• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

North Korea ready for Nuke Test

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2326083&page=1

I have no idea how this didn't get posted already (though if I missed it, I apologize. Search sucks.)

I seriously think that if they successfully test a nuclear weapon that we need to invade immediately. No ifs, ands, or buts.

A tyrannical regime with nuclear wepons = bad news for the US and others.

Is it selfish and self serving for the US, who already has nukes, to prohibit other nations from having them? Absolutely. But it's also self preservation.

Honestly though, I hope our "sources" are wrong and they aren't that close. But if wishes were fishes.... :(
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,642
9,270
136
This happens every once in a while, one of Kim's ploys to get more attention.
The rest of the world is busy with the Israel/Leb war and Iran.

I doubt he will actually test as it will only draw a negative response from basically everyone.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
This happens every once in a while, one of Kim's ploys to get more attention.
The rest of the world is busy with the Israel/Leb war and Iran.

I doubt he will actually test as it will only draw a negative response from basically everyone.
Exactly, Kim just feels "ronery".


As for the OP, you need to chill out with your 'we must invade now' attitude unless you plan on nuking China too.
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: K1052
This happens every once in a while, one of Kim's ploys to get more attention.
The rest of the world is busy with the Israel/Leb war and Iran.

I doubt he will actually test as it will only draw a negative response from basically everyone.
Exactly, Kim just feels "ronery".


As for the OP, you need to chill out with your 'we must invade now' attitude unless you plan on nuking China too.
As I said, I hope they don't.

But I do NOT need to chill on this point. NK's leadership is too unstable to have that capability. The capability needs to be removed permanently.

If they're just screwing around, fine. Let 'em. I don't believe we need to do anything but point and laugh at Kim's childish behaviour. But what if he really does get that capability? What if he decides to feel "ronery" again but with a multi-megaton nuke?

No, a full conventional invasion (I don't believe in using nukes except in a national survival situation) is absolutely necessary.

Does anybody really believe China would do more than get pissy in the UN if we invaded NK? Seriously? When WalMart is the 10th largest country China trades with? heh
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Duroc - where are we going to get the money, men etc for this new ground war. We can't afford it man, and now that our international credibility is at an all time low we aren't going to get any help from the EU either. China and Russia will protest.

It would take at least 500,000 men to invade NK and topple the regime, we don't have them, the American public won't support a draft, and we don't have the money for it.

Not to mention that NK has 10,000 artillery pieces buried in the mountains aimed a Seoul, that city would turn into a smoking hole in short order.

Finally, I can't even imagine the casaulties we would take.


Kim is best left alone, his country is broke, his people are starving. If we really want to do something about their program, we just need to cut off all aid to NK.(Yes we send significant aid there, despite their hatred for us, awesome eh?)
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: K1052
This happens every once in a while, one of Kim's ploys to get more attention.
The rest of the world is busy with the Israel/Leb war and Iran.

I doubt he will actually test as it will only draw a negative response from basically everyone.
Exactly, Kim just feels "ronery".


As for the OP, you need to chill out with your 'we must invade now' attitude unless you plan on nuking China too.
Careful a mod called me racist when I referenced "Team America" in the same way, I guess he missed that movie ;)
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Wait, wasn't it already established that NK has nukes and that's why we use diplomatic means to negotiate with them instead of the military means we used on Iraq?
 

trance247

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
363
0
0
Please nobody needs invasion these days, there's enough bombs and missles to obliterate that excuse for a country along with lunatic leader, no bunker is deep enough...kim is just playign tough so that UN or whoever gives them food, supplies etc, he must be mad to even atmpt to launch something or provoke, i bet US, JAPAN, CHINA and SK would love to see their combined presense in that part of the world after entire military is crippled with preventive hit or hopefully not retailation.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,511
831
126
I'd love to see your logic you used as a child. Suppose you found out that the neighborhood bully just got a switchblade. Of course you don't want the bully to stab you or your family/friends. So, you conclude that best possible option is to start punching the bully?

