cortez said:Mogz said:
I love you Madeline the keys to my suite are in your cabbage roll,please wear the teddy.
N. Korea: It can launch pre-emptive strike
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
Jersay said:
Not totally. The US did indeed start a dangerous precedent, but no one forced North Korea to follow along.
So the US could be to blame for starting this, but North Korea would still hold responsibility for copying.
Machjo said:
But it is more fun to blame the US.
N. Korea will laugh in your face.
"A ha ha ha ree got nucrear weapon to nuke capritarist dogs!"
RE: N. Korea: It can laun
Wouldn't it be O/K for your good buddies Canukistan to have nukes EagleSmack, lend us some and see what it's like to live with loaded nieghbours, on hair triggers.
Wouldn't it be O/K for your good buddies Canukistan to have nukes EagleSmack, lend us some and see what it's like to live with loaded nieghbours, on hair triggers.
RE: N. Korea: It can laun
Yes of course that's the answer the pre-pre-emtive strike, we must have it, I have noticed that while N Korea is a nest of shit they have managed not to be bombed for a while.
I won't feel safe in Canuckistan untill we also sleep comfy and warm under our own pre-emptive strike blanket. We of course must begin design work on pre-pre-pre-emtive strike
capabilitys not to do so would show our weak liberalleftpacifist perversions.
Yes of course that's the answer the pre-pre-emtive strike, we must have it, I have noticed that while N Korea is a nest of shit they have managed not to be bombed for a while.
I won't feel safe in Canuckistan untill we also sleep comfy and warm under our own pre-emptive strike blanket. We of course must begin design work on pre-pre-pre-emtive strike
capabilitys not to do so would show our weak liberalleftpacifist perversions.
Interesting message Bush sent to the world though: If you don't have nukes, we'll getcha (e.g. Iraq), but if you do, we'll walk a little more cautiously.
So Iran and every other nation... Observe and learn!
So Iran and every other nation... Observe and learn!
I suppose the North Koreans have reason to "bait" the United States....let's not forget the Korean War.
I happen to agree that if pre-emption is "good" for one country,there's no reason why another cannot adopt the same stance.
Canada cannot afford,militarily,to preempt any other nation....just don't have the manpower and firepower for it.(Though our taking over the Turks and Caicos has a certain panache about it,lol).
About a year ago,North Korea verbally ranted about their nuclear capability and George Bush said"Let's talk"....no threats of pre-emptive strikes or of ridding the world of an "evil" dictator.Of course,North Korea enjoys the protection of China, a nation certainly capable of pre-emptive strikes.
I happen to agree that if pre-emption is "good" for one country,there's no reason why another cannot adopt the same stance.
Canada cannot afford,militarily,to preempt any other nation....just don't have the manpower and firepower for it.(Though our taking over the Turks and Caicos has a certain panache about it,lol).
About a year ago,North Korea verbally ranted about their nuclear capability and George Bush said"Let's talk"....no threats of pre-emptive strikes or of ridding the world of an "evil" dictator.Of course,North Korea enjoys the protection of China, a nation certainly capable of pre-emptive strikes.
RE: N. Korea: It can laun
we have whats called 'Emu-defence strategy' very similar to the '50's america "Duck and Cover" except there is no 'duck' and no cover... you just bury your head in the sand...
it seems to work, just ask Old man Emu.
we have whats called 'Emu-defence strategy' very similar to the '50's america "Duck and Cover" except there is no 'duck' and no cover... you just bury your head in the sand...
it seems to work, just ask Old man Emu.
Re: RE: N. Korea: It can launch pre-emptive strike
I found that interesting too, sorta like the "consequences" that were suggested when China was holding that downed spyplane, consequences that were certain to never materialize, whereas I would be SHOCKED if nothing were to happen to Iran in the next few months
DB- I like your pre-pre-emptive strike idea but it sounds a little wonky- why not call for a PAN-emptive strike, one that will stop EVERYTHING- might as well plan big after all
annabattler said:
I found that interesting too, sorta like the "consequences" that were suggested when China was holding that downed spyplane, consequences that were certain to never materialize, whereas I would be SHOCKED if nothing were to happen to Iran in the next few months
DB- I like your pre-pre-emptive strike idea but it sounds a little wonky- why not call for a PAN-emptive strike, one that will stop EVERYTHING- might as well plan big after all
Re: RE: N. Korea: It can launch pre-emptive strike
I'm not sure about that. the PRC certainly could defend its own and it would not be wise to try to attack it for many reasons. As for the Taiwan issue, that one's a toss up... so do we want to try and find out?
But as for pre-emptive strike capability, I highly doubt it; China's very military philosophy is based on national (this also includes Taiwan as a province) defence, which would naturally mean that all military spending, training, equipment, etc., would likewise revolve around such a strategy. I don't see how being able to nuke Los Angeles would fit into such a strategy in any practical way. According to such a philosophy, building a pre-emptive strike capacity aimed at US soil would just be a waste of valuable resources. Pre-emptive against taiwan, on the other hand, might fit in as a deterrent against Taiwan suddenly unilaterally declaring independance.
Now being able to turn a US fleet within China's (again, this could include Taiwan as a province) waters into twisted metal would certainly be an objective of such a philosophy. Their purchases are thus more likely to be short range and maximum destruction while avoiding potential fallout from close targets. So this would suggest that even nuclear power can't fit very nicely into such a strategy except perhaps as a deterrent of last resort. More likely this would involve a close-range and large-scale conventional missile or torpedo war off the Chinese coast.
