Russia fears North Korea conflict could turn nuclear

Originally posted by dooper
Chamberlain's hesitation cost 52,000,000 lives.

Rubbish!

Nothing Chamberlain, or anyone else for that matter, could have done at that time would have stopped Hitler from doing exactly what he wanted. The plans were drawn up and ready to go.

Even if the British and French had gone on the offensive from the word go the Wermracht and Luftwaffe had superior tactics and equipment honed during the Spanish Civil War.

And had the British and French acted at that time, it may very well have turned the Soviets into the arms of the Nazi's even further.

You cannot compare Obama - the leader of the most heavily armed and militarily capable country in the world - with Chamberlain. Current world politics is nothing like it was back in the 30's.

reply to post by neformore


1935 would a been the time to act. Chamberlain was Not even in power yet!

no one was listening to Chamberlain before the War anyhow. Hell the French suggested he Surrender after the fall of Paris. He did not.. The French comments represented the State of mind at the beginning of WWII, gentlemen..

[edit on 27-5-2009 by Adrifter]

For those of you CTers out there... check out the recent 4.7 mag earthquake in Iran...

USGS

Just a little freaky that it was the same magnitude as the N Korean "quake." And that there was suspicion of the two nations sharing technology.

reply to post by Iago18


earthquake.usgs.gov...
the north korea test

earthquake.usgs.gov...
may 26th mag 4.7 Japan

earthquake.usgs.gov...
may 25th mag 4.7 Russia

earthquake.usgs.gov...
may 26th mag 4.7 Iran

look at the depths and you can figure out pretty easy which was a nuclear test.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Nice work!

I wonder if there is a tool out there which would map out all of the seismic events with a depth of 1 mile or less? The results would be very interesting, indeed.

reply to post by clay2 baraka


Never mind, here it is:
Earthquakes less than 1 mile, magnitude 4-5

[edit on 5/27/2009 by clay2 baraka]

reply to post by dooper


I still don't see where you draw the parallel between what is happening now in North Korea and WWII in Europe. Kim is no Hitler, and his regime is no Third Reich. NK has no imperial ambitions or complex of supremacy, and the US military capabilities far overshadow those of NK.

A bit of topic but since you brought Chamberlain up: there is a good (but somewhat misguided) reasoning for his actions prior to Britain entering WWII. That reasoning lies in the circumstances of WWI. WWI started because too many European powers were too hotheaded and self-assured. "Fight now, think later" was the battle call. The result was millions of deaths for a cause that wasn't very clear, in addition to critical consequences such as the Russian Civil War and the eventual rise of the Third Reich. Chamberlain was trying to avoid the mistakes of the past, but he wasn't quiet caught up in the present.

There are very few realistic parallels with what is taking place today however.

This is the point when I start taking "speculation" serious:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b967eb23d9d6.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by neformore


nefermore, you are mistaken. Men don't change.

We may dress different, eat different, and say different, we haven't made any progress in our evolution in tens of thousands of years.

Cowards ever hide behind noble concepts. They will excuse their cowardice behind fancy words and well-chosen concepts of openness, dialogue, excuses, tolerance, enlightenment, statesmanship, negotiation, and other mis-terminology.

Cowardice invites delay. Confusion. Misdirection.

Break out a history book or two and check the facts.

In 1938, Hitler threatened to invade Czecholslovakia if Britain didn't support his takeover of the Sudetenland. Neville Chamberlain of Britain discussed the matter with Eduard Benes of Czechoslovakia and Edouard Daladier of France, and refused the deal.

(Keep in mind, at this very moment, Hitler's force is small. He is bluffing. He doesn't have diddly squat to back up his claims. If you don't believe it, check the numbers for yourself.)

Hitler was crazy, but not stupid. He knew that neither Chamberlain nor Daladier of France would go to war over this, nor would they want to team up with the totalitarian Stalin. So Hitler played both sides against the middle. Mussolini suggested to Hitler that he propose a four-power meeting between Chamberlain, Daladier, Mussolini, and Hitler.

Oddly, the country whose territory was being demanded - Czechoslovakia - was excluded from the talks. They would exclude Stalin and Benes. Russia and Czechoslovakia.

Thus they came up with the Munich Agreement to give away part of Czechoslovakia! That was bold! After all, Hitler promised that this would be the end of his aggression.

"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing."
Neville Chamberlain.

Funny, he knew Czechoslovakia well enough to give away some of their sovereign territory.

"We should seek by all mean in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."
NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

Is it just me, or does this not sound exactly, EXACTLY what we hear from Obama?

"I believe it is peace for our time . . . peace with honor." NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

Yeah. Peace with honor. 52,000,000 dead as a result of this short-sighted gutlessness. Some peace. Some honor.

The following year in 1939, Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. In August of 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact. A month later Hitler invaded Poland. Russia had made it's deal to get it's cut, and the world was at war.

