You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 04:04:59 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: North Korea threatens to commit suicide  (Read 5088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The OverlordTopic starter

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #50 on: June 11, 2009, 03:06:09 AM »


Limited nuclear war can be survived. Which is what Pakistan and India would have.


Survivable yes, but probably not close to any desirable form. With over 1.3 billion souls between the two nations, the Indian subcontinent is going to get very crowded and uninhabitable for the survivors. Even one large bomb over New Delhi and Islamabad is going to pretty much damn both countries.

With both capitals reduced to a glowing urban wasteland, there will be the fallout, the poisoned rivers and other water sources (assuming the Ganges can actually be poisoned further), and lack of consumable food. Any pretense at civilization and government in both countries will evaporate, and the subcontinent will unravel into something Dante would love writing about and Bosch would make a good painting or two of.

People would survive it, yes, but the Indo-Pakistani culture would be effectively dead.



N. Korea probably thinks the US would be too chickenshit to respond with nuclear weapons. N. Korea has no problem using them, it's what they think our response would be that will decide wether they use them or not.


Then they’re damned stupid, because if they used theirs, even Obama would respond with a WMD retaliatory strike, and you’re fooling yourself if you think he wouldn’t.

The same thing has been said of terrorists like bin-laden and his posse, etc., that they’re all gambling the US won’t pull out the biggest weapons in its arsenal.

It’s under 70 years since the last time someone yanked our chain like this and the sleeping giant woke, and he didn’t stop until he smashed the life out of everything that stood in his way. Nations and organizations like this are pretty adept at showing the world terror, but they don’t understand what true horror is. They will understand when they have the full weight of an infuriated United States raining death on them.

Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2009, 10:04:20 AM »


Survivable yes, but probably not close to any desirable form. With over 1.3 billion souls between the two nations, the Indian subcontinent is going to get very crowded and uninhabitable for the survivors. Even one large bomb over New Delhi and Islamabad is going to pretty much damn both countries.

With both capitals reduced to a glowing urban wasteland, there will be the fallout, the poisoned rivers and other water sources (assuming the Ganges can actually be poisoned further), and lack of consumable food. Any pretense at civilization and government in both countries will evaporate, and the subcontinent will unravel into something Dante would love writing about and Bosch would make a good painting or two of.

People would survive it, yes, but the Indo-Pakistani culture would be effectively dead.

 It depends how many where used. India would suffer more than Pakistan. They have more people and are more split along religious lines. Pakistan would  get a lot of supsport from other Muslim nations and since most of it is tribal, it wouldn't suffer that much. There'd be no government, but I could see a jihad arising from there against India. The Muslim people always seem ready to fight at the drop of Allah's name. Look at their reaction to the cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb turban.

 You are also assuming they have nukes as powerful as the US and USSR did in the heyday of the Cold War




 
Then they’re damned stupid, because if they used theirs, even Obama would respond with a WMD retaliatory strike, and you’re fooling yourself if you think he wouldn’t.

The same thing has been said of terrorists like bin-laden and his posse, etc., that they’re all gambling the US won’t pull out the biggest weapons in its arsenal.

It’s under 70 years since the last time someone yanked our chain like this and the sleeping giant woke, and he didn’t stop until he smashed the life out of everything that stood in his way. Nations and organizations like this are pretty adept at showing the world terror, but they don’t understand what true horror is. They will understand when they have the full weight of an infuriated United States raining death on them.

 Given what I have seen of the President, I do not think he would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Nations would condom N. Korea for using theirs, but they would also scream at us to -not- use ours. If we did use some, we would be almost, if not more so, condemned for doing so since our military might so vastly overshadows NK's, a nuclear response would seem to be overreacting.

 With what has happened so far, 'dialog and diplomacy' would be the prefer ed method of resolving this situation since violence -never ever- solves anything.  The nations that would want to appease NK (Europe and others since they are not in any danger from NK) would push heavily for that, or a non nuclear responce. Then probably blame the US for provoking NK in the first place.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 10:28:18 AM by Zakharra »

Offline The OverlordTopic starter

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #52 on: June 11, 2009, 03:42:41 PM »
The Muslim people always seem ready to fight at the drop of Allah's name. Look at their reaction to the cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb turban.

 You are also assuming they have nukes as powerful as the US and USSR did in the heyday of the Cold War





Then they would die at the drop of a hat, fighting a population as large as India. At least some non-Islamic nations would move to India’s defense as well.

A religion-wide jihad against any nation will destroy any credibility world that Islam is a peaceful religion. If Islam goes that route, then for their sake I hope a prayer rug is large enough to roll up and double as a body bag, because they’ll be needing them by the tens or even hundreds of millions. In their zeal to go after a common perceived enemy, Islam could easily spark the crusade that puts them in history’s dead book for good. A full on, no holds barred fight between Islam and the West may end up a Pyrrhic victory for the West, but no matter the outcome, Islam is going to fight its last war. With the United States alone, the sheer power of what could be directed at them would result in a totality.


Also, you don’t need a superpower-sized nuke to ruin a major city, look how many Indians or Pakistanis teeter on the brink of poverty or worse. Either nation would need one modest sized bomb and a good push to send it over the edge into anarchy.




 Given what I have seen of the President, I do not think he would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Nations would condom N. Korea for using theirs, but they would also scream at us to -not- use ours. If we did use some, we would be almost, if not more so, condemned for doing so since our military might so vastly overshadows NK's, a nuclear response would seem to be overreacting.