North Korea's situation is different. I don't know much about its military philosophy beyond pretecting its borders (does it have any intentions of trying to take South Korea? Maybe one of you have read more on that than I have). Based on such a philosophy, seeing that North Korea would have a hard time taking the US military conventionally, and judging by the US' philosophy since Shrub, having a nuclear deterrent fits in nicely since they, unlike China, would really have nothing left to lose in the event of war against the US. So based on that, a "kamikaze-type strategy (i.e., MAD) would be an ideal strategy to send the US a strong message not to mess with them unless they want fallout, both literally and figuratively.
So while China would be VERY hesitant about using nukes (it has alot to gain and lose, and so will naturally be cautious), NK would be much more liberal in their dispersal even if all the fallout fell over Korea; they'd just figure that had they not used the nukes, the US would have them anyway. So better no one than the US.
annabattler said:
I'm not sure about that. the PRC certainly could defend its own and it would not be wise to try to attack it for many reasons. As for the Taiwan issue, that one's a toss up... so do we want to try and find out?
But as for pre-emptive strike capability, I highly doubt it; China's very military philosophy is based on national (this also includes Taiwan as a province) defence, which would naturally mean that all military spending, training, equipment, etc., would likewise revolve around such a strategy. I don't see how being able to nuke Los Angeles would fit into such a strategy in any practical way. According to such a philosophy, building a pre-emptive strike capacity aimed at US soil would just be a waste of valuable resources. Pre-emptive against taiwan, on the other hand, might fit in as a deterrent against Taiwan suddenly unilaterally declaring independance.
Now being able to turn a US fleet within China's (again, this could include Taiwan as a province) waters into twisted metal would certainly be an objective of such a philosophy. Their purchases are thus more likely to be short range and maximum destruction while avoiding potential fallout from close targets. So this would suggest that even nuclear power can't fit very nicely into such a strategy except perhaps as a deterrent of last resort. More likely this would involve a close-range and large-scale conventional missile or torpedo war off the Chinese coast.
North Korea's situation is different. I don't know much about its military philosophy beyond pretecting its borders (does it have any intentions of trying to take South Korea? Maybe one of you have read more on that than I have). Based on such a philosophy, seeing that North Korea would have a hard time taking the US military conventionally, and judging by the US' philosophy since Shrub, having a nuclear deterrent fits in nicely since they, unlike China, would really have nothing left to lose in the event of war against the US. So based on that, a "kamikaze-type strategy (i.e., MAD) would be an ideal strategy to send the US a strong message not to mess with them unless they want fallout, both literally and figuratively.
So while China would be VERY hesitant about using nukes (it has alot to gain and lose, and so will naturally be cautious), NK would be much more liberal in their dispersal even if all the fallout fell over Korea; they'd just figure that had they not used the nukes, the US would have them anyway. So better no one than the US.
Re: RE: N. Korea: It can laun
Why don't you build your own?
Why are you always looking for a hand out?
Are you saying that if you did have them you would have hair trigger fingers?
darkbeaver said:
Why don't you build your own?
Why are you always looking for a hand out?
Are you saying that if you did have them you would have hair trigger fingers?
Re: RE: N. Korea: It can launch pre-emptive strike
Yes let's not forget the Korean War. That is when tens of thousands of North Koreans invaded South Korea for no cause. And then they got their butts kicked all the way to China until the Chinese had to bail them out.
It was the N. Koreans that said "Let's talk" and not Bush. The US has refused unilateral discussions with N. Korea.
North Korea has an insane approach to international relations. Take for example their famine. They were starving to death and instead of reaching out to the world community for help they threaten war.
"Feed us or else!"
That is N. Korea for you.
annabattler said:
Yes let's not forget the Korean War. That is when tens of thousands of North Koreans invaded South Korea for no cause. And then they got their butts kicked all the way to China until the Chinese had to bail them out.
It was the N. Koreans that said "Let's talk" and not Bush. The US has refused unilateral discussions with N. Korea.
North Korea has an insane approach to international relations. Take for example their famine. They were starving to death and instead of reaching out to the world community for help they threaten war.
"Feed us or else!"
That is N. Korea for you.
Re: RE: N. Korea: It can launch pre-emptive strike
Of course you're right that would be the most cost effective way to go, I haven't had a bussiness course so sometimes the obvious advantage of market saturation and capital planning escapes me.It is afterall a job that requires accountable accounting.
mabudon said:
Of course you're right that would be the most cost effective way to go, I haven't had a bussiness course so sometimes the obvious advantage of market saturation and capital planning escapes me.It is afterall a job that requires accountable accounting.
Re: RE: N. Korea: It can laun
I'm not saying we would use them EagleSmack I'm just saying we have it on good authority that pre-empt is the way to go, what are you worried about man we just want to help save the world from those brown bastards, shit whats with helping shitloads of forigners with free nukes and holding out on your best friends when the going gets tough, we're being attacked by Afghanistan and boatloads of heathens are coming ashore and you don't want to give us the weapons. Are you serious about us building are own
EagleSmack or are you just sucking us in, cuss I don't want to start building WMDs just to have UncSam pre-emt us just in case we might be up to something.
EagleSmack said:
I'm not saying we would use them EagleSmack I'm just saying we have it on good authority that pre-empt is the way to go, what are you worried about man we just want to help save the world from those brown bastards, shit whats with helping shitloads of forigners with free nukes and holding out on your best friends when the going gets tough, we're being attacked by Afghanistan and boatloads of heathens are coming ashore and you don't want to give us the weapons. Are you serious about us building are own
EagleSmack or are you just sucking us in, cuss I don't want to start building WMDs just to have UncSam pre-emt us just in case we might be up to something.