US to strike North Korea if 3rd nuclear test occurs..

reply to post by edaced4


The funny thing is that North Korea was only ever a real threat to one country (SK) and they are built up to be this big enemy to be afraid of, while the US has been in and out of wars that they had no place in for the last 60 years and they are declared the conquering hero. Claiming that the North Korean regime is iron fisted and slanted against the people is also no grounds for invasion, as that really is up to North Koreans to figure out. It's just the same dialogue over and over again and yet most people still don't have a clue what's going on. I'll put it this way. If any UN member-states play off a regime to be a threat (eg Libya, Iran, NK, etc) I can guarantee you that: A) they plan on attacking said regime soon so they need the public behind it, or B) it is just an extension of their "New Cold War" against China and it just generally pays off to have the general population all fear the enemy du' jour so they are less likely to realise that the crimes of that "rogue state" pale in comparison those of the good ol' red white and blue.

reply to post by libertytoall


If a foreign country started occupying America and was trying to change your way of life how would you act? Their religion and culture isn't like ours, yet the United States has covertly tried to take over their oil resources. Ask yourself or any other soldier who has served duty in Afghanistan or Iraq, what are we accomplishing there? What is our mission? Obama is dead so what's the purpose of stationing troops there. Why did we change our mission 3 times when invaded Iraq? You're afraid of terrorists, yet we've creating more terrorists for every innocent life our troops end up killing. If someone was occupying our country and ended up killing someone in your family, wouldn't you want revenge?

The U.S. has backed and supported dictators in the middle east. These leaders were ruthless yet there's no reason why these people should be angry? We've been pushing our weight in them middle east since the 70's. Do some research and find out why we had marines stationed in Beruit in '83. The U.S. needs to start minding it's own business.

Did North Korea just come into possession of a giant oil reserve or something? Why would we attack them? They don't have anything we want. Let the Japanese and South Koreans worry about it.

reply to post by trollz


No country will ever have peace unless it comes from within. Any occupying force or any military force has never created an everlasting peace or changed the lives of it's citizens. The U.S. is now using food to try to change North Korea's nuclear ambitions. It's only going to hurt the people of North Korea and cause more anger towards the U.S..

The U.S. has enough nuclear defense arsenals to shut down any nuclear threat from North Korea. We need to stop antagonizing North Korea and let neighboring countries settle any conflicts. North Korea isn't in our neighborhood and its military is decades behind the U.S. and its neighbor South Korea.

South Korea's military has been receiving U.S. high tech arsenal since the end of the Korean War. Do you really think we need U.S. troops stationed in South Korea? This is more war mongering by the U.S. in an area that shouldn't even concern us.

We're afraid of North Korea and Iran developing nuclear missiles, yet Pakistan who harbors "terrorists" have nuclear missiles. If we were able to keep the Soviet Union from launching missiles at the U.S. for decades, I'm sure we could do the same with Iran and North Korea. Don't let yourself feed into the fear.

reply to post by jude11


I agree, and there are too many people here in the U.S. who are feeding into the lies and fear for reason to go to war and occupy sovereign countries. We have too many people who want to puff out their chests thinking the U.S. is too strong and will never get burned. The U.S. is eventually going to push one too many buttons and it's going to come home to roost.

USA is always lookin for opportunities to preemptively attack others.

figures usa would even launch a nuclear strike upon NK as a disciplinary action for nuclear testing.

Originally posted by Cdaddy1034

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by mobiusmale
To say that this is "interesting", would be an understatement of monumental proportions.

If the U.S. decides to prevent this next test by military means, it would:

1) Send a strong message to the young dictator that he cannot act with impunity

Who the hell gave America the right to tell other countries what they can and can't do with respect to defense spending/tests? Are we the biggest hypocrites on Earth or what? How did we become the world courts jury and judge? Why doesn't the world call the US the craziest dictatorship on Earth? We work feverishly every day to find new ways to kill people in combat. Why should NK be restricted from advancing it's own defense capabilities? This is just asinine mental illness and straight up stupidity for people to listen to the medias big bad wolf scenario..

2) If, done in concert with China (their acquiescence), would send a clear message that North Korea is truly isolated, and their continuing political retardation will not be tolerated.

How the heck are you going to tell another country what they can and can't do to defend themselves? I wish every country on Earth had nuclear capability.. We would never see war again!

3) Suggest that Kim Jung Whatever ought to angle for a big monetary free pass, and a villa in some sunny place, in return for giving his blessings to a Korean re-unification.

Why? What's the purpose of that?

At some point this silliness needs to end...and now is the perfect time...before the new kid gets too entrenched in the national leadership fairy tale.

Exactly.. Please refrain from giving your illogical views any farther. The media sure has had an easy time brainwashing you!

edit on 18-4-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Nobody developes nukes to REALLY defend themselves,how many countries do you think are going to nuke their own land in the event of an invasion.

let's get real here... I don't care how you look at it, Nukes are only going to be used to do harm to other countries, with or without conflict.

Why should we allow other countries to have them, when we are actively working with Russia to get rid of them

edit on 18-4-2012 by Cdaddy1034 because: bad grammar

Deterrence is a defence effect. You aren't saying you'll nuke your own land. your saying you'll nuke the friends and family of the invading army so they won't have a home to return to.

The countries scrambling for nukes are doing it because it puts them beyond attack by competing states in most foreseeable situations. In particular the USA now that it pre-emptively attacks those it doesn't like as a matter of policy.

