Should NATO do a pre emptive strike on N Korea ?

Feel free to move this mods.

With all the rhetoric coming out out of N.Korea
Should NATO do a pre emptive strike ?
Let the debate begin and let's keep it in the t's and c's guys and girls.

reply to post by cody599


Facebook Much?
What are your own opinions?

My opinion?
No.
Leave the little tin-pot tyrant nation alone.
They'll make lots of noise, sure, but, any triggers they pull will equate to suicide on their part.

NATO shouldn't, but the US should. We need to launch about 500 Tomahawks into NK and take out all of their missile infrastructure, and then using Project Bluebeam holographic technology, produce a giant hologram of a middle finger over the city of Pyongyang.

reply to post by cody599


At this point with all the past pre emptive strikes in the world always seeming to leave a bad taste in the global peoples mouths, it may be best to just wait until Un makes the first real aggresive move. I know it sounds stupid but its much easier to deal with a retaliation strike than it is to strike first. Thats just my opinion of course.

reply to post by cody599


Other than the basic slavery and murder of their own people, which is not unique to North Korea, what have they done to you? Would this attack be based on humanitarian grounds or just cause they like to say crazy bat shizz to the international community?

CJ

No. A preemptive stirke...no matter what you call it...would be seen as us attacking them. Then all hell breaks lose....and the UN wouldve started it.

NK has been spouting crap for 50 years and done nothing. So, theres no need now for the UN to do anything other than what theyve done for all these years: nothing.

Ive lived with their threats thru the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, Millenium and now....nothings different. I think those who think we should stirke, havent gone thru their nonsense the last 1/2 century.

Its the same over and over with them....we're gonna build the bomb...we built the bomb...we're gonna test the bomb...we're gonna use the bomb...out bombs are pointed at you...pffffft!

Leave them be...they'll kill themselves by starvation...thats shows how much they care about their country.....

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
NATO shouldn't, but the US should. We need to launch about 500 Tomahawks into NK and take out all of their missile infrastructure, and then using Project Bluebeam holographic technology, produce a giant hologram of a middle finger over the city of Pyongyang.

... because, that's what Jesus would do?

aha.

I think there is a reason why the US, or by proxy NATO haven't attacked NK......It probably has a lot to do with China not tolerating US bases on its border.........or maybe that and the total destruction of Seoul with a nuke.

But with all the sanctions being piled on it looks like an attempt to instigate a Pearl Harbour type response.




Eta, Imo, We created NK with all the sanctions and threats throughout the years, we made them militarise or succumb.

I haven't seen a thing for justification on preemptive anything.

Funny how quickly people have come to follow the Bush Doctrine on overall defense policy (Including our sitting President) without really seeming to give it much thought.

Prior to 9/11, this preemptive war business was called what it was. War Mongering. The U.S. was more likely to be leveling the charge at others than be committing the offense itself. First strike war against an otherwise peaceful nation? Unthinkable!!

....and what isn't peaceful about North Korea at the moment? I didn't say nice, attractive or happy as a place to live. I just said peaceful. Are shots being fired? Have they been recently? Are combat forces massing on the border of the DMZ? (and even if they were....that was NOT enough in 1990 against Saddam..nor SHOULD it have been. He still had to cross into Kuwait for international law to kick in)

What I see...and ALL I SEE....is a pint size tin pot dictator blathering threats he can't even back up with known technology. ICBM eh?? SO when did they make the VERY SIGNIFICANT leap of development from successful detonation to compact, solid state and hardened warhead for actual ICBM launch to target?

Thats not some "small upgrade" like clicking a box in an RTS video game. He could have BOMBS.. I'd believe that. Intercontinental Missile Technology WITH Nuclear Warheads to fit and function? Yeah... right.... not even CLOSE, given the level of technology and testing currently on display by the DPRK.