 With what has happened so far, 'dialog and diplomacy' would be the prefer ed method of resolving this situation since violence -never ever- solves anything.  The nations that would want to appease NK (Europe and others since they are not in any danger from NK) would push heavily for that, or a non nuclear responce. Then probably blame the US for provoking NK in the first place.


I still believe even Obama would order nukes if nukes were used against US troops, but I offer the specter of the possibility if we were nuked and he refused to respond, elements within the military and Iron Triangle would take the initiative and nuke anyway in retaliation, regardless of who sits in Washington.

The UN spends so much time bickering over nations like NK and not getting anything significant done, what could it really do to protest a justified use of US nukes? The only telling response would be for member states to attack the US, which would trigger an even more devastating response on our part. If any nation decided to play the WMD game with us, the rest of world would be very, very wise to sit it out and not get involved.

Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2009, 12:35:23 AM »
Then they would die at the drop of a hat, fighting a population as large as India. At least some non-Islamic nations would move to India’s defense as well.

A religion-wide jihad against any nation will destroy any credibility world that Islam is a peaceful religion. If Islam goes that route, then for their sake I hope a prayer rug is large enough to roll up and double as a body bag, because they’ll be needing them by the tens or even hundreds of millions. In their zeal to go after a common perceived enemy, Islam could easily spark the crusade that puts them in history’s dead book for good. A full on, no holds barred fight between Islam and the West may end up a Pyrrhic victory for the West, but no matter the outcome, Islam is going to fight its last war. With the United States alone, the sheer power of what could be directed at them would result in a totality.


Also, you don’t need a superpower-sized nuke to ruin a major city, look how many Indians or Pakistanis teeter on the brink of poverty or worse. Either nation would need one modest sized bomb and a good push to send it over the edge into anarchy.

 Nuking Pakistan would have the added effect of galvanizing the muslim nations to support it. Which would be very bad for us and good for the radicals.




 
I still believe even Obama would order nukes if nukes were used against US troops, but I offer the specter of the possibility if we were nuked and he refused to respond, elements within the military and Iron Triangle would take the initiative and nuke anyway in retaliation, regardless of who sits in Washington.

The UN spends so much time bickering over nations like NK and not getting anything significant done, what could it really do to protest a justified use of US nukes? The only telling response would be for member states to attack the US, which would trigger an even more devastating response on our part. If any nation decided to play the WMD game with us, the rest of world would be very, very wise to sit it out and not get involved.

 The military would not launch nukes without the President's specific say so. The ones in charge of the nukes are very carefully selected so they will not launch a nuke without orders.

 Now what is a justified nuke response by the US? If some are used on S. Korea? On Japan? I would say not. Only if a nuke was launched at the US, would Obama feel pressured to retaliate by launching our own nukes. I do not think that he has the will to launch nukes unless the US is attacked directly and I'm doubtful he would respond with nukes even then.

 How the UN would react? Look at how they reacted for the Iraq war. At the time, the US thought it has sufficient reason to go in militarily. Whether or not we know know that it was the right/wrong thing to do. AT THE TIME there was thought sufficient proof to do it. The UN disagreed, but did nothing. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Offline The OverlordTopic starter

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #54 on: June 12, 2009, 12:53:07 AM »
Nuking Pakistan would have the added effect of galvanizing the muslim nations to support it. Which would be very bad for us and good for the radicals.


And again I say, if the Muslim world galvanizes behind their radicals for any reason, that's the beginning of the end for them. Now at least they have the latitude to distance themselves, creating our need to strike surgically and cut the cancer out of the Muslim nations without harming the good that's left.

If Islam is seen to go wholesale jihad, it will free up the West for gloves-off wholesale dismantling of their nations. There's little point in trying to bring suicide bombers and WMD's to your enemies' cities when yours are being utterly erased.

If Islam goes into a full-scale strategic war with the West, it's going to lose, period, end of story. The corner of the world that fights at a drop of a hat will have more death and conflict on their hands then they'll ever have the stomach for. It's been estimated that going with everything we have, we (the US) could take apart the Middle East in about 72 hours. Throwing masses of enraged fighters at us won't be enough; the US military is designed to be a meat grinder for that sort of thing.

I can only hope they're sane enough to realize it. The nations that are talking smack  now won't be there if it comes down to it.

Offline The OverlordTopic starter

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #55 on: June 12, 2009, 01:18:03 AM »
To touch on this one for the glaring errors in it-



 Now what is a justified nuke response by the US? If some are used on S. Korea? On Japan? I would say not. Only if a nuke was launched at the US, would Obama feel pressured to retaliate by launching our own nukes. I do not think that he has the will to launch nukes unless the US is attacked directly and I'm doubtful he would respond with nukes even then.

 


At last check, we still have at least 30,000 troops in South Korea, and at least 50,000 in Japan.


The Koreas and Japan are not huge nations; and they’re going to be uncomfortably small for weapons of that scale. Nukes are not discriminating weapons; there’s no way Kim Jong can use his on either country without getting US troops as well...if not directly at least in the fallout.


Nuking either South Korea or Japan would not only be nuking an ally, but also nuking US troops. NO standing president is going to accept that, and the public outcry to react will be too large to ignore.


Which brings me to my original point here; by threatening to use his nukes, Kim Jong is effectively threatening to commit suicide.

Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #56 on: June 12, 2009, 02:24:53 AM »
To touch on this one for the glaring errors in it-



At last check, we still have at least 30,000 troops in South Korea, and at least 50,000 in Japan.


