lawrocket 3 #1 December 12, 2012 North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty back in 2003. Then it tested a nuke in 2006. Now NoKo launched a satellite into orbit. This means that NoKo has the capability to nuke a target pretty much anywhere on earth. What’s the problem? NoKo is so fucking insane that I think they would do it. What’s going to be the response? More sanctions (that haven’t worked)? More outrage? The response, thus far, has been pretty tepid. We can’t just go attack NoKo. Unless we plan on nuking the place back into the stone age (which would be only a setback of a few years for most North Koreans) then its army sweeps across the 38th parallel and takes what’s left of Seoul within 48 hours. So let’s see how this plays out in the coming months. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #2 December 12, 2012 I wonder if China still has enough pull there to get them in line. They could be delusional enough that even MAD won't get their attention, but China certainly wouldn't want a giant smoking radioactive crater on their border. It's disappointing that the new leader ha chosen this path. I'd hoped his time in the West would have encouraged him to be more open to the rest of the world. Or, maybe he's not in any real position of leadership, just a figurehead for the people with the real power? It would be nice to get Nerdgirl's take on this. Hope she pops in. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #3 December 12, 2012 China has, in a pretty surprising move, denounced the action... So we'll see.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBachelor 5 #4 December 12, 2012 I'm sure the U.N. will handle this. [/sarcasm]There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #5 December 12, 2012 I'm not too worried. They are really insane by our standards, but they make at least some sense if you think about their position. They seem to do shit like this every so often to get attention. If they don't have some sort of international condemnation every once in a while, they think we don't care. The behavior isn't for our benefit, but geared much more towards their own population. It's easier to keep control over the huddled, starving masses if you can say "look, the US, Japan and China are all scared of us, we are important." They know perfectly well that if they flip a nuke at us, Pyongyang is a glowing, smoking, crater. It isn't any fun to rule over a country that is a glowing wasteland, with a population that is dead or dying. Nerdgirl posts on Facebook quite a bit. If she tosses anything interesting up, I'll link it."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #6 December 12, 2012 I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 December 12, 2012 Quote It would be nice to get Nerdgirl's take on this. Hope she pops in. don't hold your breath on that. she is in DC for the next year (or two?), on leave from Gtech. Is in an internal think tank of sorts for the army. Today she was asking about Chinese Mirvs, so I'm sure North Korea is in her thoughts as well. My take - while this one succeeded, while the previous ones failed, they are still terribly strapped for cash and resources. They could posture with the threat of lobbing one or two at the US with the accuracy of one state, but it's only credible enough to use as a silent threat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 December 13, 2012 QuoteThey are really insane by our standards, but they make at least some sense if you think about their position. Um – I think that you fall victim to the same thing that 99.999 percent of the population falls victim to. I myself am one of that percentage because our minds cannot truly comprehend the insanity that is North Korea. It’s like comprehending the $16.4 trillion federal debt. $16.4 trillion is such a massive amount that it is nigh impossible to put it into terms that make it really understandable. Kim Jong Il – was crazy, tyrannical and drunk. And he was a master at using lunacy to get leverage over every country out there. The policies of blackmail have always been effective. “Send us money or I’ll send you something a bit more interesting.” Meanwhile, the whole population has been so repressed and brainwashed that they really don’t have a problem. Any hint of dissent is rapidly and forcefully quashed. Question: who is the President of South Korea? The answer is “Kim Il-Sung.” If you say, “Wait a minute. Didn’t he die in 1994?” I’ll respond, “yep.” Great Leader is still the president. They think that North Korea is simply the greatest place around. Dear Leader shot in the 20s for a round of golf and the weather was a result of his moods. And all the security is to keep Americans from invading. They believe it because there is no such thing as a fact that the government hasn’t told them and the fact that anyone who disagreed was put into forced labor or executed. There is very little dissent. Note: China, understandably, wants a NoKo regime to stay intact because if it falls, the North Koreans won’t be mixing with the South Koreans and thus refugees will all go north to China, and China certainly doesn’t want to deal with it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #9 December 13, 2012 QuoteChina has, in a pretty surprising move, denounced the action... So we'll see. Cool! so now, No Ko can recall the satellite? It's all just games. We've lost the cheat codes.My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #10 December 13, 2012 Quote My take - while this one succeeded, while the previous ones failed, From the sounds of something I just read, "succeeded" is all relative http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247301/North-Korean-satellite-tumbling-control-fears-grow-crash-land-Earth.html (hey - I know its the mail, so sue me )Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 December 13, 2012 QuoteQuote My take - while this one succeeded, while the previous ones failed, From the sounds of something I just read, "succeeded" is all relative http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247301/North-Korean-satellite-tumbling-control-fears-grow-crash-land-Earth.html from the perspective of firing a nuke at the US or Europe, tumbling out a few days later is more than enough. You don't need to make a single orbit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strife 0 #12 December 13, 2012 Quote Quote My take - while this one succeeded, while the previous ones failed, From the sounds of something I just read, "succeeded" is all relative http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247301/North-Korean-satellite-tumbling-control-fears-grow-crash-land-Earth.html asian drivers (hey - I know its the mail, so sue me ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #13 December 13, 2012 It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 December 13, 2012 Quote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. unless they committed not to. NK did pull out of the NPT in advance, however. Unlike Iran or Syria. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 December 13, 2012 Quote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. Of course. I'm not saying they shouldn't have them. I'm just saying the world is a bit scarier. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #16 December 14, 2012 Quote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. Not at all. As a country we were trying to help NK stay just an annoyance, now they have graduated to a possible nuclear target. The people of NK & the world should feel a lot safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #17 December 14, 2012 QuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. Not at all. As a country we were trying to help NK stay just an annoyance, now they have graduated to a possible nuclear target. The people of NK & the world should feel a lot safer. