• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:14
CEST 18:14
KST 01:14
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202559RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 What tournaments are world championships? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Post Pic of your Favorite Food! The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 932 users

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

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 43 44 45 46 47 190 Next
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24676 Posts
March 26 2013 15:29 GMT
#881
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
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
crazyweasel
Profile Joined March 2011
607 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-26 15:45:22
March 26 2013 15:30 GMT
#882
On March 27 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2013 00:12 crazyweasel wrote:
Nuke will never be used(physically) again, in my opinion. Should never have been used either (ww2 was already won with stalingrad's battle). Nowadays Nukes are only used to make internatonal pressure. It's based on fear and a destruction potential. NK would never nuke USA, they just use menaces to obtain more fundings/lever towards international community.


I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.

War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.

If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well.


why NK would derserve a nuke more than USA? if we speak about deaths, USa has spilled blood all over the planet for its proper interest ? Why is it that USA got in so lately in ww2, why didn't the west intervene when poland was invaded? what justifies USA having Nukes and not other countries? What other option have NK or Iran than nuclear fear to obtain gains while they suffer huge embargo from the west? I think this question needs a wider look: USA demonizing NK is also proclaiming itself good, while making NK inherently bad. Even though they should be on equal standpoints(NK hasnt done anything worse than USA).

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.


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.
Seldentar
Profile Joined May 2011
United States888 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-26 15:31:59
March 26 2013 15:31 GMT
#883
On March 27 2013 00:24 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2013 00:21 crazyweasel wrote:
On March 27 2013 00:11 KwarK wrote:
I believe a pre-emptive strike can be both morally justified and necessary. However it is still a tragedy when things get that far and people should not think of it as anything other than that. Sometimes genocide is necessary but it is still genocide.


What??? that's insane, not only would it affect the whole NK but all it's neighbours. may we reitate that Asia is the biggest basin of population, this could have severe impact on the whole region and incredible damages and not only human (the ecosystem as well). And what morally justifie such an act? how is it necessary? Maybe if we loosen embargo, maybe NK wouldnt be so eager to "aim" potential attacks. how can genocide be necessary? is it the people of NK is who evil of nature? of course not, why not have a simple ossama type strike again? wanna end their regime, end it but not by sacrificing a whole nation....

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.


Oh somehow I also misread, I thought you had said "I believe a pre-emptive nuclear strike..." I agree non-nuclear pre-preemptive strikes could definitely be justified and even be the best course of action at some point.
Salazarz
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Korea (South)2591 Posts
March 26 2013 15:31 GMT
#884
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.


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.
Winterfell
Profile Joined August 2012
United States170 Posts
March 26 2013 15:32 GMT
#885
On March 26 2013 19:58 xM(Z wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 06:13 micronesia wrote:
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...

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).

Actually this all assumes that your enemy has sufficiently sophisticated satellite coverage to see your weapons being launched or incoming, which North Korea patently does not. Nuking them is still a bad idea, IMO, but not because they would manage to get weapons off first.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42653 Posts
March 26 2013 15:33 GMT
#886
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

I think the largest bomb was a cold war Soviet project for vanity and was never really practical. Smaller bombs are more useful, for example in the Falklands war British ships carried (but never used) nuclear depth charges.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
crazyweasel
Profile Joined March 2011
607 Posts
March 26 2013 15:33 GMT
#887
On March 27 2013 00:31 Salazarz wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


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.


ty for having this approach that apparently nobody ever pointed out in this thread.
Seldentar
Profile Joined May 2011
United States888 Posts
March 26 2013 15:35 GMT
#888
On March 27 2013 00:30 crazyweasel wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:
On March 27 2013 00:12 crazyweasel wrote:
Nuke will never be used(physically) again, in my opinion. Should never have been used either (ww2 was already won with stalingrad's battle). Nowadays Nukes are only used to make internatonal pressure. It's based on fear and a destruction potential. NK would never nuke USA, they just use menaces to obtain more fundings/lever towards international community.


I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.

War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.

If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well.


why NK would derserve a nuke more than USA? if we speak about deaths, USa has spilled blood all over the planet for its proper interest ? Why is it that USA got in so lately in ww2, why didn't the west intervene when poland was invaded? what justifies USA having Nukes and not other countries? What other option have NK or Iran than nuclear fear to obtain gains while they suffer huge embargo from the west? I think this question needs a wider look: USA demonizing NK is also proclaiming itself good, while making NK inherently bad. Even though they should be on equal standpoints(NK hasnt done anything worse than USA).

