Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

Posted Mar 31, '13 at 5:21pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,311 posts

Acting does not always mean violence.

a 1st strike is.

it would disrupt their chain of command, not stop the threat.

you can disrupt it after they striked 1st. that way you get both. their "end" and not the blame of the one who started the war. what makes it more easy to convince the left over civilians to come to your side later on.
 

Posted Mar 31, '13 at 5:22pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

i dont agree that it extends to befor an attack is made.


Forgot to address this.

How does it not? If someone is aware of a threat and fails to stop it by negligence, how are they not responsible in part? I would hold anyone guilty if they saw a toddler playing with a knife and did not take it from them and they ended up cutting themselves, whether they were a passing stranger or the parent. How they got the knife in the first place is an entirely separate matter.

Preemptive actions are not always violent. We see examples of this all the time, when plans to murder someone are unveiled and the person is arrested. Or by evacuation of areas in the face of impending danger. Even things like vaccines are preemptive. If a parent does not have their child vaccinated against things other than the flu (as that's only one strain) and they have the ability to do so, I believe that to be negligence. If their child catches one of those diseases, it is their fault.

The same follows for other situations. Being aware of danger imparts a social obligation. If you find a leaking pipe and do nothing to fix it or report it so it can be fixed, when the ceiling catastrophically collapses after weeks of water damage, the person who ignored the issue clearly shares fault.

It all boils down to responsibility and not being lazy. Many of our world's problems would be gone if people stopped for a second to act on what needs to be acted upon.

Long story short, a political snafu is no different from anything else. You already agree with me too-if the leaders failed to act and hundreds or thousands died in NK's initial attack, waiting for a reason to retaliate, you'd be outraged. If you aren't, you clearly need to rethink your morals.
 

Posted Mar 31, '13 at 7:47pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,311 posts

How does it not? ........

i agreed on preemptive actions. and that they dont have to be violent.

"you can prepare yourself to dodge, block or counter a attack. you dont have to hit 1st."

you wanted to use a violent one against nk.

a political snafu is no different from anything else.

snafu?

if the leaders failed to act and hundreds or thousands died in NK's initial attack, waiting for a reason to retaliate,

whit the leaders you mean usa/sk and the rest? or nk leaders?

if nk starts and fails then my thumbs go double up. (in favor of usa/sk) 1 time for not starting it. 1 time for beating them.
if usa/sk starts and fails my thumbs go double down. (in favor of usa/sk) 1 time for starting it. 1 time for failing it.

or am i misunderstanding the sentence?

If you aren't, you clearly need to rethink your morals.

depends on what comes out of this.
 

Posted Mar 31, '13 at 7:54pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

snafu?

"a badly confused or ridiculously muddled situation"

or am i misunderstanding the sentence?

Most likely. He means that costly inaction is irresponsible. If NK manages to kill hundreds of thousands with a nuke in their first strike, it wasn't worth waiting around doing nothing to prevent it.
 

Posted Mar 31, '13 at 7:59pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

you wanted to use a violent one against nk.


They've already shown they can't be reasoned with. The only other options are:
1) Continuing to let the dictatorship abuse the citizens of NK.
2) Waiting for NK to attack SK and open itself for annihilation.
3) Forcefully ending the problem.

In two of those three instances, innocent people die/suffer.The second is almost certainly going to happen regardless, so why wait? All waiting does is give them more time to abuse those within their country and to develop more nuclear bombs.

The time for waiting is gone, imo. They've been given every reasonable chance and are continuing to escalate and make bold threats. It's time to put the affair to rest.

snafu?


Military Slang Terms

whit the leaders you mean usa/sk and the rest? or nk leaders?


USA/SK and every other nation in the world. Everyone knows what's happening in NK. Waiting for NK to attack SK is not only pointless, but leading to an ever worsening situation. NK has already declared war on multiple countries, publicly announced their intentions to use nuclear devices on their enemies, and has sent out pictures (even if they are poorly photoshopped) of their weapons. They refuse to negotiate or listen.

