US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

North Korea will not shoot first. They are only building weapons for defense purposes.

A nuclear weapon is a purely offensive weapon ,and it's NK who have been threatening to nuke other countries,

Zulu

Gatling wrote: »

A nuclear weapon is a purely offensive weapon ,and it's NK who have been threatening to nuke other countries,

That's overly simplistic.
Arguably the US foreign policy drives states to develop nuclear weapons. They have happily been invading and overthrowing non-nuclear states for sometime now. Having nuclear weapons appears to be one of the few deterrents that works.

Discodog

Well I can't see NK agreeing to stop production, destroy the nukes & have UN Inspectors so this can only end one way. If that's the case then the sooner the better.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

A nuclear weapon is a purely offensive weapon ,and it's NK who have been threatening to nuke other countries,

They tested a nuke in 2006, that was 11 years ago. North Korean is not stupid they know they'd be massively hit with nuclear weapons back.

I don't know why the white house just can't talk to Kim and tell him keep 5 nukes in a silo somewhere but you have to give up testing nukes from now on and we will reduce sanctions for you.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't know why the white house just talk don't talk Kim and tell him keep 5 nukes in a silo somewhere but you have to give up testing nukes from now on and we will reduce sanctions for you.

All while he's threatening to strike them ,

No what needs to be done is little Kimmy to be given a hard kicking and then let him live out his days in China

scamalert

well NK was crapping pants and think it was mentioned in media leader wasn't giving any speech.

the comment about NK needs weapons to defend is total joke, only defense is needed inside country which has been ruled for nearly 100yrs by single family under cruelest brainwashing conditions.

while US could of ended this madness long time ago, think main issue which constantly remains is Seoul is only 30km away, and there's millions of NK who live in stone age and are useless, yet still cant kill them.

That said kim jong un or whatever name it is i think is last of his generation, thus only small wipe out is needed before someone else could turn mess of a country around.

Since US alone wont attack or interfere, until China decides to join that will be major break point, since Japan and South K could attempt some takeover, but not until all surrounding parties place plan in motion to do it in single strike by eliminating any possible threats, specially to south Korea which is basically 21st age leading country yet so close to stone age nuts.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

All while he's threatening to strike them ,

No what needs to be done is little Kimmy to be given a hard kicking and then let him live out his days in China

North Koreans issue threats everyday, it's normal. Ignore this nothing to worry about.

Trump on the otherhand is a loose cannon. Threats by America is unsual, so i wonder will they fire first?

Discodog

scamalert wrote: »

well NK was crapping pants and think it was mentioned in media leader wasn't giving any speech.

the comment about NK needs weapons to defend is total joke, only defense is needed inside country which has been ruled for nearly 100yrs by single family under cruelest brainwashing conditions.

while US could of ended this madness long time ago, think main issue which constantly remains is Seoul is only 30km away, and there's millions of NK who live in stone age and are useless, yet still cant kill them.

That said kim jong un or whatever name it is i think is last of his generation, thus only small wipe out is needed before someone else could turn mess of a country around.

Since US alone wont attack or interfere, until China decides to join that will be major break point, since Japan and South K could attempt some takeover, but not until all surrounding parties place plan in motion to do it in single strike by eliminating any possible threats, specially to south Korea which is basically 21st age leading country yet so close to stone age nuts.

Couldn't happen. The only way you can successfully attack NK is with a massive sudden strike. You couldn't tell anyone about the plans because they would be leaked

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Trump on the otherhand is a loose cannon. Threats by America is unsual, so i wonder will they fire first?

Which is exactly why the likes of Kim ,putin and Assad have to realise ,

We have a new world order one with a very unpredictable and bullish american president at helm

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't know why the white house just can't talk to Kim and tell him keep 5 nukes in a silo somewhere but you have to give up testing nukes from now on and we will reduce sanctions for you.

Something like this was tried some years ago and all that achieved was that NK blew up an old water cooling tower and continued on their way.

BrokenArrows

People in this thread keep saying "all out nuclear war" and its going to end the world.

Thats not and will not ever happen in todays political climate.

The MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) scenario only applies if one nuclear country attacks another nuclear country and their allies attack in retaliation etc etc.

North Korea doesnt have any allies who would be willing to respond with nuclear power. China has nukes but they are an economic powerhouse now, they wont risk destroying their country over NK. China is only backing NK because they dont want the USA to have an ally on their border.

NK dont have the ability to hit the USA mainland. The best they might be able to achieve is to lob a few nukes at US ships in the ocean or into south korea.

However NK will be able to wreck south korean cities with conventional weapons.

So basically America is not at risk but if they attack NK they are basically assuring the the south gets hit.

Also the current size of the worlds nuclear arsenal is not big enough to cause any world wide problems. Nuclear winter is no longer a possibility because you need to use the huge nukes to cause them but all the big ones have been dismantled. The big powers now have strategic nukes.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

A nuclear weapon is a purely offensive weapon ,and it's NK who have been threatening to nuke other countries,

If a nuke is a purely offensive weapon, what does it say about all the countries that have nukes?

And as for NK threatening other countries, it pales into insignificance with the amount of times America has bombed other countries, overthrown democratically elected governments, or supported vile dictatorships.

Why don't the media focus on Saudi Arabia and the need to get rid of the House of Saud? I thought beheading people was evil or is just when America's enemies do it? :rolleyes:

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why don't the media focus on Saudi Arabia and the need to get rid of the House of Saud? I thought beheading people was evil or is just when America's enemies do it? :rolleyes:

Off you go and start a thread on it nothing stopping anyone ,

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Off you go and start a thread on it nothing stopping anyone ,

No need to as it's all related to America's corrupt foreign policy.

