Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

North Korean Nuclear ICBM's On Standby

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by superman2012
 


What would China and all of NK's allies have to say about "as North America would sodomize the wannabe communist posers."?


Yes, what would they say to their own populace that they mislead into thinking the road map they came up with would set their nation back 50 years rather than propel it out of the Periphery and into the Core..?


You suck guy.


That's usually a great sign of a great debater! "You suck guy".


Do you actually have something to come back with in an intelligent manner? Or do I continue to "suck" dude?




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hououinkyouma
 


The only reason we are still there is because we can't slaughter an entire civilization. Our Strategic Bombing fleet would have won the war for us if we wanted to starve the population to death and kill them by dehydration. That's the whole point of the stealth bombers, destroys all the dangerous crap for the big daddies to carpet bomb your cities.

The ground poppers mop up what's left.


----

Please, continue to announce how little you know about war or basic strategic operations.

Naval and Air Power mean everything, neither China / North Korea have the money, knowledge, ingenuity, and resources to achieve superiority with their tech.
edit on 7-3-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hououinkyouma
Funny to see how much people here counting with an easy win for USA, yet they are still fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Yep if you look at the casualty figures they have been very easy wars.
They were both quick victories, the problem was we stuck around and poured billions of dollars in. So this time since public opinion will damm us anyway. The war should be fought the way wars use to be fought, wipe them all out. Don't try to help in any way, either way we will be dammed.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Look, in fact I believe USA would easily vanish DPRK. Even Korea Republic alone would destroy DPRK easily.

But the manner you talk about war and killing people is very similar to a North Korean, you both are the same.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
More than we are allowed to know. Why do you think the US hasn't upped their World Domination tour of NK? It's part of the (excuse me while I giggle) "AXIS OF EVIL"


Probably because the 'axis of evil' bit was nothing more than propaganda to drum up support for war. The parallels are uncanny: The United States was surprised attacked at Pearl Harbor (present day: New York), our enemies are numerous and have an alliance: Germany, Italy, Japan (spans the globe; and we pushed Iraq, Iran and North Korea). So I will giggle too as the notion was silly, but I believe much more to what I just wrote than to think we actually believed it and it is because of the sudden military prowess of North Korea that has backed that rhetoric down.


If it was so easy, the US would have invaded and murdered all the women and children a long time ago as proven with their history.


Honest question mixed in with some obvious disdain; I don't blame you. Why would we move into North Korea? It is and has been manageable since the cease-fire at the end of the Korean conflict. In my opinion, we included them in the "axis" to complete the "world" effect of how great the threat was. It also created the backdrop of "rouge" nations. I still don't think it has anything to do with their supposed capabilities that you believe they have.


Ain't gonna happen because the US will finally stand face to face with a foe that isn't weak or ready to stand down. Iraq is still killing US military on a regular basis right? How did that work out?


Doubtful. What hardware do you think North Korea to have? I am curious to hear this. I am not saying that the US military has no match, but you are, so what is it they have? Russian drones? Fighters? Diesel submarines? Some specifics, even if speculations, is better than 'you'd be surprised'.....couldn't that same train of thought be turned around and stated by the United States?


Iraq isn't NK/China. And China Will NEVER ALLOW the US to stand on it's border. Why doesn't anyone see this? Nuke NK, invade NK and you are essentially invading China.


Agreed that China doesn't want to see our forces closer than Japan/Australia/South Korea; but why would we resort to nuclear attack on North Korea? Even if a preemptive launch was made by the north, I don't think our response would be a nuclear strike.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 





They were both quick victories


Please describe a victory where the invading force is still taking casualties on a daily basis?

Peace



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 




That's usually a great sign of a great debater! "You suck guy".


My normal reply to that is..... "just titties and beer bottles"



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 





Yep if you look at the casualty figures they have been very easy wars. They were both quick victories, the problem was we stuck around and poured billions of dollars in. So this time since public opinion will damm us anyway. The war should be fought the way wars use to be fought, wipe them all out. Don't try to help in any way, either way we will be dammed.


You are absolutely correct. But I doubt USA would go for a total war, that`s not how the world is nowadays, and with the Obama administration....



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by hououinkyouma
Funny to see how much people here counting with an easy win for USA, yet they are still fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Yep if you look at the casualty figures they have been very easy wars.
They were both quick victories, the problem was we stuck around and poured billions of dollars in. So this time since public opinion will damm us anyway. The war should be fought the way wars use to be fought, wipe them all out. Don't try to help in any way, either way we will be dammed.





They were both quick victories


Really ? You must know something I don't friend ??

The U.S won't do squat about North-Korean nuclear war threats(that's nothing), they like to attack real dangerous regimes, such as Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran... and the list goes on.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


For you my friend:




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 





They were both quick victories


Please describe a victory where the invading force is still taking casualties on a daily basis?