The Koreas and Japan are not huge nations; and they’re going to be uncomfortably small for weapons of that scale. Nukes are not discriminating weapons; there’s no way Kim Jong can use his on either country without getting US troops as well...if not directly at least in the fallout.


Nuking either South Korea or Japan would not only be nuking an ally, but also nuking US troops. NO standing president is going to accept that, and the public outcry to react will be too large to ignore.


Which brings me to my original point here; by threatening to use his nukes, Kim Jong is effectively threatening to commit suicide.

 IF nukes are used on US soil, we 'might' have a nuclear response. It they go off on another nation's soil, the odds of us using nukes is very very unlikely. Whether or not US troops are on the ground there. I think there is a 4 in 100 chance of Obama using nukes if a bomb or two went off on US soil. If they go off on another nation's soil? .00015 in 100 chance he'd respond in a similar manner.

 The world bitches at us for having nukes, if we were to use them on an enemy that is NOT threatening or has used them on the US, we would be condemned almost as bad as NK. In fact, the fact that US troops would die as a result would have a lot of people blaming us for provoking him in the first place. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 Do you think Obama would want to be remembered as the President that nuked a small nation? I don't.

 Would Kim piss off a lot of people? Hell yes. would he care if he thought everything he worked for was going to collapse? Hell no. considering what he has done to his sown country, he could care less what the world thinks of him, as long as he gets what he wants by waving the 'Nuke'em' stick around. Nuclear blackmail.

 You keep thinking he is a rational man. He's not. A rational man makes rational decisions most of the time. Insane people do not necessarily do that. Especially power mad ego maniacs like Kim. He does not think like you. Remember that. He will NOT react as you think in a situation.  I work off of the assumption he does not think like me at all. Eventually he will back himself into a corner with his insane antics.

Offline The OverlordTopic starter

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #57 on: June 13, 2009, 06:37:35 AM »


IF nukes are used on US soil, we 'might' have a nuclear response.


You’re joking, right?

It would be based on circumstances, obviously. If it were a nation state, we certainly would retaliate with nukes, and in a fashion that would tear them a sphincter wide enough to drive the planet Mars through.
If it were a terrorist group, that’s where the IF comes in. All depends on where they are. If it was, hypothetically, al queda, after 911 nobody would tolerate AQ getting a nuke into one of our cities. The one way to guarantee that all of AQ are out of the Afghan mountains is to just glass them. Please don’t say it can’t happen, that’s delusional…I recall a CNN interview with a Russian veteran in Afghanistan right after 911 who surmised the one way to guarantee victory there would be to A-bomb the mountains. I'm sure even the Kremlin has floated the strategy if worse came to worse.


Based on the NATO pact, what do you think would have happened if the USSR used a nuke on West Germany or the UK? You’re damn right we’d respond nuclear, and the Russians at least were smart and sane enough to know it.

Because you see Zakharra, that’s what an ally is. An ally. The South Koreans haven’t had US troops hosted on their soil for over a half century so they can compare barbecue recipes with us, and the US and Japan have had a defense treaty since the end of WWII. If Kim Jong nuked Japan, number one the outrage from the only nation to have been nuked in wartime would be uncontrollable, and we’d be duty bound to respond. Hell frakking yes we’d fire ours.


The world bitches at us for having nukes, if we were to use them on an enemy that is NOT threatening or has used them on the US, we would be condemned almost as bad as NK. In fact, the fact that US troops would die as a result would have a lot of people blaming us for provoking him in the first place. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
 


Do the history: The Korean War started because North Korea staged a pre-dawn attack on the south. The entire history of NK has been a half century chain of provocation. Everyone with any sense understands why US troops are backing up South Korean troops at what is the world’s most heavily defended boarder; because North Korea is an anathema on the list of nations.

The rest of the world could damn us or praise us for sticking Kim Jong’s head up his ass in a renewed war, but once again, they would be extremely wise to stay out of it.







 Do you think Obama would want to be remembered as the President that nuked a small nation? I don't.

 

Do you think Harry Truman wanted to be either? No president does, but they ALL go into office with the knowledge they might be the one, the one that has to give the order. If they can’t understand that, they have no business sitting in the Oval Office.

I believe you’re making a critical error in judgement here, however. Just because Obama is our best chance for reestablishing America’s image aboard and fostering peace or understanding, you seem to believe he’s going to prove a pacifist, who will sit staring blankly with inaction when the nation is under fire.

No, actually that was Bush on 9/11.


I believe history will prove Obama has what it takes. Hopefully not by giving the order to throw the football, but through much more desirable means.


Would Kim piss off a lot of people? Hell yes. would he care if he thought everything he worked for was going to collapse? Hell no. considering what he has done to his sown country, he could care less what the world thinks of him, as long as he gets what he wants by waving the 'Nuke'em' stick around. Nuclear blackmail.

 You keep thinking he is a rational man. He's not. A rational man makes rational decisions most of the time. Insane people do not necessarily do that. Especially power mad ego maniacs like Kim. He does not think like you. Remember that. He will NOT react as you think in a situation.  I work off of the assumption he does not think like me at all. Eventually he will back himself into a corner with his insane antics.


The blackmail is going to reach a point where it will have no further effect, which I firmly believe is the here and now. NK has a long and colorful history of saber rattling, but with a series of recent nuke and missile tests, he’s at the point where he’s going to have to put up or shut up. Either put your money where your mouth is, or back down and STFU, because the former will get you all killed.


