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 100+ nuclear warheaeds, what are we waiting for to stop them?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
North Korea leadership has openly declared they have WMDs. According to the document below they have more than 100 nuclear warheads. They are a threat to the world and they could sell WMDs to other countries. In addition they have intercontinental missiles able to reach various targets in the US.

I was amazed by the document at the address below, where they declare they could to engage in a total war with the US and aim to the US total destruction:
TOTAL WAR

Can anyone confirm these statements? Is this document a fake?

Also, does anyone know if North Korea has oil?




posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
If they honestly have 100 warheads then I would say our intelligence services are completely inept for thinking they might have a couple. But I will say its unlikely they have 100. But of course I am just speculating.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WisdomMaster
what are we waiting for to stop them?


Would the US want to invade a country that actually does have Weapons of Mass Destruction?

The Armed Forces are bogged down in Iraq after invading with the excuse being these 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'.

We are still waiting for something that could actually kill lots of people to be found.

North Korea Missiles Said To Threaten U.S



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
America i'm sure has ten times, if not more than that already. Should we stop them?

As long as they're not going to use them then fine.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   


North Korea has 100+ nuclear warheaeds, what are we waiting for to stop them?


North Korea is not in this administrations priority, Iraq is, and as long as this administration greed over Iraqi oil persist it is going to stay blind on the rest of the world until is to late.

North Korea is not profitable for this administration like Iraq.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043



North Korea has 100+ nuclear warheaeds, what are we waiting for to stop them?


North Korea is not in this administrations priority, Iraq is, and as long as this administration greed over Iraqi oil persist it is going to stay blind on the rest of the world until is to late.

North Korea is not profitable for this administration like Iraq.



Very true. North Korea, unlike Iraq, is a long way off, may be difficult, even impossible, to defeat, and does not have any oil.

The US administration does not care about rogue states having WMDs. That was just an excuse for invading Iraq.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   


North Korea is not in this administrations priority, Iraq is, and as long as this administration greed over Iraqi oil persist it is going to stay blind on the rest of the world until is to late.





Very true. North Korea, unlike Iraq, is a long way off, may be difficult, even impossible, to defeat, and does not have any oil.


You all seem to be blinded by your pessimistic hatred/disillusionment with the US and a staunch belief that oil is everything.

That's not always the case, NATO went into Kosovo but no oil, NATO forces including American are still in places like Bosnia on peacekeeping missions. The US also went into Somalia, again no oil and they also went into Panama in the late 80's again no oil.

Try to look at it as objectively as possible, there may be other reasons rather than simply just oil. Oil, gas and coal are resources that are running out, if they're fully depleted within the next 50 years are they going to bother with long term planning in the area if it's simply just oil. I think too many people have been taking Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 as purely factual and a little too seriously i might add.

I'm neither strongly pro/anti-US but you have to think objectively and other reasons rather than oil.

Remember this sh*t is chess it ain't Checkers.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Flyboy the locations you mentioned required very little effort or expense when compared to Iraq. They aren't in the same league. Thats like comparing getting an oil change to getting an engine rebuilt. What makes me more of a man? Putting $1 in the red bucket at Christmas time or regularly volunteering at the local soup kitchen (neither of which I do lol). They are both cases of charity but neither compare.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   


United States leadership has openly declared they have WMDs, ranging from the largest stockpile of Nuclear warheads to chemical and biological agents powerfull enough to eradicate all life on the planet. According to millions of documents on the internet, library's and public records, they have more than 25000 nuclear warheads. They are a threat to the world and they DO sell WMDs to other countries, sponsor terrorists to fight other nations and support rogue nations like Afghanistan and Iraq to fight against common enemy's, like Russia, Cuba, Peru, Iran and a whole lot of other nations. In addition they have ICMB's able to reach every single square mile on the planet.

I was amazed by the documents available freely all over the world, where they declare they could to engage in a total war with the world and aim to total world domination:

Can anyone confirm these statements? Is the internet, library of congress, FOIA and all other documentation fake?


North Korea has not declared any treats to the US or any other nation, they are very aware that if they launch a single missile at the US, the entire country is prone to become one huge radioactive swamp.

Technological development is not a single right the US itself only enjoys, every nation in the world has that right, and if they don't declare war or do attacks on other nations, they should be left alone, maybe even publicly helped in their conquest for technology, so the knowledge of capability's and plans is more open.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   


Flyboy the locations you mentioned required very little effort or expense when compared to Iraq. They aren't in the same league. Thats like comparing getting an oil change to getting an engine rebuilt. What makes me more of a man? Putting $1 in the red bucket at Christmas time or regularly volunteering at the local soup kitchen (neither of which I do lol). They are both cases of charity but neither compare


I think you over simplified it there. I know you used an analogy but you can't really explain the difference between attacking a country for oil or attacking a country for democracy and freedom with an oil change/rebuilt engine or putting a dollar in a fundraising bucket and working in a kitchen to help the homeless or whatever.

