Today North Korea sent a message to the US, in the form of seven ballistic missiles. Obviously, they didn't hit anything, but it is still going to increase tension between the UN and North Korea.
What I'm wondering though, is why in the world they would launch missiles that they know aren't going to get close to the US. Also, North Korea isn't exactly the largest country, and if the US was to go to war with them it would be over very quickly. North Korea wouldn't be able to match the size of the army, and our own nuclear weapons could wipe them off the map if we chose to use them.
How do you feel about the situation? Will the US once again be police of the world, or will we for once make the UN deal with this on their own? Is Kim Jong Il just stupid, or is there a reason he spends millions of dollars to develop missiles, then sends them shooting into the ocean?
Do you really think that NK is going to follow the Geneva convention? We will do what we must to win.
i think that we should try to show our superoirity not only with firepower, but also in the handling on the battlefield. we have to keep a war as civilized as possible(if there is such a thing). minimizing collateral damage is an important point. also not using certain types of weapons, even if the enemy does.
we have to keep a war as civilized as possible(if there is such a thing).
I'm sorry, but there isn't such thing, from the middle ages some weapons were forbidden, you could not use the mace, but many countries did. Nothing ever changes about war only the weapons change.
you could not use the mace, but many countries did
yes the weapons change and there are good reasons why you shouldnt use them. our goal should be to upkeep peace, but if a armed conflict is unevitable, we should stick to the weapons allowed to be used and not use the worst stuff we have and endanger civilians more than it is necessary.
The world war 2 changed something now the main target during a war are civilians not any more soldiers. You win wars by destroying cities and not letting the people have food supplies, if their quality of life is bad they will try either to surrender or they will fight until they haven't the strength to continue.
The world war 2 changed something now the main target during a war are civilians not any more soldiers. You win wars by destroying cities and not letting the people have food supplies, if their quality of life is bad they will try either to surrender or they will fight until they haven't the strength to continue.
any country using this methods nowadays, should no longer be in the group of civilized countries. and luckilly most democratic countries try not to use rules of engagement that you are describing
if this would be the case why arent the us destroying the iraq and afghanistan systematically?
you do not win a war by destroing everything that has been there. the point where you win, is when you have restored a country and there are still enough people there to run it.
It's very hard now to conquer a country, cause the population now want to protect it's identity. It's not like the ancient times the Romans won the Gauls, they were some revolts and after 50 years the majority of the persons were Romans.
I totally agree with that. Other quote: John Dalton's records, carefully preserved for a century, were destroyed during the World War II bombing of Manchester. It is not only the living who are killed in war. Isaac Asimov
If they were mentally retarded they would not have been able to create nuclear weapons in the first place... They're more stupid because they created them in the first place, not sure if they wanted it to be a morale boost or try to become a dangerous country.
