[ot] - kim jong ill, nuclear at last!

simpleton · Post by **simpleton** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:34 am

subterFUSE wrote:But what if they shoot artillary rounds at Seoul, and load one with a nuke?...

Shit you're right. No more cool cell phones, DVD players or microwaves.

forge · Post by **forge** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:59 am

glu wrote:not to their defense, but I would be scared shitless if the U.S. called me out of their three in the "axis of evil."

well exactly

like right before the Iraq war when teh Iraqis actually started saying "well it looks like America is going to attack us anyway, so even if we did have WMDs we'd be mad to give them up now"

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:12 am

yup, bush made the threat to all three which is now a bluff since he can only handle one. And that's a fucked up one. Bush handed kim jong the position kim jong wanted since he knows he's a whole Iran away from being next.

glu · Post by **glu** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:38 am

all this just makes me really

somethings never change...

muscleandhate · Post by **muscleandhate** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:38 am

simpleton wrote:Yeah, it's a shame. Sooner or later we're gonna have to nuke that kooky bastard.

You don't really think that?

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:51 am

forge wrote: I think he knows he's got buckleys chance of achieving anything militarily - even china let him know they're not up for any of that shenanigans

depends on who you think he wants to attack.
and, completely disregarding the nuke, he's got miles of artillery buried in hill tops only 70 miles from the DMZ. Even with everyone dropping everything they've got on these hills they wont be able to prevent seol getting an absolute beating. estimated 300,000 dead (south koreans) within the first few days.

war isnt an option either, unless south korea is willing to take a serious, serious pounding.

whatever his motives, he shouldnt be treated lightly.

simpleton · Post by **simpleton** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:09 pm

muscleandhate wrote:
simpleton wrote:Yeah, it's a shame. Sooner or later we're gonna have to nuke that kooky bastard.
You don't really think that?

Well, now they're threatening to lob a nuke at the US. Maybe we should wait until they hit L.A. before we take them seriously? A tactical nuke on one of his lavish palaces might get his attention.

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:36 pm

The real worry isn't Kim Jong Il using a nuke. It's that he WILL sell it to anyone who offers money. He needs hard currency, badly.

He'll sell it to Iran, or Syria... who would both give it to terrorists. And that is a guarantee.

The United Nations is a completely failed institution, and should be disbanded in my opinion. While I believe that such an institution is needed in this world, it is obvious that they can not get anything meaningful accomplished.... ever. They failed in Bonsia. They failed in Rwanda. They failed in Somalia. They failed with Iraq. They are failing in Darfur. And they have failed with Iran and North Korea.

The only deterrent would be if China cuts them off. North Korea is completely dependent upon China. If they get cut off --- Then no more oil, no more gas, no more support. But China will not do this as things stand now. China benefits from the USA being in a weakened position. So does Russia. That is why those countries have stood in the way of any actions against North Korea in the Security Council for all these years. They wouldn't even allow discussions of the matter, most of the time.

The only way to get China to help out is if they feel threatened. How do we do that? Give nukes to Japan. That would completely change the balance in this situation.

It's just like gun control laws. With gun control laws, then you prevent the good guys from having guns to protect themselves. The bad guys have cheated and got them anyway. That's exactly what North Korea has done. North Korea begged for nuclear power technology, and they got it. Then they used the plutonium from the reactor to work on weapons. Iran claims to want nuclear power, but any serious person knows what they are doing.

The only reason we didn't see a third World War break out last century was because both sides had nuclear weapons. We were at a stalemate. No one could act, for fear of retaliation. The USA & Russia had missiles pointed at every conceivable strategic target on the other side. As dangerous as this situation sounds on first mention.... it actually was a deterrent to military action.

And now I will be ducking under my desk to avoid the shitstorm which is about to ensue.

robin · Post by **robin** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:44 pm

subterFUSE wrote: And now I will be ducking under my desk to avoid the shitstorm which is about to ensue.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:15 pm

robin wrote:
subterFUSE wrote: And now I will be ducking under my desk to avoid the shitstorm which is about to ensue.
My cat's breath smells like cat food.

I bent my wookie.

robin · Post by **robin** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:18 pm

subterFUSE wrote: I bent my wookie.

When I grow up I'm going to Bovine University.

This is way more fun than the original topic...

muscleandhate · Post by **muscleandhate** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:25 pm

simpleton wrote:
Well, now they're threatening to lob a nuke at the US.

When did N.Korea threaten to issue the US with a Nuclear strike?

simpleton wrote: Maybe we should wait until they hit L.A. before we take them seriously? A tactical nuke on one of his lavish palaces might get his attention.

I'd say this attitude, which seemingly runs through the current US administration, is half-way responsible for nuclear proliferation.

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:31 pm

muscleandhate wrote:
simpleton wrote:
Well, now they're threatening to lob a nuke at the US.
When did N.Korea threaten to issue the US with a Nuclear strike?

simpleton wrote: Maybe we should wait until they hit L.A. before we take them seriously? A tactical nuke on one of his lavish palaces might get his attention.
I'd say this attitude, which seemingly runs through the current US administration, is half-way responsible for nuclear proliferation.

North Korea just threatened launching a nuclear missile at the USA. Don't you watch the news?

muscleandhate · Post by **muscleandhate** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:36 pm

subterFUSE wrote:
It's just like gun control laws. With gun control laws, then you prevent the good guys from having guns to protect themselves. The bad guys have cheated and got them anyway.

'Good guys' and 'bad guys'? I suppose that pretty much encapsulates the typical American world view. This isn't Hollywood you know...

subterFUSE wrote: The only reason we didn't see a third World War break out last century was because both sides had nuclear weapons. We were at a stalemate. No one could act, for fear of retaliation. The USA & Russia had missiles pointed at every conceivable strategic target on the other side. As dangerous as this situation sounds on first mention.... it actually was a deterrent to military action.

The Cold War was more poltical hype than anything, do you think if the Soviets were without a nuclear capacity, that the US would have nuked them or vice versa? If this was the case, you think the US would have invaded Russia or again, vice versa?

muscleandhate · Post by **muscleandhate** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:37 pm

subterFUSE wrote:
muscleandhate wrote:
simpleton wrote:
Well, now they're threatening to lob a nuke at the US.
When did N.Korea threaten to issue the US with a Nuclear strike?

simpleton wrote: Maybe we should wait until they hit L.A. before we take them seriously? A tactical nuke on one of his lavish palaces might get his attention.
I'd say this attitude, which seemingly runs through the current US administration, is half-way responsible for nuclear proliferation.

North Korea just threatened launching a nuclear missile at the USA. Don't you watch the news?

I never knew they explicitly threatened to Nuke the US, have you got a link?