Meanwhile, shit's about to get real in N.K.

[BasicHumanUnit]

You know, at this point the devil's out of the bag and nuclear weapons are only going to continue to get into the hands of America's enemies......

At THIS point, we need to now focus on technologies to counteract nuclear threats. Anti-missile devices and other technologies that can mitigate the nuclear threats as they grow.

I don't see any other path at this point.

 

[EverCurious]

^ We have been. Problem is that unless we blow them up in space there are detrimental environmental effects to the planet regardless of if we shoot the nuke down or not. It's basically a catch 22 - even if we stop the nuke from hitting a city and save millions, it will impact billions environmentally. It's a no-win situation which is why most sane nations don't use nukes regardless of if they have them or not (and also regardless of if they say they might or not) -- Example, even in the Cold War, before the ecological damage was really even considered [basically they just discussed mutually assured destruction back then] there was an unspoken agreement that no one /wanted/ to use nukes - it was seen as a last resort /IF/ one side or the other pushed the envelope with threats and shit.

The NK situation, however, is completely different from past national "loggerheads" over nuclear proliferation. Kim /wants/ to use nukes because he wants to destroy another nation - The US and it's allies. Kim is not a "reasonable" adversary like say the USSR or even China. Kim is a loose cannon which is why he is considered to be such a threat. Frankly, I do not believe /any/ nation would willingly hand Kim nukes - sadly the process was started years ago in a perhaps well intentioned attempt at peace and normalizing relations, that is to say that the information was handed to someone with a more "stable" personality. To example, China's alliance relationship with NK is based on legacy, not Kim himself - which is why I don't consider the "ties" between NK and China to be as "strong" as many imply (and no doubt is why China told Kim that if he shot someone he was on his own. IF their relationship was based upon say the political ideological alignment [Communism] alone they would have stuck with Kim no matter what, but the reality is that Kim is off his rocker in his actions lately and they know it. I have a feeling that China would rather Kim didn't exist, but how can you argue to take out a fellow dictator when your own leaders are assigned and behaving in a very similar manner? That is to say, IF China questions Kim's authority and control over NK or his "fitness" to be leader there, then they bring into question their own "fitness" as leaders as well -- AKA people in glass houses should not cast the first stone.)

 

[BulletProof]

A whole nation said at once: 오 시읕[/QUOTE]

The whole nation of Japan spoke Korean? Unlikely.[/QUOTE]

오 시읕, I was thinking of Korea...

A whole nation said at once: ちくしょう

My Korean phrase probably isn't the preferred spelling, anyway, of Koreans.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I used to think Kim Jung was just trying to get a seat at the big boy table with his missile/Nuke program. I don't know anymore, has he just lost it? What is the end game here? The UN will again prove to be useless. This does not look good. He may have very little in the way of Nukes but he can do massive damage with conventional missiles.

How?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hard to blame Bush when Clinton gave them the nuke capability.

Hardly so since the secrets were stolen before Clinton was briefed...

Around the Clinton cabal, "stolen" is a vague term. Remember Sandy Berger?

 

[HenryBHough]

I wouldn't give a shit if NoKo nuked New Yawk 'cause that's where the UN festers.

Besides, until it do dat all the UN is going to do is pass resolutions in sequence:

"Tut"

"Tut-Tut"

"Tut-Tut-Tut....."

But each resolution will look very, very official and surely fffffatboy will tremble.

Won't he?

 

[Godboy]

I used to think Kim Jung was just trying to get a seat at the big boy table with his missile/Nuke program. I don't know anymore, has he just lost it? What is the end game here? The UN will again prove to be useless. This does not look good. He may have very little in the way of Nukes but he can do massive damage with conventional missiles.

The US has thousands or 'smart bombs' that WILL take out the NK rocket launchers in ten minutes.
At the same time a nice juicy MOAB will drop directly on the Pervert's head and 100% destroy his C&C center.
Then the zombie 'generals' won't be able to communicate with their troops. The zombie troops will stand at attention until they all fall over dead from thirst.
BTW the launchers arrayed along the NK border shoot rockets not missiles.
The launchers are unable to be reloaded once the rockets have been fired.
They are 'one-off' weapons.

It's not that simple. This article explains it well.

North Korea's Simple But Deadly Artillery Holds Seoul And U.S. Hostage | HuffPost

 

[there4eyeM]

An alternative to eternal bellicosity would be to make friends of enemies; it's much cheaper in the long run, and infinitely more pleasant.

