(LEAD) N. Korea loads two medium-range missiles on mobile launchers

[Old Crow]

I have 2 things to say, there is way too much 'MURICA in this thread.
1. The united states as it is does not have the money to engage in a full on war as is, they can easily fuck the country North Korea but if they do so they will easily be even more fucked than now. Not even mentioning the problem that would ensue with the US economy if North Korea actually pulled of hitting Alaska with a nuke (The only state in the US that is within the range of their suposed nukes).
2. The united states would not be alone in the aftermath, the entire world has decided that nukes shall not be used during war as it affects the entire world. The US will have most other countries with them as they take down NK, there would probably be a ton of air bombers raining down on Kim Jong Un and his military.
HOWEVER if the US decides a nuke is what is necesary to deal with NK I am pretty sure the united states have lost their credabilty in most of the world. There is a time for nukes but that would not be it, it simply is not necesary.

So S Korea gets nuked and we just say "Well, it happens" and don't get involved?

I sure as shit don't want any nukes used by anybody, and even if the south got nuked I don't think we would use them anyway but surely you can't be serious that America can just sit back on this one. South Korea has been our allies for a long time, so if they get attacked we should just stand by? Might as well tear up every other contract and go back to the thirties with neutrality.

Iraq was probably the most moronic war we have fought. There was no reason to go in, and it became ultra politicized, because senators that were against the war though they would look weak if they didn't vote for it. Too many lives were lost and too much money was spent for basically no reason, as Iraq is actually less stable today. NK cannot be compared to Iraq however:

• North Korea has nukes and the means to carry them.
• North Korea has done all of this before, threatening war, attacking people etc.
• The North will start the war before us. Most here are sick of war but we can't watch the North attack Seoul and not help them.

This isn't the Bush era, we don't want to charge into another war but if the North does make good on its promise and attacks the South, we will help Seoul.

Nukes: Worst fucking option IMO. There is too much at stake to use them (They can really fuck with the atmosphere) and it should only be a last option. If the North does start losing, they might use theirs, either against Seoul or in a trap to kill as many people as possible (including his own). I don't think the US will use any unless the North decides to shoot it towards Guam/Alaska. If US soil is nuked, I would still be against using them but I could see us using them in retaliation. Why would we lose credibility when attacked? We lost credibility when we attacked Iraq pre-emptivily, because there was no point to attack them, it was just a Hawkish move by Bush. I wouldn't see lost credibility in self defense.

[Kwaurtz]

The Korean war never ended. Its been an armistice for quite awhile. As soon as the north decides they want to resume we will have to respond due to the high number of us citizens who live in south Korea. The US economy is based on the military industrial complex. When we wage wars we often see a boom in our economy.

[Jorgen]

I have 2 things to say, there is way too much 'MURICA in this thread.
1. The united states as it is does not have the money to engage in a full on war as is, they can easily fuck the country North Korea but if they do so they will easily be even more fucked than now. Not even mentioning the problem that would ensue with the US economy if North Korea actually pulled of hitting Alaska with a nuke (The only state in the US that is within the range of their suposed nukes).
2. The united states would not be alone in the aftermath, the entire world has decided that nukes shall not be used during war as it affects the entire world. The US will have most other countries with them as they take down NK, there would probably be a ton of air bombers raining down on Kim Jong Un and his military.
HOWEVER if the US decides a nuke is what is necesary to deal with NK I am pretty sure the united states have lost their credabilty in most of the world. There is a time for nukes but that would not be it, it simply is not necesary.

So S Korea gets nuked and we just say "Well, it happens" and don't get involved?

I sure as shit don't want any nukes used by anybody, and even if the south got nuked I don't think we would use them anyway but surely you can't be serious that America can just sit back on this one. South Korea has been our allies for a long time, so if they get attacked we should just stand by? Might as well tear up every other contract and go back to the thirties with neutrality.

Iraq was probably the most moronic war we have fought. There was no reason to go in, and it became ultra politicized, because senators that were against the war though they would look weak if they didn't vote for it. Too many lives were lost and too much money was spent for basically no reason, as Iraq is actually less stable today. NK cannot be compared to Iraq however:

• North Korea has nukes and the means to carry them.
• North Korea has done all of this before, threatening war, attacking people etc.
• The North will start the war before us. Most here are sick of war but we can't watch the North attack Seoul and not help them.

