Society & Culture0 min ago
One Step Too Far?
34 Answers
It has to be close to the time we (the rest of the World) do something.
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-48 31230/N orth-Ko rea-lau nches-m issile- Japan.h tml
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Unfortunately it is looking like there is very little option other than that. MOAB woud have to be the option and undoubrtedly one was lobbed at Assad with dual purpose, 1) To warn Assad and 2 to warn KJU.
The big problem is what Nuclear capabilities does NK have. Most likely they only have dirty nukes but even they are not nice but every week that goes by undoubtedly takes NK closer to a large proper nuclear option. Then it would be too late Armageddon would be upon us as he would use them at some point.
The big problem is what Nuclear capabilities does NK have. Most likely they only have dirty nukes but even they are not nice but every week that goes by undoubtedly takes NK closer to a large proper nuclear option. Then it would be too late Armageddon would be upon us as he would use them at some point.
Be interesting to hear what the Security Council (?)
come up with today when they meet.
Probably more words, more sanctions (which never work) and who is going to abstain?
I reckon China should get in with a lot of people with brollies laced with poison and get rid of the top level of KJU's circle.
In the meantime, aren't there a lot of NK's starving?
come up with today when they meet.
Probably more words, more sanctions (which never work) and who is going to abstain?
I reckon China should get in with a lot of people with brollies laced with poison and get rid of the top level of KJU's circle.
In the meantime, aren't there a lot of NK's starving?
"The problem is jim this will end in some sort of Military action, it is far too late for diplomacy and as we have seen with others, like Hitler, they do not listen to reason ever."
It's interesting to bring up the comparison to Hitler. In part because one of the reasons WWII happened in the way it did was that the "Allies" were (understandably, to be fair) desperate to avoid a military conflict at all costs, and early on that gave Hitler the freedom to pick off his targets one-by-one. Then again, can you blame them for trying, when many were alive who had seen the full horrors of the earlier War?
But on the other hand the comparison seems a little invalid. Kim Jong-Un, for all his bluster, often seems to make it clear that he is spoiling for a fight but always pulls back at the last minute from any actual conflict. Hitler, if anything, was the exact opposite, always busy pretending that he was seeking a peaceful resolution to these problems and insisting that military action was a last resort.
I don't know if that means anything. Perhaps it does not. But if there is some message in it, perhaps it's worth taking threats North Korea makes seriously but not literally. It may just be a way of holding on to power internally, rather than an actual threat to the outside world.
I think it's safe to assume that if North Korea did start a way, they would certainly lose badly, but cause a lot of damage and suffering in the process. I also think it's safe to assume that the North Korean leaders know this. It's not in their interests to actually start a war; but it may be in their interests to sound like they are ready for one, as it's powerful propaganda.
It's interesting to bring up the comparison to Hitler. In part because one of the reasons WWII happened in the way it did was that the "Allies" were (understandably, to be fair) desperate to avoid a military conflict at all costs, and early on that gave Hitler the freedom to pick off his targets one-by-one. Then again, can you blame them for trying, when many were alive who had seen the full horrors of the earlier War?
But on the other hand the comparison seems a little invalid. Kim Jong-Un, for all his bluster, often seems to make it clear that he is spoiling for a fight but always pulls back at the last minute from any actual conflict. Hitler, if anything, was the exact opposite, always busy pretending that he was seeking a peaceful resolution to these problems and insisting that military action was a last resort.
I don't know if that means anything. Perhaps it does not. But if there is some message in it, perhaps it's worth taking threats North Korea makes seriously but not literally. It may just be a way of holding on to power internally, rather than an actual threat to the outside world.
I think it's safe to assume that if North Korea did start a way, they would certainly lose badly, but cause a lot of damage and suffering in the process. I also think it's safe to assume that the North Korean leaders know this. It's not in their interests to actually start a war; but it may be in their interests to sound like they are ready for one, as it's powerful propaganda.
// They could have shot the missile down but would that just have escalated the situation ? //
I am not sure if they think it works - the anti missile missile system. The idea is OK - sense where the missile is, calculate pronto where it will be when you send one up to intercept.
the problems is getting the feedback algorithms fast enough to match the sort of 3000 mph missile
and it misses - oooooopsie !
I am not sure if they think it works - the anti missile missile system. The idea is OK - sense where the missile is, calculate pronto where it will be when you send one up to intercept.
the problems is getting the feedback algorithms fast enough to match the sort of 3000 mph missile
and it misses - oooooopsie !
// Let's bomb the Ding Dang Dongs // back into the stone age
( airforce general Curtis Le May )
concerning the Vietnam War
when he stood as VP for George Wallace's bid for president
everyone took him seriously ( Bombs away with Curtis E LeMay!)
as he had organised the flattening of Japan in Jan-Aug 1945
He flattened 20 sq mi of Tokyo in May 1945 - 80 000 dead
80% rendered homeless ( de-roofing the population) I mean prarper jarb! and because they werent surrendering fast enough after Nagasaki - he flattened the same lot again Aug 12 1945
( airforce general Curtis Le May )
concerning the Vietnam War
when he stood as VP for George Wallace's bid for president
everyone took him seriously ( Bombs away with Curtis E LeMay!)
as he had organised the flattening of Japan in Jan-Aug 1945
He flattened 20 sq mi of Tokyo in May 1945 - 80 000 dead
80% rendered homeless ( de-roofing the population) I mean prarper jarb! and because they werent surrendering fast enough after Nagasaki - he flattened the same lot again Aug 12 1945