N. Korea says it will defeat USA in nuke war

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by peter2002, Feb 17, 2003.

  1. peter2002 macrumors 6502

    Aug 1, 2002
    Dallas, TX
    NPRK threatened Tuesday to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, accusing the United States of plotting an attack on the communist state. The NPRK also claim today they will defeat the USA in a nuclear war. (Wishful thinking)

    Well lets see, the NPRK has maybe 2 nukes. None can reach the USA in the next 6 months unless they ship them in the back of a Hyundai.

    The USA has 6,000+ strategic nukes. All can hit N. Korea. The 24 at a time that be launched from our subs can hit in less than 3 minutes.



    All I got to say is that you got to hand it to that mad portly N. Korean leader Kim Whatever. He is the only guy worse at diplomacy than Bush.

    Pete :)
  2. dermeister macrumors 6502


    Jan 19, 2003
    Yeah problem is that if America ever does something pre-emptive to protect itself, the whole fscking world always starts spewing **** against it.

    I say wait until they start arming up, declare war, use [small] nukes on every military faction in NK:D (You can make small nukes, as long as the uranium is at sufficent concentration to reach critical mass)... Add that to the fact that all of their millitary factions will be inhabitable for X years, and they will pretty much be shot to the ground.

    (naive senario, but sounds cool to me)
  3. Kid Red macrumors 65816

    Dec 14, 2001
    Re: N. Korea says it will defeat USA in nuke war

    Yea, someone is a few pistons short an engine. They also don' even have a missle that can reach the US yet, lol.

    They are just blackmailing nations to give them aid. "Hey, I will come back next week and throw rocks thru your windows unless you give me a cookie". *******s, they are really going about 'aide' the wrong way. They'll get what they deserve in the end.
  4. idkew macrumors 68020


    Sep 26, 2001
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    when will people learn that threating someone will not get you help?

    n korea has a neighbor down south of them that is doing just fine. maybe they could stop being so damn stubborn and model themselves after s korea.
  5. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3


    Feb 7, 2002
    sounds "cool"? how so?

    nuclear war? cool?
  6. phgreer macrumors regular


    Jul 18, 2002
    Greenville, SC
    Don't worry about it. I sold them casings full of used pinball machine parts.
  7. MacFan25 macrumors 68000


    Jan 5, 2003
    Yeah, really. I would hate to see a nuclear war going on. It would be very scary. :(
  8. gotohamish macrumors 65816


    Jul 15, 2001
    Oh really? I think that's a slight understatment. :(

    If all of America had the complacency that a lot of you have, it would be very easy for North Korea.

    Who is really to say that they don't have missiles that could reach US soil? You have to take every threat with the utmost of seriousness.

    They have Japan in range, and an attack their could cripple the US economy, maybe not as bad as the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, but as far as an attack goes, equally strong.

    The Us have to tread carefully, and stop thinking that everyone looks up to them as an amazing power.

    We in the UK may fear that the French and Germans are right about Iraq just because of aged relations, but I think we all hope they are in the end. We don't want to instigate a war with anyone, and it looks like North Korea is a far more immediate threat than Iraq.
  9. 3rdpath macrumors 68000


    Jan 7, 2002
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    if people and countries didn't respond to threats...they would cease to be effective.

    maybe the lone superpower, the champion of morals, ethics and all things good and wholesome should set an example...

    monkey see, monkey do.
  10. job macrumors 68040


    Jan 25, 2002
    in transit

    then let me ask you this..

    if someone was standing in front of you with a drawn gun and threatened to kill you, would you respond? if you didn't know whether or not he actually had any rounds in the weapon, would you act?

    i do not believe that any country can simply brush off threats of nuclear war. if we do so, it shows the world that we will not take a stand against tyranny and danger. thus as a result, dictators become emboldened. this is tantamount to appeasement.

    we never really responded to the embassy bombings in africa, or the attack on the uss cole. look where that got us.
  11. 3rdpath macrumors 68000


    Jan 7, 2002
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    your analogy is not applicable.
    1) we're dealing within the political arena where a threat is used for bargaining or blackmail... the process is lengthy and the true intent of the threat may not be easily identified.

