US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

o1s1n

o1s1n wrote: »

Well what other conclusion would you derive from his post?

There's no surprise and what's done is done? He's saying that Kim has been trying to get one for ages, he got it, and now he won't use it because it will secure his position.


Your conclusion:

Are you saying that there should be no limitations placed on any state seeking to acquire nuclear weapons?

That is a ridiculous stretch and is a clear fallacy. Do you truly think he was saying that zero limitations should be placed on any state in the world?

BillyBobBS

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I've provide a lot more clarity on this thread than you
What progress have you made with your nuclear bunker??

Please point out the post I made that showed I was building a nuclear bunker.

You on the other hand think a trip to B&Q and Google and your good to build a nuke.

Get some air seriously I'm getting worried about you.

fxotoole

o1s1n wrote: »

Not sure what your point is? Are you saying that there should be no limitations placed on any state seeking to acquire nuclear weapons?

NO, what he's saying is stop worrying and learn to love the Bomb.

Or rather, learn to love the idea of North Korea possessing the Bomb.

Nettle Soup

BillyBobBS wrote: »

That's because we have a credible American President who isn't going to except a madman with nukes. Funny how Obama did nothing except sit on late night talk shows for 8 years attempting to look cool whilst NK went about their business.

4068ac1elhodqr

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah. What's your point?

Well, if you're totally fine with NK having them, likely that would mean you're probably fine with everyone & anyone having them. Or do you have the odd exception?

At least no one will have to worry about climate change, influenza outbreaks or asteroid impacts when every country has a stockpile that would do a quicker job at the click of a button.

Evie Big Troop

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Well, if you're totally fine with NK having them, likely that would mean you're probably fine with everyone & anyone having them. Or do you have the odd exception?

At least no one will have to worry about climate change, influenza outbreaks or asteroid impacts when every country has a stockpile that would do a quicker job at the click of a button.

This thread is so incredibly tedious with this nonsense.

There are no good solutions, there are only ones that are less bad. I've gone with the "no war" one because I don't think a preemptive strike would work out so well for x amount of people who would die.
Now, I know this is might be hard to believe but I'm allowed to have various opinions on different aspects of one topic. This is our conversation so far:

• I said nothing should be done.
• You said "Is doing nothing setting out a good example for any and all other despot leaders, that repeatedly offer to send 'gift's (see their promotional videos) to any country they don't find favour with?"
• I said "No."
• You said "Did you not say on the previous page, 'Nothing' should be done about Kimmy's growing arsenal?"
• I said "Yeah. What's your point?"

That's it. I don't think setting an example is a reason for war. So that's our conversation over and done with.... But no, you come out with this and lay bare your mental capacity for us:

"Well, if you're totally fine with NK having them, likely that would mean you're probably fine with everyone & anyone having them. Or do you have the odd exception?"


Pure and utter scutter.

4068ac1elhodqr

Deleted User wrote: »

is is our conversation so far:

• I said nothing should be done.
• You said "Is doing nothing setting out a good example for any and all other despot leaders, that repeatedly offer to send 'gift's (see their promotional videos) to any country they don't find favour with?"
• I said "No."
• You said "Did you not say on the previous page, 'Nothing' should be done about Kimmy's growing arsenal?"
• I said "Yeah. What's your point?"

Cool, so i) Do nothing ii) Wait and hope for the best iii) Even though it will set a very poor example for any-everyone else hoping to join that special club.

Guess that all sounds reasonable...

Evie Big Troop

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Cool, so i) Do nothing ii) Wait and hope for the best iii) Even though it will set a very poor example for any-everyone else hoping to join that special club.

Guess that all sounds reasonable...

It's reasonable if you live in Seoul.

So what's your solution to a problem that hasn't had one in decades?

4068ac1elhodqr

Deleted User wrote: »

It's reasonable if you live in Seoul.

So what's your solution to a problem that hasn't had one in decades?

If you're in Seoul or anywhere else in the world, maybe it's not so reasonable for such a precedence to develop.

The solution would be to consider, and examine all other possible options, with the exception of sticking ones head in the sand, crossing fingers and 'well-wishing nothingness' for the next decade or so.

Evie Big Troop

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

If you're in Seoul or anywhere else in the world, maybe it's not so reasonable for such a precedence to develop.

The reality that has developed is of key concern here. Not some intangible fear of another nation developing nukes at some point in the future, and how a war with NK would affect that.

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

The solution would be to consider, and examine all other possible options, with the exception of sticking ones head in the sand, crossing fingers and 'well-wishing nothingness' for the next decade or so.

