North Korea Says Diplomacy is Over - Nuclear War May Start at Any Moment.

Suppose a U.S president had some microstrokes or age related dementia and ordered to fire all nukes. What would happen?

Suppose kim gets some microstrokes or age related dementia. Perhaps he gets depressed and wants to go out with a bang. What do you think would happen?

Theres a difference in what would happen. The lives of millions shouldnt depend on something with such a notable risk of happening.

originally posted by: [post=22777775]gortex

Who are we to judge what is best for another sovereign nation , to impose our values and beliefs on other countries when our own houses are just as messy but in different more "democratic" ways.

The people of Iraq needed to be liberated from their brutal regime too , upto I million civilians paid the ultimate price when Bush and Blair delivered them their freedom , when will we learn that killing innocent people is not an acceptable form of liberation.

Don't buy into the charade.

Who are we to judge? we are humans, that should defend the weak or innocent, I believe in good will prevail in the end, its the reason many in the States protest murdering babies in the womb. from 1970 to 2013 a Total of 51,888,303 also under the guise of liberation, so I`m in agreement with you on innocent people being murdered, but you don`t mention any empathy for the citizens of NK, just ignored the rest of my post and quoted what you liked to attack to fit your view.

As opposed to the idea of a one world government as I am, its only because I know evil will run it for a short time, but a one world government makes perfect sense if ruled by authority where they have a good moral compass, then citizens such as NK`s could live freely.

I also noticed you didn`t mention any of the innocent people slaughtered continually in the name of the death cult Islam, that lead to the conflict, guess your afraid you`ll be called a bigot as most are.

What is your solution, pretend it all doesn`t exist so long as your not directly affected and do nothing, that`s weak, attack those who think otherwise or say "who are we to judge", which is a judgement within its self, allow it to continue while our own existence is threatened with nuclear destruction by a communist tyrannical dictatorship, but Trumps an idiot, Trumps an idiot, Trumps an idiot like a broken record, your in denial of your own judgements gortex.

He won the election by using the media against themselves to give him air time, he is turning America around, unemployment is the lowest in 17 years and has added 5.5 trillion dollars to the stock market since being in office, he is slashing middle class income tax, making the lives of the back bone of America far better. Ignore his personality and watch what he achieves.

Trumps no idiot, don't buy into the charade.

I’m a little worried if there ever is a war between us and North Korea, China or Russia will join in. If that happens kiss the planet earths ass goodbye.

The good news is that he doesn't currently have the means to nuke us. The bad news is that he is close to doing just that and will likely use it to bargain with authority... Or he may just nuke us, who knows what is in his fat head. he may take out his aggression on Japan/South korea.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: carewemust

That would be assassination. If there's a law against it, too bad. Doesn't guarantee that a war will be avoided, but it's a good start that may avoid one.

Ha! LOL

The drums of war were beating just like now prior to WW1. The assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand of Austria was the so called excuse of the beginning WW1.

"Too bad" attitude will definitely lead to WW3

Thanks for the history lesson. However, there have probably been quite a few leaders assassinated, where a major war didn't follow.

Name some.

a reply to: Xenogears

Last I read, all nuke missile defense system would kick in. let's say, ones flying towards South Korea, it could trigger the defense system there. I thought I read somewhere else that the US has nukes in S Korea. If he fires all in multiple places, it could trigger and nuclear attack back at them. With a nuclear defense.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Liquesence

We are EATING his violations as well as PAYING to keep HIM alive...and WE cannot afford to keep our military there ,any longer anyway.
Korea should have been UNIFIED,and WE foot the bill,now.
WE LEAVE ,the South dies.
Lance that boil,before it festers worse

The U.S never passes up a fight. SOKO is too strategically important to lose.
There's a profit and an opportunity in a united Korea under southern rule.

a reply to: carewemust

I think we should stop violating DPRK's right to possess the same weapons we threaten them with.

It's we who are in the wrong here.

Until we can agree to SALT III with everyone, where the US and Russia primarily agree to a very major dismantling and disarming program, I don't see how we have any moral justification to bark orders at nations like Iran or N Korea.

We are hypocritical here. And unfair.

The entire Korean crisis is the World Powers fault because we wanna play chess with the world and dictate policy decisions in other nations.

Remember Iraq? We don't have any credibility right now. We are the warmongers.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: carewemust

I think we should stop violating DPRK's right to possess the same weapons we threaten them with.

It's we who are in the wrong here.

