Time for a pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

me_right_one

Lad, I'm not responding to any more of your posts. You seem to have a poor grasp of English, and a tendency to insult rather than debate. Good evening sir.

Anyway, back O/T. The OP is worried because NK is threatening to nuke another country, a ludicrous thing for any country to do, whatever the reason. (America dropped atomic bombs, not nuclear - BIG difference).

What should be done? IMO a local conventional war and a regime change is better than a nuclear war and a few centuries of global nuclear fallout. Prevention is better than cure.

OP, what do think from the responses so far?

marco murphy

me_right_one wrote: »

Lad, I'm not responding to any more of your posts. You seem to have a poor grasp of English, and a tendency to insult rather than debate. Good evening sir.

Anyway, back O/T. The OP is worried because NK is threatening to nuke another country, a ludicrous thing for any country to do, whatever the reason. (America dropped atomic bombs, not nuclear - BIG difference).

What should be done? IMO a local conventional war and a regime change is better than a nuclear war and a few centuries of global nuclear fallout. Prevention is better than cure.

OP, what do think from the responses so far?

I reckon negotiation, not hostility, beats all hands down, silly me.

Overheal

Perestroika wrote: »

Wow I was expecting a response that covers all of my post, seems you're not up to it.

Im not even up to it. Your argument is just not worth the effort. America Bad This, America Bad That. Yeah. We get it. Next?

I will say though that the only thing being particularly demonised (besides by talk radio) is the governments, not the countries. I really dont think we have any intention of going out anywhere to smear innocent blood on the walls. I certainly dont believe its our policy. Rather, our policy would be quite the opposite: to minimise civilian casualties as greatly as possible.

marco murphy

Overheal wrote: »

Im not even up to it. Your argument is just not worth the effort. America Bad This, America Bad That. Yeah. We get it. Next?

I will say though that the only thing being particularly demonised (besides by talk radio) is the governments, not the countries. I really dont think we have any intention of going out anywhere to smear innocent blood on the walls. I certainly dont believe its our policy. Rather, our policy would be quite the opposite: to minimise civilian casualties as greatly as possible.

Apprently, you don't get it. You can't march around the world with your ''regime change" when it suits. Saddam conformed to the US agenda, and look what they did to him. No one has focused or us able to focus on the political aspect, its just about how "we" can "teach those North Koreans a lesson". Nuke here, regime change there, conventional warfare... etc. Sad, very sad.

Overheal

Perestroika wrote: »

Apprently, you don't get it. You can't march around the world with your ''regime change" when it suits. Saddam conformed to the US agenda, and look what they did to him. No one has focused or us able to focus on the political aspect, its just about how "we" can "teach those North Koreans a lesson". Nuke here, regime change there, conventional warfare... etc. Sad, very sad.

Im pretty sure the US has made no mention of preparing for a "regime change" in NK. So I dont know where you are coming from.

Judgement Day

me_right_one wrote: »

Lad, I'm not responding to any more of your posts. You seem to have a poor grasp of English, and a tendency to insult rather than debate. Good evening sir.

Anyway, back O/T. The OP is worried because NK is threatening to nuke another country, a ludicrous thing for any country to do, whatever the reason. (America dropped atomic bombs, not nuclear - BIG difference).

What should be done? IMO a local conventional war and a regime change is better than a nuclear war and a few centuries of global nuclear fallout. Prevention is better than cure.

OP, what do think from the responses so far?

I don't draw much comfort from the various responses - especially those that regard the USA as the Great Satan - if it wasn't for the Yanks we (those of us 'lucky' enough to have survived the aftermath of WWII) would either be speaking German or Russian and would certainly not have the freedom to debate NK or any other issue on Boards.ie.

I still think that intervention in North Korea may be the lesser of two evils and perhaps the US military is already thinking that way with its pull-back in Iraq. Just to provoke those of you who feel that NK may be a step to far - what's the US supposed to do about Pakistan if, as looks increasingly likely, it collapses as a political entity in the near future. Truly we live in dangerous times.