I'm not surprised you have no solution while criticizing others.

4068ac1elhodqr

Deleted User wrote: »

The reality that has developed is of key concern here. Not some intangible fear of another nation developing nukes at some point in the future, and how a war with NK would affect that.

Its also inevitable that others will try, others also might not 'send out a memo' to all concerned before their tests begin. Taking measures now, will directly affect what others will do.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not surprised you have no solution while criticizing others.

I'm surprised anyone could consider sitting on their hands as a solution.

What they're doing now is the right thing: ever increasing pressure, offensive preparations and importantly vast defensive measures.

It's probably fair to assume there is a whiteboard somewhere with dozens of ideas. But one of the ideas that you propose, might not get put forward i.e. 'put head in sand, and wait another decade'.

Nettle Soup

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Cool, so i) Do nothing

Yes do the exact same as previous presidents have done for many years. Ignore the NK leader's ravings.

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

ii) Wait and hope for the best

Yes forget about it and thank your lucky stars you are still alive every morning.

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

iii) Even though it will set a very poor example for any-everyone else hoping to join that special club.

Is this an action? Do you think there is a undergraduate course for nuclear hungry despots? "It sets a poor example..."
We cannot control everything in life you know.

Evie Big Troop

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Its also inevitable that others will try, others also might not 'send out a memo' to all concerned before their tests begin. Taking measures now, will directly affect what others will do.



I'm surprised anyone could consider sitting on their hands as a solution.

What they're doing now is the right thing: ever increasing pressure, offensive preparations and importantly vast defensive measures.

It's probably fair to assume there is a whiteboard somewhere with dozens of ideas. But one of the ideas that you propose, might not get put forward i.e. 'put head in sand, and wait another decade'.

So I think this has all been a misunderstanding. When I said "Nothing" the first time, I meant it as "no war" in response to the cries for war from others.

I don't think literally nothing should be done.. What's been done up to now should be largely continued, though now that there have thermonuclear bombs and a plausible delivery method, there are arguments that can be made for sanctions to be weakened if the population were to suffer less.

Kim isn't gonna give up his nukes no matter what. The only way that can happen is war and I'm absolutely certain that won't happen. So there should be a balance sought between crippling the regime itself and the effect on the innocent people living there.

For example, I wouldn't want sanctions on food, heating fuel or clothing etc.

MickDoyle1979

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So I think this has all been a misunderstanding. When I said "Nothing" the first time, I meant it as "no war" in response to the cries for war from others.

I don't think literally nothing should be done.. What's been done up to now should be largely continued, though now that there have thermonuclear bombs and a plausible delivery method, there are arguments that can be made for sanctions to be weakened if the population were to suffer less.

Kim isn't gonna give up his nukes no matter what. The only way that can happen is war and I'm absolutely certain that won't happen. So there should be a balance sought between crippling the regime itself and the effect on the innocent people living there.

For example, I wouldn't want sanctions on food, heating fuel or clothing etc.

A total joke.

Topple Kim and destroy his nuclear and conventional forces.

If Seoul is destroyed and hundreds of thousands SK die and millions of NK perish in a famine after the country collapses then so be it.

A lunatic totalitarian dictator threatening the entire world with nukes is intolerable.

He has to go.

It would be great if this could be solved peacefully but it is too late now. Bill Clinton gave Kim's father nuclear technology and now we are where we are.

If a war turns the Korean peninsula into a slaughterhouse but the rest of the world avoids nuclear war then so be it.

MickDoyle1979

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

A total joke.

Topple Kim and destroy his nuclear and conventional forces.

If Seoul is destroyed and hundreds of thousands SK die and millions of NK perish in a famine after the country collapses then so be it.

A lunatic totalitarian dictator threatening the entire world with nukes is intolerable.

He has to go.

It would be great if this could be solved peacefully but it is too late now. Bill Clinton gave Kim's father nuclear technology and now we are where we are.

If a war turns the Korean peninsula into a slaughterhouse but the rest of the world avoids nuclear war then so be it.

The irony of you calling him a lunatic. :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

A total joke.

Topple Kim and destroy his nuclear and conventional forces.

If Seoul is destroyed and hundreds of thousands SK die and millions of NK perish in a famine after the country collapses then so be it.

A lunatic totalitarian dictator threatening the entire world with nukes is intolerable.

He has to go.

It would be great if this could be solved peacefully but it is too late now. Bill Clinton gave Kim's father nuclear technology and now we are where we are.