NATO troops including American are still in Bosnia, what after at least 10 years since the atrocities that went on there. They didn't go looking for oil, i'd imagine keeping an overseas peacekeeping force funded, well fed, armed would still cost a fair bit.

Ok i admit that some of the reason for going to Iraq would be about oil, but not to aquire it for themselves but to stop Saddam from exploiting it so he could create a powerful military machine and cause trouble in the middle east.

There are other countries that can supply oil other than Iraq, such as Saudi Arabia, Russia & Venezuela.

I just think people are too quick to jump on the 'it's oil!' bandwagon.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I think its an even split between going in for oil and going in so we can keep domestic problems off the table.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Sorry, but this is one of the most poorly thought out and researched arguments I have ever read.

Just read the part on airpower and how N. Korea has the advantage because they will sneak up on the US planes and kill them all in dogfights


Ohhh wow, this is from Rense - who would have known


North Korea is a threat, and do have WMD, but this idea that they some how have an advantage over the US is really out of touch with reality.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
You might be right but i still can't believe how arrogant you are though lol. You probably said the same before they invaded Iraq, although it was over fairly soon more soldiers died than what people were comfortable with. Not quite the rollover of the first Gulf War.

If America ever invades North Korea you will be fighting them on their own home ground, although with the US's 'overwhelming military might' it still doesn't protect you from taking losses and you better hope that North Korea wouldn't use any WMD's they have.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211
You might be right but i still can't believe how arrogant you are though lol. You probably said the same before they invaded Iraq, although it was over fairly soon more soldiers died than what people were comfortable with. Not quite the rollover of the first Gulf War.

If America ever invades North Korea you will be fighting them on their own home ground, although with the US's 'overwhelming military might' it still doesn't protect you from taking losses and you better hope that North Korea wouldn't use any WMD's they have.


Not arrogant at all. If we were talking Russia I would be singing a different tune. We took Iraq in what? A week or something like that. In over a year we have had less then 2000 KIA. While I don't want to see 1 more dead american (believe me, I've got buddies over there), statistically speaking, those are very good numbers.

As far as WMD's go - if they use a single one, we will simply pull all of our troops out and nuke them. It's that simple. The same thing happened in GW 1 - we told Saddam, "hey, we know you have cheical weapons and biological weapons and you can go ahead and use them if you want. But then we will throw a thousand or so nukes at you..... And wait for the sand to cool down to glass. And then If anything does remain, we will throw another thousand nukes at you."

People respect that line of thinking.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Only people with a fear of death fear that line. Only people who are sane fear it. People willing to die for a cause could care less how many nukes you have.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I agree with what you are saying, but would change it to something like "only people who have something to lose fear that line. I would contend Kim has the most to lose - he owns the whole country.

Besides, like I said, if he uses WMD's, then he gets a dose of what I like to call SAD - Single Assured Destrucion.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 03:17 AM
link   
As far as I know there is absolutely no reason to invade North Korea. If they have nukes then that's just puts them in the don't fuuk with us club. Using a nuke makes no sense when you know others will use them against you, if you use any. If they do decide to use them we wont put any troops on the ground anyway - except to search for North Korean survivors.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The true concern about N Korea getting more nukes is that selling weapons in their cash cow. They are one of and if not the largest black market weapons exporter in the world. This is the last thing that any of us want because they will sell those off left and right to whomever has enough money.

That article was a joke, much of this was complete speculation and they really didnt provide any good sources to back it up. Also, they are not what would be considered a neighborly neighbor to China and Russia. The term Ally there was use VERY loosely. Kim Jong Il is definately one scarey dude and he is pretty nuts. Regardless of that I think he would be hard pressed to starting a directed attack on American forces.

While writing this response I also came up with another scenario. If Iran and n Korea were to combine forces, THEN and only then would they be a veritable force. Iran has already acknowledged that they are considering a pre-emptive strike on American forces. If those two countries combined forces we might as just kick back and enjoy the apocolypse, we would be in WW3.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   
There are 2 fronts threatening us right now.

Pacific and NK. Jong II is nuts, but I also think he will not attack the US directly. We would issue a tactical strike and destroy his palace, or where ever he was but not level it. The fact they possess WMD is scary, but I still think if they used one on a local neighbor, we would not flatten it. There is China to the north, and also Russia and I think would be a little pissed about the toxic clouds as well as India and such.We would not be very liked.. (go read the history of the Korean War, fascinating that it was nothing like MASH..lol)

side note on Iraq. It is not about Oil. We are there trying to create a stabing area for the imminent war with NK and China. I heard this from someone who works at Centcom in Tampa.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
side note on Iraq. It is not about Oil. We are there trying to create a stabing area for the imminent war with NK and China. I heard this from someone who works at Centcom in Tampa.


Can you explain how Iraq is a convenient staging point for a war in North Korea?

And are you serious about China? That would wreck America's economy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join