Casper Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Figured I'd get this ball rolling. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner75 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Nuke em first ask questions later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gixxus Christ! Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 China will reign him in soon, its in their best interest for Korea to stay the way it is. An attack on us interests would result in regime change, perhaps a unified democratic Korea and lots of refugees crossing the yalu into manchuria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Threaten to send Dennis Rodman back if they don't disarm and surrender immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 They're just whining for their regularly scheduled allowance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 If a country was going to attack another, they wouldn't announce it for 3 months and let the other prepare defenses. I don't think they will do anything, and if they do there will be a shit storm from S. Korea and China and everything will be over before we know it. Any preemptive attacks by the US would kill a massive amount of innocent civilians, both through direct and indirect means.tl;dr: The civilians think N. Korea could win, the people in power are not that dumb. They are posturing because a new, inexperienced, young, and fat leader doesn't instill confidence until he does something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-bus Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I can see him being delusional enough to launch one south just to go down in history as the guy who did. He needs a glass of CIA kool aid quickly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsuMj Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 If a country was going to attack another, they wouldn't announce it for 3 months and let the other prepare defenses. I don't think they will do anything, and if they do there will be a shit storm from S. Korea and China and everything will be over before we know it. Any preemptive attacks by the US would kill a massive amount of innocent civilians, both through direct and indirect means.tl;dr: The civilians think N. Korea could win, the people in power are not that dumb. They are posturing because a new, inexperienced, young, and fat leader doesn't instill confidence until he does something.I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 All talk no action. He's trying to bolster his standing in the eyes of his military and sheep. Ignore his pudgy fruitloop ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohdaho Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 you don't fuck with crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Here what we do. We have a basketball war. If they win they can have Dennis Rodman, if we win they get John Kerry as their new dictator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmh_sprint Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 See my signature for the best thought I've heard on NK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I agree that you don't tell another country in advance that you are going to attack to give them months to prepare. However, the US DOD has to take this threat seriously..."smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike." It suggests a dirty bomb type terrorist attack. I'm still not 100% clear on why NK has such issue with the US. Any sanctions against NK are voted by the UN not imposed by the US, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Nuke em first ask questions laterThis. Preemptive nuke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 This. Preemptive nuke.Never happen. But if the threat was believed to be real, a preemptive strike with conventional missiles on their nuclear facilities and military headquarters could indeed happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat6183 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I guess my question is why don't we just nuke them? I mean what good is North Korea to anyone, including themselves. Then again, if it was up to me, we would simply nuke most of the countries that suck, and just be awesome and constantly flex our US Muscle.I hate people and really don't care about a lot of people other than myself and us Mericans. Boom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEaKX9YYHiQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Turn their sands to glass and build a macdonalds on the rubble. America! Fuck yeah!!I know. Impossible, but a boy can dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted April 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 If a country was going to attack another, they wouldn't announce it for 3 months and let the other prepare defenses. I don't think they will do anything, and if they do there will be a shit storm from S. Korea and China and everything will be over before we know it. Any preemptive attacks by the US would kill a massive amount of innocent civilians, both through direct and indirect means.tl;dr: The civilians think N. Korea could win, the people in power are not that dumb. They are posturing because a new, inexperienced, young, and fat leader doesn't instill confidence until he does something. We warned Germany about Normandy. They just didn't believe us. We warned Japan about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They didn't believe us. The big problem we have here is Kim Jong Un has nothing to lose. Rumors are the military (the NK military) has already made an attempt on his life shortly after he took power. He had been trying to buy their affection by showering top military leaders with luxury items. He talked about a third nuclear test even when their only ally, China, was repeatedly telling them not to do it. To look good and strong in front of his people and military, he conducts it anyways thinking