So...what would the basis of preemptive war be again? I'd have totally missed it....aside from "You pissed us off, so now you must die!". That does seem to be enough sometimes recently.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


And why would we want to bomb a country who's dear leader created gangam style? Or do I have that wrong?

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I'm saying there is no reason.. none at all..to bomb North Korea unless or until they do something aggressive outside their own borders and TO someone else...or are right on the hairs edge of doing it so obviously, the entire world can see and agree.

Otherwise, it's war over Kim's big mouth and testing that no nation in the world has seen war start because of. Why them?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

I'm saying there is no reason.. none at all..to bomb North Korea unless or until they do something aggressive outside their own borders and TO someone else...or are right on the hairs edge of doing it so obviously, the entire world can see and agree.

Otherwise, it's war over Kim's big mouth and testing that no nation in the world has seen war start because of. Why them?

Indeed. I feel for the people of North Korea. It really is a hell-hole. That said this bs about us blowing up a country because people are oppressed is a bad idea. There would be about 100 countries we'd have to torch, possibly including our own.

CJ

No.

I think the west have caused enough suffering on this planet the last ten years.
NATO is nothing but a criminal organisation working for the elite.

I don't believe in all this propaganda pushed out by the mainstream media.

reply to post by Druscilla


indeed, it would appear that he has chosen which side to pick in the battle of good and evil that he advertises on his avatar



ETA: thats a big no, btw. crudding crazy idea

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


wow I agree with you wrabbit. That don't happen much eh..

Yes there is no reason to take action first and show further aggression to foreign nations unless of course they strike us or our allies. Those asking for preemptive strikes should be ashamed of themselves, it's disgusting the blood thirst that we get at time due to the media sound bytes.. SHAME ON YOU GUYS..(not your wrabbit I agree with you i was addressing the congregation)

While pre emptive warfare or strikes have been an accepted part of a nations right to self defense since the 1600s this is a case where more harm may be done than good. The UN allows for pre emptive strikes so long as the other nation poses a real threat and that the pre empt is not of greater force than is expected by the enemy. So for example and air strike to take out an air strike would be legit etc. In the case of North Korea nobody really knows what they are going to do. A normal nation does not threaten the destruction of its neighbors on a weekly basis. So its is hard gage when North Korea is serious and when it is just talking. North Korea can not win a war with South anymore. They can do a lot of damage before they are taken out. A pre emtive strike would really do nothing to change that other than kick off a conflict that might not have happened. Best thing to do with NK is be on guard, keep on the pressure and wait for someone on the inside to launch a coup and hope for a more reasonble leadership.

reply to post by MrSpad


In a nut shell pre-emptive strikes are another name for imperialism.

CJ

I still believe that we should be wary of any threats from NK simply because he might feel he can now rule the way his old man was all huff and puff about.. we don't know if he'll be just like old dad, I get the feeling he might not though.

reply to post by cody599


Can you imagine the fallout if the U.S.A struck first! OMG we would get invaded at that point.

And maybe that's what all my dreams and visions are leading towards. Remember in my signature the post I made around 4 or 5 years ago predicting an invasion by the Chinese and U.N forces during a crisis like a natural disaster. I distinctly recall the east side being invaded by former Soviet forces. The goal was to take Philadelphia would anyone have any idea why that would be the first city to fall to enemy forces?

I know it sounds crazy but not only I have had these dreams but hundreds of people. Back when I posted there was only a half a dozen people that were having these dreams and vision. Recently I did a good search and found hundreds and hundreds of people having the identical dreams and or visions! (cue the twilight theme right!)

Any way I sure hope this is thwarted although war is good for the economy I can think of a few ways to solve our economical debacle and solve the energy crisis. But no one would believe me.

The last thing on earth we should is bomb anyone else. At this point we should focus on internal matters and tell the U.N and the UK to deal with it and then we could back them up with troops if it came to that. So I'll say it again the United States has no business being an aggressor!

No they shouldn't. Let's mind our own business.