The isolated nation said "battle-ready" rockets and long-range missiles are going to be aimed at Guam, Hawaii and mainland US.
The country's most chilling threats yet were issued in response to a flypast of US bombers on a drill.
Oh, my! This is terrible news. Can this really lead to a nuclear war?
North Korea can talk all it wants. We all know it can't actually do anything. It reminds me of the chubby child who cries because his parents won't buy him the ice cream he wanted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard
none
Modern UBG B/U/G control BBB MBC WUR Control WWW Prison RRR Goblins
Legacy BBB Pox UBG B/U/G Control UWU StoneBlade UW Miracle Control
I'm not sure what kind of launch retaliation policies are in place right now for nuclear strikes. Our current president doesn't have the stones.
If NK wants a Republican back in the white house a sure way to do it would be escalate an armed conflict. You can say what you want about GWB's second term, but there is no doubt he got it on the back of 9-11.
I'm not convinced NK has a rocket that can reach Hawaii. Guam maybe. What kind of terms is NK with China right now?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
The only reason i disagree with that is even their allies (Mainly China) don't support them in this.
*If* they attack the US (or South Korea, more likely, but neither being likley at all) they will get resoundingly slapped down by the US, and several other countries with China only stepping in to stop them from being eliminated as a country completely.
Unlike previous periods in world history there are not a bunch of countries looking to expand via warfare right now. the climate just isn't right for it.
Doubt it. China is not going to risk widespread economic disruption over the sake of that bloody rock. If anything they're only going to hope that in the event of a nuclear retaliation there aren't enough North Koreas left to form a refugee problem. It's depressing, but North Korea getting annihilated would probably be in China's best interests.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
If north korea actually attempts to launch rockets at the US this issue would be over because there won't be a north korea.
Pretty much this. I think if they ever do become a real threat the US will just bomb them all day and night until there's just a smoldering pile of ruin left. And it would all be done without nukes.
Ten years ago the US invaded a sovergien nation that wasn't pointing anything at us, and did it without the approval of most of the other western nations. That didn't plunge the world into WWIII, I see no reason this would. Being friends with China wouldn't be enough IMO (especially since the US is China's biggest customer).
I'm not sure what kind of launch retaliation policies are in place right now for nuclear strikes. Our current president doesn't have the stones.
If NK wants a Republican back in the white house a sure way to do it would be escalate an armed conflict. You can say what you want about GWB's second term, but there is no doubt he got it on the back of 9-11.
I'm not convinced NK has a rocket that can reach Hawaii. Guam maybe. What kind of terms is NK with China right now?
The first thing you say is ridiculous. This is a president who got involved in a war in a country that posed no threat to the US (Libya) and you think he wouldn't have the stones to attack NK if it came down to it?
There's nothing new here. NK has been doing stuff like this for decades. This is a propaganda "news" piece, meant to foment fear about a very minor threat to the US, in order to get people to blindly believe in Anglophone, international military advancement. This is just "axis of evil" garbage, fueled by a cold-war mentality.
Also, there have been plenty of Democrats who were heavily militaristic: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ to name a few. War is always a part of the business that is politics, whichever side you're on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Until you have lived as a statue, do not talk to me of pigeons."
—Karn, silver golem
The first thing you say is ridiculous. This is a president who got involved in a war in a country that posed no threat to the US (Libya) and you think he wouldn't have the stones to attack NK if it came down to it?
We're at war with Libya?
Anyway, this is just NK's international code for "We want more food aid", so they can ask for help without sounding weak.
NK can't say "we are so messed up we can't even feed our people" without losing face, which isn't really what fascist dictators want to do. So they make empty threats, the international community air drops in more food, and NK shuts up for another year.
It's really a sad, ridiculous state of affairs, but that's human beings for you.
I heard they threatened to kill 150,000 Americans in Seoul, but that there aren't even that many Americans in Seoul to begin with. Well, ideally, there would be none (no military personnel, at least).
Anyway, he is quite clearly unhinged. Unless China chose to get involved, he U.S. government would make quick work of North Korea. Just so long as it didn't have to occupy it or anything. If there was ever any kind of ground invasion by South Korea, I wonder what would happen. Would people turn on their dictator faster than they did on Sadaam, because conditions are even worse there? Or would they not turn at all because they are more brainwashed than the people in Iraq?
If north korea actually attempts to launch rockets at the US this issue would be over because there won't be a north korea.
We haven't been attacked much, we don't take it well.
That and also North Korea's behavior hasn't exactly won them many friends. I'm pretty sure the global community as a whole wouldn't take a largely unprovoked attack very well.
I believe this is what people like to call "sabre-rattling."
