WWIII?

Do you think that we will try to fight North Korea, Iraq and Al-Queda at the same time. Check out what North Korea is saying:

www.cnn.com...

Does any one have any info on wheather or not the N.Koreans have a vehicle that can make it to US soil..And if so is it nuke capable..And i mean main land US>...I am sure they could hit Alaska.


I think that is something that needs to be figured out first..before we start to take these folks seriously!

Boomslang

"Does any one have any info on wheather or not the N.Koreans have a vehicle that can make it to US soil..And if so is it nuke capable..And i mean main land US"

yes.
its called a car.
what you do is load it with explosives, a nuke if you like, then you park it in a crowded spot under a large building and make it go boom.
then, as your country gets bombed to oblivion by the US for somthing your government did, you retire to the hills and teach your children what evil bastards americans are.

then, 10 years later, these kids turn up with another car and make that one go boom to.
the car is a bit more futuristic, and has hover jets but the method for generating US hating terrorists remains the same.

ya know, when I was a kid I was promised rocket packs, hover cars, flying cars and the like. Where are these items anyway? I was promised!

Yet another outstanding post by the famous lupe!

Lupe that was a good example. lol you crack me up

Boomsland

you wrote:

I think that is something that needs to be figured out first..before we start to take these folks seriously!

Let's not underestimate other people's ability. You all remember 9/11?
It seemed impossible for other people to get to the heart of the US, but they did some how.

This is to prove that you can use very basic methods of attack that can cause a lot of damage.

Should always take people seriously in my opinion. Beware all times!

they got to the heart of the US alright...and nothing has ever served more to strengthen us as a nation. In fact, where we may have been more complacent before, and tried to talk things out with maniacs...now, we just kinda figure we'll take the whackos out...so we're kind of in the "bring it on" mentality right now....

As we have said dozens of times, the US will respond when terrorist-helping nations put our country at risk. We have tried numerous times to settle this at the negotiating table with N. Korea and have clearly stated we are not looking to start a war with N. Korea. They don't seem to want to settle this peacefully. However, if they do unleash a pre-emptive attack, the US will respond and that will probably be the end of N. Korea.

therin lies the problem.
it may well be the end of the people of north Korea, and the government of North Korea, but it would be just the begining of the North Korean terrorist organisation.

Carpet bombing countrys doesn't make them less of a threat it simply intensifys their hatred towards you and creates splinter terrorist organisations who feel newly justified in their need to attack you.

As we have seen recently, the threat to the west doesn't come from entire countrys, it comes from the fragmented organisations we leave behind having blown the country up.

about 99.99999% of everyone doesnt want a war anyway- has there even been enough evidence? why not just put saddam and Bush in a ring and see who wins- pay per view

COMMUNARDS (UK POP GROUP) made a videoclip like that during COLD-WAR.
ENNEMIES WHERE REAGAN vs KROUTCHEV
SEriously, it's not a solution...
But why United States don't let UNO inspectors do them job ?

Originally posted by kim
about 99.99999% of everyone doesnt want a war anyway- has there even been enough evidence? why not just put saddam and Bush in a ring and see who wins- pay per view

The idea that bad things come from the countries we carpet bomb is theoretical as there aren't that many we have bombed. As a matter of fact, our problems are coming from countries that haven't been carpet bombed yet, except Iraq, and the target there is Hussein, not the population.
Come to think of it, the former hotbed for terrorists was Afghanistan. Remember, the people we aided in their drive to run the Soviet Union out?

One thing is for sure. The Middle Eastern people understand strength and capitalize on weakness. Lack of resolve and cowardice in the face of attacks against us will destroy America.

North Korea is merely trying to create confusion on behalf of their friend, Hussein.

Why does it seem that everyone ignores the most important fact, any conflict with N.Korea will DESTROY South Korea, which is the main concern, the cost of the battle are millions of innocent lives



PS BOB, from one Ohian to another, GO BUCKS!

the destruction of S. Korea has nothing to do with why we are trying to negotiate with N. Korea. It's just that N. Korea has no oil!!! Ask Lupe and Bout Time they can tell you all about it

"does ayone know if N.Korea can reach mainland USA..":

Boomsland;
It is highly improbable that N.Korea has a ICBM or other delivery system that can/could reach the mainland
USA. As for their shorter range missiles, they have shown their ability to reach as far as Japan and Okinawa and of course S.Korea. These shorter range missiles can carry nuclear warheads, however the USAF has an
anti-ballistic missile weapon that uses an iodine laser to
disable such missiles while still over their launch area, thus an attack (warhead) would simply fall back on the country launching such an attack. This System is in operation at the present.