    2) both parties are armed...though the "person" in your example has made the mistake of " bringing a knife to a gunfight".

    3) there are many ways to stand up to dictators and /or threats...remember the cold war? the threats from russia? if n. korea was ignored what do you think they would do? use a nuke and shortly become the largest man-made crater in existence? i doubt it. they might try a more civilized approach.

    and as far as the cole/embassy events... i don't remember any threats being made. correct me if i'm wrong.
  12. Thanatoast macrumors 65816


    Dec 3, 2002
    A true story of two friends, who I will call Joe and Bob, that occurred on Saturday.

    Joe and Bob got into a HUGE argument earlier in the day. MUCH drama ensued. Joe is now sitting in his recliner, wondering what to do about Bob, because he knows that Bob is very angry. Bob enters the room (I'm in the room as well at this point). Bob is livid. Bob screams at the top of his lungs that Joe will not ignore him. He screams that he is in control of the situation. He screams that he is going to teach Joe a lesson, and take him down a couple of notches. He screams that he will kick Bob's ass. Bob at one point even threatened Joe's life. Bob orders [Sam] and I out of the room. We leave, and the rest of the account comes second hand.

    Bob screams more of the same stuff. "Get out of your chair! Come fight me!" Joe refuses. Bob picks up Joe's bass guitar and says "If you don't get out of that chair, I will put this guitar through your tv!" "Fine," replies Joe. "Do it. You will electrocute yourself, and then you will buy me a new tv. But I will not get out of this chair."

    Bob yells, "Joe, get out of that chair or I will smash this guitar against your flat panel computer screen!" "Fine," replies Joe. "Do it, but you will be buying me a new computer screen. And I will not get out of this chair."

    Bob screams in frustration and yells "Get out of that chair and fight me or I will hit you where you sit!" "If you must hit me where I sit, then do it. I will not move to stop you. But know that my response will not be measured or sympathetic. You will not remain standing if if you hit me." (Joe is much larger than Bob).

    Bob screams once more "I hate you!" and leaves the room. Joe has not even lowered the foot rest on his recliner.

    The moral of the story should be obvious. Joe throughout remained calm, and refused to make any agressive move to give Bob an excuse to act. Bob knew that if he acted, he would be in bigger trouble than he could handle. The story is true, though the words are paraphrased. I think we should follow Joe's example in North Korea and Iraq. Pacifism can work, if we give it a chance. If Iraq attacks us, then we defend ourselves with extreme prejudice. Same with North Korea. If, however, we attack first, we justify their response and hostility.

    Let's learn from our mistakes instead of repeating them. Remember that WWII (which so many in here are fond of pointing to as justification for the invasion of Iraq) was really just revenge for the hardships put on the German people at the end of WWI. And here we are following the same pattern of violence, except this time we're "stopping" Iraq's "Hitler" before he can act. Did Germany do better when they were under crippling sanctions and paying huge reparations or when we helped them rebuild their nation and didn't give them a reason to resent us?

    Open your eyes. Pull your head out of your ass. THINK DIFFERENT!

  13. job macrumors 68040


    Jan 25, 2002
    in transit
    however, it is a threat nontheless. until proven otherwise, a country cannot discount any threat as blackmail. we did not aggressively seek out the attention of north korea, nor did we act in any way that might have called for blackmail. besides, wouldn't a peaceful message be far more affective for bargaining?

    if you look at the recent diplomatic meetings that have been occurring in the region, it seems that someone high up in washington thinks the same way you do. we have yet to respond to even the slightest rhetoric from north korea. in comparison to the issue with iraq, washington has been strangly silent on the north korea crisis.

    however, only one person is actually crazy enough to strike first. i highly doubt that the united states would launch nukes first.

    and in response to those threats the united states made sure that the soviets knew exactly what would happen if those threats were carried out.

    we are talking about a country here whose economy rests solely on the production and export of vast amounts of military hardware. two million north koreans died of starvation last year while Kim Chong-il files in caviar and champaign for himself. they are far past the point of "civilized."

    specific threats against those two targest were not made.


    a threat against us military personnel was made.


    the threat was ignored. again, inaction and/or a hard stance against a possible threat resulted in more american deaths.

    i'm not saying that the united states ought to launch a pre-emptive strike against north korea. i am merely stating that instead of ignoring a possible threat, we need to state that we will respond in kind if attacked with nuclear weapons.

