On March 26 2013 03:50 Assault_1 wrote:
I'm sure North Korea is a country we should hold the utmost trust in what they say.
Forum Index > General Forum |
Schlootle
United States54 Posts
On March 26 2013 03:50 Assault_1 wrote: Show nested quote + As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons. I'm sure North Korea is a country we should hold the utmost trust in what they say. | ||
Hemling
Sweden93 Posts
On March 26 2013 03:57 Schlootle wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2013 03:50 Assault_1 wrote: As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons. I'm sure North Korea is a country we should hold the utmost trust in what they say. confusing, do you mean their "threats to use nuclear weapons" or their declaration to not use them first? | ||
Schlootle
United States54 Posts
On March 26 2013 04:06 Hemling wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2013 03:57 Schlootle wrote: On March 26 2013 03:50 Assault_1 wrote: As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons. I'm sure North Korea is a country we should hold the utmost trust in what they say. confusing, do you mean their "threats to use nuclear weapons" or their declaration to not use them first? I was being sarcastic, I mean to say its hard to trust anything North Korea says. | ||
Hemling
Sweden93 Posts
On March 26 2013 04:17 Schlootle wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2013 04:06 Hemling wrote: On March 26 2013 03:57 Schlootle wrote: On March 26 2013 03:50 Assault_1 wrote: As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons. I'm sure North Korea is a country we should hold the utmost trust in what they say. confusing, do you mean their "threats to use nuclear weapons" or their declaration to not use them first? I was being sarcastic, I mean to say its hard to trust anything North Korea says. Ok mate, Im fine with a little propaganda pumping from both sides, who strike first wont really matter because, when you play the wargame of thrones, you lose or you die anyway. nuclear winter is coming... | ||
Salazarz
Korea (South)2590 Posts
| ||
![]()
micronesia
United States24581 Posts
On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote: There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know. If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves? I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way. | ||
Grettin
42381 Posts
On March 26 2013 03:55 SheepleArePeopleToo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2013 03:33 Assault_1 wrote: North Korea has submitted yet another entry to its ongoing propaganda film festival. This time, it has released a video that threatens an attack on U.S. forces using "powerful weapons of mass destruction" and depicts an invasion of Seoul in which 150,000 American citizens are taken hostage. Link here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/north-korea-video-propaganda-us-troops-rockets-125355219.html Holy shit are those flamethrowers in their tanks, are those even legal There has been "flame tanks" for years. Why would they be legal? Do you think North Korea cares if they would be? :p http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M67_Flame_Thrower_Tank | ||
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
| ||
Marti
552 Posts
I'm sorry but i just ROFL'd at 1:17 when they leapfrogged above a guy with a mortar. Also, flag carriers <3 ! | ||
rd
United States2586 Posts
On March 26 2013 03:33 Assault_1 wrote: North Korea has submitted yet another entry to its ongoing propaganda film festival. This time, it has released a video that threatens an attack on U.S. forces using "powerful weapons of mass destruction" and depicts an invasion of Seoul in which 150,000 American citizens are taken hostage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VQ7NjGeIRw Link here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/north-korea-video-propaganda-us-troops-rockets-125355219.html Lol, NK still uses t-55's/t59's. They should ask the Iraqi's how well that worked out for them in 2003 against the American Abrams or the British Challengers. | ||
xM(Z
Romania5277 Posts
On March 26 2013 04:43 micronesia wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote: There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know. If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves? I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way. getting hit with a nuke would not prevent you from launching one so no, the concept of pre-emptive nuclear strike should not exist. also, when a nuke is launched, you can 'see it' with your satelites even before it gets up into the atmosphere so again, there is plenty of time to retaliate with one of your own. "Launch on warning (LOW) is a strategy of nuclear weapon retaliation that gained recognition during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the invention of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), launch on warning became an integral part of mutually assured destruction (MAD) theory. Under this strategy, a retaliatory strike is launched upon warning of enemy nuclear attack, while its missiles are still in the air, and before detonation occurs." | ||