there's no way China would allow additional sanctions. Oops. China's getting sick of their little anklebiter. They vote for the sanctions. Luxury goods stop coming in. No more bribing the military leaders. So now, he needs to prove to the people and the military he's cut out for it and that they don't need China. To avoid a coup d'etat, he needs to project the military's anger towards a common enemy, then prove he'll attack that enemy. Guess who it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 you keep saying "North" Korea. I'm pretty sure you mean Best Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuikAccord Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 We warned Germany about Normandy. They just didn't believe us. We warned Japan about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They didn't believe us. The big problem we have here is Kim Jong Un has nothing to lose. Rumors are the military (the NK military) has already made an attempt on his life shortly after he took power. He had been trying to buy their affection by showering top military leaders with luxury items. He talked about a third nuclear test even when their only ally, China, was repeatedly telling them not to do it. To look good and strong in front of his people and military, he conducts it anyways thinking there's no way China would allow additional sanctions. Oops. China's getting sick of their little anklebiter. They vote for the sanctions. Luxury goods stop coming in. No more bribing the military leaders. So now, he needs to prove to the people and the military he's cut out for it and that they don't need China. To avoid a coup d'etat, he needs to project the military's anger towards a common enemy, then prove he'll attack that enemy. Guess who it is.I agree with this logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) We warned Germany about Normandy. They just didn't believe us. We warned Japan about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They didn't believe us. The big problem we have here is Kim Jong Un has nothing to lose. Rumors are the military (the NK military) has already made an attempt on his life shortly after he took power. He had been trying to buy their affection by showering top military leaders with luxury items. He talked about a third nuclear test even when their only ally, China, was repeatedly telling them not to do it. To look good and strong in front of his people and military, he conducts it anyways thinking there's no way China would allow additional sanctions. Oops. China's getting sick of their little anklebiter. They vote for the sanctions. Luxury goods stop coming in. No more bribing the military leaders. So now, he needs to prove to the people and the military he's cut out for it and that they don't need China. To avoid a coup d'etat, he needs to project the military's anger towards a common enemy, then prove he'll attack that enemy. Guess who it is.We absolutely did neither of those things. The US was already at war (entered in '41, Normandy was in '44) and they knew we would have to enter into battle overseas so we specifically leaked tons of information to cloak where we would actually land (operation bodyguard). With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were specifically EXCLUDED from the leaflet "bombings" so it would cause the greatest psychological aftereffect. We dropped leaflets to warn of various air raids, which would then happen, but the atomic bombing were left out of that strategically. He does need to prove his worth, and that is exactly what he is doing. The military leaders are not stupid people, they are not as censored and realize that they could never win in an all out war. He can, however, win over the general public by lying to them and censoring anything that contradicts him. I don't understand the fascination with a preemptive strike either. Allied/Coalition/whatever soldiers WILL die if there is a war. Not only that but the generations of disfigurement from chemical/nuclear fallout through all of the Pacific and animal death resulting in further starvation of innocent bystander countries. People that want that and actively campaign for it are heartless and ignorant. I don't much mind the idea of a CIA take down (power vacuum is a whole different can of worms) but to actively lobby for innocent deaths shows some sort of developmental retardation (al la Erikson et al.).Edit: Ugh, this is why I can't discuss politics. Is this close enough to be moved into that sub? Edited April 4, 2013 by imprez55 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 i saw Olympus Has Fallen and other than being a fantastic movie, it increased my dislike of pretty much any foreign assholes. I like many say fuck em, bomb em and take any resources that would benefit us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat6183 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 For what it's worth, I was kidding about the nuke thing, well kinda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 We absolutely did neither of those things. The US was already at war (entered in '41, Normandy was in '44) and they knew we would have to enter into battle overseas so we specifically leaked tons of information to cloak where we would actually land (operation bodyguard). With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were specifically EXCLUDED from the leaflet "bombings" so it would cause the greatest psychological aftereffect. We dropped leaflets to warn of various air raids, which would then happen, but the atomic bombing were left out of that strategically. I would have to agree.Normandy was highly classified. Decoy forces were used to draw German attention away from actual location of the D-Day landing.Even if Japan would have known about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their military was already depleted and could not have done much to prevent it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.