Overheal

Judgement Day wrote: »

I don't draw much comfort from the various responses - especially those that regard the USA as the Great Satan - if it wasn't for the Yanks we (those of us 'lucky' enough to have survived the aftermath of WWII) would either be speaking German or Russian and would certainly not have the freedom to debate NK or any other issue on Boards.ie.

Let them eat cake. You don't operate the huge political and military clout that the US has without adopting a few frowners.

I still think that intervention in North Korea may be the lesser of two evils and perhaps the US military is already thinking that way with its pull-back in Iraq. Just to provoke those of you who feel that NK may be a step to far - what's the US supposed to do about Pakistan if, as looks increasingly likely, it collapses as a political entity in the near future. Truly we live in dangerous times.

Look, no bull****. Should the worst happen, I have every faith the US/UN has a military plan in place to go in and surgically secure Pakistan's arsenal. Where the materials go after that would hopefully be a strict UN matter. Of course, thats reliant on the Pakistani government's full cooperation with the UN about the disclosure of all of its weapon grade materials.

me_right_one wrote: »

(America dropped atomic bombs, not nuclear - BIG difference).

...If you say so Even though they are both nuclear. One just has a secondary (yet important) fusion component: the H-Bomb, or the Thermonuclear Device. Perhaps this is where youre getting confuddled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

""A-bomb" redirects here."

Anyway whatever technicality you were trying to get into is pointless. Especially on this thread. The US still in the past, launched a strategic Atomic/Nuclear/FairyDuck/WMD strike on another country. And ANYWAY, the Korean nuke was confirmed at what - I believe the estimates are as low as 4 and as high as 20 kilotons.

The A-Bomb dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy) had 10-20. You're making out like Kim Jong has Tsar Bomba.

Chill.

What should be done? IMO a local conventional war and a regime change is better than a nuclear war and a few centuries of global nuclear fallout. Prevention is better than cure.

Prevention is not a preemptive strike against NK. Prevention is Missile Defense. Missile Defense which is state of the art, on the Armistice Line.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The amount of ignorance is in abundance in this thread...

OS119 wrote: »

personally i'm with MM, NK is such a closed country that the USN and JSDF could shoot down the missile launches and even attack the CBRN and Missile fabrication sites with conventional weapons and its quitely likely that NK wouldn't tell its population - and in NK, if the government doesn't tell you you don't know.

and as for nukes, the age of the 'citybuster' is long gone, modern nukes are designed to be used within a conventional operations plan - even Trident can dial its yeild back to 0.9kt (Hiroshima was about 17kt), at that kind of yeild - particularly given that it would be deployed within a 'penetrator' system so the detionation would occur underground - its unlikely that that anyone more that 2km away would be effected by the blast.

2KM in any area would hold a lot of innocents. Unless it is a military base... but they have innocents too...

Nuclear warfare is not the way forward.

me_right_one wrote: »

Did everybody just forget that china are the bad guys?

You need to explain this more.

me_right_one wrote: »

When dictators are in control, its bad.

WRONG

The more mental they are, the worse it tends to be for the human race.

Assumption

When people make threats, they tend not to be pussy-footing around.

WRONG

Using nukes as bargaining chips? I think not. Here's an idea Kim should look into if he seriously wants something to bargain with - what about giving up being an evil dictator and returning to good-ole democracy, in exchange for aid? Wouldnt that be much safer and easier for everybody!

So no, by my logic, Holland is safe:pac:

Dictatorships are actually needed for democracies to work proparly. Dictatorships have their uses and are good in a lot of cases.

Perestroika wrote: »

Rubbish. You're showing me a newspaper article and two youtube videos. I don't believe in any of that ****e. I know people who have been to North Korea and have met a youth group from there. I'd take their word for it, not some internet post from someone who is clearly intent on blackening Kim's name.

Lol, you rather believe a "youth group" over a surviving witness? There goes all credibility for your posts...

You asked for links, he gave you links, what's the problem?

You sound like a teenage girl who has been rejected to be honest, and I won't even write a response to ''who just loves killing". I will wait until you produce evidence other than two ****e youtube videos. I have plenty of evidence to suggest that America is involved and has been involved in agenda of killing innocent people on a daily basis. Palestine, Iraq, Colombia.