 

[BulletProof]

An alternative to eternal bellicosity would be to make friends of enemies; it's much cheaper in the long run, and infinitely more pleasant.

That's probably the most realistic option. We need to just learn to live with nuclear NK, just like we do Pakistan, India, and Israel. The piece of lying sh1t, George W. Bush, proved to NK that they dare not disarm.

 

[EverCurious]

I don't think that option is an option. You're talking about a culture that's been raised/brainwashed to believe America is their sworn enemy and they are duty born to destroy us...

It'd basically be like America becoming buddy buddy with Nazi Germany...

 

[BulletProof]

It'd basically be like America becoming buddy buddy with Nazi Germany...

We should have been buddy buddy with Nazi Germany. Look at all the American money and lives we would have saved by staying out of WWII. All I have to go on that we did the right thing by going to war is your tea leaves that says things would have been worse than the horrible consequences of WWII, the rise of Communism.

North Korea isn't going to give up nukes. You want a bloody war now. I prefer to have peace now and take my chances in the future.

 

[EverCurious]

It'd basically be like America becoming buddy buddy with Nazi Germany...

We should have been buddy buddy with Nazi Germany. Look at all the American money and lives we would have saved by staying out of WWII. All I have to go on that we did the right thing by going to war is your tea leaves that says things would have been worse than the horrible consequences of WWII, the rise of Communism.

North Korea isn't going to give up nukes. You want a bloody war now. I prefer to have peace now and take my chances in the future.

Do you have rabies fruit loop? Randomly frothing at the mouth and trying to spout my thoughts on war when nothing I said gives any indication of my inclinations... How pathetic for you.

It doesn't matter what /you/ think about if we should have been buddy buddy with Nazi Germany or not, and that wasn't at all my point. Comprehension is clearly not your strong point so I'll try again.

North Korean's think we are their moral enemy, it would be like America being buddy buddy with ISIS. (Does that help you understand what I'm saying?)

 

[BulletProof]

North Korean's think we are their moral enemy, it would be like America being buddy buddy with ISIS. (Does that help you understand what I'm saying?)

I don't care about my moral enemies as long as they leave me alone. And, if my moral enemy wants to be buddy buddy, I'll go for it, and a trade deal. ISIS has no state to take care of.

 

[EverCurious]

North Korean's think we are their moral enemy, it would be like America being buddy buddy with ISIS. (Does that help you understand what I'm saying?)

I don't care about my moral enemies as long as they leave me alone. And, if my moral enemy wants to be buddy buddy, I'll go for it, and a trade deal. ISIS has no state to take care of.

... You still don't get it... okay how about this one:

It'd be like America becoming buddy buddy with the devil.

My point is that NK is /not/ going to "make peace" with us, it is not an option.

 

[BulletProof]

My point is that NK is /not/ going to "make peace" with us, it is not an option.

We already have a sort of peace, in that we're not at war. It's been over 70 years of peace, more or less, with North Korea. North Korea doesn't want to get nuked, so they'll continue to be peaceful until their existence is threatened. In the mean time, we can change our strategy regarding them and maybe soften them up over time.

 

[there4eyeM]

It isn't 'brainwashing' to teach the facts about what happened during the 'Korean conflict'. If anything, the failure to do so in the U.S. has lead to gross misunderstanding by the populace of how we got where we are. America never even declared war, yet bombed civilian targets mercilessly for years. Being surprised that N. K.considers us an enemy today is disingenuous to say the least.

 

[EverCurious]

... Either I'm tired or there's just too much stupid/inability to comprehend English in this thread. I'm going to take a break from this one.

 

[Unkotare]

My point is that NK is /not/ going to "make peace" with us, it is not an option.

We already have a sort of peace, in that we're not at war. ....

Yes we are.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

An alternative to eternal bellicosity would be to make friends of enemies; it's much cheaper in the long run, and infinitely more pleasant.

That's probably the most realistic option. We need to just learn to live with nuclear NK, just like we do Pakistan, India, and Israel. The piece of lying sh1t, George W. Bush, proved to NK that they dare not disarm.

How do you figure that? Obummer and Hitlery were the ones who arranged for Quaddafy Duck's demise, not Bush 43.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

North Korean's think we are their moral enemy, it would be like America being buddy buddy with ISIS. (Does that help you understand what I'm saying?)

I don't care about my moral enemies as long as they leave me alone. And, if my moral enemy wants to be buddy buddy, I'll go for it, and a trade deal. ISIS has no state to take care of.

The word you are desperately seeking is "mortal", not "moral", unless you have none.