DeletedUser
I nominate that as funniest response of the week!
U.S. Military to Intercept North Korean Ship Suspected of Carrying Missiles (Nukes)
DeletedUser
Hey, Palin can see North Korea from her house!
Kuname, no government should have nuclear weapons. The only reason for any government to have it is as a tool to say, "if you mess with us, we'll destroy the world."
To add, the concern about places like North Korea, and people like Kim Yong-il, is that they:
#1 --- sell weapons to anybody
#2 --- repeatedly (and recently) indicated their intent to destroy the U.S. and certain European nations.
#3 --- would more than likely sell a nuclear device to any group that holds contempt for, and intent to cause harm to, the U.S. or other countries.
One of the biggest problems with any nation obtaining nuclear weapons is the stability and motives of their particular government. If a government is unsound, or unscrupulous, then they pose a danger to their neighbors and, with obtainment of long range missiles, a danger to non-neighbors. If, in addition to being unsound and unscrupulous, they are profiteering, then they pose a threat by aiding and abetting individuals, or groups, that would use such weapons to inflict mass destruction, via dirty bombs or straight-out fissile explosions (nuclear bomb).
So, yes Kuname, we could look at all this with a dismissive hand and say, "we should not limit other countries to their choice of weapons," but that is irresponsible and would eventually result in great harm. In other words, you should never turn your back on those who have threatened to kill you.
DeletedUser
I wish you were right about Bush; he should have blown up a couple of giant Marketplaces and killed about 3,000 innocent civilians with suicide bombers. That would have been far worse than having suicide bombers blow up two measley ex-world record holding towers that were also the center of the EVIL American stock market, while killing 3,000 American civilians in the process. I wish he was a genocidal maniac who exterminated 10,000,000 people because of his own beliefs, and I wish he worshipped a plus sign with legs. But no, he only killed a few tenthousand mass murderors at the cost of around 10,000 our super evil and super mean soldiers who play soccer with innocent children and spread the word about democracy. Now excuse me while I go smoke some crack and sing about the wonders of Socialism, ok?
PEACE!
...
What was that all about? It's a debate so don't take it serious.
P.S Lay of the drugs
DeletedUser
Although I agree, GWB has set a precedent of his preemptive threat strategy that any country is at risk of being invaded and / or overthrown by the US unless that country has specific means to defend itself (and because of the US's dominant conventional war forces, the only way to do that is to have WMDs such as nukes). GWB, by very early on naming North Korea a part of the "Axis of Evil", spurred on an arms race with the very countries that we don't want to have WMDs...namely North Korea and Iran (and Iraq if it were still anything more than a puppet state).
It's unfortunate, but I see some of the worst governments in the world obtaining nukes as a direct reaction to some pretty stupid forgein policy on GWB's part...
DeletedUser
Agreed Adelei, although I wouldn't put it all on GWB's head. There were plenty of idiots before him, spurring nations to gain some sort of equalizer.
DeletedUser13682
I say we help South Korea invade the North, and have a second Korean War.
Not really. I agree with the blockade, but we should do more to try to talk with North Korea peacefully, and invade only if every other option fails, and they have another test.
Not really. I agree with the blockade, but we should do more to try to talk with North Korea peacefully, and invade only if every other option fails, and they have another test.
DeletedUser
Kuname will fly there on his F-16 and bomb the crap out of them. Guaranteed.
DeletedUser
so johann, you're saying the U.S. should perform a preemptive strike?
DeletedUser13682
Not exactly. What I am saying, is that if North Korea continues to defy U.N. resolutions, and tests more nuclear weapons, then we should attack. And also, technicially it would not be preemptive, because officially the Korean War is still going on, there was only a ceasefire signed, no treaty to officially end the war. So it would be the first attack in 55 years in a 59 year old war.
DeletedUser
Lol, and I thought Obama's foreign policy was bad....
DeletedUser
Goddamnit. They test fired three more missiles today.
