jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (30 posts)

N.Korea threatens Nuke retaliation if Us Excersizes Military with Sout

  1. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    I heard this yesterday and today.

    http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/23/21 … ponse.html

    Does N.Korea really understand what will happen to them if they Nuke our Navy?

    And what do you think should be our response to a Military strike against our navy by N.Korea?

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      And in answer to your question.

      "Does N.Korea really understand what will happen to them if they Nuke our Navy?"

      I will say "yes" the government of North Korea probably do know what would happen. Millions of innocent people will die. But seeing as they starve their people already, it is unlikely to matter to them.

      If your question was "Do the people of N.Korea really understand what will happen to them if they Nuke our Navy?"

      The answer is "no", they have been brainwashed into believing that their country is the most respected in the world, that they have the greatest military in the world, but that there are great enemies to their ideals.

      The likelyhood is that no, no they are not aware of the craziness of their leaders.

    2. Onusonus profile image80
      Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like more Saber rattling.

    3. Me, Steve Walters profile image72
      Me, Steve Waltersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kiefer/Education/SSRG2-Craters/meteor_crater.gif

      This is what I think should be our response to a Military strike against our Navy by N.Korea.

      1. milkomeda profile image59
        milkomedaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        you know that's actually meteor crater in Arizona right?  depending on the type of Nuclear weopon that's detonated at the moment, it may or may not create a crater. air burst detonations create the stareotypical Mushroom clouds, and only really just scrub the ground with the blasted air. subsurface detonations create small craters usually from where they enter the ground and a large area of subduction surrounding it. surface detonations are what create the massive craters because the force of the blast is forced directly into the ground. just saying, I'm not trying to invoke an argument or any sort if discussion.

        1. Me, Steve Walters profile image72
          Me, Steve Waltersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          EEERR...Really...ya' don't say...!?!

          http://img.listal.com/image/68040/500full-curly-howard.jpg

  2. profile image0
    ryankettposted 7 years ago

    You have to ask yourself why the US is participating in nuclear war exercises with South Korea.

    Training South Koreans in the use of your nuclear weapons, is provocative. Saying one thing and doing another is also very different, just sounds like the cold war all over again.

    1. TMMason profile image70
      TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted

      1. profile image0
        ryankettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        In that case there is no chance of a North Korean nuclear response then is there? Did you read the article before sharing? The ONLY quote supporting the article is:

        “The army and people of the DPRK will legitimately counter with their powerful nuclear deterrence the largest-ever nuclear war exercises to be staged by the U.S. and the south Korean puppet forces.”

        So what is it? Either there is no reason to worry about this quote, as the US and South Korea are not staging nuclear war exercises, or there is reason to worry about this quote because the US and South Korea ARE in fact carrying out nuclear war exercises.

        And the answer to that lies within your naval fleet then doesn't it? Are they carrying out exercises with Nuclear submarines? In which case, yes, yes you are doing nuclear exercises. If you are not using ships or subs with nuclear capabilities, then the entire article and your thread becomes meaningless, worthless, irrelevant.

  3. LiamBean profile image88
    LiamBeanposted 7 years ago

    Well, the cold war was very profitable you know.

  4. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 7 years ago

    I fear, politically the best we can hope for is an internal Coup d’etat and that cooler heads prevail and one of which we can support, hoping that this is all nationalistic bluster and bravado could be an error. Current responses from the administration appear to suggest they believe this is more than just Korean saber rattling.

    Should the Koreans attack, which unfortunately may be entirely likely given dying men, (as Kim Jong Il reportedly is), don’t always make decisions in the best interest of others, our reaction may require total military decapitation of the existing Korean government.

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      And just to make sure that they do attack, lets have a 4 day military parade of US and South Korean soldiers. In other words, "lets make them fear an invasion, so that they attack us and we can blow the country to bits without getting held accountable for war crimes".

