Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

Posted Mar 8, '13 at 4:51pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

Though, like others said, it's unlikely for a nuclear attack to occur, but it's still kind of scary that any threats of this nature are being made.

 

Posted Mar 8, '13 at 5:51pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

4,797 posts

I'm already tired of hearing about this. They HAVE nuclear weapons, or at least nuclear material. The problem is that they haven't designed a nuclear weapon small enough to fit into a missile.

I can't figure out why we're still putting up with this. I don't care how big their nuclear bomb is, and neither should you. They are actively pursuing nuclear weaponry, they have violated all missile-related treaties and sanctions and have publicly declared nuclear war on America. They have let the world know that the instant they put a nuclear missile together, they're going to launch it at us.

You know what Obama, Congress and the UN have done to stop them? Nothing. Just more threats and warning. It would take less than 24 hours to destroy their test facilities with non-nuclear weaponry. Why won't we just blow them up? Because we're the "good guys?" Because it would make us look bad? The US is a joke to the rest of the world. Obama won't authorize a strike until we have a few hundred thousand US civilian casualties, and even then he might just make more speeches about how "we will not tolerate their actions." Assuming he stops taking vacations long enough to do so.

Again, I don't care if they're just showing off, years away, or they're too poor, or if we have anti-missile technology that "could totally blow their missile up before it even gets close." HE WANTS TO KILL ALL OF US, and he's getting closer to it every day. We need to actually DO something instead of "moniter the situation."

 

Posted Mar 8, '13 at 5:59pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,043 posts

Knight

Maybe the reason why they don't have the means to actually attack you right now IS the reason the US won't strike North Korea yet? Together with the fact that, even though they're beginning to get fed up with them, the Chinese are still technically allies of North Korea. Now imagine what a strike would unleash.

What the UN does is to set up punishing measures on North Korea, and even the Chinese are agreeing for stricter measures now. North Korea takes that as an attack because they think their cause is legitimate and holy and nothing can stop them; so they will be ready to do anything. They already cancelled the non-attack pact with South Korea, giving the world the signal that they won't hesitate to retaliate heavily at any more provocation. Before the US are attacked, we should worry about South Korea. They're at war, always have been technically, and NK definitely has the range and power to attack SK.

 

Posted Mar 8, '13 at 11:23pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

Now imagine what a strike would unleash.

Nothing because China lacks the ability to power project outside the immediate region? Having a feasible army of 40 million with a draft means nothing if you can't send them somewhere and then sustain them for operations for any legnth of time. The sheer amount of resources needed to sustain even a decent force outside of southeast Asia would cripple China faster than any attack the US could do, and would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

China attacking SK first would pit the world against it. Given that NATO alone outnumbers China's carriers 15:1, and the proximity of the Japanese Defense forces, and both SK and Japan being under the US' Nuclear Umbrella, China would stand to lose too much in any attack. Furthermore, I trust that Beijing is smart enough to avoid getting drawn into a conflict by Pyongyang.

 

Posted Mar 9, '13 at 5:58am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,119 posts

Knight

Just saber rattling, and nothing much.

 

Posted Mar 9, '13 at 6:36am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

do you people really think china is stupid enough to choose to attack sk?
if usa attacks nk then they most likely dont protect them. what benefit would china have if they choose to fight along nk? completely nothing.
china isn't going to start a big *** war only because of nk.
(i guess this whole debate about china is just because of americans that are scared of china)

 

Posted Mar 9, '13 at 8:00am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,119 posts

Knight

China attacking SK first would pit the world against it. Given that NATO alone outnumbers China's carriers 15:1, and the proximity of the Japanese Defense forces, and both SK and Japan being under the US' Nuclear Umbrella, China would stand to lose too much in any attack. Furthermore, I trust that Beijing is smart enough to avoid getting drawn into a conflict by Pyongyang.

1) SK is not a NATO state. None of the NATO states are bound by the treaty to come to its aid in the event of war.

