Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NK attacking might help Trump politically. Should there be an investigation to determine if Trump and NK are colluding?
Did they INTEND to miss? Was it a warning shot? Did we know they were going to miss before they missed?Even if they miss, it's an act of war, is it not?
Was it simply a warning shot?
Even if they miss, it's an act of war, is it not?
Yes. Idiot.
Now stop having those dreams. You'll soil the sheets.
Dreams? No sadly this is reality. NK has threatened to fire on Guam
It's time this nation stopped sleeping and awoke to the danger we are in
Please shut up. You want war. Doesn't matter who its with. You dig it.
Fantasizing that they are in charge, power-hungry theorists spin this web of unrealistic self-righteousness around and around in the air until it makes them dizzy.the ocean, 25 miles out, is not....Guam is US soil, isn't it?who attacked us in this scenario of Avatars thread?Who attacked the US during Clinton?NK attacking might help Trump politically. Should there be an investigation to determine if Trump and NK are colluding?
it's called wagging the dog...at least that's what Republicans called it under Bill Clinton...
It simply could be a ''planned'' near miss, like shooting at the ground in front of a person's feet.... as a kind of warning shot?
i believe in JUST WAR THEORY
Just War Theory has two sets of criteria, the first establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war), and the second establishing jus in bello (right conduct within war).[32]
Jus ad bellum
Main article: Jus ad bellum
Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Competent authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".[33]
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).
Jus in bello
Once war has begun, just war theory (Jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:
Distinction
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no legitimate military targets, committing acts of terrorism and reprisal against civilians, and attacking neutral targets (e.g., the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor). Moreover, combatants are not permitted to attack enemy combatants who have surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat or who are parachuting from disabled aircraft (except airborne forces) or who are shipwrecked.
Proportionality
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. Combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a legitimate military objective. This principle is meant to discern the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act.
Military necessity
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of military necessity. An attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a legitimate military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.
Fair treatment of prisoners of war
Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.
No means malum in se
Combatants may not use weapons or other methods of warfare that are considered evil, such as mass rape, forcing enemy combatants to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g., nuclear/biological weapons).
Such bizarre Warmonger fantasies. Why would North Korea attack Guam? WTF does Guam have that North Korea desperately wants? Americans need to stop being so gullible and willing to go all-in with the MIC/Globalist Elites.
Average Americans will gain nothing from war with North Korea. Only the few MIC/Globalist Elites will profit. North Korea has no interest in attacking Japan, the Philippines, or especially Guam. That's all just ridiculous Warmongering insanity.
Such bizarre Warmonger fantasies. Why would North Korea attack Guam? WTF does Guam have that North Korea desperately wants? Americans need to stop being so gullible and willing to go all-in with the MIC/Globalist Elites.
Average Americans will gain nothing from war with North Korea. Only the few MIC/Globalist Elites will profit. North Korea has no interest in attacking Japan, the Philippines, or especially Guam. That's all just ridiculous Warmongering insanity.
Rather irrelevant to my statement. It is still an act of suicide. If NK launches any kind of nuclear attack then the entire world would crush them as an example - including the Chinese.If they intended to hit any American soil (or any other nation for that matter) then of course. As stated earlier - it would also be an act of suicide.Even if they miss, it's an act of war, is it not?
The THAAD systems in Southern Japan would intercept the missile in it's ascent phase, meaning it wouldn't even make it anywhere close to Guam even if they launched it.
Even if they miss, it's an act of war, is it not?
Did they INTEND to miss? Was it a warning shot? Did we know they were going to miss before they missed?Even if they miss, it's an act of war, is it not?
Was it simply a warning shot?
Stop repeating yourself...
And yes it would be an act of war.
Such bizarre Warmonger fantasies. Why would North Korea attack Guam? WTF does Guam have that North Korea desperately wants? Americans need to stop being so gullible and willing to go all-in with the MIC/Globalist Elites.
Average Americans will gain nothing from war with North Korea. Only the few MIC/Globalist Elites will profit. North Korea has no interest in attacking Japan, the Philippines, or especially Guam. That's all just ridiculous Warmongering insanity.
Guam is a territory of the US. NK said they are planning to target Guam. Probably because they are more confident that they can hit it
Such bizarre Warmonger fantasies. Why would North Korea attack Guam? WTF does Guam have that North Korea desperately wants? Americans need to stop being so gullible and willing to go all-in with the MIC/Globalist Elites.
Average Americans will gain nothing from war with North Korea. Only the few MIC/Globalist Elites will profit. North Korea has no interest in attacking Japan, the Philippines, or especially Guam. That's all just ridiculous Warmongering insanity.
Its not a warmonger fantasy - it is responding to direct threats from KN.
They may be wrong but it is still a serious issue.
Did they INTEND to miss? Was it a warning shot? Did we know they were going to miss before they missed?Even if they miss, it's an act of war, is it not?
Was it simply a warning shot?
Stop repeating yourself...
And yes it would be an act of war.
Sounds like the usual empty threats issued by NK to me. What is new?
Depends. If there is a nuclear detonation, they won't be given a 'do over' if they miss. They'll just start dying when we attack.Even if they miss, it's an act of war, is it not?
Depends. If there is a nuclear detonation, they won't be given a 'do over' if they miss. They'll just start dying when we attack.Even if they miss, it's an act of war, is it not?
If it's a splash in and we recover a nuclear warhead, that would be an act of war.
If it's a splash in and we find out it was a bluff, we just point and laugh
Depends. If there is a nuclear detonation, they won't be given a 'do over' if they miss. They'll just start dying when we attack.Even if they miss, it's an act of war, is it not?
If it's a splash in and we recover a nuclear warhead, that would be an act of war.
If it's a splash in and we find out it was a bluff, we just point and laugh