Peace


Ok total number of casualities in "the war on terror" since 2001 6,280, fact vs 100,000, low Guess. sounds like a easy victory. Now consider this in the first year in Iraq we lost 486 people, and defeated Saddam and achieved our goal even less in Afganistan. This time since we are going to be called killers or imperialist anyway lets just Kill Them All and let god sort the mess. No reason to pour money in then.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





Even if a preemptive launch was made by the north, I don't think our response would be a nuclear strike.


Bingo!

The US Cannot retaliate with a nuke being so close to China, India etc.

However, we are missing one important issue that isn't on display here. 4

And that is, what if this the plan all along? What if NK is used as the precursor to ww3? Justification for martial law in the US? Food, oil to stop flowing?

Just throwing it out there.

Peace



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


They have had decades with no one looking over their shoulders to do this. It is simply not that difficult!

Israel also has hundreds, if they can do it so can North Korea.

P



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
China, Russia, North America and other powerful countries do not want a nuclear war.
Nobody will be in much shape to raise a glass of wine to celebrate the non victory.

I have been waiting for WW3 since the Cuban/Russian crisis in 1963.
I have had almost all I can handle.

In my opinion China needs to handle this problem.
Logical reasoning tells me China has much too much to loose to allow NK start a war.

Where is our CIA and our all powerful other alphabet groups?
I guess they have to have their arses up the American citzens and just maybe they have lost their guts and are afraid to go to NK and change things

Sixty six years of living under the threat of nuclear war has taken a toll on me and I am not alone.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Perhaps NK knows that it's too close to China for the US to us any nukes, and so SK comes in to the loop.

What could the USA do without South Korea, using them to actually "nuke" back at NK???

And oh, I don't think the Japs, and perhaps Russia would be too pleased with nukes falling too close to their them either.

Peace

edit on 7-3-2013 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-3-2013 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
This just came in.. North Korea issues new threats to US and 'puppets' South Korea

With an interesting propaganda collage






posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnerPeace2012
reply to post by jude11
 


Perhaps NK knows that it's too close to China for the US to us any nukes, and so SK comes in to the loop.

What could the USA do without South Korea, using them to actually "nuke" back at NK???

Peace



They are most likely using that leverage along with (until recent events) the slight backing it was receiving from Russia and China in regards to the United States. That pretty much is a wash given the latest round of UN stunts with both of them basically telling NK to knock it off. Their clout (Russia/China) can only hold so much water, even in a friendly UN assembly.

The US doesn't need to use SK for anything, other than bases of operations if hostilities broke out. Sadly, given the known technologies of the north, SK would suffer greatly while they were annihilated.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
So many answers.

Does anyone actually believe that China will allow NK to be destroyed and occupied by the US right on China's border? And then what? "China is weak and cannot stand to a US invasion, occupation or...if we want to, we can stand right on the Chinese border."

Really?

Peace


If China didn't eliminate the threat and problem for us and actually allowed a ground war with U.S. forces to follow? Well, the U.S. WOULD win eventually. That's never been in doubt and so, as you note, we'd be right on the river again and they wouldn't be amused.

If they did allow it to happen, I have one word for the SNAFU I see developing.

TRAP!

I think China could kick our butts and hand them back, C.O.D. However, I see only one WAY such a disaster could happen. We'd have to actually come to them, on their ground and against their 1.3 Billion person population.

Head to head in their backyard, they could literally lose the equivalent of our entire national population and still have a billion pissed off Chinese where those came from. All we'd have to do is be foolish enough to fall into it, IMO.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by samsamm9

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by hououinkyouma
Funny to see how much people here counting with an easy win for USA, yet they are still fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Yep if you look at the casualty figures they have been very easy wars.
They were both quick victories, the problem was we stuck around and poured billions of dollars in. So this time since public opinion will damm us anyway. The war should be fought the way wars use to be fought, wipe them all out. Don't try to help in any way, either way we will be dammed.





They were both quick victories


Really ? You must know something I don't friend ??

The U.S won't do squat about North-Korean nuclear war threats(that's nothing), they like to attack real dangerous regimes, such as Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran... and the list goes on.


I guess I do.

Iraq had the fourth largest standing army at the time.

Libya, we were involved in international action how many other countries were involved?

Afganistan, the ininitial war was mainly fought on the ground by Afgan troops from the northern alliance.

Iran, When did we go there? BTW Iran is the 15th ranked military power in the world.

Here's more I guess you didn't know.




Ok total number of casualities in "the war on terror" since 2001 6,280, fact vs 100,000, low Guess. sounds like a easy victory. Now consider this in the first year in Iraq we lost 486 people, and defeated Saddam and achieved our goal even less in Afganistan



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   


The US doesn't need to use SK for anything, other than bases of operations if hostilities broke out. Sadly, given the known technologies of the north, SK would suffer greatly while they were annihilated.


Take a look at Republic of Korea army, they are not a weak one and will not suffer too much if DPRK strikes.





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join