2) Japan has no reason to go to war. Furthermore, with the Diaoyu Island dispute threatening to boil over, the Japanese would be trying to ameliorate the situation, not pour kerosene on the fire. Lastly, Article 9 of Japan's constitution is interpreted to bar Japan from entering into security relations with any country other than the United States.

3) China has always maintained a nuclear policy of second strike.

 

Posted Mar 9, '13 at 9:41pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

1) I never said they were; Why refute a point a I never made? I bought up NATO because, as was the case with Iraq, NATO supported US intervention. A non-nuclear NK is to the benefit of all: China, the US, everyone. It's an easy extrapolation to presume NATO involvement in a hypothetical war.

2) The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law allows Japan to support the US on foreign soil. Furthermore, Japanese courts have repeatedly maintained and upheld Japan's right to defend itself against an aggressing party. The islands were legally purchased by Japan. RE, US Nuclear Umbrella.

3) Perhaps party leaders in Beijing might ensure their Generals are on the same page. Xiong Guangkai threatened a nuclear strike on Los Angeles is the US ever defended Taiwan. Major General Zhu Chenghu also threatened the destruction of hundreds of American cities in a nuclear attack if the US ever "entered China's threatzone". I'll also call your attention to the fact that China has yet to actually make a formal NFU Aggreement, which is telling enough.

 

Posted Mar 9, '13 at 10:06pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,119 posts

Knight

1) I never said they were; Why refute a point a I never made? I bought up NATO because, as was the case with Iraq, NATO supported US intervention. A non-nuclear NK is to the benefit of all: China, the US, everyone. It's an easy extrapolation to presume NATO involvement in a hypothetical war.

1) Because by bringing in NATO in your statement, it highly insinuates that you feel NATO will join the party. Also, the big two in NATO (France and Germany) actually opposed US intervention in Iraq. It's not an easy extrapolation to presume NATO involvement; quite the contrary. NATO nations individually might support another Korean defensive war, but NATO as an organization will not.

A nuclear NK is of benefit to China. It acts as a thorn in the side of the US, and provides slightly more leverage in negotiations. China's main objective in NK policy is merely to keep the nation afloat; it's primary concern is a mass exodus of NK refugees should the nation disintegrate. If a nuclear program is going to keep that country together, China will not do anything against it.

2) The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law allows Japan to support the US on foreign soil. Furthermore, Japanese courts have repeatedly maintained and upheld Japan's right to defend itself against an aggressing party. The islands were legally purchased by Japan. RE, US Nuclear Umbrella.

You misinterpreted my point. My point is that it is highly unlikely that Japan will jump on the bandwagon and attack China in a hypothetical war over Korea, given that they already have another serious problem broiling on their hands, which needs no more inflammation.

3) Perhaps party leaders in Beijing might ensure their Generals are on the same page. Xiong Guangkai threatened a nuclear strike on Los Angeles is the US ever defended Taiwan. Major General Zhu Chenghu also threatened the destruction of hundreds of American cities in a nuclear attack if the US ever "entered China's threatzone". I'll also call your attention to the fact that China has yet to actually make a formal NFU Aggreement, which is telling enough.

Zhu Chenghu was a rogue hawk, he was transferred to a second line appointment pretty fast after he mentioned that. In 1995, General Xiong was widely, and incorrectly quoted as threatening to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles. The person to whom he was alleged to have said this, Chas Freeman, denies it.

In 2005, the Chinese Foreign Ministry released a white paper stating that the government would not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances. In addition, the paper went on to state that this "no first use" policy would remain unchanged in the future and that China would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones.

 

Posted Mar 10, '13 at 1:13pm

bigjacob

bigjacob

457 posts

First time hearing of this.

IF they follow through, and even then, its still an IF on whether or not it hits the USA. Probably not, but if it manages too, welcome the end of humanity on Earth.

 
Reply to North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

You must be logged in to post a reply!