No, he’s not rational, and I’m concerned for the North Korean people too because of it. It’s why I’ll assume part of the US/SK strategic operation, should the shooting start, is to cut the head off from the beginning. Killing Kim Jong would be priority number one, because it would leave his army either rudderless or staffed by leaders much more willing to listen to the voice of reason.



But you’re considering just the world reaction to our use of heavy weaponry, but I feel there’s much more at stake: If someone uses a nuke on us, we HAVE to use one. We’re downright obligated to use one.

Why? Because it would be a siren call to whomever we’re fighting that they can use even a nuke on us, and we won’t have the stomach for a full-tilt war. We have to nuke in return, because with the various nations and terror organizations giving us the finger, only the harshest and most severe reprisal will make them understand you don’t screw with us.

You are correct, Kim Jong does not think like us, nor do most terrorists and dictators. They rule and operate by threat, fear and force; it’s their common tongue and the one thing they understand.


When someone comes into your villages and burns things, you don’t just knock him on his ass and then negotiate with his employer. You behead and disembowel the son of a bitch, and his send his entrails back FedEx to whoever sent him, with the clear message- This will happen to ALL of you if we see any more shit.


Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #58 on: June 13, 2009, 07:18:47 AM »
The problem there is, how do you nuke a terrorist?

Terrorists aren't nation states. They may hide in them. They may even have covert backing from them, but that can be difficult to prove as state sanctioned.

No nation is going to want to have a nuke set off on their territory. Even a small one. And if you choose to nuke a nation state in an attempt to deal with any kind of rogue element, you're opening an entirely different can of worms.

Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #59 on: June 13, 2009, 12:01:23 PM »


You’re joking, right?

It would be based on circumstances, obviously. If it were a nation state, we certainly would retaliate with nukes, and in a fashion that would tear them a sphincter wide enough to drive the planet Mars through.
If it were a terrorist group, that’s where the IF comes in. All depends on where they are. If it was, hypothetically, al queda, after 911 nobody would tolerate AQ getting a nuke into one of our cities. The one way to guarantee that all of AQ are out of the Afghan mountains is to just glass them. Please don’t say it can’t happen, that’s delusional…I recall a CNN interview with a Russian veteran in Afghanistan right after 911 who surmised the one way to guarantee victory there would be to A-bomb the mountains. I'm sure even the Kremlin has floated the strategy if worse came to worse.


Based on the NATO pact, what do you think would have happened if the USSR used a nuke on West Germany or the UK? You’re damn right we’d respond nuclear, and the Russians at least were smart and sane enough to know it.

Because you see Zakharra, that’s what an ally is. An ally. The South Koreans haven’t had US troops hosted on their soil for over a half century so they can compare barbecue recipes with us, and the US and Japan have had a defense treaty since the end of WWII. If Kim Jong nuked Japan, number one the outrage from the only nation to have been nuked in wartime would be uncontrollable, and we’d be duty bound to respond. Hell frakking yes we’d fire ours.

 I'm not joking. The population of the US might be very heavily inclined to toss back nukes, but do you think the international communinty, especially Japan wants US tossing megaton nukes back at NK? IF we responded to one or two nukes going off, we would be soundly condemed for doing so. Why? Because NO ONE wants nukes being used in war. I do not think Obama has the guts to toss a nuke or two back if they were to be ground burst. 'Possibly' a high air burst for the EMP, but that would likely mess up parts of SK too. Obama is almost an international popstar with his popularity.

 The pressure to not use nukes is tremendous and I do not think he wants to be known as the President that used them again. WWII and Trumen was a completely different era and situation.



 
Do the history: The Korean War started because North Korea staged a pre-dawn attack on the south. The entire history of NK has been a half century chain of provocation. Everyone with any sense understands why US troops are backing up South Korean troops at what is the world’s most heavily defended boarder; because North Korea is an anathema on the list of nations.

The rest of the world could damn us or praise us for sticking Kim Jong’s head up his ass in a renewed war, but once again, they would be extremely wise to stay out of it.

 Yes, we did not start that war. People do understand why we are backing up SK, and China backs up NK. I do not know what would happen if the war on the Korean penninsula heated back up again. Would China supply troops and material again? That's an unknown factor.



Do you think Harry Truman wanted to be either? No president does, but they ALL go into office with the knowledge they might be the one, the one that has to give the order. If they can’t understand that, they have no business sitting in the Oval Office.

I believe you’re making a critical error in judgement here, however. Just because Obama is our best chance for reestablishing America’s image aboard and fostering peace or understanding, you seem to believe he’s going to prove a pacifist, who will sit staring blankly with inaction when the nation is under fire.

No, actually that was Bush on 9/11.


I believe history will prove Obama has what it takes. Hopefully not by giving the order to throw the football, but through much more desirable means.

 Yes, they do go into the office knowing they might have to, but none since Regan have ever expected that they might actually do it. That was a Cold War mentality with the USSR as the main opponent.

 With what he has shown so far, he'd rather talk than act. Talking doesn;t work with some people. NK being one of those people/nations.

 And Bush did not sit passively by on 9/11, so toss that right out.


The blackmail is going to reach a point where it will have no further effect, which I firmly believe is the here and now. NK has a long and colorful history of saber rattling, but with a series of recent nuke and missile tests, he’s at the point where he’s going to have to put up or shut up. Either put your money where your mouth is, or back down and STFU, because the former will get you all killed.