Its 'regime change insurance'. If you are a tyrant in the modern world the logic of gaining nuclear weapons is obvious.

The danger from NK nukes is not what they do with it as much as it is who they sell them on the black market to. Perhaps people who don't belong to a state and don't care if they die in a retaliatory strike. Thats why its dangerous.

reply to post by libertytoall


It's likely that I do underestimating the abilities of the US military, I'm no modern military buff. But I'm not underestimating the danger the civilians in South Korea would face if a military strike were to take place, not unless the US military can stop thousands of shells in mid flight. And thousands of shells would be flying:

Technology can help prevent the North Koreans from getting in a second shot. But there is not yet any solution to the thousands of shells and rockets they could launch with the first salvo on Seoul, and that remains one of the biggest concerns in an escalating conflict. - popularmechanics.com

While Seoul would survive, it would be a mess and the death toll would be horrific.

As far as Israel goes, it's not a neighbor of North Korea... In my humble opinion, there's just too many differences between the situation on the Korean peninsular and the situation in Palestine for there to be a comparison.

This is not going to happen.

1. Because the USA has little stake in NK.
2. It would destabilize the region further (China)
3. They would then be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of SK people when NK opened up its guns on Seoul.

This is just more BS put out there by random people who know less about the NK problem than even the layman like me on ATS.

Incidentally, saying "all options are on the table" is not the same as suggesting they will attack NK.

Panetta says the U.S. inches from war almost everyday with North Korea.

I lived in South Korea for 2 years.

Scariest thing ever was putting my two boys on the school bus to travel to Osan (almost an hour away), while it was accompanied front, back, and sides, with armed tanks.

I don't know if most people realize how bad N. Korea is. I was in MI, as is my ex husband. Korean Linguists. Any food aid they receive goes to the military, not the people. The only people that aren't starving to death, are the military, and that's why they have such a large military force.

I remember hearing my MI buddies talk about a N. Korean radio broadcast of a man that was luring children into his shack and EATING them. Eating people, eating tree bark. It's bad, and they are desperate.

I also wonder if people realize that N. Korea could nuke the US anytime they wanted, without ever leaving their own soil?

Why does the US seem to think that we are the only ones that should have nukes? Other countries are probably just as afraid of us, as we are of them.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by libertytoall

 

If a foreign country started occupying America and was trying to change your way of life how would you act? Their religion and culture isn't like ours, yet the United States has covertly tried to take over their oil resources. Ask yourself or any other soldier who has served duty in Afghanistan or Iraq, what are we accomplishing there? What is our mission? Obama is dead so what's the purpose of stationing troops there. Why did we change our mission 3 times when invaded Iraq? You're afraid of terrorists, yet we've creating more terrorists for every innocent life our troops end up killing. If someone was occupying our country and ended up killing someone in your family, wouldn't you want revenge?

I'm still trying to figure out how this response has anything to do with what I've said. Secondly, no country could ever occupy the United States without having nukes dropped on their cities. If every country had nukes there would be no more invasions due to the fear of nuclear retaliation. As far as why the troops are still in Afghanistan/Iraq, that's simple.. The people behind the scenes that control the USG have a hell of a lot to gain by selling weapons and contracts. We're not there to liberate people or for freedom or even for terrorists.. We're there so a few people can make a quick buck and also to take away our freedoms away at home under the excuse of safety.

Do some research and find out why we had marines stationed in Beruit in '83. The U.S. needs to start minding it's own business.

Why did we have Marines stationed in Beirut in 1983? I know the answer but I'm curious how you're spinning this so I'd like to hear your reasoning,

reply to post by CALGARIAN

the us will not attack north korea , the us only attacks countries that have a weak defence .
and as for the posters on here that thinks that the us should attack to save the north korean people ,
i say this , how many innocent people are going to be murdered by the us bombs ?
plus the survivors would be much worse off after the bombing than before .

War and killing does not help the civilians of any country .
if the politicians that advocate war had to lead an attack in person , there would not be any wars.

I have just spent the afternoon watching videos on You Tube about North Korea and it is quite chilling stuff. I feel sorry for the ordinary people of N Korea many of whom have been brain washed. We think we have it hard here in the West with unemployment etc but North Korea is truly hell on Earth. One day whether by war, revoultion or a change from within the truth about what went on in North Korea will be revealed and I suspect it will be on a par with Nazi Germany and the likes of concentration camps like Belsen. I feel ashamed to be a human being when I see statements from N Korean escapees of the horrors they have faced. I hope the N Korean leadership burns in hell for the evil committed in the last 60 years or so.

FREE NORTH KOREA!

April 2012 is the deadline to get rid of all Chemical/Biological Weapons per the Treaty/Convention.

If tiny little countries can't keep their Biological/Chemical Weapons to keep from getting invaded....they should have the right to have nuclear weapons to keep from getting invaded.....just saying.....

North Korea's got alot of Chemical/Biological weapons. If we won't let them have a few Nukes.....they won't give up their REALLY bad stuff.

This War will see Chemical/Biologicals used. If we 'strategically strike' North Korea's nuclear weapon site.....the gasses are coming out.

April 2012 is an important month....Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty Deadline.......

hmmm...

well the satellite images show... suspicious. 'activity'

enuf to warrant us 'preemptive' strikes upon nk, given us proof sys for wmds