It is generally thought that, despite it's rhetoric, North Korea doesn't actually have the capabilities to throw out these missiles. Secondly, North Korean-Chinese relations have been strained for some time now, as shown by the recent UN sanctions against North Korea, which were backed by China. So we can assume that if North Korea does make some aggressive moves, China would probably not back them, especially if the US and her allies are on the other end. Thirdly, North Korea is an impoverished, and very weak nation. If it came to a war, North Korea would lose very quickly without Chinese support, which is getting less and less guaranteed as North Korea makes more and more threats.
North Korea will not lead to WWIII. There would have to be Great Powers on both sides for a war of that magnitude to occur, and right now it seems to be everyone v. North Korea except for a reluctant China.
I'm not sure what kind of launch retaliation policies are in place right now for nuclear strikes. Our current president doesn't have the stones.
If NK wants a Republican back in the white house a sure way to do it would be escalate an armed conflict. You can say what you want about GWB's second term, but there is no doubt he got it on the back of 9-11.
I'm not convinced NK has a rocket that can reach Hawaii. Guam maybe. What kind of terms is NK with China right now?
Uh... Reality Check time...
The Republican party is the more Xenophobic of the two so yes they do better when we have a foreign threat.
However, the Democrats are far more likely to actually start a war, end a war, or just launch in some rockets without much care.
Remember, Afghanistan really started with which President again?
answer:Clinton when our embassies got bombed and he rocket attacked Afghanistan. It's just the main stream media doesn't want you to remember that we had been in one kerfuffle after another from 1993 to 2000 that centered around Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden.
I would be far less surprised to see Pres. Obama send a Seal Team over to Pyongyang to pull the dear leader out of his bed and give him a spanking, than I would be to see a Republican President commit forces to a foreign war again in the next 50 years.
Also, you see the amount of money we were forced to spend to prop up Afghanistan and Iraq after tearing down their governments? Imagine how much money it would cost to prop up a country that has been stagnant since the 1950s? Remember, we could take Cuba overnight if we REALLY wanted to. It's another country that stopped evolving in the mid 19th century though. Even Hugo Chavez wasn't interested in overly improving the infrastructure there.
In any case, the real sad thing about the posturing from North Korea is that no one cares because it's more cost effective to let them threaten us, it generates revenue for the media conglomerate. Which in turn eventually lines the pockets of politicians the world over to continue to ignore a nation of people we wish didn't exist.
Also, I wanted to add that right now North Korea would be better off seeking support from Iran than China. Currently Iranian and North Korean relations are at an all time high, but you NEVER see that in the news(well... Except FOX news, but even if this is the one area they are credibly reporting... it's FOX news). I recall seeing somewhere that nearly all of the oil in NK is coming from Iran. We should really be more concerned with that connection than anything else. NK has nuclear capability (even if its laughable), Iran wants it. And Iran has the money and potential motivation to build up NK. Also, NK is not a nation that follows a religion that Iran is against. The only thing really keeping the 2 of them from being closer is China. And we might be messing that up.
Meh. I feel this is nothing more than empty threats, really. North Korea hasn't the power nor the accuracy to hit Hawaii, let alone mainland United States. Guam may be a viable target. But even if North Korea did launch a missile strike against the U.S. they'd be wiped out faster than cake at a fat kid's birthday. And I'm pretty sure their one and only ally(China) would rather cut their losses than get involved with a war between their annoying neighbor and their biggest consumer. Economics before bros.
I'm not sure what kind of launch retaliation policies are in place right now for nuclear strikes. Our current president doesn't have the stones.
A bit of an odd shot at the pres...
According to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, pretty much it says what the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security strategy should be, North Korea is going to get wrecked if they pull anything. (Iran has also been excluded, they would get wrecked too if they pulled any fast ones.)
Just remember, a democrat dropped the bomb on Japan.
Yes our Nobel Peace Prize (I lost all respect for the award due to this) President has no problem bowing to the whims of imperialist Europe but to defend his own people? No he'd let them bomb us first.
Just remember, a democrat dropped the bomb on Japan.
It's my opinion, but its not about Democrats, its about Obama. He's no Truman and no Roosevelt. The only thing he's got in common with those men is that he knows his liberal domestic agenda is about control not about doing what's right for the lower class.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I think he understands he could not possibly win such an encounter. I'm guessing he is probably doing all of this for domestic political consumption. As a (largely untested) new leader of a country with a cult of personality, he has to establish his leadership bona fides with the NK population at large, and certainly also with some of the military brass there. As with most countries, they are truly in control of the country. His dad basically did the same thing when he took over.
While North Korea continues to be the reclusive and backward nation that it always has been, I don't see a nuclear strike being as threatening as some people would think it'd be. North Korea still thinks it's living in the 1950s when you could launch ICBMs across the world and feel powerful. If North Korea ever launched a nuclear weapon on the US, it would be like a person winding up a punch and running for a mile before hitting its target. It would be very easy to see coming. I fear an economic crisis much more than I do North Korea firing missiles. There's a reason why Thomas Jefferson said banks were more powerful than standing armies.
