1) Are we sending any aid, monetary or food or otherwise, to North Korea these days?
2) What are South Korea and China doing lately? Seems like the "Sunshine policy" isn't working and North Korea doesn't want to have anything to do with anyone other than the US anyway...
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4855 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2567 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter): "North Korea would respond to a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an "annihilating strike and a nuclear war,"
Unless their nuclear program is much further advanced than current estimates of a handful of warheads and their missiles suddenly gain 3,000km in range, I don't think anyone should be afraid of annihilation other than the North Koreans themselves. Its just all bluster.
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7447 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2552 times:
Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 4): Unless their nuclear program is much further advanced than current estimates of a handful of warheads and their missiles suddenly gain 3,000km in range, I don't think anyone should be afraid of annihilation other than the North Koreans themselves. Its just all bluster.
I'm not worried. Considering that almost 60 percent or greater of the population is malnourished, the people could hardly put up a fight. But this is just sabre-wrattling, by a moronic, dog-eating despot lookng for some attention from the US, S Korean and Chinese negotiators. It would royally piss off the N Koreans if we do shoot down their missile, rendering North Korea impotent, militarily. I'm more worried about one of the hottie-women tennis players being eliminated from the Q-finals at Wimbledon.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2547 times:
Is there no way for us to start sending money to the people of N. Korea covertly? Or to start propoganda that would get to the poor, malnutritioned masses of the country? Sort of like we did with the Soviets during the cold war. There is clearly a better way to handle this than with guns and bombs.
Slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 7018 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2488 times:
You know, why is it that back in the good old days of MAD and the Cold War we used to promise that any attack would be met with overwhelming force, but now, with an even crazier tinpot dictator, we wet our pants and "warn" them not to test their missile?
When did our strategy toward nuclear weapons change?
Peace Through Strength with the Soviets....
Peace (hopefully) through really stern language with the North Koreans?
Gilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2344 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter): "North Korea would respond to a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an "annihilating strike and a nuclear war," the state-run media said Monday
The big question there is how many times can we make the rubble bounce?
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 8): Is there no way for us to start sending money to the people of N. Korea covertly? Or to start propoganda that would get to the poor, malnutritioned masses of the country?
We could go through the UN, you know, like a food for nukes program. It would really be a wonderful thing. All those dedicated UN workers helping to feed those poor NK's and not expecting a thing in return except a nuclear warhead!
Wrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2278 times:
I've been watching this develop, now N.Korea wouldn't launch an attack on South Korean or American troops unless they have to, or unless the country is about to crumble, however, i'm sure as long as we don't invade them, it will all be hype talk, and was possibly said just to keep the west on their toes , N.Korea wouldn't want to lose vital Allies such as China, by launching a nuclear weapon or invading a country.
At the end of the day, they've said that they will attack,if they are attack, so while we should not under estimate them, we shouldn't lose our heads about it.
I'm pretty anti-communist, and so will be glad to see the fall of North Korea, but it will most likely fall on its own accord, no need to invade them just yet, however, if needs be...
Quoting Slider (Reply 17): Again, I'll ask anyone---when did our philosophical strategy change in dealing with nuclear countries?
Just a guess, but perhaps after the fall of the USSR ?
Kim Jong II, is most likely twiddling his thumbs, in his big palace, eating on 2nd servings of steak, while his population starve, and give up lots of things just to keep the empire going.
The people will not put up with it forever, especially once someone breaks news of what things are like in the west, but sadly, as long as he has the power of the people, and the military, the country will survive for a while yet
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8515 posts, RR: 23
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
Does Kim realize what "nuclear war" means to N. Korea? There's not gunna be a whole lot of "warring" going on. North Korea will lob an estes rocket into the Bering Sea, meanwhile we'll retaliate with hundreds of land and sea based warheads which will literally remove N. Korea from the Earth instantaneously. If he's anywhere near serious about this he's far more crazy than I thought.
Mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1677 posts, RR: 49
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
Quoting N766UA (Reply 22): Does Kim realize what "nuclear war" means to N. Korea?
He is counting on using his nukes as a counterweight, not on actually lobbing them over the ocean. If the USA are already appeasing him now, I just can't wait till he actually has intercontinental nukes.
Besides, he can threaten his regional enemies (S. Korea, Japan etc.) and get his hands on more "aid" (which his country can't live without) with the assurance that the USA are too chickenshit to do anything unless he actually nukes the place.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1046 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 1): If we don't Iraq them, then there's no reason to get your panties in a wad.