Bomb some democratically elected governments, support some evil beheaders, have the likes of BBC, Sky and Faux News cover up their crimes, then make it seem like NK or whoever is somehow the big problem.

Gatling

And another thread goes the same way as several others lately.

again

XsApollo

Nuclear icbm isn't a purely offensive weapon.
It's probably the best defensive weapon you can get.
It's the main the reason the US and the USSR never came to blows.
Nobody is going invade North Korea if they have the capability to strike anywhere with a nuke.
That's their main reason for trying to get one , and the reason they can't be allowed to get one.
They have to be stopped and that time is getting closer and closer.

It really is a case of now or never to stop them.

Billy86

Gatling wrote: »

A nuclear weapon is a purely offensive weapon ,and it's NK who have been threatening to nuke other countries,

Not necessarily true - just as I'd be a little more hesitant to take someone's wallet when they have a gun on them, I reckon other countries would be a little more hesitant to attack a country holding a nuke, simply for the reason that they're holding a f***ing nuke.

Gatling

Billy86 wrote: »

Not necessarily true - just as I'd be a little more hesitant to take someone's wallet when they have a gun on them, I reckon other countries would be a little more hesitant to attack a country holding a nuke, simply for the reason that they're holding a f***ing nuke.

Ukraine is actually a prime example of the above

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

And another thread goes the same way as several others lately.

again

Yep, I'm sick of extremists on here trying to brush America's war crimes under the carpet while pretending they have the right to murder people as if they are some sort of benign global police force.

PREG1967

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yep, I'm sick of extremists on here trying to brush America's war crimes under the carpet while pretending they have the right to murder people as if they are some sort of benign global police force.

plausible deniability

ArchXStanton

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yep, I'm sick of extremists on here trying to brush America's war crimes under the carpet while pretending they have the right to murder people as if they are some sort of benign global police force.

They have the good bombs,might makes right and all of that...

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yep, I'm sick of extremists on here trying to brush America's war crimes under the carpet while pretending they have the right to murder people as if they are some sort of benign global police force.

Start a thread it's a free world

jackboy

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yep, I'm sick of extremists on here trying to brush America's war crimes under the carpet while pretending they have the right to murder people as if they are some sort of benign global police force.

Your right to come on here and say such things was won and is being maintained by the blood of Americans.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Noddyholder wrote: »

I am sure we all know we know nothing , but we discussing giving our own opinion's on what may/if/can happen, Is that not what boards is for ?

Don't understand posts like yours at all at all. Close your account I say & move on to the reality of the world...

Opinions, sure, but saying that X or Y will or will definitely not happen is just childish. Nobody knows jack yet many on here claim to know exactly what's going to happen

Capt'n Midnight

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Also the current size of the worlds nuclear arsenal is not big enough to cause any world wide problems. Nuclear winter is no longer a possibility because you need to use the huge nukes to cause them but all the big ones have been dismantled. The big powers now have strategic nukes.

Nuclear Winter is not just caused by huge nukes.

It's also caused by all the little ones starting fires in cities and creating soot, though obviously the larger bombs would lift stuff that blocks sunlight higher into the atmosphere where it would stay longer.

We didn't get nuclear winter from the H-Bomb tests because what was lifted was mostly water or sand, which doesn't block as much sun.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Start a thread it's a free world

It's not. If your country opposes US policies, your government will be overthrown or your country attacked.

jackboy wrote: »

Your right to come on here and say such things was won and is being maintained by the blood of Americans.

Facinating considering the US didn't back Irish independence and was happy enough to leave Britain to slaughter Irish people in their bid for freedom.

But hey, The Land of Make Believe.

What do you think of America dropping chemical weapons on kids in Vietnam?

CoolHandBandit

XsApollo wrote: »

Nuclear icbm isn't a purely offensive weapon.
It's probably the best defensive weapon you can get.
It's the main the reason the US and the USSR never came to blows.
Nobody is going invade North Korea if they have the capability to strike anywhere with a nuke.
That's their main reason for trying to get one , and the reason they can't be allowed to get one.
They have to be stopped and that time is getting closer and closer.

It really is a case of now or never to stop them.

Yeap. Obama was asleep at the wheel the last 8 years and now Trump is going to have to clean up the mess. Make no mistake this war is going to be horrific for the planet.

PREG1967

Zebra3 wrote: »

US didn't back Irish independence

over $5 million, was raised in the United States by Irish Americans and sent to Ireland to finance the Republic in 1920 thats 60,000,000 in todays money
American-Germans were responsible for a shipment of weapons sent to Ireland in 1916
support for the Irish rebels found favourable front-page coverage in the NY papers for more consecutive days than in any mainstream English language newspaper in the US

do i need to go on??

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's not. If your country opposes US policies, your government will be overthrown or your country attacked

North Korea must a an exception to that rant

nacho libre

Gatling wrote: »

A nuclear weapon is a purely offensive weapon ,and it's NK who have been threatening to nuke other countries,

Which country was the first to use a Nuclear weapon on another, Gatling?
Was that an example of an offensive weapon? Is that what you had in mind;)
It seems to me that having a nuclear weapon is a guarantee of not being invaded. It could well be argued that if Democratic nations, invaded by a superpower, had nuclear weapons then they might not have been interfered with by this benevolent superpower, who only sought to spread freedom and democracy. So it would make more sense to say a nuclear weapon is primarily a deterrent.