      What I don't understand is precisely what it is that the USA get out of this whole arrangement. South Korea get to impose their own ideals by erradicating communism and extending their territory, and the US get what? A new open capitalist market? Or a means of intimidating the non-nuclear Japan at a later date?

      1. readytoescape profile image60
        readytoescapeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Only the North Koreans have threatened nuclear action.

        U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates

        "These defensive, combined exercises are designed to send a clear message to North Korea that its aggressive behavior must stop, and that we are committed to together enhancing our combined defensive capabilities,"

        "These exercises are off the coast of Korea, not off the coast of China. These are exercises like we have conducted for decades in the past," the U.S. defense chief told reporters. "There is nothing provocative about them at all."


        It is not necessarily what the US gets out of it, but is a response in coordination with and obligation via political pact with our strongest allies in the region, South Korea and Japan.

        1. profile image0
          ryankettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The military exercises that America and South Korea will be undertaking are nuclear related. I am just trying to keep this thread in context, since the only relevant quote on the linked article from the OP states:

          “The army and people of the DPRK will legitimately counter with their powerful nuclear deterrence the largest-ever nuclear war exercises to be staged by the U.S. and the south Korean puppet forces.”

          And that quote is actually from a NEWSPAPER in North Korea, those newspapers are not intended for outside eyes, and the quote is not directly from a North Korean official.

          So the whole basis of this thread revolves around possible large scale nuclear exercises between South Korea and America. The OP, and the Associated Press, are effectively making speculative news based upon speculative news. Not only speculative news, but speculative news in the most propoganda driven country in the world.

          At no point does TMMason acknowledge that the USA are effectively arming South Korea with nuclear weapons. Just as you did Isreal. That could legitimatly be percieved by North Korea as attempted provocation or preparation for a possible invasion of the north.

          If North Korea is fearing an invasion, then they will naturally prepare their defence.

  5. lxxy profile image60
    lxxyposted 7 years ago

    Siiigh, will they never understand?

    Oh well--more war--more profit!

    And less people to feed!

    ....bah!

    http://lh4.ggpht.com/_BRMr2D3unLI/S_q6PyBOOOI/AAAAAAAAAL4/vqzrbfxMoPo/s800/police-state26.jpg

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Does war really mean profit though? The American balance sheet suggests that war means bankruptcy.

      1. lxxy profile image60
        lxxyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, it does mean profit. Profit for you and me, and the American economy? Not so much.

        Remember, much of the initial bailout money went overseas.

        And Ford gave tons'o'money to Hitler.

        GM built Jap Planes.

        It's money for corporations.

        1. profile image0
          ryankettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I could understand how a war which doesn't involve America would profit America, since you could sell your arms and your weapons technologies.

          But I don't understand how selling weapons to yourself is going to profit America. The British and Americans have been selling weapons to Africa for decades, so internal turmoil and civil wars within those countries have certainly created a boyount export market.

          But I struggle to see how America will ultimately profit from the hundreds of billions of dollars it has spent on a war in Iraq. Personally I think that America could make much more money out of war by staying firmly out of war.

          The healthiest economies and societies in this world can be found exclusively in countries which do not involve themselves in any military efforts other than peacekeeping and aid missions. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, to name a few.

      2. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Bankruptcy for some, but not all.

  6. lxxy profile image60
    lxxyposted 7 years ago

    "But I struggle to see how America will ultimately profit from the hundreds of billions of dollars it has spent on a war in Iraq."

    It's not about, again, America profiting. We're no longer in an American-centric economy; this is global, my friend.

    In other words: don't expect American-based business owners to care about who kills who, as long as the weapons are sold and the blood still flows.

  7. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 7 years ago

    America has only ever benefited from the result of war by securing relationships that encourage trade, partnership, security and liberty. Had we been a power of old world thinking we could have conquered the world and created the largest empire the world has ever known, but in every case the US defended others or protected it self and has never become a conqueror.

    I am reminded of an old adage,

    “There are only two people who have ever died for you.”

    “Jesus Christ and an American Soldier.”

