Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      Dr.Carter wrote:

      There's a difference between limiting the power of one's country and keeping close tabs on a nation making direct threats (as empty as they may be, diplomatic policy is usually "better safe than sorry").

      Besides, now a days is isn't as much America as it is the U.N. Keep in mind there were two signees to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and America was only one of them.


      Sorry, but who runs the UN? Umm, the Security Council. And who's a permanent member of the big 5? Why America is. They have so much influence in the UN it's not even funny.

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      meomiomo wrote:

      Sorry, but who runs the UN? Umm, the Security Council. And who's a permanent member of the big 5? Why America is. They have so much influence in the UN it's not even funny.



      For one, no one "runs" the UN in the sense you imply. The UNSC is instrumental to the process yes, but that doesn't mean they dictate the rest of the council. Now I'm not saying they don't hold big influence in the UN, they just don't hold enough to micro manage the entire world.

      For two, there is a permanent Big 5, but the other 4 countries besides America are far too strong for any type of overruling nation to emerge. Do you honestly think America has overpowered Great Britain, France, Russia, and China all at the same time? Not to mention there are various countries elected to the council temporarily each year. This year, it happens to be Austria, Japan, Mexico, Uganda, and Turkey. Are you really suggesting any of these countries has diplomatic power over the entire UN?

      For three, why wouldn't the US hold massive power in the UN? We are a superpower of the world, just like the other 4 seats (or 3, depending if you count France as one). Being that most U.N. support, be it tax dollars to soldiers, is coming out of one of the 5's country, possibly more. You don't think those countries should have a say in that?
      [CENTER]"Young King, pay me in gold."
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER]

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      Lekar wrote:

      I don't think much of it. North Korea is constantly causing problems and what they're doing now is what they've been doing for quite some time. Nothing big is going at happen (at least I hope nothing big will happen) and it doesn't effect me at all.


      Might not affect you. It's going to affect me. It's because of them scaring me that they might do something that is making me change my plans of joining after college. Now I'm afriad that war or something like that is close by, and too many people are pacifists in the US, so the US won't have that many soldiers to go around. Damn hippy pacifists.

      dandaitalianman wrote:

      I say put a couple of carriers off their coast and see what happens.

      NK is like a little kid who wants to be like the cool kids on the block but doesn't understand that wearing suspenders and a monocle isn't "cool". It just gets you noticed for the wrong reasons.


      NK needs a spanking, not an appeasement.

      Josip Broz Tito wrote:

      I thought that place was taken up by America? I'm happy for North Korea. To many times the Americans think they are the world police

      UN = World's police
      [CENTER]Future Rifleman of the Marine Corps!
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
      Saepius Exertus ||| Semper Fidelis ||| Frater Infinitas
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      VoDKaMarine wrote:

      Now I'm afriad that war or something like that is close by, and too many people are pacifists in the US, so the US won't have that many soldiers to go around.



      The United States has the world's largest volunteer military in terms of members* and is the world's largest military in terms of budget; I think we'll be ok.




      *2nd only to the China, which has the world's highest populations AND conscription.
      [CENTER]"Young King, pay me in gold."
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER]

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      ^^True and technically that is why we can't use force to make them stop threating everybody today. We have to wait until they break the seise fire and then blow their asses up.

      Seriously what can they do? If they get too many nukes someone will step in and be like "hey! hey! knock it off!" and they won't so then we discuss it for 2-3 years until they fire one of them at SK, China, or Japan (I would personally say Japan because then they can say they survived three nuclear strikes) and then we invade them and finish the job instead of like in the 60s.
      [SIZE=-1]"Don't be afraid to fail. Don't waste energy trying to cover up failure. Learn from your failures and go on to the next challenge. It's OK to fail. If you're not failing, you're not growing."[/SIZE]

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      We wouldn't have this problem if it wasn't for McArthur's stupidity during the Korean War. I appreciate the help of the Americans, but anyone who's read a book on the subject knows we had about five hundred separate warnings before shit got rough.
      [CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
      Yoboseyo?
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      Spanky809 wrote:

      ^^True and technically that is why we can't use force to make them stop threating everybody today. We have to wait until they break the seise fire and then blow their asses up.

      Seriously what can they do? If they get too many nukes someone will step in and be like "hey! hey! knock it off!" and they won't so then we discuss it for 2-3 years until they fire one of them at SK, China, or Japan (I would personally say Japan because then they can say they survived three nuclear strikes) and then we invade them and finish the job instead of like in the 60s.


      They could potentially attempt a strike on Hawaii. Even if they do not succeed that would likely mean War for America. A real war this time. Even if N. Korea hits Japan. America will declare war on N. Korea. If America does, maybe someone else will. it has a slight slight potential to bubble into WWIII
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      ^^True and technically that is why we can't use force to make them stop threating everybody today. We have to wait until they break the seise fire and then blow their asses up.