    [edited for spelling]
  14. Jaykay macrumors 6502a


    Dec 1, 2002
    Thats an interesting story Thanatoast, but who is sam?

    Anyways, I agree with you, almost, there can always be a peacefull solution (unless in an extraordinary situation a la WWII). I think the last thing N. Korea either do or think they can do is beat the US in nuclear war. There is no such thing as anybody winning a nuclear war, not to mention the fact that if the US did obliterate N. Korea it would have a dire affect on them anyways.

    Do you think that China would stand idly by and watch one of the only surviving communist regimes in the world which they are quite friendly with and is on their border, be taken out by a barrage of nuclear weapons i doubt it (they probably wouldnt attack the US but it would put them up **** creek with the the UN (not NATO because they are NATO or pretty much own it) and the rest of the world unless N. Korea did something on a major scale first. And that would have to be something like using nuclear weapons against the US directly.

    And to do with invasion, N.Korea is a whole different kettle of fish than either Iraq or Afghanistan, the US might get burned if they play with too much fire.

    Just to note : Im not anti-american(i like all the ameicans i know - except one but not the point :) and ye make macs so hey i love ye guys).I just believe that there are serious consequences for trying to take on the whole world (and from what i can see im not a big of GW)........
  15. ChicagoMac macrumors regular

    Nov 8, 2002
    Battle Creek, MI
    According to what I heard on the news, North Korea does have a missle that can reach the West Coast of the United States. They couldn't defeat us, but they could certainly do some major damage. A war with N. Korea could also bring some other major players into the war.
  16. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    Remember these are ravings from a closed society thats run by a crazy lunatic with dilusions of godhood and they believe whatever the Crazy Korean may tell them. To bad he isnt interested in feeding them.
  17. job macrumors 68040


    Jan 25, 2002
    in transit
    fine. "bob" gets even more pissed off and beats the s**t out of joes little sister. (i.e. south korea).

    "bob" does not need an excuse to attack. these people are not about to justify their actions for the entire world.

    you speak of north korea as if they were a logical, rational country. surely you don't believe that!?

    i'll drink to that.

    i'm not saying that we should pre-emptively attack north korea. (see previous post.)

    except hitler was not sitting on trillions of barrels of oil. if sanctions are removed, saddam will be free reign to buy whatever military technology he wants. what's to stop him from trading oil for weapons with the currently freezing (read: no fossil fuel, no heating) north korea?

    i am.
  18. job macrumors 68040


    Jan 25, 2002
    in transit
    actually, china would much rather see a non-nuclear capable north korea.

    as we speak thousands of north korean refugees are fleeing towards the chinese border. those who are caught are sent to forced labor camps. the chinese do not want a mass migration of north koreans.

    china would rather have a stabilized, unified peninsula. can you imagine the economic consequences if a unified, capitalist korean peninsula began trading with china? china would love it.

    hahahahah...oh, you were trying to be serious.
  19. Ifeelbloated macrumors regular

    Jan 14, 2002
    some God forsaken place
    If there ever is a conflict with North Korea, I hope that they do use tactical nukes on them. Blow some sense into their thick-headed skulls for a change. God almighty, I don't think there are more stubborn people on Earth than Koreans. Believe me, I know. I'm one of them!
  20. Thanatoast macrumors 65816


    Dec 3, 2002
    [Sam] is another friend who was in the room whose named has been changed.

    "fine. "bob" gets even more pissed off and beats the s**t out of joes little sister. (i.e. south korea). "

    Then comes the "you will not remain standing" part. The whole time Bob was ranting, he knew that if he actually took any action he would be in deeper **** than he could handle. Same with North Korea. If they attack the South, the US would intervene with "exetreme prejudice". But NOT make the first move.