    1. TMMason profile image70
      TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Standing ovation from me and mine, Ready.

      1. readytoescape profile image60
        readytoescapeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you TM

    2. lxxy profile image60
      lxxyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      NAFTA, EU, Euro..America is beginning to follow the same steps.

      It will not be America as we know it.

  8. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    The Korean peninsula is a separate world, not connected with outside world fully. The west wantonly created South Korea, just to prevent communism spreading. But now that the US has come to terms with China, there is no point in patronising South Korea. Let the divided country unite through whatever means available to them, even war.

    North Korea is the legitimate Korea and South should merge with it. Or north should merge with south. There is no job for the Americans in that area. Let America improve its economic conditions first. They need not drive their nose in Korea and get snubbed. If there is no work for the American soldiers in that area, recall them and send them to agricultural fields and manufacturing companies. It will improve American prestige overseas.

    Just because they have n-arms, North Korea should not think of using it... It seems like a childish behaviour.  If it is n-weapons, what are they going to do with their conventional weapons? Do they have any other enemy?

  9. kephrira profile image58
    kephriraposted 7 years ago

    I recently read that a famous Bulgarian psychic called Vangelia Gushterova - who is known to have made at least one correct prediction as she did it on Russian state TV (the Kursk nuclear submarine disaster in 2000; she said "Kursk will be underwater and the world will grieve", everyone thought she meant the town of Kursk but it was actually the name of a submarine) - predicted the start of world war 3 for November 2010. Maybe this is how it starts?

    If N. Korea did use nukes there would be a good chance that it would escalate fast, even to countries with nothing to do with that region. Israel would probably use it as an excuse to attack suspected nulcear weapons facilities in Iran, for a start.

    1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Even if the first does not happen, let the second happen.... let Israel destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, as they did in Iraq two decades back.  Iranian nuclear capability is a threat to the region and to world peace.  Because the present Iranian government was founded by lawless fanatics, who were hiding somewhere else.  Let the previous monarchy take over and give a good government to the Iranians.

      Afganistan was also peaceful till there was monarchy...
      Last king: Zahir Shah.

      1. kephrira profile image58
        kephriraposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I agree in a way, but the problem is that the illegitimate Iranian government would not go quietly. If Israel attacked them, especially at a chaotic time when the world is looking elsewhere, then Iran would strike back, including through proxy organisations like Hamas in Palestine and Lebanon.

        The Iranian government may not have the support of many of the ordinary people in Iran, but unfortunately they do have the full support and control of the military.

        1. SIVAGNANAM, V. profile image55
          SIVAGNANAM, V.posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It is American traditon to read too much about a lawless and terrorist group or government.  Iranian military is nothing but a bunch of people unworthy for serious warfare.  Israeli military is 1000 times stronger than Iran's and if they are so much powerful as you may imagine, they would have swallowed the entire region. The only more-powerful military of Saddam Hussain has been rendered ineffective. So, it is easy to wipe out Iran's terrorist government.

          Like this, Americans said that one Pakistani soldier is equal to 3 Indian soldiers (before 1971). But when war came, the whole Pakistani army and armaments, including Patton tanks, saber jets, and  warships tumbled in a single day (4-12-1971). It was more than easy to bisect Pakistan and create Bangladesh.  This is the position in the middle-east Arab world. America is fearing the Arabs'  military strength more than required.  One single country, Israel can defeat the entire region. 

          Proxy Hamas has no power base except to collect funds from Arab patrons and are marking time.

  10. IntimatEvolution profile image72
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

    I think somebody needs to get rid of that guy.  And I think the Chinese will be the first ones in line to do so.  China cannot afford Nuclear back-drafts.  They will not allow it.

    1. ledefensetech profile image71
      ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This is just another ploy by NK to extort money, food and other materials from the West.  They can't, after all, provide those things to their people so every once in awhile they bluster and make threats.  By their thinking if they get a nuke, they can extort more out of us by threatening us or our allies with it.

 
working