If NK wants a Republican back in the white house a sure way to do it would be escalate an armed conflict. You can say what you want about GWB's second term, but there is no doubt he got it on the back of 9-11.
I actually disagree with this. I would argue that Bush Jr. got re-elected because of the housing bubble that was inflated by the Federal Reserve shortly after he was first inaugurated. Remember, the dot-com bubble had already burst by the time Bush started his first term. The US was beginning to go into a bad recession even before 9/11 happened, but the housing bubble quickly put an end to that recession. Had the Fed not lowered interest rates to spark the housing bubble, the recession from the dot-com bust would have very well lasted until the 2004 election. That would have cost Bush his re-election because the voters would have wanted to elect someone else to get the country out of the recession from the dot-com bust.
Heck, just look at the 2004 presidential debates. There was virtually no talk about the economy because it was dominated by foreign policy. Nevermind the fact that a time bomb was silently ticking away under Fannie and Freddie while the nation was in a fervor over the war on terror.
North Korea just wants to attract the attention of the US. They want to end the endless war that is still going on, but is currently unspoken of. That's the only way to put the white flag of negotiations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Casual crazy magic player, otaku maniac, unrully cosplayer, what did you expect me to be?
The DPRK has the tech to launch a satellite into orbit. ICBMs are still beyond them, and China has become increasingly pissed as the US is stationing more and more heavy guns in Asia and the traditionalists who backed the DPRK in the party are retiring.
It's more posturing, and not as bad as the Cheonan incident (remember when they sank that SK frigate?). If the DPRK launch a nuke at US soil (Alaska is the only place they could plausibly hit) there are enough conventional weapons to incinerate anything north of the DMZ worth a damn. You don't need to drop a nuke, and you wouldn't want to with allies and a cagey foreign power in close proximity to your target zone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh, my! This is terrible news. Can this really lead to a nuclear war?
[Clan Flamingo]
The clan for custom card creators!
We haven't been attacked much, we don't take it well.
none
Modern
UBG B/U/G control
BBB MBC
WUR Control
WWW Prison
RRR Goblins
Legacy
BBB Pox
UBG B/U/G Control
UWU StoneBlade
UW Miracle Control
If NK wants a Republican back in the white house a sure way to do it would be escalate an armed conflict. You can say what you want about GWB's second term, but there is no doubt he got it on the back of 9-11.
I'm not convinced NK has a rocket that can reach Hawaii. Guam maybe. What kind of terms is NK with China right now?
The only reason i disagree with that is even their allies (Mainly China) don't support them in this.
*If* they attack the US (or South Korea, more likely, but neither being likley at all) they will get resoundingly slapped down by the US, and several other countries with China only stepping in to stop them from being eliminated as a country completely.
Unlike previous periods in world history there are not a bunch of countries looking to expand via warfare right now. the climate just isn't right for it.
Doubt it. China is not going to risk widespread economic disruption over the sake of that bloody rock. If anything they're only going to hope that in the event of a nuclear retaliation there aren't enough North Koreas left to form a refugee problem. It's depressing, but North Korea getting annihilated would probably be in China's best interests.
Pretty much this. I think if they ever do become a real threat the US will just bomb them all day and night until there's just a smoldering pile of ruin left. And it would all be done without nukes.
Ten years ago the US invaded a sovergien nation that wasn't pointing anything at us, and did it without the approval of most of the other western nations. That didn't plunge the world into WWIII, I see no reason this would. Being friends with China wouldn't be enough IMO (especially since the US is China's biggest customer).
The first thing you say is ridiculous. This is a president who got involved in a war in a country that posed no threat to the US (Libya) and you think he wouldn't have the stones to attack NK if it came down to it?
There's nothing new here. NK has been doing stuff like this for decades. This is a propaganda "news" piece, meant to foment fear about a very minor threat to the US, in order to get people to blindly believe in Anglophone, international military advancement. This is just "axis of evil" garbage, fueled by a cold-war mentality.
Also, there have been plenty of Democrats who were heavily militaristic: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ to name a few. War is always a part of the business that is politics, whichever side you're on.
—Karn, silver golem
We're at war with Libya?
Anyway, this is just NK's international code for "We want more food aid", so they can ask for help without sounding weak.
NK can't say "we are so messed up we can't even feed our people" without losing face, which isn't really what fascist dictators want to do. So they make empty threats, the international community air drops in more food, and NK shuts up for another year.
It's really a sad, ridiculous state of affairs, but that's human beings for you.
Sounds to me like we're the ones holding the cards. Make the fascist dictator beg for aid.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
That's not what I said. "Involved" is what I said. It's sad that I have to point this out, but just take a look at this if you have any doubts about military involvement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya.