No, he’s not rational, and I’m concerned for the North Korean people too because of it. It’s why I’ll assume part of the US/SK strategic operation, should the shooting start, is to cut the head off from the beginning. Killing Kim Jong would be priority number one, because it would leave his army either rudderless or staffed by leaders much more willing to listen to the voice of reason.



But you’re considering just the world reaction to our use of heavy weaponry, but I feel there’s much more at stake: If someone uses a nuke on us, we HAVE to use one. We’re downright obligated to use one.

Why? Because it would be a siren call to whomever we’re fighting that they can use even a nuke on us, and we won’t have the stomach for a full-tilt war. We have to nuke in return, because with the various nations and terror organizations giving us the finger, only the harshest and most severe reprisal will make them understand you don’t screw with us.

You are correct, Kim Jong does not think like us, nor do most terrorists and dictators. They rule and operate by threat, fear and force; it’s their common tongue and the one thing they understand.


When someone comes into your villages and burns things, you don’t just knock him on his ass and then negotiate with his employer. You behead and disembowel the son of a bitch, and his send his entrails back FedEx to whoever sent him, with the clear message- This will happen to ALL of you if we see any more shit.

 So far no President has shown to want to do more than talk and give tribut.. eeerr.. aid, to NK. I think he will either back himself into a corner or find himself at a point he thinks he has to use it in an attempt to reconquer the Korean penninsula before his death and/or military is incapable of doing so from the sanctions.

 Right now, much of the world resents the heavy handed use of US military power. How much more resentment would their be if we used the nuclear options? There is a chance, a high one that depends what nation we'd drop one on, that it would incite more hated against us. If we dropped one on Iran if they did manage to nuke Isreal, the muslim world would explode against us. Why? Because we nuked muslims. It's alsready showhn itself to be a violent and unstable religion (based on the fact that hundreds of millions of muslims are wiling to call for the death of a newspaper publisher for printing a picture of Mohammad wearing a bomb turbin)..

 Are there millions of non violent muslims? Yes, but there is a much much higher percentage that see it as God's will to use violence to kill the infidel. Christianity has pretty much cleaned up is's violent past. Islam has yet to do that.

 
Quote
When someone comes into your villages and burns things, you don’t just knock him on his ass and then negotiate with his employer. You behead and disembowel the son of a bitch, and his send his entrails back FedEx to whoever sent him, with the clear message- This will happen to ALL of you if we see any more shit.

 That's exactly the image people thought of about Bush. Heavy handed, not paying attention to the reasoned world opinion and doing what he/America wants no matter what the rest of the world thought about it.

Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #60 on: June 13, 2009, 12:16:53 PM »
The problem there is, how do you nuke a terrorist?

Terrorists aren't nation states. They may hide in them. They may even have covert backing from them, but that can be difficult to prove as state sanctioned.

No nation is going to want to have a nuke set off on their territory. Even a small one. And if you choose to nuke a nation state in an attempt to deal with any kind of rogue element, you're opening an entirely different can of worms.

 This is the biggest potential problem. If a terrorist group (assuming Islamic radicals) does get and use a nuke. How do you respond? The group would get tremendous prestige for using a nuke on the US, or whatever nation. Which would draw in support and recruits. They do not care too much about how the non-muslim world sees them. It's their own people/religion they care about. Especially forcing it on others.

 The response would generate more recruits no matter what we did.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #61 on: June 13, 2009, 03:25:55 PM »
N. Korea probably thinks the US would be too chickenshit to respond with nuclear weapons. N. Korea has no problem using them, it's what they think our response would be that will decide wether they use them or not.

Perhaps splitting hairs, but we have fuel-air explosives and bunker busters.  Not to mention thousands of other very big "everyday" explosives and more specialized devices to ruin life.  Sure "nuke" has a symbolic ring to it, but overkill is still overkill. 

However, a non-nuclear option sounds environmentally nicer (I haven't researched what fuel-air bombs leave drifting in the wind, if anything).  If nothing else, think of the neighbors.

I don't expect the cases of the two women to have a big impact.  They can trade people for people sooner or later; that seems to be historically commonplace.  On the other hand, the UN and US have already growled about interdicting more ships.  So, I'd be surprised if that was put off now that political capital is invested.
 

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #62 on: June 13, 2009, 03:31:41 PM »
This is the biggest potential problem. If a terrorist group (assuming Islamic radicals) does get and use a nuke. How do you respond? The group would get tremendous prestige for using a nuke on the US, or whatever nation. Which would draw in support and recruits. They do not care too much about how the non-muslim world sees them. It's their own people/religion they care about. Especially forcing it on others.

 The response would generate more recruits no matter what we did.

Perhaps so, but indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon will kill innocents, and frankly I don't know what it would do for a nations international reputation. I suspect at the least they'd find themselves in a hell of a diplomatic spot.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #63 on: June 13, 2009, 03:41:20 PM »
Are there millions of non violent muslims? Yes, but there is a much much higher percentage that see it as God's will to use violence to kill the infidel.

This sounds awful sweeping to me.  Do you really have any evidence to indict a whole religion? 

Not specific groups, sects, historical movements or even national governments?  But really, all the Muslims??? 
It's like saying the majority of people in red states must want to bomb North Korea tomorrow, no questions asked.



Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #64 on: June 13, 2009, 05:32:10 PM »
This sounds awful sweeping to me.  Do you really have any evidence to indict a whole religion? 