    ""bob" does not need an excuse to attack. these people are not about to justify their actions for the entire world."

    Bob never justified anything. That's part of the reason he never attacked, because he knew that it would turn *everyone* against him. If you like the realism theory of international relations, think about it in terms of North Korea's self interest. Attacking gets them destroyed, utterly and without mercy. Playing nice gets them international stature and a healthier economy (assuming we don't ruin it with sanctions).

    "you speak of north korea as if they were a logical, rational country. surely you don't believe that!?"

    I believe they know that attacking the US or their neighbors means their instant annihilation.

    "i'm not saying that we should pre-emptively attack north korea. (see previous post.)"

    Good. Let's not threaten them either. Only say what we mean to do IF they attack. No posturing, no rhetoric, no pre-emptive excuses. Let's do this in Iraq as well.

    "what's to stop him from trading oil for weapons"

    Nothing. But he knows if he *uses* them he will cease to exist except as a nuclear shadow on the wall of his concrete bunker. The US and USSR built thousands of nuclear bombs. We never *used* them because we knew what the consequences would be.

    In the case of Iraq, you're thinking the same way everyone has thought since the beginning of the nation-state. Hit them before they can hit us.

    In the case of North Korea, you're probably thinking "Don't hit them because the can hit us back." Correct me if I'm wrong. It's still fear-based thought.
  21. job macrumors 68040


    Jan 25, 2002
    in transit
    That would be the logical course of action. However, North Korea's recent actions (i.e. kicking out UN overseers, restarting their nuclear power plants, and moving nuclear fuel rods) don't seem to be very diplomatic.

    Why then, such aggressive seeming actions and rhetoric? You yourself noted that any attack with nuclear weapons would result in the complete destruction of North Korea. Currently it would be more logical not to aggravate the situation and keep a calm, normal composure, yet the North Koreans have become more aggressive.

    Simply put, I just don't understand why North Korea has this sudden urge to invoke another cold war. As we both know, any direct action with nuclear weapons will get North Korea nowhere. Yet they continue to spout hostile rhetoric.

    However, isn't that still an indirect threat? By detailing to the world what we would do if attacked don't we in turn threaten those who threaten us?

    Not really. I'll state for the record that the North Koreans are loony enough, to the extent that if we do threaten them with anything, including sanctions, that they would a) invade South Korea or b) attack the United States in some way shape or form. Therefore the United States really cannot do much about the North Korean crisis right now.

    Our course of action so far has been appropriate. We have made it known to the world that the North Koreans are possibly restarting their efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.

    I think that this situation is far more delicate and serious than the Iraq issue.
  22. macfan macrumors member

    Jan 2, 2003
    One might consider it to be a half truth. You seem to have totally forgotten the entire role played by Japan in WWII. In any event, had Versailles been enforced, it would never have happened, and, had there not been all the issues associated with it, that is no guarantee that Hitler wouldn't have come to power on the strength of a world wide depression anyway.
  23. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    Actually there nukes have the ability to reach the U.S they have the ability to reach Alaska and their furthest can reach Hawaii... this brings be to the Article from the best news source ever.
    The Onion: ;) :D :rolleyes:

  24. Thanatoast macrumors 65816


    Dec 3, 2002
    "Yet they continue to spout hostile rhetoric."

    Which is fine. They can spout all the rhetoric they want in my opinion. It's when they start throwing bombs that something needs to be done.

    "By detailing to the world what we would do if attacked don't we in turn threaten those who threaten us?"

    We let then know what would happen if they attack us. If they continue to threaten but not act, then the situation is moot.

    Japan saw an opportunity for Pacific dominance during WWII, so they decided to pre-emptively strike the US navy. Before Pearl Harbor, the US didn't even want to get into the war. Japan unwittingly stirred up a hornet's nest in the US, to its regret later on.

    Had Versailles never occurred in the first place, and instead Wilson's 14 points followed, I think there would have been a lot less death between '38-'45.
  25. macfan macrumors member

    Jan 2, 2003
    I agree.

    The French should have should have followed the lead of the United States.

    Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Share This Page