|
Pretty sure their "nuclear" capabilities are about 8 kilotons. That's about 2.6 times less than what the US dropped on Nagasaki, 70 years ago. And it's also about 7,000 times less than what the USSR experimented with 50 years ago. Considering how much time has passed, their nukes are probably a 100,000 times less than what the rest of the world has.
The most they could do is start a nuclear war between two countries. But as far as I'm concerned, they're more likely to accidentally nuke themselves or just have their missile shot down in mid-flight by one of our ridiculously advanced missile-defense systems.
|
On March 10 2013 07:05 Hyperbola wrote:
Pretty sure their "nuclear" capabilities are about 8 kilotons. That's about 2.6 times less than what the US dropped on Nagasaki, 70 years ago. And it's also about 7,000 times less than what the USSR experimented with 50 years ago. Considering how much time has passed, their nukes are probably a 100,000 times less than what the rest of the world has.
The most they could do is start a nuclear war between two countries. But as far as I'm concerned, they're more likely to accidentally nuke themselves or just have their missile shot down in mid-flight by one of our ridiculously advanced missile-defense systems.
Sure, but they still will kill people. Doesn't matter how many of them they have , or how strong they are. The problem is that if they will go to war with SK the innocent people will die...
|
North Koreans aren't the fastest zergling in the control group :S
|
United States9232 Posts
On March 10 2013 07:01 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 06:08 ItanoCircus wrote:
KwarK, thank you for saving me the trouble of making the same correction.
The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability.
If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides.
Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward?
Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war".
You mean some economic retaliation I presume? China wouldn't try to touch us militarily in a direct engagement. We might get in a "confrontation" but that's about it.
|
On March 10 2013 07:47 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 07:01 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 06:08 ItanoCircus wrote:
KwarK, thank you for saving me the trouble of making the same correction.
The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability.
If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides.
Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward?
Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war". You mean some economic retaliation I presume? China wouldn't try to touch us militarily in a direct engagement. We might get in a "confrontation" but that's about it.
No, I mean cuban missile crisis, defcon 1 drama. Realistically, the confrontation would be so great the U.S. would have to withdraw it's fleet before a strike could take place. In the world of mutually assured destruction if China gives the U.S. an ultimatum the U.S. would be forced to pull back. A war with NK can only occur if it's sanctioned by both China and Russia.
|
United States9232 Posts
On March 10 2013 08:27 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 07:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 10 2013 07:01 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 06:08 ItanoCircus wrote:
KwarK, thank you for saving me the trouble of making the same correction.
The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability.
If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides.
Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward?
Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war". You mean some economic retaliation I presume? China wouldn't try to touch us militarily in a direct engagement. We might get in a "confrontation" but that's about it. No, I mean cuban missile crisis, defcon 1 drama. Realistically, the confrontation would be so great the U.S. would have to withdraw it's fleet before a strike could take place. In the world of mutually assured destruction if China gives the U.S. an ultimatum the U.S. would be forced to pull back. A war with NK can only occur if it's sanctioned by both China and Russia.
lol almost no chance that would happen... you are overestimating the actual chance of conflict in this world of mutually assured destruction you speak of. China cares much more about its relationship with U.S. than NK. It doesn't even like NK. It props it up simply to keep U.S. influence out of the region.
|
On March 10 2013 08:31 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 08:27 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 07:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 10 2013 07:01 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 06:08 ItanoCircus wrote:
KwarK, thank you for saving me the trouble of making the same correction.
The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability.
If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides.
Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward?
Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war". You mean some economic retaliation I presume? China wouldn't try to touch us militarily in a direct engagement. We might get in a "confrontation" but that's about it. No, I mean cuban missile crisis, defcon 1 drama. Realistically, the confrontation would be so great the U.S. would have to withdraw it's fleet before a strike could take place. In the world of mutually assured destruction if China gives the U.S. an ultimatum the U.S. would be forced to pull back. A war with NK can only occur if it's sanctioned by both China and Russia. lol almost no chance that would happen... you are overestimating the actual chance of conflict in this world of mutually assured destruction you speak of. China cares much more about its relationship with U.S. than NK. It doesn't even like NK. It props it up simply to keep U.S. influence out of the region.
If you read above i'm saying in the context of an unprovoked pre-emptive strike (a scenario that I agree would never happen). I was merely pointing out the flaw of ItanoCircus's foreign policy approach in it's best case scenario.
|
United States9232 Posts
On March 10 2013 09:10 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 08:31 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 10 2013 08:27 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 07:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 10 2013 07:01 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 06:08 ItanoCircus wrote:
KwarK, thank you for saving me the trouble of making the same correction.