If a war turns the Korean peninsula into a slaughterhouse but the rest of the world avoids nuclear war then so be it.

When did this happen?

Cheerful Spring

It's 10 o clock at night Saturday in North Korea, no sign of a missile test yet.

dd972

Send Michael D Higgins over there.

'Ah now lads, c'mon now, give it a rest'

Trump & Kim - ....:o 'sorry'.

dr.fuzzenstein

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

A total joke.

Topple Kim and destroy his nuclear and conventional forces.

If Seoul is destroyed and hundreds of thousands SK die and millions of NK perish in a famine after the country collapses then so be it.

A lunatic totalitarian dictator threatening the entire world with nukes is intolerable.

He has to go.

It would be great if this could be solved peacefully but it is too late now. Bill Clinton gave Kim's father nuclear technology and now we are where we are.

If a war turns the Korean peninsula into a slaughterhouse but the rest of the world avoids nuclear war then so be it.

Yes you are right. Your post is a total joke.

BillyBobBS

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

A total joke.

Topple Kim and destroy his nuclear and conventional forces.

If Seoul is destroyed and hundreds of thousands SK die and millions of NK perish in a famine after the country collapses then so be it.

A lunatic totalitarian dictator threatening the entire world with nukes is intolerable.

He has to go.

It would be great if this could be solved peacefully but it is too late now. Bill Clinton gave Kim's father nuclear technology and now we are where we are.

If a war turns the Korean peninsula into a slaughterhouse but the rest of the world avoids nuclear war then so be it.

Good post. He must go at all costs.

Timberrrrrrrr

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Good post. He must go at all costs.

Will you still say this when your own family are dying from radiation poisoning in front of your eyes?

MadYaker

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Good post. He must go at all costs.

You've got to be trolling. Kim knows that a nuclear war would be the end of him and his regime. It ain't gonna happen. He's developing nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to get more foreign aid for his country.

But you seem to believe he is suicidal for some reason? And he wants to take all of his people and a good chunk of the the South Koreans with him too. Do you even read the news? Even Donald Trump has more of a clue than you do.

Gatling

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Will you still say this when your own family are dying from radiation poisoning in front of your eyes?

Why would they be dying

Timberrrrrrrr

Gatling wrote: »

Why would they be dying

Because if this is handled wrong then it could turn into a global clusterfcuk! Or do you think the people if Ireland will be safe from radiation in the air if things go nuclear?

dr.fuzzenstein

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Good post. He must go at all costs.

No he must not. Look at any country that was "liberated" by the US and the end result.
You may get a hard on at the thought of millions dead, 2 countries devastated and a region plunged into chaos for decades (while you're safe wherever you are), but there is a cost that is too high.
And that is without things going nuclear.

The_Valeyard

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

No he must not. Look at any country that was "liberated" by the US and the end result.
You may get a hard on at the thought of millions dead, 2 countries devastated and a region plunged into chaos for decades (while you're safe wherever you are), but there is a cost that is too high.
And that is without things going nuclear.

Any country eh?


France, Italy, West Germany, Holland?

Billy86

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Any country eh?


France, Italy, West Germany, Holland?

None of those were liberated by the US, France and Holland were liberated by the Allied Forces - which included France and Holland. When were Italy or West Germany liberated? They were on the opposite side and surrendered unless I'm missing something?

Gatling

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because if this is handled wrong then it could turn into a global clusterfcuk! Or do you think the people if Ireland will be safe from radiation in the air if things go nuclear?

The only solution is remove him unfortunately , that or wait until demands are not met and then he launches a nuclear weapon at Japan ,the south or Guam.
And then we have war with japan ,the us , south Korea ,china russia ,and anyone else who takes an interest and thats before china starts a war over the south China sea

Timberrrrrrrr

Gatling wrote: »

The only solution is remove him unfortunately , that or wait until demands are not met and then he launches a nuclear weapon at Japan ,the south or Guam.
And then we have war with japan ,the us , south Korea ,china russia ,and anyone else who takes an interest and thats before china starts a war over the south China sea

So speculation is the reason NK should be invaded and Kim killed?

For clarification I couldn't give 2 hoots about Kim and would like to see the Chinese take control if this situation and have him removed

Gatling

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So speculation is the reason NK should be invaded and Kim killed?

For clarification I couldn't give 2 hoots about Kim and would like to see the Chinese take control if this situation and have him removed

So wait until he doesn't get what he wants and to prove he's serious he goes nuclear against another state,backed up by nuclear china and nuclear russia.

Sounds like a recipe for peace doesn't it