North Korea says/does surprising and alarming thing - Page…

On March 27 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:

This is nonsensical USA bashing. NK is objectively worse than the USA in innumerable ways and pretending otherwise is absurd. NK is a Stalinist police state that exists only through deliberate impoverishment of its people and unrelenting state brutality, the USA is, for all its faults, a free state.

The USA doesn't just say it's good and that NK is bad, the USA is objectively better than NK as can be seen by anything but the most biased misinterpretations of the facts.

On March 27 2013 00:24 KwarK wrote:

A pre-emptive strike does not necessarily have to be nuclear, nor does it have to be of sufficient scale to impact the entire of Asia. I wasn't advocating hitting that side of the globe with a meteor or anything.

On March 27 2013 00:17 micronesia wrote:
@Salazarz

It takes a lot of balls to say NK hasn't done anything worse than the USA lol. I'm not saying both countries haven't done terrible things, of course.

NK chooses to have most of its people living in poverty while the dictator is elevated to god-like status. NK has been known to sell humanitarian aid it received in order to purchase other types of supplies having nothing to do with feeding its starving population. NK has threatened to nuke other countries and/or fire tons of artillery at Seoul, a civilian population.

On March 26 2013 19:58 xM(Z wrote:

you can not destroy a nuclear missile with a nuclear missile (in this context, to prevent the former from being launched). at best, in the case of a pre-emptive nuclear strike, you would destroy an empty nuclear silo, because the actual missile will be air borned before your pre-emptive strike hits that location.
that is the main reason for saying that pre-emptive nuclear strikes don't exist.
also, why do you think nuclear missiles have as targets, cities/sometimes other military targets and not nuclear silos?. ('couse, yea, they'll be empty so you just wasted a nuke killing ... a patch of land).

On March 27 2013 00:29 micronesia wrote:
One thing I would be interested to see is what type of nuclear warheads are available today. Obviously, since WW2, bombs have gotten bigger. I'm assuming that the largest yield hydrogen bombs are not the only ones available should one ever be needed. In fact, I want to know if there are bombs with smaller yield than the WW2 bombs.

We should save the superlarge bombs for if we ever need them in outer space lol

On March 27 2013 00:31 Salazarz wrote:


It wasn't me who said that, but I'll respond to it anyway.

NK does not 'choose' to have its people to live in poverty. In fact, throughout the second half of 20th century there had been multiple negotiations in favour of reunification of Korea, and one of the most popular theories believes it was the American influence that prevented it from happening. The people of North Korea live in terrible conditions to this day as a result of multiple sanctions and trade embargoes imposed by the West. It is a two-way street of course, and with North Korean regimes antagonizing their neighbours all the time it seems like it's justified - but you have to consider a very important factor here. USA prides itself on being a democracy that is ruled by its people, and the government is only there to serve its people. So, it's not too far of a stretch to say that whatever actions the American government has taken, are in fact the 'will of its people'; in North Korea, the country is ruled by a small minority of people in power, with the rest of its population having no say or choice in such matters.

Where does this leave us? When a North Korean artillery battery fires upon a civilian-inhabited island belonging to SK, those are actions of the military elite in North Korea, and a simple citizen of Pyongyang has absolutely no say or sway over it. When USA deploys an airstrike into a Serbian town, this is an action accepted and supported by majority of Americans.

It's a pretty simplified way to present it, but it's pretty much what it is. This is also why I personally don't believe in economic sanctions against countries like North Korea - it doesn't actually achieve anything at all. The common people in NK will still starve, the ruling class will continue to rule, and it'll just give more fuel to the propaganda of, "how evil those Americans are". Had NK been given a chance to develop properly, it would become more and more difficult to control its population through power from the ruling police state at the top; the problem is, it was never in our, Western, interest for NK to develop into a normal country. The reason the present situation even exists lies within the Cold War and its remnants; it's all a part of the powerplays between USA and USSR, and USA's never-ending desire to spread their military influence around the world. Americans still have military bases in Japan, for god's sake.

On March 27 2013 00:30 crazyweasel wrote:


how is NK worse than USA? vietnam, kosovo, korea war, iraq twice, iroshima etc. the list is long im not USA bashing at all im simply relativising, nobody deserve a nuke is what i am saying. nothing more. No morality justifies a genocide. thats pure irrational hatred. NK is totally wrong in its policies i 100% agree. but as a matter of fact USA did help military totalitarism in South america, argentina, chile that are as bad as NK's totalitarism, where people died, disapeard, were tortured exiled. im just trying here to point out how incredibly TOO far you go. and you just proved me that its only about NK being "stalinist"

On March 27 2013 00:31 Salazarz wrote:


It wasn't me who said that, but I'll respond to it anyway.

NK does not 'choose' to have its people to live in poverty. In fact, throughout the second half of 20th century there had been multiple negotiations in favour of reunification of Korea, and one of the most popular theories believes it was the American influence that prevented it from happening. The people of North Korea live in terrible conditions to this day as a result of multiple sanctions and trade embargoes imposed by the West. It is a two-way street of course, and with North Korean regimes antagonizing their neighbours all the time it seems like it's justified - but you have to consider a very important factor here. USA prides itself on being a democracy that is ruled by its people, and the government is only there to serve its people. So, it's not too far of a stretch to say that whatever actions the American government has taken, are in fact the 'will of its people'; in North Korea, the country is ruled by a small minority of people in power, with the rest of its population having no say or choice in such matters.