Not specific groups, sects, historical movements or even national governments?  But really, all the Muslims??? 
It's like saying the majority of people in red states must want to bomb North Korea tomorrow, no questions asked.

 It's indicative of the entire religion that it is the most violent one in the world. An excellent example is the Mohammad cartoon incident. How many muslims were outrages at that? Calling for the death of the publisher? Millions, tends of millions? Hundreds of millions. The muslim faith calls for jihad and the imams preach jihad, or holy war (death to unbelievers), try to instill their harsh religious laws which are not humanitarian at all, on the areas they live in.

 It is indicative of the muslim faith that they do not clean up their own. More muslims are decent people, I will admit, but the fact that there are millions, if not hundreds of millions,m willing to scream 'Death to the infidel!'  at the drop of a hat, and are perfectly willing to kill to impose their beliefs to get that goal, says something about the religion in general. Including a willingness to kill their own if they get in the way.

 Untill the moderate muslims stop that sort of behavior, Islam will retain it's place as the most violent and repressive faith on the planet.

Offline Lithos

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #65 on: June 13, 2009, 05:50:22 PM »
Personally I think that North Korea can be dealt with quite efficiently with conventional weapons if push comes to shove. If they use nukes somewhere though, there is bound to be similar retaliation, or everyone starts to use theirs randomly without fear of retaliation as well.

And to comment off topic branch of this discussion (perhaps the thing should snip to different thread):

Quote
It's indicative of the entire religion that it is the most violent one in the world.

This sentence proves how much people research their topics, I suggest making a list of incidents throughout the history, based on religion of the main figures. They seem leaders in making violent statements, but not where it comes to getting things done.

Quote
Including a willingness to kill their own if they get in the way.

If we do research on armed conflicts around the world, we are shocked to find out that there are ton of instances of christians killing eachother, increasingly succesfully when we come to modern times :)

Quote
Untill the moderate muslims stop that sort of behavior, Islam will retain it's place as the most violent and repressive faith on the planet.

This is based on false statement, making it false as well.

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #66 on: June 13, 2009, 05:54:27 PM »
It's indicative of the entire religion that it is the most violent one in the world. An excellent example is the Mohammad cartoon incident. How many muslims were outrages at that? Calling for the death of the publisher? Millions, tends of millions? Hundreds of millions.

I'd like to see proof of those figures please.

The muslim faith calls for jihad and the imams preach jihad, or holy war (death to unbelievers),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Quote
The term "Jihad" used without any qualifiers is generally understood in the West to be referring to holy war on behalf of Islam.[5] In broader usage and interpretation, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can simply mean striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.[7] The relative importance of these two forms of jihad is a matter of controversy.

Jihad means a lot more than holy war.

try to instill their harsh religious laws which are not humanitarian at all, on the areas they live in.

Some do, some don't. There also appears to be quite a degree of interpretation of the law.

It is indicative of the muslim faith that they do not clean up their own. More muslims are decent people, I will admit, but the fact that there are millions, if not hundreds of millions,m willing to scream 'Death to the infidel!'  at the drop of a hat, and are perfectly willing to kill to impose their beliefs to get that goal, says something about the religion in general. Including a willingness to kill their own if they get in the way.



Screaming invective ... check
Willing to kill to impose their religious beliefs ... check
Willingness to kill their own ... check

Says a lot about a religion, doesn't it?

Or are you willing to admit its the small minority of extremists that cause the problems?

Untill the moderate muslims stop that sort of behavior, Islam will retain it's place as the most violent and repressive faith on the planet.

Islam is a few centuries younger than Christianity. Perhaps you'd like to compare what its adherents were doing 500 or 600 years ago, and then see how things compare, hmm?

Offline The OverlordTopic starter

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #67 on: June 13, 2009, 06:03:33 PM »


 And Bush did not sit passively by on 9/11, so toss that right out.


 

Watch the video again when he gets the news. We'll move onto the rest once that's sunk in.

Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #68 on: June 13, 2009, 06:57:22 PM »
Watch the video again when he gets the news. We'll move onto the rest once that's sunk in.

 Maybe he trusted his subordinates to do what he hired them to do. What could he have done? Not a whole hell of a lot.

Offline The OverlordTopic starter

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #69 on: June 13, 2009, 07:16:10 PM »
Maybe he trusted his subordinates to do what he hired them to do. What could he have done? Not a whole hell of a lot.


What could he have done? What could he have done? Good god, the man was the frakking president.

He sat in at a school function when it happened. When advised of what was occurring, other than the now famous blank stare of indecision, the correct move would have been to conclude the public appearance and get with his cabinet and advisors. Would it have been abrupt to just wrap things up and leave? Given the events of that day, I doubt there would have been objections.


The man orders a war and invasion into Iraq based on trumped up charges of WMD's.

His two term tradition of opening up federally protected lands for oil drilling and undoing years of environmental legislation is criminal and all but makes him an environmental terrorist. Terrorists fighting terrorists, isn't that rich? (and yes, I DO consider him a terrorist in that regard)

How is it that you Bush supporters still think he was a good and effective president? This is not meant to be insulting, seriously, help me understand the logic on how you perceive your golden boy.

Just check out sources like the Sierra Club if you want to know what the guy's really been up to over his two terms.

Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #70 on: June 13, 2009, 07:16:53 PM »
Personally I think that North Korea can be dealt with quite efficiently with conventional weapons if push comes to shove. If they use nukes somewhere though, there is bound to be similar retaliation, or everyone starts to use theirs randomly without fear of retaliation as well.