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.


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"


In crazyweasel's defense the USA has caused much more suffering and war around the world than NK ever has or could. USA citizens are treated way, way better than those of NK though, obviously.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24676 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-26 15:45:06
March 26 2013 15:43 GMT
#889
On March 27 2013 00:31 Salazarz wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


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

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.
A lot of this seems like it might be right, but I feel like you are just making an argument for removing the leadership of NK...... not justifying any of NK's official actions.

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.
The link between US citizens and US military actions is not as strong as you make it out to be. For example, a tremendous number of people including me specifically disagreed with the USA invading Iraq 10 years ago, but by the time we could do anything about it it was too late. GHW Bush did not run for president on a platform of 'if 9/11 happens I will use it as an excuse to invade Iraq.' In fact, I would like to see certain members of that administration imprisoned, personally.

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.

I think you should learn about why the USA still has bases in many places like Japan. I don't think you understand the historical context (this is based off of agreements at the end of WW2 which have proven to be very good as a whole).
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Tralalo
Profile Joined February 2012
18 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-26 16:09:54
March 26 2013 16:05 GMT
#890
On March 27 2013 00:30 crazyweasel wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:
On March 27 2013 00:12 crazyweasel wrote:
Nuke will never be used(physically) again, in my opinion. Should never have been used either (ww2 was already won with stalingrad's battle). Nowadays Nukes are only used to make internatonal pressure. It's based on fear and a destruction potential. NK would never nuke USA, they just use menaces to obtain more fundings/lever towards international community.


I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.

War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.

If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well.


why NK would derserve a nuke more than USA? if we speak about deaths, USa has spilled blood all over the planet for its proper interest ? Why is it that USA got in so lately in ww2, why didn't the west intervene when poland was invaded? what justifies USA having Nukes and not other countries? What other option have NK or Iran than nuclear fear to obtain gains while they suffer huge embargo from the west? I think this question needs a wider look: USA demonizing NK is also proclaiming itself good, while making NK inherently bad. Even though they should be on equal standpoints(NK hasnt done anything worse than USA).

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.


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.


Oh come on, he had a good argument going and he gets a two-week ban instead of telling him that we was wrong with the korean war thing?

User was warned for not using website feedback.
Salazarz
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Korea (South)2591 Posts
March 26 2013 16:08 GMT
#891
There were far more factors at play than straight up NK "invading" SK in the Korean War. I'll just stop posting here now though if this is how you guys want to debate, lol.
Psi0nic
Profile Joined March 2011
Uruguay39 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-26 16:16:19
March 26 2013 16:13 GMT
#892
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.
Life's what you make it
Ladygaga
Profile Joined September 2010
Norway16 Posts
March 26 2013 16:36 GMT
#893
Usa sux they are just a big bad bully and everyone is just afraid of them but im not. im not afraid of usa nukes and i hope all americans get a really bad headache atleast 5 min every day for the rest of their lives.


ban = proven right amerikee

User was banned for this post.
HeavenS
Profile Joined August 2004
Colombia2259 Posts
March 26 2013 16:40 GMT
#894
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.

What isn't fair about it? If the US didn't do it another country would. Like it or not the US is the world's strongest military power and it wields said power in its best interest and it does it in a rather tame manner IMO. This isn't a perfect world, idk why people always say "oh the us should just stop policing the world, they should just get out of this place or that place and just let them be blah blah blah." No. That's naive, if the US didn't wield its power to exert influence you better believe another country would jump at the chance and do it, and if you take a look at the other countries that have the capacity to do so are you really comfortable with them taking our place (ie Russia, China) ? No fucking way. It may not be nice, it may not be pretty and it may not always make us popular, but it sure as hell is needed.
Im cooler than the other side of the pillow.
TheZanthex
Profile Joined January 2012
United States144 Posts
March 26 2013 17:00 GMT
#895
I don't know about what to say about the recent propaganda video.

It just seems like more senseless BS that they arfe trying to scare us with. In reality, they have no international backing and sanctions will continue to go along strongly. However, I don't know if we should impose something stronger because I don't know how their nuclear capabilities compare to those of other nations.

Is there a way to estimate and measure how powerful their weapons may be? Nuclear or not. I'm curious to see exactly what their arsenal holds in comparison to the rest of the international community. I would assume that it would not be as powerful because they've been so isolated and set apart from the rest of the world.