Where does this leave us? When a North Korean artillery battery fires upon a civilian-inhabited island belonging to SK, those are actions of the military elite in North Korea, and a simple citizen of Pyongyang has absolutely no say or sway over it. When USA deploys an airstrike into a Serbian town, this is an action accepted and supported by majority of Americans.

It's a pretty simplified way to present it, but it's pretty much what it is. This is also why I personally don't believe in economic sanctions against countries like North Korea - it doesn't actually achieve anything at all. The common people in NK will still starve, the ruling class will continue to rule, and it'll just give more fuel to the propaganda of, "how evil those Americans are". Had NK been given a chance to develop properly, it would become more and more difficult to control its population through power from the ruling police state at the top; the problem is, it was never in our, Western, interest for NK to develop into a normal country. The reason the present situation even exists lies within the Cold War and its remnants; it's all a part of the powerplays between USA and USSR, and USA's never-ending desire to spread their military influence around the world. Americans still have military bases in Japan, for god's sake.

On March 27 2013 00:30 crazyweasel wrote:


how is NK worse than USA? vietnam, kosovo, korea war, iraq twice, iroshima etc. the list is long im not USA bashing at all im simply relativising, nobody deserve a nuke is what i am saying. nothing more. No morality justifies a genocide. thats pure irrational hatred. NK is totally wrong in its policies i 100% agree. but as a matter of fact USA did help military totalitarism in South america, argentina, chile that are as bad as NK's totalitarism, where people died, disapeard, were tortured exiled. im just trying here to point out how incredibly TOO far you go. and you just proved me that its only about NK being "stalinist"


User was temp banned for obscene levels of ignorance of the subject, specifically using the Korean War, in which NK invaded SK and a UN task force defended SK, as an example of the US being an aggressive state in comparison to NK. He was not temp banned for any of his generic bashing on the US in the other posts, it was this post alone, where he demonstrated a lack of awareness that North Korea was actually in the Korean war, that earned him it.

On March 27 2013 01:13 Psi0nic wrote:
Mi view is that the OP is heavily biased. Did you know that the US has conducted over 1000 nuclear tests over the course of it's history? Not to mention that they have actually used not one but two A-Bombs in the past.

There's a nice graph inside this link that further supports my view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing

My personal belief is that no country should test or possess nuclear weapons, but the US taking a moral high ground on this topic doesn't seem totally fair.

On March 27 2013 02:14 Zeo wrote:
Using nuclear weapons under any circumstance in unacceptable, 'he started it' is a stupid elementary school excuse. What if Japan just went and nuked San Francisco? Or fire-bombed Seattle? Because according to some people in this thread they have a right to. No, they do not have the right, nobody has the right. What the US did to Japan (killing 250,000 civilians in 3 separate attacks) was one of the most heinous crimes in human history, it also showed us that nuclear weapons should just stay that, history. To be never used again
Mass killing of citizens of any country in unacceptable

On March 27 2013 02:14 Zeo wrote:
Using nuclear weapons under any circumstance in unacceptable, 'he started it' is a stupid elementary school excuse. What if Japan just went and nuked San Francisco? Or fire-bombed Seattle? Because according to some people in this thread they have a right to. No, they do not have the right, nobody has the right. What the US did to Japan (killing 250,000 civilians in 3 separate attacks) was one of the most heinous crimes in human history, it also showed us that nuclear weapons should just stay that, history. To be never used again
Mass killing of citizens of any country in unacceptable.

EDIT: About North Korea > NK is threatening retaliation for any attacks on it's sovereignty, which is fair, they have a right to protect themselves (don't get me wrong, I don't like the NK government but some of the reporting about this has been atrocious). I just hope that one day the two Korea's will be united (under the South of course). But it will take many many years of hard work to do it, the North has been under intense propaganda for the last 60 years, it will take generations to undo that.

On March 27 2013 00:31 Salazarz wrote:


It wasn't me who said that, but I'll respond to it anyway.

NK does not 'choose' to have its people to live in poverty. In fact, throughout the second half of 20th century there had been multiple negotiations in favour of reunification of Korea, and one of the most popular theories believes it was the American influence that prevented it from happening. The people of North Korea live in terrible conditions to this day as a result of multiple sanctions and trade embargoes imposed by the West. It is a two-way street of course, and with North Korean regimes antagonizing their neighbours all the time it seems like it's justified - but you have to consider a very important factor here. USA prides itself on being a democracy that is ruled by its people, and the government is only there to serve its people. So, it's not too far of a stretch to say that whatever actions the American government has taken, are in fact the 'will of its people'; in North Korea, the country is ruled by a small minority of people in power, with the rest of its population having no say or choice in such matters.

Where does this leave us? When a North Korean artillery battery fires upon a civilian-inhabited island belonging to SK, those are actions of the military elite in North Korea, and a simple citizen of Pyongyang has absolutely no say or sway over it. When USA deploys an airstrike into a Serbian town, this is an action accepted and supported by majority of Americans.

It's a pretty simplified way to present it, but it's pretty much what it is. This is also why I personally don't believe in economic sanctions against countries like North Korea - it doesn't actually achieve anything at all. The common people in NK will still starve, the ruling class will continue to rule, and it'll just give more fuel to the propaganda of, "how evil those Americans are". Had NK been given a chance to develop properly, it would become more and more difficult to control its population through power from the ruling police state at the top; the problem is, it was never in our, Western, interest for NK to develop into a normal country. The reason the present situation even exists lies within the Cold War and its remnants; it's all a part of the powerplays between USA and USSR, and USA's never-ending desire to spread their military influence around the world. Americans still have military bases in Japan, for god's sake.