 Yes. It's likely to be a conventional war in response. Japan is very leery of a nuclear exchange, I cannot see them wanting one right offshore of their homeland.


And to comment off topic branch of this discussion (perhaps the thing should snip to different thread):

This sentence proves how much people research their topics, I suggest making a list of incidents throughout the history, based on religion of the main figures. They seem leaders in making violent statements, but not where it comes to getting things done.

 I am speaking of now. THIS current time. I'm well aware that Christianity is bathed in blood.

If we do research on armed conflicts around the world, we are shocked to find out that there are ton of instances of christians killing eachother, increasingly succesfully when we come to modern times :)

This is based on false statement, making it false as well.

  They are not necessarily doing it as an act of 'Gods' will!'  Are there radical Christian terrorist groups assassinating, bombing and causing mayham? No. Are there crackpots that are Christian, doing it? Yes, but there is no organized religious push for it. Unlike the muslim faith in which there is such a push.

 
I'd like to see proof of those figures please.

 Go and look at the Islamic nations media coverage during that incident. Most of what I heard, from all the US media outlets, liberal and conservative, showed outrage at the cartoon being printed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Jihad means a lot more than holy war.
That is the most common view of Jihad, and the one thrown around and used the most too. The terrorists see this as a holy war. For them it is a religious war.

 
Some do, some don't. There also appears to be quite a degree of interpretation of the law.

 True, but they do try and impose their own religious law on the area. England I believe is allowing sharia law to be used in certain areas. There are some very hard punishments that are still used via the Koran in the Islamic world.  I find it distasteful that they cannot go by English law in the secular. They now have a foothold in the English land and I doubt they'd give it up easily.


 
[snip]

Screaming invective ... check
Willing to kill to impose their religious beliefs ... check
Willingness to kill their own ... check

Says a lot about a religion, doesn't it?

Or are you willing to admit its the small minority of extremists that cause the problems?[/quote]

 The vast majority of the Christians stop at the screaming. They use the laws and voting to try and change things, not killing those who stand in the way. 

 I agree that there are a small minority, but the violent Islamic minority is larger than the Christian one and more willing and able to get support for it's actions.

 
Islam is a few centuries younger than Christianity. Perhaps you'd like to compare what its adherents were doing 500 or 600 years ago, and then see how things compare, hmm?

 Islam doesn't seem to be wanting to move past that though. If I remember right, the Koran  does not recognize a difference between religious and secular law. The religion must be the law of the land.  We saw how well that was applied in Afghanistan under the Taliban. They imposed sharia law on the land.  The fact that Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity is irrelevant. It's what they are doing now, how they treat their own people and their neighbors now that concerns me.

Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #71 on: June 13, 2009, 07:26:44 PM »

What could he have done? What could he have done? Good god, the man was the frakking president.

He sat in at a school function when it happened. When advised of what was occurring, other than the now famous blank stare of indecision, the correct move would have been to conclude the public appearance and get with his cabinet and advisors. Would it have been abrupt to just wrap things up and leave? Given the events of that day, I doubt there would have been objections.

 He let his officials handle the situation, and when he was in the air, flying around with a military escort to keep him safe since Washington DC wasn't considered safe atm, he was ripped by the ABC anchor for acting like a coward (not an exact quote, but that was the gist of it)


 
The man orders a war and invasion into Iraq based on trumped up charges of WMD's.


 3 years after 9/11. Afghanistan was first. He had other reasons for taking out Iraq. I do admit the aftermath was badly handled. It could have been much better done.

 
His two term tradition of opening up federally protected lands for oil drilling and undoing years of environmental legislation is criminal and all but makes him an environmental terrorist. Terrorists fighting terrorists, isn't that rich? (and yes, I DO consider him a terrorist in that regard)

 Considering that some of the best oil resources the US can have are what is on it's own lands, and that it's forbidden from getting such, requiring us to rely on foreign oil, I think that was a smart thing to do. Conservation alone will not help the US stop or ease our dependance on foreign oil supplies.


 
How is it that you Bush supporters still think he was a good and effective president? This is not meant to be insulting, seriously, help me understand the logic on how you perceive your golden boy.

Just check out sources like the Sierra Club if you want to know what the guy's really been up to over his two terms.

 I do not think he was a great President. He did many things I did not like. Spending far too much, making government bigger, not using science to help decide things. He was decent for the time he lived in. Only time will tell if he was great, good or a bad President. No one alive now can look at it with an impartial  eye.

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #72 on: June 13, 2009, 07:48:41 PM »
  They are not necessarily doing it as an act of 'Gods' will!'  Are there radical Christian terrorist groups assassinating, bombing and causing mayham? No. Are there crackpots that are Christian, doing it? Yes, but there is no organized religious push for it. Unlike the muslim faith in which there is such a push.

Actually there are radical christian terrorist groups active. The fact that they're not active in the US doesn't mean that they aren't active in other parts of the world. And they kill, and the bomb, and they cause mayhem.

Go and look at the Islamic nations media coverage during that incident. Most of what I heard, from all the US media outlets, liberal and conservative, showed outrage at the cartoon being printed.

Outrage, yes. But you made the claim of potentially hundreds of millions calling for the death of the publisher. Now, I want you to back that statement up.

That is the most common view of Jihad, and the one thrown around and used the most too. The terrorists see this as a holy war. For them it is a religious war.