      Seriously what can they do? If they get too many nukes someone will step in and be like "hey! hey! knock it off!" and they won't so then we discuss it for 2-3 years until they fire one of them at SK, China, or Japan (I would personally say Japan because then they can say they survived three nuclear strikes) and then we invade them and finish the job instead of like in the 60s.


      It would be extremely foolish to wait until North Korea actually launches a nuclear weapon. We don't need to wait until they break the cease-fire, that's ridiculous. the more time that goes by, the bigger North Korea's advantage becomes. You honestly want to wait until hundreds of thousands of people get blown up before we strike? I know I don't.

      If I was in command of the US military I'd put a few carrier groups on the coast of North Korea and mass troops on the border. I would then give North Korea 24 hours to agree to have South Korean officials come into the North's military bases and confiscate all nuclear materials found. And if they didn't agree (which they surely wouldn't, but it would really be just to give the hippies and pacifists something to chew on so they don't cry we went to war for no reason), then we'd invade. And that is exactly what we should do.

      Their missile technology is getting better. In the 2006 tests the missiles didn't get very far. But they've tested more missiles and nukes since then. It's bad enough that they can reach our allies and probably Hawaii. Do you want to wait until they can reach California, or even deeper into the US?

      Strike now, ask questions later.

      By the way, the Korean war was not in the 60s, it took place from 1950-1953.
      [CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER]

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      Assaultrifle wrote:

      It would be extremely foolish to wait until North Korea actually launches a nuclear weapon. We don't need to wait until they break the cease-fire, that's ridiculous. the more time that goes by, the bigger North Korea's advantage becomes. You honestly want to wait until hundreds of thousands of people get blown up before we strike? I know I don't.

      If I was in command of the US military I'd put a few carrier groups on the coast of North Korea and mass troops on the border. I would then give North Korea 24 hours to agree to have South Korean officials come into the North's military bases and confiscate all nuclear materials found. And if they didn't agree (which they surely wouldn't, but it would really be just to give the hippies and pacifists something to chew on so they don't cry we went to war for no reason), then we'd invade. And that is exactly what we should do.

      Their missile technology is getting better. In the 2006 tests the missiles didn't get very far. But they've tested more missiles and nukes since then. It's bad enough that they can reach our allies and probably Hawaii. Do you want to wait until they can reach California, or even deeper into the US?

      Strike now, ask questions later.

      By the way, the Korean war was not in the 60s, it took place from 1950-1953.


      Never thought I'd ever say this, but for once I agree with you on a war topic. :lol:
      [CENTER][SIZE=1]
      [/SIZE][/CENTER]

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      oh dear, today North Korea had made this comment.

      "If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all,"

      they believe we are trying to start a war and that we are the bad ones... which we can be bad but i dont think we are in this situation
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    • Re: Defiant North Korea 'to weaponize plutonium'.

      Assaultrifle wrote:

      It would be extremely foolish to wait until North Korea actually launches a nuclear weapon. We don't need to wait until they break the cease-fire, that's ridiculous. the more time that goes by, the bigger North Korea's advantage becomes. You honestly want to wait until hundreds of thousands of people get blown up before we strike? I know I don't.

      If I was in command of the US military I'd put a few carrier groups on the coast of North Korea and mass troops on the border. I would then give North Korea 24 hours to agree to have South Korean officials come into the North's military bases and confiscate all nuclear materials found. And if they didn't agree (which they surely wouldn't, but it would really be just to give the hippies and pacifists something to chew on so they don't cry we went to war for no reason), then we'd invade. And that is exactly what we should do.

      Their missile technology is getting better. In the 2006 tests the missiles didn't get very far. But they've tested more missiles and nukes since then. It's bad enough that they can reach our allies and probably Hawaii. Do you want to wait until they can reach California, or even deeper into the US?

      Strike now, ask questions later.

      By the way, the Korean war was not in the 60s, it took place from 1950-1953.


      Agreed. I would not want those bastards shooting missiles at the US. I do not agree with one thing, strike now ask questions later. One thing I would say is, be prepared, very prepared for an attack. Any indication of an attack, anything too big, going too fast from NK should be considered a missile and should be a declaration of war.

      I do not really want them to have the ability hit my homestate of california, in this state is all that I hold dear to my heart and what I would be fighting for. But, maybe tightening restrictions and instead of just warning, actually do something would be the best way to go about with this situation.

      jar0fair wrote:

      oh dear, today North Korea had made this comment.

      "If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all,"

      they believe we are trying to start a war and that we are the bad ones... which we can be bad but i dont think we are in this situation

      No. The propaganda they give their people, and the things they say are horrible. The must end this now.
      [CENTER]Future Rifleman of the Marine Corps!
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
      Saepius Exertus ||| Semper Fidelis ||| Frater Infinitas
      [/CENTER]