My childhood logic states that doing so is the only way to guarantee the bully will use the switchblade on you, your friends, and your family. Other approaches to the bully may or may not fail. But punching him is the only possible way to guarantee failure.
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
Originally posted by: dullard
I'd love to see your logic you used as a child. Suppose you found out that the neighborhood bully just got a switchblade. Of course you don't want the bully to stab you or your family/friends. So, you conclude that best possible option is to start punching the bully?

My childhood logic states that doing so is the only way to guarantee the bully will use the switchblade on you, your friends, and your family. Other approaches to the bully may or may not fail. But punching him is the only possible way to guarantee failure.
Um, actually yeah. They stop being bullies after they get their butts kicked a few times.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,511
831
126
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Um, actually yeah. They stop being bullies after they get their butts kicked a few times.
Right after you've been stabbed by the one weapon you were trying to stop from ever being used.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Originally posted by: dullard
I'd love to see your logic you used as a child. Suppose you found out that the neighborhood bully just got a switchblade. Of course you don't want the bully to stab you or your family/friends. So, you conclude that best possible option is to start punching the bully?

My childhood logic states that doing so is the only way to guarantee the bully will use the switchblade on you, your friends, and your family. Other approaches to the bully may or may not fail. But punching him is the only possible way to guarantee failure.
Um, actually yeah. They stop being bullies after they get their butts kicked a few times.

*ZOOM*

That's the sound of his point flying right over your head.
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Um, actually yeah. They stop being bullies after they get their butts kicked a few times.
Right after you've been stabbed by the one weapon you were trying to stop from ever being used.
So how often did you actually get to use your own lunch money when you were in school?
 

5to1baby1in5

Golden Member
Apr 27, 2001
1,190
55
91
Originally posted by: dullard
I'd love to see your logic you used as a child. Suppose you found out that the neighborhood bully just got a switchblade. Of course you don't want the bully to stab you or your family/friends. So, you conclude that best possible option is to start punching the bully?

My childhood logic states that doing so is the only way to guarantee the bully will use the switchblade on you, your friends, and your family. Other approaches to the bully may or may not fail. But punching him is the only possible way to guarantee failure.
Edited to add a response...:roll:

Actually you and all your frinds could jump him and beat the living shiite out of him before he could get his knife out. Then you could just take it from him.

Oops, I appear to be thinking like GWB. Sorry all.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,511
831
126
Originally posted by: DurocShark
So how often did you actually get to use your own lunch money when you were in school?
The few times that I brought money, I used it. I usually brought my own lunch and traded it around my friends for better stuff.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: DurocShark
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2326083&page=1

I have no idea how this didn't get posted already (though if I missed it, I apologize. Search sucks.)

I seriously think that if they successfully test a nuclear weapon that we need to invade immediately. No ifs, ands, or buts.

A tyrannical regime with nuclear wepons = bad news for the US and others.

Is it selfish and self serving for the US, who already has nukes, to prohibit other nations from having them? Absolutely. But it's also self preservation.

Honestly though, I hope our "sources" are wrong and they aren't that close. But if wishes were fishes.... :(
That's pure idiocy to invade once they have the nukes. It's better policy to prevent other countries to get them (i.e. Iran). You want to send hundreds of thousands of troops to N. Korea just to have them all vanish in a bright flash of light?
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,503
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
I'd love to see your logic you used as a child. Suppose you found out that the neighborhood bully just got a switchblade. Of course you don't want the bully to stab you or your family/friends. So, you conclude that best possible option is to start punching the bully?

My childhood logic states that doing so is the only way to guarantee the bully will use the switchblade on you, your friends, and your family. Other approaches to the bully may or may not fail. But punching him is the only possible way to guarantee failure.
That's why you kill him.

Or disarm him with ambush and superior force.
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
If North Korea attempts to test a nuclear weapon, it will be the last straw, without a doubt. We've had enough of North Korea, and them having testing nuclear weapons isn't what we need to here. As far as I'm concerned it's only a matter of time before we are going to be forced to fight NK, it might as well be now.

