukes here, they're here. We must also remember that NK is a complete vassal of China. NK's leader is playing just the role one would expect of an agent provocateur, doing China's bidding, with China's technology, while giving The Middle Kingdom cushion from the blame. Like our own 'madman' he's crazy like a fox.


Pride and all that, is not a condition of an individual country. It's a human condition, virutally universal (on a global scale, i mean). Just for the record. The problem I see with all this is not related to pride as much as it being an endtime survival of the fittest scenario.


Respectfully disagree on it not being a country thing. A country is just people - the combination of those peoples arrogance, constitutes the countries arrogance. The US for a a few years have had a hard time dealing with that piticular vice, and as it stands - Nemisis invaribly follows Hubris.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake


Respectfully disagree on it not being a country thing. A country is just people - the combination of those peoples arrogance, constitutes the countries arrogance. The US for a a few years have had a hard time dealing with that piticular vice, and as it stands - Nemisis invaribly follows Hubris.


Are you a man?

[edit on 9-10-2006 by undo]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
Of course, just the fact that Kim HAS a nuke would be plenty of reason to BLAME him for any nuke that somehow detonated in the US.....


Interesting that you would say that, I was thinking that same senerio was a possibility if a nuke detonation was to take place we have a ready-made scapegoat.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Waiting2awake


Respectfully disagree on it not being a country thing. A country is just people - the combination of those peoples arrogance, constitutes the countries arrogance. The US for a a few years have had a hard time dealing with that piticular vice, and as it stands - Nemisis invaribly follows Hubris.


Are you a man?

[edit on 9-10-2006 by undo]


I am. Are you? Why do you ask?

I thought about giving the old line about how there are no sexes online, no colours, no races, only idea's. But I figured why do all that typing?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Waiting2awake


Respectfully disagree on it not being a country thing. A country is just people - the combination of those peoples arrogance, constitutes the countries arrogance. The US for a a few years have had a hard time dealing with that piticular vice, and as it stands - Nemisis invaribly follows Hubris.


Are you a man?

[edit on 9-10-2006 by undo]


I am. Are you? Why do you ask?

I thought about giving the old line about how there are no sexes online, no colours, no races, only idea's. But I figured why do all that typing?


Just a generalization problem is all. I'm female, so I was going to make the point that, huge groups of people of a particular designation (for example, huge groups of men as opposed to huge groups of women) don't all naturally have the same exact problems, at the same exact time.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join