The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability.
If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides.
Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward?
Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war". You mean some economic retaliation I presume? China wouldn't try to touch us militarily in a direct engagement. We might get in a "confrontation" but that's about it. No, I mean cuban missile crisis, defcon 1 drama. Realistically, the confrontation would be so great the U.S. would have to withdraw it's fleet before a strike could take place. In the world of mutually assured destruction if China gives the U.S. an ultimatum the U.S. would be forced to pull back. A war with NK can only occur if it's sanctioned by both China and Russia. lol almost no chance that would happen... you are overestimating the actual chance of conflict in this world of mutually assured destruction you speak of. China cares much more about its relationship with U.S. than NK. It doesn't even like NK. It props it up simply to keep U.S. influence out of the region. If you read above i'm saying in the context of an unprovoked pre-emptive strike (a scenario that I agree would never happen). I was merely pointing out the flaw of ItanoCircus's foreign policy approach in it's best case scenario.
Does anything constitute an unprovoked pre-emptive strike at this point? It's been "provoked" for a while.
|
1019 Posts
On March 10 2013 07:05 Hyperbola wrote:
Pretty sure their "nuclear" capabilities are about 8 kilotons. That's about 2.6 times less than what the US dropped on Nagasaki, 70 years ago. And it's also about 7,000 times less than what the USSR experimented with 50 years ago. Considering how much time has passed, their nukes are probably a 100,000 times less than what the rest of the world has.
The most they could do is start a nuclear war between two countries. But as far as I'm concerned, they're more likely to accidentally nuke themselves or just have their missile shot down in mid-flight by one of our ridiculously advanced missile-defense systems.
Yes, but the korean peninsula is small and we already know that the effects of the nuclear bomb doesn't end after its detonation. Radiation and fallout would kill a lot of people and the radiation would spread to japan and china. An interesting tidbit about the missile defense system in south korea is that 90% of the system is relied upon the US military.
|
On March 10 2013 08:27 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 07:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 10 2013 07:01 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 06:08 ItanoCircus wrote:
KwarK, thank you for saving me the trouble of making the same correction.
The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability.
If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides.
Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward?
Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war". You mean some economic retaliation I presume? China wouldn't try to touch us militarily in a direct engagement. We might get in a "confrontation" but that's about it. No, I mean cuban missile crisis, defcon 1 drama. Realistically, the confrontation would be so great the U.S. would have to withdraw it's fleet before a strike could take place. In the world of mutually assured destruction if China gives the U.S. an ultimatum the U.S. would be forced to pull back. A war with NK can only occur if it's sanctioned by both China and Russia.
I think you are overestimating a Chinese desire to engage in war with the United States. Their economy isn't an island; it largely depends on the US.
|
On March 10 2013 10:29 Sherlock-Canada wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 08:27 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 07:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 10 2013 07:01 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 06:08 ItanoCircus wrote:
KwarK, thank you for saving me the trouble of making the same correction.
The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability.
If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides.
Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward?
Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war". You mean some economic retaliation I presume? China wouldn't try to touch us militarily in a direct engagement. We might get in a "confrontation" but that's about it. No, I mean cuban missile crisis, defcon 1 drama. Realistically, the confrontation would be so great the U.S. would have to withdraw it's fleet before a strike could take place. In the world of mutually assured destruction if China gives the U.S. an ultimatum the U.S. would be forced to pull back. A war with NK can only occur if it's sanctioned by both China and Russia. I think you are overestimating a Chinese desire to engage in war with the United States. Their economy isn't an island; it largely depends on the US.
People are mad if they think China has any interest in going to total war with the US. It would suck for everybody and China would likely cave in first and everyone would be a loser in that little skirmish.
|
This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war".
If North Korea issues a statement to the effect that it is unambiguously AIMING towards procuring a nuclear weapon with the effect of attempting to use it on the United States, I fail to see how attacking North Korea is somehow an "unprovoked pre-emptive (sic) war". If somebody promises to kill your children and you hospitalize the intended victor, I'm sure that's still self-defense.
As for why the Korean War ended in a stalemate, I guarantee you it had more to do with the United States' lack of willingness to go all-out (hence why certain generals lost their position) and with the fear of China. To be more on-point, it was a result of not wanting to antagonize China when we were already involved in the Cold War against Russia (officially the USSR). As for why this is on-point...