Then what happens if a few pissed off rebels from either side blow-up some car bombs and Kim Jung thinks its U.S. Special Forces staging a preemptive attack? What happens if one of North Korea's own weapons processing facilities has an accident, and the higher-ups insist it's an outside attack?
There is ample room for the U.S. to be drug into a conflict without shooting the first shot.
Quoting N766UA (Reply 22): Does Kim realize what "nuclear war" means to N. Korea?
He doesn't give a damn about anyone's well being, save his own ugly ass....
I suspect if our stockpiles of guided weapons, kevlar, ect were not dangerously low because of conflict in Iraq and Afganistan, we could do something. But our military options are not sufficent to really shove these dickheads back into their place.
So we just keep walking around with our tail between our legs and allow this nutcase to keep pulling strings at the expense of millions of people...
: The US is deeply involved in this conflict. Look at your Post-WWII history. We focused on rebuilding Japan. The Soviet goes into China and then Northe
: Little boy Kimmy won't do anything. He wants to remain in power, drive his expensive cars, eat like a king, watch his movies, wear platform shoes and
: actually the United States wouldn't be stupid enough to drop any nukes on North Korea....we have enough conventional weapons to rip them a new bungho
: I know we're intimately involved--my question is do we have to be *now*? Wouldn't it be better to have China/South Korea/Japan solve this problem?
: That's my fear as well, especially since we're on the hook to respond with Japan if they get into it. True enough- and I don't think anyone's disputi
: Man, George Bush is getting a lot of ACTION in his two terms in office. Still not more ACTION then Bill Clinton though
: Maybe it's time we sent our BIG-GUN on the peace mission. Jesse Jackson, are you ready?
: A cigar, and a pig? Beastiality is hardly action, but whatever floats the boat. What's more disturbing is the left's contentionthat we offer incentiv
: No, I'm not a war hawk and of all things I want to see in my lifetime, nuclear war is nowhere in that spectrum. However, after reading this post, the
: Is there any scope for Debate. regds MEL
: The question is now who in North Korea has the real power. Is it Kim or are the real people in power the concrete heads of the army, who were loyal to
: Nice summary, but there were a "couple" of extra steps between the return from Pusan and the armistice IIRC. Something involving the return from the
: Indeed- and Centrair touched on this rather well. It would do far more than end their economic growth--it would decimate them. Imagine taking million
: Pretty obvious Again, pretty obvious We have 30,000 troops there, a forward deployed carrier battle group, and boomers ready to launch, so I would th
: I disagree. Seoul is easily within striking range of even a duct-taped North Korean Yugo-rocket. South Korea is also the first place refugees will lo
: You can get quite a few references to John by entering John C Ferm into Google, but alas, most hit the problem of copyright. John was a member of the
41 Boeing Nut
: Yea, we all know who would win that fight. . . . . . . . no one.
: Here is a question, what are we in fear of NK having? A fission bomb? Surely they are not capable of a fusion bomb. If they have a few fat boys that
43 Travelin man
: What I can't stand is China, Russia, and even South Korea to some extent trying to appease this @sshole. They won't even pass a resolution prohibiting
: Like every dictator, that's a sad truth. Why give aid to appease Dr.Evil?It just will be going to Jong's pocketbook.We need to apply pressure to have
: The only thing North Korea has that could cause the US problems is a massive porn collection. Seriously, the Great Leader gets it imported from Scanda
: Lijnden,the Soviets MAY have shown dummy nukes during parades, but they definitely had the real thing ...and still do: disarmament notwithstanding.
: Why is everyone so worried about the NK threat? The US has had ICBM's for 50 years, but NK still can't get one lift off correctly. If private people h
: Who says they must hit the U.S. to become the biggest murderers since Hitler and Stalin? Their medium and short-range missiles are more than adaquet
: You people missed the best post in the whole thread - instead, you continued speculating on how deep we could melt North Korea and posting pics of nu
: Thank goodness someone pointed this out. "Few fission bombs" dont hold a candle in that respect and I dont for a moment suppose the N Koreans think t
: Hooray, reality. And your Username gives me a thought for the name for the pyrrhic victory achieved by nuking N Korea - Goobye Mr Chips. Sorry just s
: Look what happened to West Germany's economy when the east and west reunited. What do you think would happen to SK? With so many people dependent on
: Perhaps, but that's not how the South Koreans see it. They initiated a North-friendly policy in the mid 90s and want economic and social reunificatio