—Karn, silver golem
Anyway, he is quite clearly unhinged. Unless China chose to get involved, he U.S. government would make quick work of North Korea. Just so long as it didn't have to occupy it or anything. If there was ever any kind of ground invasion by South Korea, I wonder what would happen. Would people turn on their dictator faster than they did on Sadaam, because conditions are even worse there? Or would they not turn at all because they are more brainwashed than the people in Iraq?
That and also North Korea's behavior hasn't exactly won them many friends. I'm pretty sure the global community as a whole wouldn't take a largely unprovoked attack very well.
I believe this is what people like to call "sabre-rattling."
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
North Korea will not lead to WWIII. There would have to be Great Powers on both sides for a war of that magnitude to occur, and right now it seems to be everyone v. North Korea except for a reluctant China.
Uh... Reality Check time...
The Republican party is the more Xenophobic of the two so yes they do better when we have a foreign threat.
However, the Democrats are far more likely to actually start a war, end a war, or just launch in some rockets without much care.
Remember, Afghanistan really started with which President again?
answer:Clinton when our embassies got bombed and he rocket attacked Afghanistan. It's just the main stream media doesn't want you to remember that we had been in one kerfuffle after another from 1993 to 2000 that centered around Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden.
I would be far less surprised to see Pres. Obama send a Seal Team over to Pyongyang to pull the dear leader out of his bed and give him a spanking, than I would be to see a Republican President commit forces to a foreign war again in the next 50 years.
Also, you see the amount of money we were forced to spend to prop up Afghanistan and Iraq after tearing down their governments? Imagine how much money it would cost to prop up a country that has been stagnant since the 1950s? Remember, we could take Cuba overnight if we REALLY wanted to. It's another country that stopped evolving in the mid 19th century though. Even Hugo Chavez wasn't interested in overly improving the infrastructure there.
In any case, the real sad thing about the posturing from North Korea is that no one cares because it's more cost effective to let them threaten us, it generates revenue for the media conglomerate. Which in turn eventually lines the pockets of politicians the world over to continue to ignore a nation of people we wish didn't exist.
Also, I wanted to add that right now North Korea would be better off seeking support from Iran than China. Currently Iranian and North Korean relations are at an all time high, but you NEVER see that in the news(well... Except FOX news, but even if this is the one area they are credibly reporting... it's FOX news). I recall seeing somewhere that nearly all of the oil in NK is coming from Iran. We should really be more concerned with that connection than anything else. NK has nuclear capability (even if its laughable), Iran wants it. And Iran has the money and potential motivation to build up NK. Also, NK is not a nation that follows a religion that Iran is against. The only thing really keeping the 2 of them from being closer is China. And we might be messing that up.
Why should the innocent people of North Korea be forced to starve due to the delusions of a fascist dictator?
If NK ever becomes a democracy, how do you think the populace will feel towards the country that kept them fed?
It's in our long term best interest to feed them, regardless of the humanitarian and compassionate reasons to do so.
A bit of an odd shot at the pres...
According to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, pretty much it says what the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security strategy should be, North Korea is going to get wrecked if they pull anything. (Iran has also been excluded, they would get wrecked too if they pulled any fast ones.)
Just remember, a democrat dropped the bomb on Japan.
Yes our Nobel Peace Prize (I lost all respect for the award due to this) President has no problem bowing to the whims of imperialist Europe but to defend his own people? No he'd let them bomb us first.
It's my opinion, but its not about Democrats, its about Obama. He's no Truman and no Roosevelt. The only thing he's got in common with those men is that he knows his liberal domestic agenda is about control not about doing what's right for the lower class.
Missiles flying, no matter why, make me nervous.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
I actually disagree with this. I would argue that Bush Jr. got re-elected because of the housing bubble that was inflated by the Federal Reserve shortly after he was first inaugurated. Remember, the dot-com bubble had already burst by the time Bush started his first term. The US was beginning to go into a bad recession even before 9/11 happened, but the housing bubble quickly put an end to that recession. Had the Fed not lowered interest rates to spark the housing bubble, the recession from the dot-com bust would have very well lasted until the 2004 election. That would have cost Bush his re-election because the voters would have wanted to elect someone else to get the country out of the recession from the dot-com bust.
Heck, just look at the 2004 presidential debates. There was virtually no talk about the economy because it was dominated by foreign policy. Nevermind the fact that a time bomb was silently ticking away under Fannie and Freddie while the nation was in a fervor over the war on terror.
It's more posturing, and not as bad as the Cheonan incident (remember when they sank that SK frigate?). If the DPRK launch a nuke at US soil (Alaska is the only place they could plausibly hit) there are enough conventional weapons to incinerate anything north of the DMZ worth a damn. You don't need to drop a nuke, and you wouldn't want to with allies and a cagey foreign power in close proximity to your target zone.