Is it really a right? If they studied physics for centuries like people in the west did which lead to the atomic bomb then I would agree they have every right. But most of the knowledge/technology came from the west. Even if NK received the information from Russia directly or indirectly, Russians reacted to the developments in the US, who made the bomb, their reaction was because of spying not out of their own accord. Other countries might have developed the bomb lateron if the US hadn't and it would have been a whole different story but that is not the case.

The US got a fair advantage in the world as they made that bomb through hard work over many generations. They have every right to defend themselves with it. Even if that means taking stuff away from others who took their stuff in the first place. They know that stuff because they not only made it but used it also, NK doesn't and can't be expected to handle it especially with what appears to be an unstable destructive cult like government.
Not saying the US is a saintly country, but they are less worse than the rest of the world, I'd rather have Trump as my supreme leader than Kim. The US has something that validates nuclear protection too, which I can't say of NK.

a reply to: spliffster

With that logic you'd agree that Africa and Polynesia doesn't deserve helicopters, cars, and cell phones right? They didn't invest centuries into developing it, they just took it from the West.

Right?

a reply to: Xenogears

Its not like the president can wake up one day and decide to launch nukes. Unless a pre existing launch order exists the process is very slow. It involves discussing with your generals sec of state and sec of defense. Nixon was contained twice during his administration. First time he wanted to launch against north korea.Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor for Nixon phoned the Joint Chiefs and got them to agree to stand down on that order until Nixon sobered the next morning. The other incident was at the end of his administration he was drinking heavy and acting irrationally. His sec of state and sec of defense set it up so any nuclear launches had to come from them first.

If attacked launch is required without it his staff has alot of input in to the decision. Here read this tells you how close we came to nuking Nk.

www.businessinsider.com...

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: spliffster

With that logic you'd agree that Africa and Polynesia doesn't deserve helicopters, cars, and cell phones right? They didn't invest centuries into developing it, they just took it from the West.

Right?

Did they agree as part of armistice to not develop them? If no then your example is stupid.

a reply to: dragonridr

Oh man, Nixon drunk and in charge of commanding nuclear attacks?, not a good idea, that was close.

a reply to: carewemust

It’s because North Koreans are extremely isolated and very wary of outsiders or anyone not within existing circles, so placing someone tasked with doing any of the above within appropriate distance is a very challenging task.

originally posted by: gps777
a reply to: dragonridr

Oh man, Nixon drunk and in charge of commanding nuclear attacks?, not a good idea, that was close.

Carter had a scary incident as well. He thought there was a full russian launch literally just before launch they realized it was a computer error and it was running a battle simulation. There has been several times where having people in the system saved our butt. And it would be the same with Trump he could order a launch but the people involved have time to avert a war. My major was physics but minor was political science. So i learned all kinds of scary thinggs.

If they launch on NK it was decided that was the best course of action.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: spliffster

With that logic you'd agree that Africa and Polynesia doesn't deserve helicopters, cars, and cell phones right? They didn't invest centuries into developing it, they just took it from the West.

Right?

It's not a question of deserving. Every human on the planet has a right to a decent living, but no one needs an atomic bomb for that. What I said only applies to nuclear bombs and also nuclear energy because it might lead to a bomb. Developing nations can easily do with solarpanels, windmills, computers etc alone and they'll need decades of social changes. Meanwhile let stable developed countries use nuclear technology for spacetravel while switching to alternative energy sources.

A helicopter, car, cellphone are not made to kill, an atomic bomb is which is the main difference why my logic doesn't apply to your examples.

originally posted by: Xenogears
Suppose a U.S president had some microstrokes or age related dementia and ordered to fire all nukes. What would happen?

Suppose kim gets some microstrokes or age related dementia. Perhaps he gets depressed and wants to go out with a bang. What do you think would happen?

Theres a difference in what would happen. The lives of millions shouldnt depend on something with such a notable risk of happening.

Not likely, it's already been thought of.

originally posted by: dragonridr

If they launch on NK it was decided that was the best course of action.

Meaning, not just the POTUS could make a rash decision on his own, as I thought it should be. Good to know dragonridr

Question is whether NK will have the same level of restraint.

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah, yeah. yeah....and next week it will be something else.

What I found interesting was as story that said NK's economy may only be able to last another year, according to a defector.

www.cnbc.com...

Countries take weird and desperate actions when their people start to revolt from an economic collapse. What happens if Kim can build some new mansion because of it.