Since in all of 1938, and most of 1939 Germany was vastly outnumbered and outpowered, the problem could likely have been resolved with less than 100,000 total deaths.

Which is preferable?

100,000 total deaths today and the war is over, or 52,000,000 spread over the next six years?

Is 100,000 deaths good? Of course not!

But when you have two bad decisions, even 500,000 deaths would be preferable to 52,000,000.

Hesitation is ruin.

All through the history of man.

reply to post by dooper


A lot of our young people don't think about our history, or are even taught history from this perspective. I was thinking the same thing about how this seems to parallel Pre-WWII. But, with everything that's happening within our Government, the thoughts occurred to me that the USA is being made into "The Reich".

Idunno. Between all the NWO theories out there, our President that seems to want to kill Capitalism and our country's sovereignity, it gets really confusing.

Who knows, it just all might be a ruse to make Obama into a great hero once again after we nuke Pyonyang....

Look at the great Obama, he saved thousands of lives by nuking a few, just like Truman did by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save the thousands of additional lives an invasion would have cost!

I would be more worried about the bills they will be passing while people are all focused on this so called Korean War.

Bread and circus indeed.

Everybody seems to be forgetting that this guy knows he is dying. What if he wants to go out with a bang?

reply to post by peaceonearth


I was thinking the same thing from the start. Kim knows hes old, and his health is failing. He had a stroke already. He could very well want his name in the history books as the man who started a World War III, taking over South Korea, and uniting the peninsula once and for all, before he dies.

However, I do agree with maloy that moderation is key here. Peaceful talks is what the world would really rather have, instead of a preemptive strike, and would be much wiser, indeed. If we sit back and wait it out, and talking through it, there is a 50/50 chance for war (I believe it is a much lower chance of that as-is anyway.)

However, if we do make a preemptive strike, it would be a 100% chance for war. In both scenarios, NK would be destroyed in the process anyway, the only difference being would be the amount of destruction in SK.

Also, just like Obama said several days ago "all options are on the table." Him and his military advisors WILL leave the possiblity of a preemptive strike on NK on the table, if only to give them that much more flexibility, even if they are just bluffing. Give Kim a bit more to think about, in this case.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by eniac]

Originally posted by dooper
North Korea wanted nukes.

They may get more than they anticipated.

This is the same crap that drives me mad! Liberals think talking with these stiffies can make a difference.

They don't understand that with stiffies, negotiation is merely a delaying tactic until they get strong enough to kill again.

Korea and Iran.

We have been warned time and again, but we prefer CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

Believe this: So many pressure points all around the world are building to the bursting point.

So, how about this CHANGE?

Ain't it great?

Well reasoned argument.

What a shame that liberal fool Kennedy didn't think along those lines during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Nuke 'em all, that's what I say.

Yeeee-HAWWWW!!!!

I have read a lot on russian history, they were a HUGE threat when it came to nukes and stuff. If russia fears another place that has to do with nukes, there is definitely a treat going on.

I think we all feel that it is inevetable that N Korea will use nuclear weapons, against S Korea and anyone else they can reach. It is just unbearably sad to think of so much destruction in our lifetime at the hands of another human being. When will we ever learn.

Originally posted by eniac
What a shame that liberal fool Kennedy didn't think along those lines during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Nuke 'em all, that's what I say.

Yeeee-HAWWWW!!!!

First of all, Kennedy was not a liberal. Kennedy was a democrat. The democrats during his day is nothing like the liberal democrats of today. Sure, they have a few old school democrats peppered in Congress but they are rare these days. The democrats during the Kennedy Presidency were more like moderate Republicans today.

Secondly, the U.S., Britain and other EU countries have been talking to Iran and North Korea for over 10 years. The Cuban missile crisis was weeks. Big difference!
So I really don't see how you believe that Iran and North Korea have not been given more than enough time to straighten up.

Originally posted by dooper
As I stated on another thread, China will start shaking like a dog ****ing a peach pit as they still have a residual fear of the Japanese. This will be a very strong motivator to get China to stop this stupidity by the North Koreans. They can cap fatface and get a new government in there.

Ya! But let's hope they don't start shaking like dogs ****ing a peach pit so much that they decide not to finance your military adventures and sorry a$$es anymore!

Thanks for letting me read your funny stuff! - you amuse me!

But I must say the I agree with your assessment that they need a new goverment in North Korea! ASAP!

(As long is not an American puppet goverment, that is! )

Peace!

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Chevalerous]

I don't think NK will offensively use nuclear weapons on SK and start a war. It is korean homeland. You don't autonuke !
It would be a good contender for the silliest strategic move in mankind history.
There is nothing to win in trying to reunite the peninsula if you make half of it unbearable.

One good start in assessing this kind of situation is to stop thinking the enemy is a complete idiot.