I think that we should watch them more carefully in the next few weeks because yes, this information is worrying and yes, they seem to be much more aggressive lately. Maybe they will have the gonads to try something but it will not end well for them and (depending on their capabilities) us either.

As for a preventative nuclear strike...

I don't know whether or not a nuclear strike is objectively morally bad or good. I feel like it's too circumstantial to just give a blanket standard because depending on the ocassion it could be seen as either. In the case of North Korea, I don't think it's necessary at all. If we were to start preventative bombing, we could use a "Shock and Awe" esque bombing campaign similar to what we did in the Gulf (Correct conflict, right?) and that would, in my opinion, suffice.

But, in all honesty, while they may be loud and aggressive, they have really no internatioinal backing and i HIGHLY doubt anyone would back them over the US and allies in the case of oncoming conflict. It's too risky and we don't even know what North Korea really is going to do.
IdrA fan for life, man. <3
zeo
Profile Joined October 2009
Serbia6284 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-26 17:20:54
March 26 2013 17:14 GMT
#896
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.
"If only Kircheis were here" - Everyone
Xialos
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Canada508 Posts
March 26 2013 17:19 GMT
#897
North Korea is an exception to the international system and it's 'rules'. It's the only real totalitarian state left, and it appears that they are pretty well armed. But fundamentally, the problem is not that they have nuclear warheads, it's their political system. NK is unpredictable, dangerous and unconscious regarding the international dimensions. International laws do not work the same way than national laws ,within the international system there is no effective way to enforce law, so it's all about power. In the rest of world, it's about economic power, but NK is an exception to the rules.
aTnClouD
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
Italy2428 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-26 17:19:48
March 26 2013 17:19 GMT
#898
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

So let them nuke you to death because of that logic. Very smart ^_^
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/hunter692007/kruemelmonsteryn0.gif
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42653 Posts
March 26 2013 17:23 GMT
#899
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.

Under any circumstance is a meaningless thing to say because it can be instantly disproved by going "what if you can avert 2 nukes by using 1'. The choice isn't always just nukes or not nukes. Also NK is threatening a unilateral first strike, not just to defend itself.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
sushiman
Profile Joined September 2003
Sweden2691 Posts
March 26 2013 17:41 GMT
#900
On March 27 2013 00:31 Salazarz wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


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.

The north koreans do not live in terrible conditions because of sanctions imposed by the west; the sanctions in place are specifically targeted at luxury goods, weaponry and parts that have military applications. Hell, since '95 there's been extensive humanitarian aid delivered to NK, even by the US. Their own government is the reason the situation isn't improving - they could cut military spending, spend more on consumer goods and agriculture, and open up for foreign investments in similary ways China did, but that would mean the elites would most probably lose their iron grip of the country. They could very well improve their situation but chose not to, at the expense of their own people.
1000 at least.
Prev 1 43 44 45 46 47 190 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
14:00
King of the Hill #219
davetesta22
Liquipedia
Esports World Cup
11:00
2025 - Final Day
Serral vs ClassicLIVE!
EWC_Arena18588
ComeBackTV 4174
TaKeTV 846
JimRising 687
Hui .647
3DClanTV 379
Fuzer 269
EnkiAlexander 258
Rex227
Reynor137
CranKy Ducklings125
SpeCial68
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena18588
JimRising 687
Hui .647
Fuzer 269
Rex 227
UpATreeSC 138
Reynor 137
SpeCial 68
StarCraft: Brood War
Bisu 3980
Horang2 2994
Shuttle 2508
Larva 858
Mini 596
EffOrt 412
actioN 383
Soma 281
ggaemo 209
Rush 127
[ Show more ]
TY 123
Snow 104
Hyun 81
JYJ71
sorry 60
Aegong 30
Shine 18
soO 13
Sacsri 10
JulyZerg 8
zelot 8
Bale 4
Terrorterran 2
Dota 2
Gorgc7113
420jenkins468
syndereN443
XaKoH 380
XcaliburYe288
Counter-Strike
fl0m3497
sgares437
oskar164
Other Games
gofns9164
singsing1968
FrodaN1498
ScreaM1465
Beastyqt743
KnowMe129
ArmadaUGS117
QueenE69
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 30
• Michael_bg 4
• FirePhoenix4
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV619
League of Legends
• Nemesis6392
Other Games
• Shiphtur319
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
17h 46m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
21h 46m
CSO Cup
23h 46m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 1h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 16h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 21h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.