This isn't the Bush era, we don't want to charge into another war but if the North does make good on its promise and attacks the South, we will help Seoul.

Nukes: Worst fucking option IMO. There is too much at stake to use them (They can really fuck with the atmosphere) and it should only be a last option. If the North does start losing, they might use theirs, either against Seoul or in a trap to kill as many people as possible (including his own). I don't think the US will use any unless the North decides to shoot it towards Guam/Alaska. If US soil is nuked, I would still be against using them but I could see us using them in retaliation. Why would we lose credibility when attacked? We lost credibility when we attacked Iraq pre-emptivily, because there was no point to attack them, it was just a Hawkish move by Bush. I wouldn't see lost credibility in self defense.

Where in my response did I say that America was gonna sit on the side?! I didn't that is where. What I stated is that it won't be America vs NK it would be the entire world vs NK... Every1 here is going MURICAAAA while the real situation is that it would be a coaltion type attack, airplanes and people from most countries to end it as fast as possible. Nobody wants a North Korea around if they initiate this war, NOBODY.
Also yes you would lose credibility if you launched nukes, sure you were attacked but NK is not a large threat towards you. after they launched their load they would no longer be a threat to any1 what would have to be done would be regular war. No ABC weapons from the western countries or any other country for that matter. That was agreed upon once upon a time, so if you break that for spilt milk (sorry to say but that is the cold reality of war) you would lose credability maybe the last strain you have left.

[Old Crow]

The Korean war never ended. Its been an armistice for quite awhile. As soon as the north decides they want to resume we will have to respond due to the high number of us citizens who live in south Korea. The US economy is based on the military industrial complex. When we wage wars we often see a boom in our economy.

Zzzzz "Korean war never technically ended". Why do people point that out? The actual fighting ended in 1953, so thats when the war ended.

I'll type out my response to you later Jorgen, but I agree with what you have pointed out. I just figured when you said there was too much Murhica you meant we should not get involved. It most certainly would be a UN mission, not just US.

[Jorgen]

The Korean war never ended. Its been an armistice for quite awhile. As soon as the north decides they want to resume we will have to respond due to the high number of us citizens who live in south Korea. The US economy is based on the military industrial complex. When we wage wars we often see a boom in our economy.

oh hi big sister

[Leetgrain]

The Korean war never ended. Its been an armistice for quite awhile. As soon as the north decides they want to resume we will have to respond due to the high number of us citizens who live in south Korea. The US economy is based on the military industrial complex. When we wage wars we often see a boom in our economy.

oh hi big sister

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISXiFJS9D5A" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISXiFJS9D5A</a>

[Christovski]

[Old Crow]

Guys, I get that *technically* the war never ended with a treaty, but the actual fighting ended in 1953. That is when the Korean War ended, just not *technically*

Its just like saying Vietnam wasn't a war because *technically* war was never declared. Tell that to the millions that died!

And yes, I am all for punctuation, but it adds nothing. Its fluff.

Anyways, to get back on topic. Jorgen You make a valid point that yes it is worthless to respond nuke to nuke when it concerns North Korea. North Korea has nothing that it cares to lose. They don't have any strategic targets to attack, and the leaders haven't given two craps about the people for nearly 100 years, why would they care if their people get nuked now.

I'll state that however, while both you and me agree no nuke should be used on the US side, I would guarantee it would be used if NK did hit Alaska or Guam. The reason is all political (at least from the US perspective). Republicans would jump all over the president to use them, and it would turn into another Iraq where if your not for nuking people, your a weakling without a backbone. Sad to say but nothing is based off of facts in this country when it comes to politics. Its all for the party, or for whatever a group believes in, its rarely based off of solid facts because that would be too hard and too slow.

I would just hope to god that North Korea doesn't use their option. The more likely target is going to be Seoul, because it would be simple enough to get it close enough to do major damage to the city, and if fired from a missile, the reaction time will be measured in seconds.

[Jorgen]

Guys, I get that *technically* the war never ended with a treaty, but the actual fighting ended in 1953. That is when the Korean War ended, just not *technically*

Its just like saying Vietnam wasn't a war because *technically* war was never declared. Tell that to the millions that died!

And yes, I am all for punctuation, but it adds nothing. Its fluff.

