Kim Jong Ill?

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
North Korea: Site of the next nuclear powered nation, home of a maniatical "Dictator for Eternity" despot by the name of Kim Jong Il.

This country is now producing nuclear weapons...Weapons of MASS destruction, as well as 2 stage-missiles capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii and 1/4 of Canada....perhaps even California.
It's army outnumber the Americans by at least 2-to-1.

Now...the question is...if we're willing to attack Iraq for social injustices similar to that found in North Korea, what are we going to do with North Korea?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/archives/1998/walpole_speech_120898.html
 
why not invade india and pakistan as well? they have 3-stage rockets, and pretty good ones as well. and nuclear weapons...


so...

- nort korea
- 90% of the arab world...


this is gonna take some time. :rolleyes:

reminds me of pinky and the brain....

what are the chances of the US invading NK as well? as far as i know that's not gonna happen so soon...
 
The USA couldn't pull it off...they're badly outnumbered and dealing with a country that has similar weapon systems as they do, including anti-missile missiles.

I don't think that the US could use the same tactics as it does in Iraq...it'd be a bloodhouse. Political pressure and economic pressure would be more effective in this case, no?
 
i'm doubting a valid reason. having weapons of mass destruction isn't one of them. the US has more than anyone, except for Russia maybe.
India has them, Pakistan has them etc etc...

the US isn't going to invade every country that has nuclear weapons. it has no right to do so.


and what exactly couldn't the US pull off? i have no idea what you're referring to
 
i don't know if they signed that. they could have.

the us pull out too? the US pulled out of a few treaty's already, and i didn't hear any calls back then that we should invade the US.

not living up with a treaty doesn't have to result into an invasion directly. i'd be glad to see that the US would live up the agreement to radically reduce its own nuclear arsenal, which is most likely not gonna happen as well, especially since russia refused to after the iraq disagreement
 
Shadowfax said:
and what exactly couldn't the US pull off? i have no idea what you're referring to
Click to expand...

They couldn't pull off an attack/invasion of NK. It wouldn't succeed.
 
the US can't afford a huge war after iraq...bush has already asked for 62 billion dollars for the war against iraq, a part of the 78 he asked for the war against terrorism...
looking at the bad economical situation in the US i seriously get the idea that the US people will drop Bush as fast as they can in the upcoming elections...

when the war is over in iraq and the sky has cleared up, and people see bush' shitty internal economics, patriotism won't cover his ass with the elections
 
Shadowfax said:
i seriously get the idea that the US people will drop Bush as fast as they can in the upcoming elections...
Click to expand...
You mean like his party was dropped in the 2002 elections?
 
no. but the situation now is different from the one in 2002.

the economic situation hasn't improved since then, on the contrary. and the war is costing the US a fortune, which isn't helping very much either.
 
You mean like the Dow Jones is rallying up to its highest level in weeks? Or because the oil price is dropping?
 
the dow jones is rising yes, because the war has started, correctly. people are relieved that the decision is made.

i'm curious how high it will be in a month from now, when people are going to worry that the war is going to last too long...

now, the debts of the US has risen quite a bit since Bush was elected as president. including the interest that has to be paid over that amount...the costs made by the war aren't gonna help that.
until now the whole thing has already cost 20+ billion dollars...we're not talking about pennies...


but i'm not going to argue with you about this. we'll see what happens...
 
MrBishop said:
They couldn't pull off an attack/invasion of NK. It wouldn't succeed.
Click to expand...
I don't see why not. The only drawbacks would be a fear of nuclear retalliation or the possibility of South Korea join the Northerns. NK is not much bigger than Iraq was in the 1st Gulf war...
 
$74.7billion . Why not just stop the bombing and save the tax payers the extra repair costs.

Sandstorm slowing down the troops on their way to Baghdad. Once they get there and the conventional war starts, as well as the street-by-street war...we'll get a better idea of how long it'll last.
Until then...each black bag that returns to the UK or USA will mean another drop in the stock market, me thinks.
 
Shadowfax said:
i'd be glad to see that the US would live up the agreement to radically reduce its own nuclear arsenal, which is most likely not gonna happen as well, especially since russia refused to after the iraq disagreement
Click to expand...

We've clamped down on our nukes by quite a bit.

Although the United States has produced something like 70,000 nuclear weapons of 71 major types since their invention, there are now roughly 9600 nuclear weapons of 10 major types (as determined by the official designation system) in the U.S. arsenal. The official name of this arsenal is the "Enduring Stockpile" and it is divided into three categories of warhead readiness.

Currently the U.S. is entering the latter part of an arsenal and readiness reduction process that began before the end of the Soviet Union during the administrations of Gorbachev and Bush. At the start of this process the United States had an active arsenal of some 23,000 weapons of 26 major types. Since that time actual nuclear warhead production has been completely shut down in the U.S. (although warhead modification, retrofit, and maintenance activities continue at a reduced level), most of the nuclear weapons manufacturing infrastructure has been dismantled, and the focus of the remaining nuclear infrastructure has shifted to dismantling surplus weapons.

This phase is coming to an end however, and under current plans will have halted by 2003. The dismantling activity is due to wind up in 1999 when the current backlog of retired weapons is disposed of. All of the weapons now in the U.S. stockpile are expected to remain in existence for the indefinite future, although nearly half will be transferred to lower levels of readiness. Barring further international agreements or diplomatic initiatives, this arsenal will remain basically unchanged.

The reason that some 9600 weapons are currently slated for retention in some form or other, despite the signing of the START II treaty which reduces stockpiles to 3000-3500, is that

the START II treaty does not call for retired weapons to be dismantled; and
even though the U.S. Senate has ratified the treaty, the Russian Duma has not.
This means that the U.S. will not comply with START II until the treaty formally goes into effect, and because of the uncertain commitment of the Russian legislature to nuclear disarmament, the U.S. is keeping its options open by retaining hedge and inactive weapons.
Click to expand...

Source

also, Federation of American Scientists list of WMD sountries.
 
Back to topic.

Jung Il has a history of this type of behavior. Once the US/UN turns over cash &/or food, he slinks back to the hole where he slithered out of. There has been a slight increase in erratic behavior this time.

Given public information, I'd have to say he's not an immediate threat. If he has nukes it's almost too late. If he doesn't, this would be a good time to call his bluff & stop the proliferation.

Even without nukes, he has enough conventional firepower massed on or under the DMZ to level Seoul in about 3 minutes. If it comes to that, we'd almost have to nuke the DMZ to control the losses in S Korea & Japan. Then it would be time for a buttload of high energy bombs to put a crimp in his million+ man infantry.

That war, I believe, would show what shock & awe really means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top