News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > General discussions > Non mobile discussion > north korea may the ballsy'est country at the moment Bookmark topic

@goldenface

"If the US has nukes then why not N Korea?"

I think that's the point N.Kr, Iran, and most of the 'rogue' states are trying to make. KJI even made the silly comment that if the US gives up its nuclear arms, that so will N.Kr. PWUAHAHHAHAH......hrmm...yes. you destroy the 1/2 of one that you've got, and we'll destroy the thousands. NICE TRADE!

~LB
--
Posted: 2006-10-14 15:33:46
Edit : Quote


As said earlier, i'm for total disarmament. No one should have nuclear bombs. (pipe dream!) BUT, i did make another point earlier as Nuclear weapons being a strong deterrent. I guess, if all nations (there ain't many anyway, maybe 6 or 7 countries who have N-bombs) do decide to give up nuclear weapons, it might cause worldwide instability as currently theres no deterrent as powerful as nuclear weapons. This might make some expansionist/autocratic regimes slighty bolder..
--
Posted: 2006-10-14 19:38:00
Edit : Quote


You have to all remember that even though many countries have Nukes its the U.S that only have ever used them surprise-surprise!

And now america has the nerve to force other countries like i.e: Iran,NK that they are not allowed to have them....clean your own house first before you tell someone else to do there's...a country like the U.S should be leading by example....at the moment they are doing a terrible job of this!



--
Posted: 2006-10-14 19:54:35
Edit : Quote


the us fired them over 60 years ago so you can hardly compare now with then. that was in the context of a world war and the act was designed to end the war which it did. now we can argue the war may have ended without that event however we will never know.

--
Posted: 2006-10-14 20:57:22
Edit : Quote


Quote:
On 2006-10-14 19:54:35, axxxr wrote:

You have to all remember that even though many countries have Nukes its the U.S that only have ever used them surprise-surprise!

This was in a war where millions of people had already died. The race to build the atom bomb (The Manhattan Project, I think) was between the US with Britain to build one before the Nazis did.

I am glad the US / Brits built one. God only knows what would have happened had Nazi Germany got there first - a desperate, isolated, autocratic, regime with few friends in the world. Sound Familiar?

Quote:And now america has the nerve to force other countries like i.e: Iran, NK that they are not allowed to have them....

God give me strength!! Your telling us you actually want N Korea to have nukes!!?

My Friends 3G World Analysis Mobizines

[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2006-10-16 10:12 ]
--
Posted: 2006-10-16 09:12:40
Edit : Quote


@slattery - the war was over before the bomb was deployed. or rather, it was ending. JP was on its last legs and so was Germany. that being said, one of the reasons they did it was to beat Germany to the punch of making an A-bomb. if the germans had built it first, who knows how long the war would have lasted, or how it might have turned out?

~LB
--
Posted: 2006-10-16 16:42:40
Edit : Quote


that was oneof my points the bombs were dropped in august and the war ended in september.
the main point was you cant compare the current us gov with the one involved in the second world war which axxr seemed to be be implying
--
Posted: 2006-10-16 17:15:29
Edit : Quote


An interesting wee debate here ...

Let's start with the right to have nuclear weapons. To be perfectly blunt the right to nuclear weapons is basically a case of the strongest get to have them. You may not like that, but that's how it is. Those countres, which are strong enough to keep nuclear weapons in spite of what other countries might think, or who are supported by powerful countries are unlikely to face the sort of sanctions that North Korea faces. That isn't 'fair', but it is realpolitik.

On the subject of North Korea, the whole situation is mind bogglingly dangerous. The reason the U.S. does not simply launch an attack on North Korea right away is two-fold. First of all there is the possibility of huge casualties. Secondly there are surrounding countries who would probably not take kindly to a major war on their doorstep.

Now one should not mistake this for an inability to act, simply put the U.S. is powerful enough to force its will through no matter who opposes it. If the U.S. considers that an attack is absolutely necessary then there will be an attack irrespective of objections from China, Russia or anybody else. Furthermore that attack will result in victory for the U.S., it may be a bloody victory, but it will be a victory nonetheless.

What we should all be worried about is if North Korea uses WMD on either the U.S. or an ally of the U.S. If you think the U.S. is gung ho now wait and see what would happen if such a situation (heaven forbid) arose. Any sort of attack like that would draw an immediate retaliation. If North Korea was stupid enough to actually use a nuclear device then I doubt there would be very much left of North Korea shortly afterwards.

Imagine what the aftermath of such a war might be like ... If the U.S. or one of its allies had been attacked with a nuclear device the U.S. would quite probably seek to destroy the capability of any hostile nation to use WMD against it or its allies. Such an event would polarise American opinion (and quite possibily Western opinion in general) into an all out defensive mode. Any country that even hinted at acquiring nuclear weapons would likely come in for very severe sanctions or face the possibility of attack to neutralise the perceived threat.

There would be no country capable of opposing this stance, America acts in its own interest first and foremost. If it felt sufficiently threatened then it would damn world opinion and do whatever it felt was necessary to safeguard itself and its allies.
--
Posted: 2006-10-18 00:58:31
Edit : Quote


Once and for all . . . Uncle Sam SHOULD BOMB those axis-of-evil member countries


I was quite doubtful when I watche The David Letterman Show some months back . . . David said that Kim Jong Il has a LOST brother and his name is: Mentally Il . . . is this TRUE
--
Posted: 2006-10-18 01:17:14
Edit : Quote


@jojo

Hopefully no one will bomb anyone else.

The Letterman thing is a joke. Quite a funny one actually.
--
Posted: 2006-10-18 01:25:04
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index