Anyways, to get back on topic. Jorgen You make a valid point that yes it is worthless to respond nuke to nuke when it concerns North Korea. North Korea has nothing that it cares to lose. They don't have any strategic targets to attack, and the leaders haven't given two craps about the people for nearly 100 years, why would they care if their people get nuked now.

I'll state that however, while both you and me agree no nuke should be used on the US side, I would guarantee it would be used if NK did hit Alaska or Guam. The reason is all political (at least from the US perspective). Republicans would jump all over the president to use them, and it would turn into another Iraq where if your not for nuking people, your a weakling without a backbone. Sad to say but nothing is based off of facts in this country when it comes to politics. Its all for the party, or for whatever a group believes in, its rarely based off of solid facts because that would be too hard and too slow.

I would just hope to god that North Korea doesn't use their option. The more likely target is going to be Seoul, because it would be simple enough to get it close enough to do major damage to the city, and if fired from a missile, the reaction time will be measured in seconds.

Well then let North Korea win, just like you lost the war on terrorism. What North Korea wants is to weaken The united states, South Korea and its allies you guys launching a nuke to prove how corrupt you political system is would do exactly that. The united states would lose not only credability but also have highly strained connections with their allies. In short it is just like the war on terrorism, goal of terrorism to incite fear in the heart of those it is meant hit. What did the united states do? they were frightened they lost their shit declaring war on a shadow.

Yes I agree the most likely scenario is a nuke goes to Seoul, but right now it seems most of the threats are directly going to America so you always have to prepare.

[Tictactoe360]

Hi, I'm a Canadian who doesn't pay attention to the news.
Nor do I have television.

Oh look, Korea and the US are waving their dicks at each other.
My only real question is who shoots first?

I wanna say the US is the first to strike, North Korea does this stunt on a regular basis, but never on this level. There's also the chance that Han shoots first, but that's a debate nobody wants to get into.

My money's on North Korean leaders is assassinated by an American Special Forces member/group within the next 1 - 3 Months. America denies everything, Korea goes full out attempt at war. America and the rest of the world "Kindly" tell Korea to sit back down.

Though in all seriousness, something has to be done about North Korea.

[Old Crow]

Hi, I'm a Canadian who doesn't pay attention to the news.
Nor do I have television.

Oh look, Korea and the US are waving their dicks at each other.
My only real question is who shoots first?

I wanna say the US is the first to strike, North Korea does this stunt on a regular basis, but never on this level. There's also the chance that Han shoots first, but that's a debate nobody wants to get into.

My money's on North Korean leaders is assassinated by an American Special Forces member/group within the next 1 - 3 Months. America denies everything, Korea goes full out attempt at war. America and the rest of the world "Kindly" tell Korea to sit back down.

Though in all seriousness, something has to be done about North Korea.

Like gee, I don't know lets not help them economically. We keep giving them ground and they just abuse it. What would really help is if China cut ties with them. If that happened, then the government would crumble at some point. The only aid I would give them is food aid so that the people do not starve. The problem is China doesn't want to be surrounded by American allies (Japan, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan, The Philippines, probably Vietnam) so they continue to aid North Korea to ensure that they at least have an ally in the area

Also Jorgen, I don't want America to start another war!! Again Iraq=Stupidity on another level. In the defense of South Korea is another matter, so long as we don't start the conflict.

[Cortez (Mr. T. FOO!)]

I love how none of you actually consider the fact that South Korea has some capability of defending itself. There are a few points I wish to make though:

Everyone is all like "'MMMMMMERICA" because the United States navy permanently has aircraft carriers stationed off of North Korea in case something does happen;

Like Kwaurtz said the US economy usually gets a boost from war, the only reason their economy is so shit right now is because of the economic recession and tax cuts;

Finally I still do not believe that North Korea is actually willing to do anything but threaten.

[Old Crow]

Oh you can't discount the South Korean military out of the equation. They are equipped with all first rate technology, and top notch training. Its just hard to judge a military when they haven't seen action in 70 years. Same goes for the North but most of their equipment is out of date or old. They will relay on the old Soviet tactics of large scale attacks and strength in numbers.

[Christovski]

Finally I still do not believe that North Korea is actually willing to do anything but threaten.

Hoping Cortez is right on this one.

Really hoping Kim Jong Un is less crazy instead of MORE crazy than Kim Jon Il.