As an aside; Of course IF the USA were to use such an anti-ballistic weapon, WE would be portrayed as the "bad guys", and NOT the ones launching the missiles in the first place.


God Bless the USA, Our Allies and all of our Servicemen

You are darn right that N korea has no oil thats why the situation is different than Iraq. There is nothing wrong with that two different countries two different methods of dealing with them. The thing is this is all based on past behavior Saddam has demonstrted his willingness to venture out of his own borders and threaten the whole world oil supply. This is a crisis (have you seen the price of gas!) This must be delt with negotiations have not worked surgical strikes have not worked (Bill clinton method) so use of overwhelming force is the next option. With N. Korea it is different they have been behind their fence for the last 50 years and are in no shape to even think about a conventional strike into S. Korea (their supply system could not support conventional forces in the field for very long) SO they use the Nuke as a bargining chip to exploit (what a socialist exploit!!!) aid from the West ( the US ) we know their game and know they are bluffing.

The carrier being deployed to the sea of Japan to be in place off N Korea has more nuclear strike capability than all of N Korea Intel says N Korea has at most 5 nukes and no long range missle in service capable of handleing a nuke payload so let the little weasels talk if they were to make a first strike it would be the last thing they EVER did! AND THEY KNOW THIS!

[Edited on 7-2-2003 by GRENADIER]

"But why United States don't let UNO inspectors do them job ? "

Because...announced inspections are a joke. It's like me telling you..."I'm gonna inspect your room tomorrow, so I better not find any pot!". Do you really think I will find anything....tomorrow??? Please.

You know, we were paying N Korea millions already to pretty much play nice...they simply see this as a chance to squeeze even more. Bah! Cut 'em off, and if they so much as shoot a bullet at that carrier...turn NK into a new bomb testing range...

This is a newspaper letter to the editor from Jan. 30:

Iraq greater threat than North Korea


Editor:

While on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, I served in both Southwest Asia and South Korea in roles as a war fighter and a war planner.

The belief that North Korea is the greater threat to the United States is somewhat uninformed or even naive. Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, I believe that North Korea was the greater threat, but since then the situation has changed dramatically.

Let's assume that both nations possess or are very near to developing nuclear weapons. Let's also assume that the North Koreans have a viable delivery system (Taepodong 2). The situation on the Korean Peninsula is static, with large forces deployed on both sides of the DMZ.

The North Koreans have more than 1 million troops. Along the DMZ there are more than 10,000 artillery pieces and more than 200 (260 millimeter) multiple rocket launchers. Many of these are capable of delivering chemical warheads all the way to Seoul, which has a population of 10.5 million.

Should the U.S. and South Korea attempt a conventional war to rid the North of nuclear weapons, the toll in human lives would be immense. We rely on our own nuclear deterrent options to inhibit the North's use of chemical and nuclear weapons.

The cost/benefit analysis of North Korea's first strike against the U.S. with nuclear weapons demonstrates how the North is unlikely to choose that option. The range and accuracy of the Taepodong 2 limits it to attacking the Aleutian Islands and parts of the Alaskan mainland. The retaliatory strike from the United States, regardless of size and scope, would devastate Pyongyang.

After Sept. 11, 2001, the situation with Iraq became extraordinarily more complicated. The Iraqis don't possess the means to strike the United States directly, and the use of their missile systems to deliver a chemical or nuclear weapon within the region would result in a retaliatory strike similar to that in the Korean situation.

So why are the Iraqis the greater threat? Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations have become the de facto frontline troops arrayed against the United States for Saddam Hussein. They have proved themselves as a clear and present danger by killing more than 3,000 on U.S. soil.

The likelihood of al-Qaida obtaining and using a weapon of mass destruction against the United States is directly related to the Iraqis' ability to produce nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. If al-Qaida or some other terrorist organization employs one of these weapons against us in a suicide attack, whom do we strike in retaliation? We have no retaliatory deterrent against such a terrorist attack.

The next war with Iraq is akin to the air interdiction mission in an air/land battle. That mission is to delay, disrupt and destroy personnel and equipment before it can be deployed to the front and employed against our troops.

We must eliminate the Iraqi ability to build these weapons, because the alternative is unacceptable. If al-Qaida obtains one of these weapons, our chances of preventing it from getting to U.S. soil are greatly reduced. Our only option then is to pray, and hope you're not in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Maj. Charles D. Maxwell
U.S. Air Force Reserves