Terrorists don't tend to see things quite the same way as the rest of the population.


 True, but they do try and impose their own religious law on the area. England I believe is allowing sharia law to be used in certain areas. There are some very hard punishments that are still used via the Koran in the Islamic world.  I find it distasteful that they cannot go by English law in the secular. They now have a foothold in the English land and I doubt they'd give it up easily.

England is allowing Sharia law in civil divorce I believe, and possibly a few other civil law areas, provided both parties agree to such arbitration.

Incidentally, are you equally outraged at the equivalent Jewish religious law which they allow to be practiced as well?
 
The vast majority of the Christians stop at the screaming. They use the laws and voting to try and change things, not killing those who stand in the way. 

And the vast majority of Muslims do likewise.

I agree that there are a small minority, but the violent Islamic minority is larger than the Christian one and more willing and able to get support for it's actions.

Terrorists will always have their supporters. How many Americans funneled cash to the IRA during the Troubles? No doubt most thought that the money would only be used for humanitarian purposes, but hey, all those machine guns don't come cheap, do they?

 
Islam doesn't seem to be wanting to move past that though. If I remember right, the Koran  does not recognize a difference between religious and secular law. The religion must be the law of the land.  We saw how well that was applied in Afghanistan under the Taliban. They imposed sharia law on the land. 

I can't speak about the religious / secular law thing, but I could probably find out from some muslims what it actually says.

The Taliban imposed one interpretation of sharia law. Contrast, I believe, Malaysia. Not quite the same, are they?

 
The fact that Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity is irrelevant. It's what they are doing now, how they treat their own people and their neighbors now that concerns me.

You said that christianity had outgrown its violent past. 700 years ago, how were christians treating their neighbours? If you're going to compare the two, surely you have to compare them at similar states in development for a comparison to be fair?

As a little example of what christianity was up to at the time, have a read about the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade in France in the 1200s. Here's a little sample

Quote
The crusader army came under the command, both spiritual and military, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars.

The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, several hundred years later was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." — "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."[7][8] The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there including many women and children. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[9] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."[10][11]. The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000.

Kill them all, God will know his own.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2009, 07:57:48 PM by HairyHeretic »

Offline Zakharra

Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #73 on: June 13, 2009, 08:56:15 PM »
Actually there are radical christian terrorist groups active. The fact that they're not active in the US doesn't mean that they aren't active in other parts of the world. And they kill, and the bomb, and they cause mayhem.

Outrage, yes. But you made the claim of potentially hundreds of millions calling for the death of the publisher. Now, I want you to back that statement up.

 No. I will not take it back. There are over 1 billion muslims on this world. It is the fastest growing religion and is the most violent by far of any existing today. All of the news agencies were showing was from the Islamic nations news services and several governments protested. Internet sites were rather hot about it too. Also the Danish embassies in several nations were stormed and burned.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Descriptions_of_the_drawings


 The percentage of Muslim to Christian terrorists on the scale of Al'qadaa isn;t the same. There are far more terrorists than Christians. The muslims are much more violent too. Whe was the last time you heard of a Christian group taking credit for a abombing? Of one making calls for it's followers to mnurder and kill the infidel? Of calls for holy war?  I haven't and if there were, you8 can bet the US news would pick up on that real quick.

 
Terrorists don't tend to see things quite the same way as the rest of the population.

England is allowing Sharia law in civil divorce I believe, and possibly a few other civil law areas, provided both parties agree to such arbitration.

Incidentally, are you equally outraged at the equivalent Jewish religious law which they allow to be practiced as well?

 True. They don't.  I don't think any religious law should be folllowed. In either civil or secular courts of law. Religion has no place in setting up the laws of a government since not everyone follows the same religion.

 
 
 
And the vast majority of Muslims do likewise.

Terrorists will always have their supporters. How many Americans funneled cash to the IRA during the Troubles? No doubt most thought that the money would only be used for humanitarian purposes, but hey, all those machine guns don't come cheap, do they?

 
I can't speak about the religious / secular law thing, but I could probably find out from some muslims what it actually says.

The Taliban imposed one interpretation of sharia law. Contrast, I believe, Malaysia. Not quite the same, are they?

 If it is done legally, I have less of a problem in that.  Please check with some muslims if you can. I do not know any where I live. Please ask them if it says that, in a literal sense. Ie, what a Taliban, Terrorist/radical would believe.

 
 
You said that christianity had outgrown its violent past. 700 years ago, how were christians treating their neighbours? If you're going to compare the two, surely you have to compare them at similar states in development for a comparison to be fair?

As a little example of what christianity was up to at the time, have a read about the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade in France in the 1200s. Here's a little sample

Kill them all, God will know his own.

 So? The fact that 700 years ago the Christian kingdoms were doing that has nothing to do with right now. Or does religion have a grace period for violent actions?

 'From it's founding until it reaches about 1700 years of age, this (insert religion) is expected and can follow a path of violence to further it's goals.'

 I know Chrisitanity did some brutal things in it's past. The First Crusade was one of the worst. Along with the Inquisition and the Spanish conquest of Central/South america. Thankfully that time is past and I hope it never comes again. Islam is NOT past that point. Why should they be given a pass because   when Christianity was1400 years of age, it was doing close to the same thing?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: North Korea threatens to commit suicide
« Reply #74 on: June 13, 2009, 09:34:55 PM »
Actually, he didn't ask you to 'take it back', he asked you to 'back it up'.