If you cannot keep your cool and debate like an adult, then don't debate at all...

Oh... any links for your claims? Your claims that the american government intentionally kill innocents on a daily basis? Rubbish I would say.

I don't think America has any concentration camps, to test chemical and biological weapons on living humans...

Do you work for the US propaganda agency? The world knows **** ALL and you know **** all about Kim Il-Jong and you know it.

It seems that you know more than the rest of us, so why don't you enlighten us...

What is the problem here? Why does the big bad usa want korea out of action? Wouldn't have anything to do with humanitarian rights, would it? What else do they have to gain from it?

Kim Il-Jong is'nt a dictator.

Now you are just taking the piss with this trolling crap...

Judgement Day wrote: »

I don't draw much comfort from the various responses - especially those that regard the USA as the Great Satan - if it wasn't for the Yanks we... (those of us 'lucky' enough to have survived the aftermath of WWII) would either be speaking German or Russian and would certainly not have the freedom to debate NK or any other issue on Boards.ie.

If it wasn't for the yanks, I would probably have a better life right now.

I hate that saying, if it wasn't for america... bla bla bla. Well seriously, what if a lot of things. What if america got involved at an earlier stage? Eh?

I still think that intervention in North Korea may be the lesser of two evils and perhaps the US military is already thinking that way with its pull-back in Iraq. Just to provoke those of you who feel that NK may be a step to far - what's the US supposed to do about Pakistan if, as looks increasingly likely, it collapses as a political entity in the near future. Truly we live in dangerous times.

Intervention is needed alright, but not on a large scale, not nuclear war. That is a really stupid suggestion. Anyway, when north korea is sorted, what next? Who does america target next? There is always someone ruffling their feathers.

Overheal

Catalina Substantial Birdseed wrote: »

2KM in any area would hold a lot of innocents. Unless it is a military base... but they have innocents too...

Nuclear warfare is not the way forward.

Anyway for such a low nuclear yield - what would be the point? We Have conventional weapons that could do the same thing, effectively.

I don't think America has any concentration camps, to test chemical and biological weapons on living humans...

srsly. We use apes :pac:

marco murphy

08/07/2009 - 13:37:12
North Korea was today blamed for sophisticated cyber attacks that paralysed major US government websites.

The sites of 11 South Korean organisations also went down or had access problems.

In the US, the Treasury Department, Secret Service, Federal Trade Commission and Transportation Department websites were all down at varying points over the July 4 holiday weekend and into this week.

Sources said the attack, which is called a denial of service, said that the fact that the government websites were still being affected three days after it began signalled an unusually lengthy and sophisticated system.

The Korea Information Security Agency also attributed the attacks to denial of service.

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at Seoul's University of North Korean Studies, said he doubts whether the impoverished North had the capability to knock down the websites.

However, Hong Hyun-ik, an analyst at the Sejong Institute think tank, said the attack could have been done by either North Korea or China, saying he "heard North Korea has been working hard to hack into" South Korean networks.

The National Intelligence Service said it believes that North Korea or North Korean sympathisers "were behind" the attacks.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency said military intelligence officers were looking at the possibility that the attack may have been committed by North Korean hackers and pro-North Korea forces in South Korea.

Earlier the NIS said that 12,000 computers in South Korea and 8,000 computers overseas had been infected and used for the cyber attack.

The agency said it believed the attack was "thoroughly" prepared and committed by hackers "at the level of a certain organisation or state". It said it was co-operating with the American investigators to examine the case.

South Korean media reported in May that North Korea was running a cyber warfare unit that tries to hack into US and South Korean military networks to gather confidential information and disrupt service.

An initial investigation in South Korea found that many personal computers were infected with a virus ordering them to visit major official websites in South Korea and the US at the same time.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/north-korea-blamed-for-cyber-attack-on-us-417885.html#ixzz0Kgmm09Dx&C



Another choreographed news piece to demonised North Korea. This is all the buildup happening.