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. If it's OK for USA, UK, Russia, France etc. to have nukes and long range rockets, why is it not OK for Iran and NK? Just because we don't like them? How many countries has NK invaded in the past 50 years? How many has the US invaded? Any objective analysis would show that WE are the bigger threat.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #18 December 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. Not at all. As a country we were trying to help NK stay just an annoyance, now they have graduated to a possible nuclear target. The people of NK & the world should feel a lot safer. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. If it's OK for USA, UK, Russia, France etc. to have nukes and long range rockets, why is it not OK for Iran and NK? Just because we don't like them? How many countries has NK invaded in the past 50 years? How many has the US invaded? Any objective analysis would show that WE are the bigger threat. I don't think this is an issue of objective thinking and logic.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
catfishhunter 2 #19 December 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. Not at all. As a country we were trying to help NK stay just an annoyance, now they have graduated to a possible nuclear target. The people of NK & the world should feel a lot safer. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. If it's OK for USA, UK, Russia, France etc. to have nukes and long range rockets, why is it not OK for Iran and NK? Just because we don't like them? How many countries has NK invaded in the past 50 years? How many has the US invaded? Any objective analysis would show that WE are the bigger threat. Wow.......I'm sure they would love your enlightened mind over there. I'm willing to help buy your one way ticket if you leave today.... MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 December 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. Not at all. As a country we were trying to help NK stay just an annoyance, now they have graduated to a possible nuclear target. The people of NK & the world should feel a lot safer. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. If it's OK for USA, UK, Russia, France etc. to have nukes and long range rockets, why is it not OK for Iran and NK? Just because we don't like them? How many countries has NK invaded in the past 50 years? How many has the US invaded? Any objective analysis would show that WE are the bigger threat. Funny how you bang on about preventing nutters from getting guns but think it's perfectly alright for a country that has stated they want to wipe out another, to have a nuclear weapon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #21 December 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. Not at all. As a country we were trying to help NK stay just an annoyance, now they have graduated to a possible nuclear target. The people of NK & the world should feel a lot safer. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. If it's OK for USA, UK, Russia, France etc. to have nukes and long range rockets, why is it not OK for Iran and NK? Just because we don't like them? How many countries has NK invaded in the past 50 years? How many has the US invaded? Any objective analysis would show that WE are the bigger threat. Funny how you bang on about preventing nutters from getting guns but think it's perfectly alright for a country that has stated they want to wipe out another, to have a nuclear weapon. The PURPOSE of nuclear weapons is to threaten to wipe out other nations. We called it MAD. We don't have a nuclear arsenal to cure malaria.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 December 15, 2012 Quote Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. If it's OK for USA, UK, Russia, France etc. to have nukes and long range rockets, why is it not OK for Iran and NK? Just because we don't like them? Quote To reiterate, Iran signed a treaty pledging not to pursue nuclear arms, because as a world we agreed that fewer nukes and fewer possessors is preferable to more. If you compare the size of the US and FSU arsenals now to what they were in 1980, you see even they agree. Quote How many countries has NK invaded in the past 50 years? How many has the US invaded? Any objective analysis would show that WE are the bigger threat. So telling that you asked this of NK, not Iran. Though even that ignores the amount of saber rattling they like to do with their neighbors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #23 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuote Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. If it's OK for USA, UK, Russia, France etc. to have nukes and long range rockets, why is it not OK for Iran and NK? Just because we don't like them? Quote To reiterate, Iran signed a treaty pledging not to pursue nuclear arms, because as a world we agreed that fewer nukes and fewer possessors is preferable to more. If you compare the size of the US and FSU arsenals now to what they were in 1980, you see even they agree. Quote How many countries has NK invaded in the past 50 years? How many has the US invaded? Any objective analysis would show that WE are the bigger threat. So telling that you asked this of NK, not Iran. Though even that ignores the amount of saber rattling they like to do with their neighbors. How many countries has Iran invaded in the past 50 years, then? Are you joining the ranks of the hypocrites too?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #24 December 15, 2012 Quote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #25 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Until we eliminate our nuclear arsenals we are in no position to criticize others on their nuclear ambitions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,182 #23 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuote Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. If it's OK for USA, UK, Russia, France etc. to have nukes and long range rockets, why is it not OK for Iran and NK? Just because we don't like them? Quote To reiterate, Iran signed a treaty pledging not to pursue nuclear arms, because as a world we agreed that fewer nukes and fewer possessors is preferable to more. If you compare the size of the US and FSU arsenals now to what they were in 1980, you see even they agree. Quote How many countries has NK invaded in the past 50 years? How many has the US invaded? Any objective analysis would show that WE are the bigger threat. So telling that you asked this of NK, not Iran. Though even that ignores the amount of saber rattling they like to do with their neighbors. How many countries has Iran invaded in the past 50 years, then? Are you joining the ranks of the hypocrites too?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #24 December 15, 2012 Quote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #25 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Until we eliminate our nuclear arsenals we are in no position to criticize others on their nuclear ambitions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
vortexring 0 #24 December 15, 2012 Quote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #25 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Until we eliminate our nuclear arsenals we are in no position to criticize others on their nuclear ambitions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