It's time to shoot the rabid dog before it bites someone. Would I prefer a non violent solution? Of course. Except, I don't see that as being possible.
 

Posted Mar 31, '13 at 8:33pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,311 posts

1) Continuing to let the dictatorship abuse the citizens of NK.

i'll pick this one. it wont last forever anyway. and he has already given more freedom then his father did. people are allowed to dance every day now if they like. unimaginable under his father.

3) Forcefully ending the problem.

this always sounds so easy. everytime a nation wants to start a war. they say it like it will be done befor christmas. it's always a blitzkrieg.
how many will die this time?

The second is almost certainly going to happen regardless, so why wait?
regardless?
nk isn't stupid. you can't build a dictatorship like that whit stupid people.
the new leader needs to show it's ruthless power to us and give the feeling of safety to his people. and they take extreme risks whit that.

They've been given every reasonable chance and are continuing to escalate and make bold threats.

chance for what? it's their country. they can do whit it what they want.
and their enemy is also showing their muscle allot the last few year.
atleast they are clear whit their threads. i like that. not sneaky flying by whit 2 planes to check for gaps in the defense system. i know it is normal and countries are checking eatch other all the time like this. but nk doesn't like it. can be, right? especially now i understand they dont like it when that happens.

NK has already declared war on multiple countries

no, they gave a very last warning. (the other war did never end. technically they are in war for a few decades already)
something along the lines of... "show your face 1 more time, and we shoot it"

If NK manages to kill hundreds of thousands with a nuke in their first strike, it wasn't worth waiting around doing nothing to prevent it.

good point. but i believe sk is well defended against it. not only do they know the thread for years. but so does everyone els knows this thread.
and i find it very possible that it is all just a show. and if we do nothing, then nothing will happen. he just needs the attention.
 

Posted Mar 31, '13 at 9:25pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

not sneaky flying by whit 2 planes to check for gaps in the defense system.

Got a link for that? If you mean the 2 sent from Missouri, they only flew to SK.

but i believe sk is well defended against it.

Got a source? The US has a crude anti-ICBM system, as does Russia, but even the US system "is designed to counter a relatively small ICBM attack from a less sophisticated adversary" and has a poor (50%) rate of successful test interceptions, but SK has nothing.
 

Posted Apr 1, '13 at 12:42pm

danielo

danielo

1,770 posts

Yea, lets wait. Totaly worked with Iraq. And with Naxi germany. Oh oh, Vietnam too! The problmes will solve themselves, im sure. I mean, why a Meglomaniac leader with a desire for an empire who falled to his own lies on his enemies and with a big army and nucklear wepones will ever make troubles?

(For all of you new guys, im sarcastic).



This post was writen by my phone during a guard duty. If you find grammer mistakes, go to your kitchen and take a candy as a prise!

 

Posted Apr 1, '13 at 10:11pm

NEC001

NEC001

14 posts

This N. Korea missile threat sort of seems similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was resolved. Now granted that this is N. Korea, but the question I think is important to consider: Is the leader for N. Korea stupid (or crazy) enough to fight a war with the US? Then there is the fact that N. Korea would have broken the Geneva Convention due to the use of a nuclear weapon, which might cause repercussions with other nations.

 

Posted Apr 2, '13 at 7:53am

partydevil

partydevil

5,311 posts

Got a link for that?

well not for this case. but it happens for over 50 year already that under the line countries are checking other nations defense system.

for example does russia check the border defense of europe almost every week. they fly in stealth untill a few hundred meter past the maritime zones. and then check if the nation in question reacts on it. this same happens in africa, america and asia.

i dont really care about what the usa government say these planes did. i know they just checked the defense system. it's nothing special. but also not something everyone has to know. for political sake.

Got a source?

nope. but to think sk has nothing to defend is kinda naive.
the thread is well know by everyone. even if sk does not have the defense themself there is sure someone that "rents" them the defense.
and it's just smart to not tell that to anyone. if they did then nk knows it aswell. and will see it as a provocation. =/
 
Reply to North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

You must be logged in to post a reply!