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On March 26 2013 04:43 micronesia wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote: There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know. If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves? I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way. I think there is a difference between public rhetoric and what is said using the diplomatic channels. Yes, threatening a nuclear strike is a VERY serious diplomatic move, but I don't think that this is being said via the diplomats. All Governments know the difference between propoganda and a declaration of intentions. | ||
![]()
micronesia
United States24581 Posts
On March 26 2013 05:04 xM(Z wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2013 04:43 micronesia wrote: On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote: There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know. If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves? I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way. getting hit with a nuke would not prevent you from launching one so no, the concept of pre-emptive nuclear strike should not exist. also, when a nuke is launched, you can 'see it' with your satelites even before it gets up into the atmosphere so again, there is plenty of time to retaliate with one of your own. "Launch on warning (LOW) is a strategy of nuclear weapon retaliation that gained recognition during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the invention of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), launch on warning became an integral part of mutually assured destruction (MAD) theory. Under this strategy, a retaliatory strike is launched upon warning of enemy nuclear attack, while its missiles are still in the air, and before detonation occurs." This makes several assumptions, such as that a nuke would be launched from within the home country, and that nuke launching capabilities necessarily could not be destroyed. In the case of a conflict between the USA and Russia, the latter is definitely true. In NK's case I'm not so sure. As for the former, the assumption is most definitely wrong in the case of NK. Also I should note that I'm not saying the correct response to a threat of a nuclear attack is automatically a pre-emptive nuclear strike. On March 26 2013 05:05 revel8 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2013 04:43 micronesia wrote: On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote: There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know. If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves? I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way. I think there is a difference between public rhetoric and what is said using the diplomatic channels. Yes, threatening a nuclear strike is a VERY serious diplomatic move, but I don't think that this is being said via the diplomats. All Governments know the difference between propoganda and a declaration of intentions. Yes the exact manner of the 'threat' being issued is quite important. However, if a country officially tells its people "we are going to nuke country x" then that is pretty serious even if diplomats say it isn't true. | ||
Salazarz
Korea (South)2590 Posts
| ||
![]()
micronesia
United States24581 Posts
On March 26 2013 06:05 Salazarz wrote: You realize that an all-out nuclear attack on a country isn't a military action, right? It's called 'genocide', and it's not cool. Like, even if you completely disregard the after-effects of nuclear strikes such as radioactive fallout in neighbouring areas and what-not, you're basically saying it's okay to kill 20-odd million civilians because their country is ruled by an universally hated dictatorship. It's not like everyone in Korea actually supports the regime and dreams of watching America die in a fire - they're people, just like you and me, who simply want to go on with their lives. IF North Korean regime was actually seen as a threat to USA (or anyone else, for the matter), military intervention could become a reality - but a nuclear strike (preventive? lol) is honestly unthinkable. The loss of life and the issues that would arise out of it are simply beyond imagining. Yes, there would certainly be no justification to do this with the possible exception of preventing the same exact thing from happening to you. If, for example, NK really did make good on some promise to nuke the USA, would any of those things you just described not happen to the USA instead? Of course, this probably inflates NK's actual military capabilities. Once again I want to emphasize that such a decision should and would never be taken lightly (I would hope). You don't nuke a country because they piss you off. In fact, hopefully no country ever gets nuked. NK isn't doing a very good job of preventing this though. It would also be nice to get some perspectives from people who actually live in a country that NK has made clear they would like to nuke. It's very easy to take the moral superiority viewpoint from the UK, Germany, or Romania... | ||
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21935342 --- Personally, I doubt they can hit the mainland, but I'm curious to see if they're that stupid to attack those bases. | ||
