|
United States24674 Posts
On March 30 2013 13:33 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2013 13:23 Bayyne wrote:
I'm supposed to be in Hawaii in roughly 3.5 weeks and these constant announcements (especially today's) makes me quite fearful. Good example of why NK leadership is smarter than given credit. I predict they will be rewarded with some sort of aid in the end for calming down, and Obama will gain political points for averting a crisis.
In many respects it resembles using terrorism as a tool for personal gain. People are afraid to be in places in their own country...
|
On March 30 2013 13:31 FantomX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2013 13:27 Essbee wrote:On March 30 2013 13:24 FantomX wrote:On March 30 2013 13:23 Bayyne wrote:
I'm supposed to be in Hawaii in roughly 3.5 weeks and these constant announcements (especially today's) makes me quite fearful. Uh.. are you connecting through Hawaii on your way to Seoul? Not sure why you would be fearful. NK said they had missiles aimed at Hawaii. Oh, well still I feel like the second they launched, the US would be well able to shoot them down before coming close.
They're more likely to hit Japan, when they say they're aiming missiles at Hawaii.
|
NK being silly as usual.. Not saying people shouldn't keep an eye on them but.. I think the possibility of them nuking the US or any other country is very slim.
|
I've been thinking... what if the NK leader isn't that stupid, but his father just had a wish before dying?
Also, if NK attacks USA, would NATA respond too?
|
On March 30 2013 19:23 darkness wrote:
I've been thinking... what if the NK leader isn't that stupid, but his father just had a wish before dying?
Also, if NK attacks USA, would NATA respond too?
i doubt its Kim Jung-un, who decides this shit.hes just puppet from the highest militair officers,
but they need him cause hes a god for their whole nation.
|
On March 30 2013 19:37 Windwaker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2013 19:23 darkness wrote:
I've been thinking... what if the NK leader isn't that stupid, but his father just had a wish before dying?
Also, if NK attacks USA, would NATA respond too? i doubt its Kim Jung-un, who decides this shit.hes just puppet from the highest militair officers, but they need him cause hes a god for their whole nation.
Yeah i think his father's wish was :
Don't let my son decide anything important.
|
On March 30 2013 19:23 darkness wrote:
I've been thinking... what if the NK leader isn't that stupid, but his father just had a wish before dying?
Also, if NK attacks USA, would NATA respond too?
If you mean NATO then yes. It is inevitable because a member of the NATO was attacked. If NK attacks SK, then no because SK is not a member of the NATO. And if the US attacks NK first it would be the same story as it was with Iraq.
|
On March 30 2013 21:45 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2013 19:23 darkness wrote:
I've been thinking... what if the NK leader isn't that stupid, but his father just had a wish before dying?
Also, if NK attacks USA, would NATA respond too? If you mean NATO then yes. It is inevitable because a member of the NATO was attacked. If NK attacks SK, then no because SK is not a member of the NATO. And if the US attacks NK first it would be the same story as it was with Iraq.
I wouldn't count on Britain or France helping out tbh.
|
On March 30 2013 21:50 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2013 21:45 DrCooper wrote:On March 30 2013 19:23 darkness wrote:
I've been thinking... what if the NK leader isn't that stupid, but his father just had a wish before dying?
Also, if NK attacks USA, would NATA respond too? If you mean NATO then yes. It is inevitable because a member of the NATO was attacked. If NK attacks SK, then no because SK is not a member of the NATO. And if the US attacks NK first it would be the same story as it was with Iraq. I wouldn't count on Britain or France helping out tbh.
If NK attacks the U.S, every Member of the NATO is legally bound to help in some way. There are of course exceptions of the rule. (West Germany during the cold war for example, did not have to help the NATO with troops, due to the fact that they shared a border with the 'enemy').
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
- Article V of the Washington Treaty
http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm
|
On March 30 2013 22:31 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2013 21:50 Zaros wrote:On March 30 2013 21:45 DrCooper wrote:On March 30 2013 19:23 darkness wrote:
I've been thinking... what if the NK leader isn't that stupid, but his father just had a wish before dying?
Also, if NK attacks USA, would NATA respond too? If you mean NATO then yes. It is inevitable because a member of the NATO was attacked. If NK attacks SK, then no because SK is not a member of the NATO. And if the US attacks NK first it would be the same story as it was with Iraq. I wouldn't count on Britain or France helping out tbh. If NK attacks the U.S, every Member of the NATO is legally bound to help in some way. There are of course exceptions of the rule. (West Germany during the cold war for example, did not have to help the NATO with troops, due to the fact that they shared a border with the 'enemy'). Show nested quote +The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. - Article V of the Washington Treaty http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm
Because America hasn't broke NATO rules at all before, its increasingly meaningless. As for the last korean war, france barely got involved and Britain only sent 15,000 troops and thats when we actually had bases east of suez, we won't send anything meaningful if war breaks out.
|
On March 30 2013 22:42 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2013 22:31 DrCooper wrote:On March 30 2013 21:50 Zaros wrote:On March 30 2013 21:45 DrCooper wrote:On March 30 2013 19:23 darkness wrote:
I've been thinking... what if the NK leader isn't that stupid, but his father just had a wish before dying?
