North Korea orders rockets on standby to hit US bases

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


Unless i missed something it is my understanding that the UK hasnt been under attack
From another nation since WW2...




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by all2human
 


The UK hasn't, but their territory has. The Falklands were, and still are British Territory.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Had the uk mainland been under attack,which nkorea has threatend the USA including Hawaii,Do you honestly believe Wotan NATO members would not respond?
edit on 30-3-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
Had the uk mainland been under attack,which nkorea has threatend the USA including Hawaii,Do you honestly believe Wotan NATO members would not respond?
edit on 30-3-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)


Zaphod above has already given you the answer.

Of course, 1982 is referring to The Falklands War in which NATO was NOT involved.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


The USA did support Britain in the Falklands actually..
But Argentina didn't pose much of a threat
So you are incorrect,besides if you read article 5 it clearly states Europe and North America
Argentina is not in north america last i checked..
But back to my point NATO states will be involved if there is a strike
On US territory..
edit on 30-3-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


From the NATO treaty document:



For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in whicH occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.


Attack on Falkland Islands is not covered by NATO treaty. Attack on territory of of a member is as long as it is part of Europe or North America. This is why Falklands were not covered. US invoked the treaty after the 9/11/01 attack, and NATO countries did render assistance as requested.

It appears that from the text, a North Korean attack on US vessel in the Pacific would not count (note they mention North Atlantic area north of Tropic of Cancer specifically when talking about ocean areas), but an attack on US land, including Pearl Harbor presumably, would if you count Hawaii as North America.
edit on 30-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MushroomWig
 


They've been saying this for how long?

We all know they're loose cannons.. its just when they will actually do it. They remind me of a bully with a gun that knows if they shoot that gun at someone they will spend the rest of their life in prison.. or worse, so in the end they're simply too scared to do it. but they'll threaten to 'til they're blue in the face.

That said, i think something is going to happen on 3-31-13; Easter; just not that.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok There's no way those plans could be real...they aren't that dumb. They are just for show for his people...we can't even hope they are that crazy.
edit on 29-3-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)


I have a theory. It is likely naively optimistic but here goes.

mini-Kim knows that he doesn't have much deep authority now (his uncle & aunt---siblings & inlaws of dad) really have power along with the generals. He can't really reverse course and do a Burma in his position now, but eventually he wants to because he knows the present situation is a dead end. Old people will grit it out until they die but he doesn't want to be stuck like this for 50 years.

So, what's the plan? Do the same policy as Dad----angrily bluff and try to get concessions but don't follow through with disarmament---but amped up to 11. The point here is to prove to the generals that this doesn't work, and they can't accuse him of not trying. So he will do this for a few more years, get nowhere, and then be able to point out to them that it doesn't work, not for a lack of trying. He will have proved his toughness and eventually his point.

Then again, he could just be a warmongering little bastard, like Bashar Assad.
edit on 30-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join