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On March 26 2013 17:52 darkness wrote: North Korea says it has ordered artillery and rocket units into "combat posture" to prepare to target US bases in Hawaii, Guam and the US mainland. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21935342 --- Personally, I doubt they can hit the mainland, but I'm curious to see if they're that stupid to attack those bases. They can reportedly hit Alaska, although I dont know if that counts as the mainland. | ||
TOCHMY
Sweden1692 Posts
On March 26 2013 06:13 micronesia wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2013 06:05 Salazarz wrote: You realize that an all-out nuclear attack on a country isn't a military action, right? It's called 'genocide', and it's not cool. Like, even if you completely disregard the after-effects of nuclear strikes such as radioactive fallout in neighbouring areas and what-not, you're basically saying it's okay to kill 20-odd million civilians because their country is ruled by an universally hated dictatorship. It's not like everyone in Korea actually supports the regime and dreams of watching America die in a fire - they're people, just like you and me, who simply want to go on with their lives. IF North Korean regime was actually seen as a threat to USA (or anyone else, for the matter), military intervention could become a reality - but a nuclear strike (preventive? lol) is honestly unthinkable. The loss of life and the issues that would arise out of it are simply beyond imagining. Yes, there would certainly be no justification to do this with the possible exception of preventing the same exact thing from happening to you. If, for example, NK really did make good on some promise to nuke the USA, would any of those things you just described not happen to the USA instead? Of course, this probably inflates NK's actual military capabilities. Once again I want to emphasize that such a decision should and would never be taken lightly (I would hope). You don't nuke a country because they piss you off. In fact, hopefully no country ever gets nuked. NK isn't doing a very good job of preventing this though. It would also be nice to get some perspectives from people who actually live in a country that NK has made clear they would like to nuke. It's very easy to take the moral superiority viewpoint from the UK, Germany, or Romania... What you say about living in the country getting threats is fair enough. However, there's got to be better ways to deal with NK than fucking nuking them. Do you even realise the devestation a nuke will have? You don't send a nuke on a country just because "they threatened us to send it" or "they sent it first". I hope USA is smart enough to realise that. | ||
Martijn
Netherlands1219 Posts
Even in retaliation. The people of North Korea don't get a say in any of this, hell, they can't even elect their own leaders. Justifying murdering them because their regime took unjustifiable actions still doesn't work. Civilian casualties should be limited at all cost. | ||
EpiK
Korea (South)5757 Posts
North Korea 'defeats' US troops in new video The latest propaganda video to emerge from North Korea depicts paratroopers descending on Seoul in an invasion scenario that it said would see thousands of US citizens living in South Korea taken hostage. The four-minute video, titled "A Short, Three-Day War," begins with images of a massive artillery and rocket barrage, followed by a large-scale land and air assault with North Korean troops streaming over the border. The video was posted on the North's official website, Uriminzokkiri, which distributes news and propaganda from the state media. The video's male narrator describes different stages of the invasion, including the destruction of forces under the US Pacific Command with "powerful weapons of mass destruction." "The crack stormtroops will occupy Seoul and other cities and take 150,000 US citizens as hostages," he says. The video shows footage of paratroopers jumping from the sky superimposed over an aerial shot of the South Korean capital, with North Korean military helicopters hovering overhead. | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 UpATreeSC StarCraft: Brood War![]() RotterdaM ![]() BRAT_OK ![]() ![]() ProTech98 mouzHeroMarine ![]() trigger ![]() IndyStarCraft ![]() MindelVK ![]() gerald23 ![]() Britney Stormgate![]() ![]() Shuttle ![]() Snow ![]() firebathero ![]() ggaemo ![]() hero ![]() Soulkey ![]() Nal_rA ![]() actioN ![]() Mind ![]() [ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games B2W.Neo2318 singsing1883 hiko1171 DeMusliM458 XBOCT384 Liquid`VortiX273 crisheroes229 ArmadaUGS196 Skadoodle173 KnowMe107 QueenE76 minikerr15 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • HeavenSC StarCraft: Brood War![]() • Legendk ![]() ![]() • Kozan • LaughNgamezSOOP • AfreecaTV YouTube • sooper7s • Migwel ![]() • intothetv ![]() • IndyKCrew ![]() Dota 2 League of Legends |
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
Kung Fu Cup
SOOP
Dark vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
OSC
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs SHIN
The PondCast
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Online Event
[ Show More ] PiG Sty Festival
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
Wardi Open
WardiTV Qualifier
Online Event
|
|