Also, if NK attacks USA, would NATA respond too? If you mean NATO then yes. It is inevitable because a member of the NATO was attacked. If NK attacks SK, then no because SK is not a member of the NATO. And if the US attacks NK first it would be the same story as it was with Iraq. I wouldn't count on Britain or France helping out tbh. If NK attacks the U.S, every Member of the NATO is legally bound to help in some way. There are of course exceptions of the rule. (West Germany during the cold war for example, did not have to help the NATO with troops, due to the fact that they shared a border with the 'enemy'). The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. - Article V of the Washington Treaty http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm Because America hasn't broke NATO rules at all before, its increasingly meaningless. As for the last korean war, france barely got involved and Britain only sent 15,000 troops and thats when we actually had bases east of suez, we won't send anything meaningful if war breaks out.
Not that the US would need help anyway.
|
On March 30 2013 23:21 DDie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2013 22:42 Zaros wrote:On March 30 2013 22:31 DrCooper wrote:On March 30 2013 21:50 Zaros wrote:On March 30 2013 21:45 DrCooper wrote:On March 30 2013 19:23 darkness wrote:
I've been thinking... what if the NK leader isn't that stupid, but his father just had a wish before dying?
Also, if NK attacks USA, would NATA respond too? If you mean NATO then yes. It is inevitable because a member of the NATO was attacked. If NK attacks SK, then no because SK is not a member of the NATO. And if the US attacks NK first it would be the same story as it was with Iraq. I wouldn't count on Britain or France helping out tbh. If NK attacks the U.S, every Member of the NATO is legally bound to help in some way. There are of course exceptions of the rule. (West Germany during the cold war for example, did not have to help the NATO with troops, due to the fact that they shared a border with the 'enemy'). The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. - Article V of the Washington Treaty http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm Because America hasn't broke NATO rules at all before, its increasingly meaningless. As for the last korean war, france barely got involved and Britain only sent 15,000 troops and thats when we actually had bases east of suez, we won't send anything meaningful if war breaks out. Not that the US would need help anyway.
True
|
NK declares they're now in a "State of War" with SK. They say they've cut off their last line of communication with the South as well.
"We will first target and dissolve mainland United States, Hawaii and Guam, and United States military based in South Korea. And the (South Korean presidential office) will be burned to the ground," the KCNA report said.
+ Show Spoiler [My opinion.] +Like most everyone else, I think it's a massive bluff. But I'm always anxious they might just have the trump card or 5 they need to pull a fast one on the world out of nowhere.... I anticipate the North Koreans will be the ones surprised if they decide to actually attempt a war with the Westernized world, however, I don't rule out the possibility that it may be us who is surprised with their capabilities.
|
Didn't they just say they were in a state of war already? All this stuff is getting really difficult to get track of, how many "state of war"-levels are there? Also if they really go into war some South Koreans will definitely die but it's still a foregone conclusion.
|
I don't get it. Declare a war, and then don't do anything? Come on, let's get this show started already!
TBH it's of course a huge bluff like every time.
|
lol.
NK is just making noises.
Everybody know they can't declared war.
|
I don't get NK at all. If they are just bluffing the only thing that is going to come out of it is they will likely find an even stronger US military presence around them in future, which seems kind of counter productive..
|
United States24674 Posts
I am entering a state of war with the Marshall Islands.
Marshall Islands, consider our joint industrial operations officially threatened. They may be shut down.
From this time on, our relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between us will be handled accordingly. For example, you are no longer allowed to use our beaches, unless you pay full price admission.
We will evaporate the United States too because, why not.
If you piss us off we will nuke your asses. Behold:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RkNK0Qu.png) Brilliant Strategy of our Greatest-Ever Commander, Great Leader Micronesia the First
|
There are only so many times that you can escalate your rhetoric. At some point it just can't get any higher and its either going to be a war or an embarrassing situation for North Korea when nothing happens for a few months, while drills continue to go on in South Korea.
From reading articles on BBC I think the main danger is someone makes a mistake, and it leads to military action. But besides that, North Korea *has* (relatively recently) shelled islands and killed a few people from South Korea if I remember correctly, so I don't think its unlikely that they would do something similar again; they don't seem to afraid of repercussions on the small scale at least. The question is how would the US and South Korea respond? And how much escalation would there be from that point? Just tangentially, because its an important historical reference (and I can't think of any others), if the war cabinet is as stubborn in North Korea as they were back in Japan, then that arrogance and delusion, combined with believing their own rhetoric, could lead to a pretty serious situation.
It is a very difficult situation, because how can the US justify not preparing for the insanity of North Korea through military drills? And yet those very drills are making the situation more dangerous. We just have to hope that shelling islands is the most North Korea is willing to do, and that there is no serious response from the US/South Korea that would justify further NK aggression. Honestly sometimes I think they should do a preemptive strike.
|
The worst bluff in the history of mankind IMHO. NK is really pissing me off lately. I would honestly volunteer to join the fight vs. NK. Specially if on the side of SK (Gaming  ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