I have no idea why we're sitting around and tolerating this crap. Everyone knows their silly sanctions are only helping their government make their public outrage against the rest of the world more. I say we forcefully commandeer their vessels suspected of carrying weapons and deal with the consequences later. If they consider it an act of war, so be it, we'll go to war. At least in that case the rest of the world (or at least the UN) will back us up.
It's infuriating that we've sat around doing virtually nothing and letting them get away with this crap.
I have no idea why we're sitting around and tolerating this crap. Everyone knows their silly sanctions are only helping their government make their public outrage against the rest of the world more. I say we forcefully commandeer their vessels suspected of carrying weapons and deal with the consequences later. If they consider it an act of war, so be it, we'll go to war. At least in that case the rest of the world (or at least the UN) will back us up.
It's infuriating that we've sat around doing virtually nothing and letting them get away with this crap.
DeletedUser14280
Well, maybe the rest of the world should improve their anti-missile defenses.
You know, stuff like giant space lasers.
A laser satallite was proposed sometime during the Cold War, but the idea never really took off.
Forget government for a sec.
What would you do, if everyone in your street had a really big weapon? But you're agreed with each other not to use them?
What if one person seems dangerously insane and constantly handling his weapon? What would you do?
1. Turn him in to the police.
2. Leave him be.
3. Ask a doctor to look at him.
4. Ask the other people in your street.
5. Attack him and beat him to a pulp.
6. Something else.
Yes, that's supposed to be a parallel to the current situation.
I want you to give a serious answer though.
You know, stuff like giant space lasers.
A laser satallite was proposed sometime during the Cold War, but the idea never really took off.
Forget government for a sec.
What would you do, if everyone in your street had a really big weapon? But you're agreed with each other not to use them?
What if one person seems dangerously insane and constantly handling his weapon? What would you do?
1. Turn him in to the police.
2. Leave him be.
3. Ask a doctor to look at him.
4. Ask the other people in your street.
5. Attack him and beat him to a pulp.
6. Something else.
Yes, that's supposed to be a parallel to the current situation.
I want you to give a serious answer though.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
We could potentially position missile interceptors around North Korea... I'm not sure how reliable those things are, but from what I understand we've already got a decent amount of them stationed around Hawaii.
DeletedUser14280
Um, Divest. I edited a bit, can you answer the question there?
DeletedUser
This isn't really an accurate parallel but I'll entertain the question anyways because I like toying with hypothetical situations.
I would probably ask the police to take care of the problem. That's what my taxes are for, that's when they should step in and do their job.
I would probably ask the police to take care of the problem. That's what my taxes are for, that's when they should step in and do their job.
DeletedUser
And if the police (U.N.) don't handle the situation satisfactorily?
DeletedUser
What is specifically unsatisfactorily? It would depend on a lot of things, really. Is he violent to the point where he's rallying the rest of his family together to profess their hatred of their neighbors? Is he making threats and making a firing range out of the street to test his weapons? Is he making his room mates suffer and starve while he lives a life of luxury all while he has their allegiance under a false pretense?
It's difficult to say, really, but the only thing I can say for certain is that I wouldn't tolerate such belligerence if it potentially meant the safety of my neighbors or myself.
It's difficult to say, really, but the only thing I can say for certain is that I wouldn't tolerate such belligerence if it potentially meant the safety of my neighbors or myself.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser14280
Hey, this could be interesting...
What if the situations around the world like this were explained using one street?
As for answering my own question, I doubt I could actually do anything beyond "3. Ask the other people in your street."
I don't think I'd make a great leader.
What if the situations around the world like this were explained using one street?
As for answering my own question, I doubt I could actually do anything beyond "3. Ask the other people in your street."
I don't think I'd make a great leader.
DeletedUser13682
I would rise up, and crush the guy without my powerful weapon, and if he killed me, then I would have a posthumous recorded speech rallying my neighbors to use their weapons to kill the maniac, but that might not work. So I would talk to everyone to try to convince them to use our weapons against the one guy.
DeletedUser
Problem is, he lives in a duplex next to one of your neighbors whom with you have a wonderful relationship. Blowing the violent neighbor's house isn't easy without risking your innocent neighbor.