The United States had military superiority and held nuclear weapons years before the USSR did. Then-President Truman decided he'd rather not fight another war on the heels of World War II because it wasn't politically sane, thus personally causing the Cold War to start. The United States had no concerns about going to war against China because China wasn't a threat, only the combination of the USSR and China (which wouldn't have happened, those two hated each other) was dangerous. And that possibility only existed because... wait for it... the United States allowed it (in a twisted way).
As for going to war with China, the world is vastly underestimating the power of the United States. China would struggle to leave its own continent, much less win. Let's put this in perspective here. China declared an intention at the Olympics to put a man on the moon... a declaration made almost fifty years after the United States had already done the same. The United States is the world's only superpower.
|
On March 10 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 10:29 Sherlock-Canada wrote:On March 10 2013 08:27 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 07:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 10 2013 07:01 Tor wrote:On March 10 2013 06:08 ItanoCircus wrote:
KwarK, thank you for saving me the trouble of making the same correction.
The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability.
If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides.
Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward?
Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war". You mean some economic retaliation I presume? China wouldn't try to touch us militarily in a direct engagement. We might get in a "confrontation" but that's about it. No, I mean cuban missile crisis, defcon 1 drama. Realistically, the confrontation would be so great the U.S. would have to withdraw it's fleet before a strike could take place. In the world of mutually assured destruction if China gives the U.S. an ultimatum the U.S. would be forced to pull back. A war with NK can only occur if it's sanctioned by both China and Russia. I think you are overestimating a Chinese desire to engage in war with the United States. Their economy isn't an island; it largely depends on the US. People are mad if they think China has any interest in going to total war with the US. It would suck for everybody and China would likely cave in first and everyone would be a loser in that little skirmish.
The same goes true for the US, however. Basically, neither of the two countries has any interest in going to war with the other, but in the wrong situation, they might both not want to be the first to cave in. Which is why it is important that they both deal with each other in a civilized way, and respect each others interests.
|
China is not going to fight America militarily that's for sure but they have other means to get even.
Korean war, China had no choice BUT to fight because UN ignored their warnings and they face an escalation that could threaten the new regime.
If you don't create that situation again, you can rule China out of the equation.
|
"Our front-line military groups, the army, the navy and the air force, the anti-aircraft units and the strategic rocket units, who have entered the final all-out war stage, are awaiting the final order to strike," Yonhap reported, quoting North Korean media.
They seem especially determined this time around, Seoul tried to reach Pyongyang earlier but failed because NK cut the line connecting them.
Source
|
I doubt China will ever fight America militarily. Think about it, the China's economy is heavily dependent on exporting to America, and also the most sons (and I guess daughters lol) of the Chinese leaders are studying in Western countries especially in the US Ivy schools.
Well that and both have nukes and stuff.
No need for such an idea.
Anyways, I bet China is annoyed by North Korea too. North Korea might somewhat be China's bitch, but it's a bitch that ugly and crazy.
|
TBH the us should blast the shit out of these fuckers, ive had just about enough of n korea
|
"Our front-line military groups, the army, the navy and the air force, the anti-aircraft units and the strategic rocket units, who have entered the final all-out war stage, are awaiting the final order to strike," Yonhap reported, quoting North Korean media.
Ah, peace-desiring comments such as these clearly support the notion that a preemptive strike would be "terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons". Never mind that Israel has been preemptively destroying Syrian convoys and other threats, perceived and actual, for years and has yet to face serious diplomatic fallouts on account of it.
The other side of the world is much closer than you (in general) may think it is.
|
Latest, in connection with the South's joint military drills with the United States:
North Korea's main newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, reported that the armistice was nullified Monday as Pyongyang had previously announced. The North followed through on another promise Monday, shutting down a Red Cross hotline that the North and South used for general communication and to discuss aid shipments and separated families' reunions.
[...]
Despite the heightened tension, there were signs of business as usual Monday.
The two Koreas continue to have at least two working channels of communication between their militaries and aviation authorities.
One of those hotlines was used Monday to give hundreds of South Koreans approval to enter North Korea to go to work. Their jobs are at the only remaining operational symbol of joint inter-Korean cooperation, the Kaesong industrial complex. It is operated in North Korea with South Korean money and knowhow and a mostly North Korean work force.
Source
|
On March 11 2013 12:19 gabsonuro wrote:
TBH the us should blast the shit out of these fuckers, ive had just about enough of n korea
lol thats the spirit
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