I'm not much of a military strategist for sure, but a rapid blitzkrieg-style assault from the South supported by an amphibious attack from the East would blow away NK's military. They have alot of men, but let's face it, NK is extremely unstable and, hit it hard enough, and 90% of those men are going to run for their lives Northward, perhaps into China.
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
Originally posted by: Extelleron
If North Korea attempts to test a nuclear weapon, it will be the last straw, without a doubt. We've had enough of North Korea, and them having testing nuclear weapons isn't what we need to here. As far as I'm concerned it's only a matter of time before we are going to be forced to fight NK, it might as well be now.

I'm not much of a military strategist for sure, but a rapid blitzkrieg-style assault from the South supported by an amphibious attack from the East would blow away NK's military. They have alot of men, but let's face it, NK is extremely unstable and, hit it hard enough, and 90% of those men are going to run for their lives Northward, perhaps into China.
Exactly. And I doubt China would welcome them either. In which case they'd be stuck. And a massive humanitarian relief project led by the US would do wonders.

Especially if we helped them rebuild like we did with Japan after WWII. Help South Korea absorb North Korea into just "Korea" and help them industrialize and see what happens.

There's no religious issue there like there is in the middle east. Once the general populace gets a taste of the freedom and relative prosperity that South Korea enjoys, resistance will fall.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
or are willing to see S. Korea nuked in immediate retribution and seuol (sp?) leveled by the artilery that is focused in on it.


EDIT: read this today and im not really sure what i was trying to do with this post, i think there might have been a quote that never made it.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: K1052
This happens every once in a while, one of Kim's ploys to get more attention.
The rest of the world is busy with the Israel/Leb war and Iran.

I doubt he will actually test as it will only draw a negative response from basically everyone.
Exactly, Kim just feels "ronery".


As for the OP, you need to chill out with your 'we must invade now' attitude unless you plan on nuking China too.
As I said, I hope they don't.

But I do NOT need to chill on this point. NK's leadership is too unstable to have that capability. The capability needs to be removed permanently.

If they're just screwing around, fine. Let 'em. I don't believe we need to do anything but point and laugh at Kim's childish behaviour. But what if he really does get that capability? What if he decides to feel "ronery" again but with a multi-megaton nuke?

No, a full conventional invasion (I don't believe in using nukes except in a national survival situation) is absolutely necessary.

Does anybody really believe China would do more than get pissy in the UN if we invaded NK? Seriously? When WalMart is the 10th largest country China trades with? heh
Whats the problem with NK having nukes again? Do you actually think the us military could win the war?
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Whats the problem with NK having nukes again? Do you actually think the us military could win the war?
Yes.

Politicians on the other hand...
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
0
0
Look people, there is nothing saying we have to go to war with everybody, places change, eventually the people might actualyl decide that North Korea sux and they want to get foreign aid in exchange for their nukes. I'm sure there were alot of people who though war between the US and USSR was inevitible, but fortunately level headed leaders managed to avoid it by simply playing the waiting game until the regime collapsed from the inside. North Korea will eventually do the same, it might take 20 years, but its alot better to win after 20 years of peace than 1 year of nuclear war if you ask me...
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Look people, there is nothing saying we have to go to war with everybody, places change, eventually the people might actualyl decide that North Korea sux and they want to get foreign aid in exchange for their nukes. I'm sure there were alot of people who though war between the US and USSR was inevitible, but fortunately level headed leaders managed to avoid it by simply playing the waiting game until the regime collapsed from the inside. North Korea will eventually do the same, it might take 20 years, but its alot better to win after 20 years of peace than 1 year of nuclear war if you ask me...
That's not even a close comparison.

And we didn't wait. Both the US and the USSR started little wars around the world to try to spread our respective influence.

We didn't go head to head because we were comparable militarily. We had better technology, they had more men in their military. We had enough nukes to destroy them several time over, and they had enough nukes to destroy us several times over. It was a stalemate.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY