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 'fires more missiles'

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I think B.O. will just draw another line in the sand... then "lil kim" will just walk right up to it, and kick the sand in obamas eyes. Then B.O. will just go to the UN and say... Lets have another kum bay ah moment and talk with the enemy. WE wont do anything more than give lip service because the administration that came AFTER President Bush' administration, doesnt have the..."GRAVITAS" to remind THE WORLD that WE are the ONLY worlds super power.




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
dont the elites want nothing more than a war? they want to wipe out 90% of the worlds population right? and theres nothing better for the economy than a large war. So i wonder if theres a part being played by the elites in all this? At the end of the day we are just going off what the mainstream media say which is always only half the story. hmmm



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaceMonkeys
 


No disrespect, but it sounds more like North Korea, wants to goto a war. MSM, just needs to tell me that a 2nd atomic blast has gone off in North Korea, and all they need to do is report about all the ballistic missile tests they are conducting. Thats all I need to determine that they wanna sell arms. I can see a World in a few years where all countries large or small, From South America, to Africa, to oh say Cuba, will have nukes just as long as they trade with North Korea for food, or cash.. Should be interesting to watch. Important to see how the UN deals with this. Watch the UN..



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I agree,Kim wants to be attacked,he is getting old and will die soon and probably wants to use/see his forces,the UN can do nothing but wait and watch,the problem is that NK has millions of hostages ,Kim is certainly starting a new war,South Korea and Japan are getting involved,this may get very ugly



[edit on 26-5-2009 by all2human]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
So what's the worst that can happen? We get blown up by N. Korea and we blow them up in return? I don't know what the intention of having the bombs is for. Perhaps they are acting as a decoy for Russia and al Queda to smuggle in bombs or something. It would just be too dumb if N. Korea fired missiles at us now that the whole world is looking at them and pointing the finger.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by leira7]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Adrifter
 


perhaps theyre letting them get away with it so that in the future they can say that the terrorists have nukes and then plan another false flag event. All the UN ever do is threaten N korea with more sanctions, nothing ever becomes of it, N korea will carry on as if nothings happened simply because the UN hasnt really done anything. Maybe the are letting them carry on for a reason, to get more and more contries with nukes and then all of a sudden a nuclear attack.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Obama will do nothing as he was to busy playing golf and not observing Memorial day. If the North Koreans put another long range missile up and get ready to fire then just maybe he will do something. The more realistic situation would be South Korea and Japan launching a massive first strike on NK to force Obamas hand.

You can now bet that Japan is building state of the art nuclear warheads as we speak to take care of any threat from this mad man and his big brother.

The south had better keep that border locked down tight from now on. Hunt down NK spies and get ready mass evac Soul as a precaution. SK should send a ton of money to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-rocket and mortar system as long term protection from Kim's artillery. Hopefully they already have the land based U.S. phalanx gun systems like the army has i Iraq.

The solution is two Ohio class subs. One for NK and one for China if they even flinch.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I see no issue here.

/ignore North Korea.

Let them test their own weapons on their own soil and in their own ocean. They have not threatened to invade/attack or occupy another country. Preemptive war is an American specialty these days.

Where were all these sanctions against UN nations when they tested each and every one of their nuclear weapons or test missiles ?

What happened to Bikini Islands ?

That was 10,000% more of an issue than what N.Korea just did. At least they're doing it on their own turf.

As what Ron Paul would say, "we need to mind our own business".

[edit on 26-5-2009 by disfugured]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by disfugured]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by disfugured
 



Hmmm, we can go after Iraq, over the invasion of Kuwait, over oil, yet we cannot be concerned about North Korea, with nuclear capability, and not to mention threatening people with death.. I see. Allot has changed in twenty years. Oil is worth being upset and uniting the allies, but not dictatorships developing long range nuclear capabilities. Slippery slope.. I understand we should mind our business, regardless how similar the UN is looking like the league of nations in the 30's. Lets not forget North Korea has already more or less been caught selling atomic ingredients to the Syrians.. I am doing allot research on this..


[edit on 26-5-2009 by Adrifter]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Adrifter]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I'm surprised that it's not getting as much attention on TV news as you might expect it would.

I think the only problem it will cause is making the stock market go down for a few days. No one is really concerned and it shows. They just respond with rhetoric and the threat of sanctions.

To what extent can you impose sanctions on a country that's already living in the stone age? The world govs know sanction will do nothing at this point, so why do they go through the motions?

In my opinion its some kind of charade that we'll probably never come to understand.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
As I mentioned in the other thread on this, I no longer think that N.Korea is simply posturing for Aid. If that were the case, they would have stopped at the test and waited for responses.

Now, every country on Earth watched as Israel attacked Gaza and killed thousands. And not one nation intervened. What kind of message has that sent to N.Korea?

N.Korea is no longer in the hands of Kim in my opinion. He is either dead or incapacitated since his stroke. Military leaders are now running the country, and this has been shown in the actions they've taken in closing the joint industrial area, posturing to the south, walking away from discussions, and now all this military activity...

They know America is busy on two fronts, the rest of the world did nothing when Israel attacked Gaza, every country is now focussed on their financial instability. Now would be a perfect time to attack the south.

The benefits of attacking and capturing the south are immeasurable. They would once again have access to production ability, wealth, growth, power, population... All of that vastly outweighs any Aid from another nation.

I think they are relying on the assumption that it's just posturing, and that they'll attack while the rest of the world is uttering "condemnation" and talking about them wanting aid for peace.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by disfugured
 


they could easily sell it to iran or syria and anybody who thinks they should have nukes is mad, they act like children and are very unstable.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adrifter
reply to post by disfugured
 



Hmmm, we can go after Iraq, over the invasion of Kuwait, over oil, yet we cannot be concerned about North Korea, with nuclear capability, and not to mention threatening people with death.. I see. Allot has changed in twenty years. Oil is worth being upset and uniting the allies, but not dictatorships developing long range nuclear capabilities. Slippery slope.. I understand we should mind our business, regardless how similar the UN is looking like the league of nations in the 30's. Lets not forget North Korea has already more or less been caught selling atomic ingredients to the Syrians.. I am doing allot research on this..


[edit on 26-5-2009 by Adrifter]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Adrifter]


I think Iraq was a very different situation because 1. Iraq had almost no military capability and 2. Iraq did not have the same support from China and Russia that N. Korea does.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


i appreciate what you are saying but there is a big difference between Israel attacking a tiny stretch of land such as Gaza which did contain people already launching missiles at Israel and North Korea attacking a fully fledged country and ally of the US and EU.

IMO NK simply cannot risk attacking SK, it would be suicide, they are just trying to flex their muscles and scare people.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by jonny2410]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adrifter
reply to post by disfugured
 



Hmmm, we can go after Iraq, over the invasion of Kuwait, over oil, yet we cannot be concerned about North Korea, with nuclear capability, and not to mention threatening people with death.. I see. Allot has changed in twenty years. Oil is worth being upset and uniting the allies, but not dictatorships developing long range nuclear capabilities. Slippery slope.. I understand we should mind our business, regardless how similar the UN is looking like the league of nations in the 30's. Lets not forget North Korea has already more or less been caught selling atomic ingredients to the Syrians.. I am doing allot research on this..


[edit on 26-5-2009 by Adrifter]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Adrifter]


Where have they made threats to other nations ?

Where did I mention it was ok to invade Iraq ?

I'm saying preemptive war is not a good solution.

America cant even take care of itself, why should we keep trying to take care of others ?

If they start some sort of holocaust or invade and attack another country then sure, we have every right to get involved.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I want to point out that countries with no nuclear capacities are in a weak position in comparison with countries with nuclear capacities. So they want to upgrade. It is somewhat legitimate. You don't want to be attacked and unable to defend yourself.
It's a big big concern, I agree. I don't like and don't feel safe with nukes all over the world.
Countries are looking for nuclear capacities for defense purpose. You can't nuke left and right if you don't have what to stand a response. Why would NK nuke anyone ? They'd be ripped off the map instantly. Is it a smart move ? There is nothing to win for them in that situation.
They want to protect themselves and make it clear.

It is very tricky to find argumentative when you have nukes and tell others they are not allowed to have ones.

- You shall not have those because you are not responsible and you might use them. I don't trust you.
- But you have those and threaten to use them if I don't do what you want
- Yes but I am responsible and you can trust me, I won't be bad I promise



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by disfugured
 


debatable. Just trying to make a comparison, I know no invasions have occurred, I know you said nothing about Iraq. North Korea, is saying they are developing nukes to protect themselves, in 1935, Adolf Hitler, broke a part of Versailles treaty it was part 5. he developed more military and created the Luftwaffe. The league of nations condoned yet did nothing. I am just trying to point similarities. Sounds and looks allot like something that already happened before..
Yes Iraq desert shield was different in ingredients yet I think the same motivation or same simularites can be seen with North Korea, creating Nuclear weapons. I think that is more deadly then Iraq invading Kuwait. That's all.. If you don't agree that's cool.
I don't think I am fool looking at it this way thou either..



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Adrifter
 


But Germany was already the most powerful country militarily and industrialy in Europe at the time.
It is a very different situation with NK.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 


This is up for debate as well, But I think Russia, yet not sure if we can say they were part of Europe, but Russia, had the air force and powerful mobile infantry in 1935. Yet ahem, the war up in Finland was an embarrassment.

books.google.com... 7-fUJTe40&hl=en&ei=kvwbSuaWE52xtgf395zfDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA91,M1

I also believe the french were the military prior to WWII. Anyhow your opinion defs help teach me the complexity and differences of this situation. Just trying to turn to history to understand how serious this could be.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonny2410
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


i appreciate what you are saying but there is a big difference between Israel attacking a tiny stretch of land such as Gaza which did contain people already launching missiles at Israel and North Korea attacking a fully fledged country and ally of the US and EU.

IMO NK simply cannot risk attacking SK, it would be suicide, they are just trying to flex their muscles and scare people.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by jonny2410]


Ok, well even if you remove Israel from my points, what evidence is there that them attacking the south would be suicide?

What country currently has the ability and will to come to the aid of the south? And when has the north ever been sensible or rational?

Military leaders think with their warheads, they often don't have a basic understanding of economics or a sensible approach to diplomacy. If Kim has lost control of his country, the people now in control of it are very likely military leaders with a warped sense of the world and little understanding of the consequences of their actions.

We all know that if a nuke was dropped tomorrow, every other country would have to hold off and consider a rational response. It wouldn't be an immediate launching of nuclear weapons all around the world, and we wouldn't want there to be.
The idea that there is a "deterrent" is nonsensical. The basic truth is that one nuclear blast would not cause a global nuclear war, the nation to do it would gain an upper hand and face a response, but it's highly unlikely that any nation would support a nuclear response that would further damage and destabilise the entire planet.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join