North Korea Says Diplomacy is Over - Nuclear War May Start at Any Moment.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: whywhynot

A child pointing a water pistol and threatening to shoot is meaningless. A child pointing a loaded gun is a different matter.

If your neighbor—or anyone for that matter—says he's going to come to your house and shoot you, does that give you the right to go to his house and shoot him first?

If someone threatens me I may let it slide. If someone threatens my grandkids they better make their peace with God.

a reply to: carewemust

That would be assassination. If there's a law against it, too bad. Doesn't guarantee that a war will be avoided, but it's a good start that may avoid one.

Ha! LOL

The drums of war were beating just like now prior to WW1. The assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand of Austria was the so called excuse of the beginning WW1.

"Too bad" attitude will definitely lead to WW3

a reply to: whywhynot

About par for the course with the US when they backpeddled and fabricated all sorts of excuses to invade Iraq. What rules did US play under then. No WMDs were ever found. Keep being a Rothchild's patsy and drink the kool-aid.

a reply to: Logarock

A generation of americans brought up without honor

Honor is invading sovereign nations like Iraq or Libya to instill a Rothchilds controlled Central Bank - or invading Afghanistan for Opium to feed the market back home in the USA? You dont know what honor means. Or independent research for that matter.

a reply to: introvert

Exactly - they saw how well it went for Libya when Libya wanted to create a Gold based Dinar.

Say we see a total of 4 Aircraft Carriers near Korea. Would this mean war is imminent? Or could they run it with 3?
They would need at least 3-4 refueling tankers in the air non-stop too.. man, the logistics of that....

It not actually a threat if they say they want to develop the capability.

That said, some messed up things going on in that country.. especially the mentality of its citizens they cultivate.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: carewemust

That would be assassination. If there's a law against it, too bad. Doesn't guarantee that a war will be avoided, but it's a good start that may avoid one.

Ha! LOL

The drums of war were beating just like now prior to WW1. The assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand of Austria was the so called excuse of the beginning WW1.

"Too bad" attitude will definitely lead to WW3

Thanks for the history lesson. However, there have probably been quite a few leaders assassinated, where a major war didn't follow.

originally posted by: Pharyax
Say we see a total of 4 Aircraft Carriers near Korea. Would this mean war is imminent? Or could they run it with 3?
They would need at least 3-4 refueling tankers in the air non-stop too.. man, the logistics of that....

Secretary of Defense Mattis said that a war with North Korea would be massive and devastating. "Mad Dog" doesn't mince words.

To achieve that, I think the U.S. would need all four carrier battle groups, along with heavy bombers.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: introvert
Let Kim do whatever he damn well pleases. He's only trying to put his country in a position to where they wont be messed with by the Western powers.

We don't need to take any action unless we have 100% certainty that they are going to act on their threats.

What would you describe as 100% certainly. What would your redline be?

That is a hard line to draw as I am not in a position to know their exact capabilities and intent.

Speak in non tech terms.

Do you strike when: a. They demonstrate nuclear capability. Or b. When the missiles are ready to launch and Kim say they will launch at any moment. Or c. When the missiles are in flight. Or d. Once they have landed and killed millions.

Hmmm

Judging by the Trump Administration's response (or lack thereof) to this crisis, I would say that our Potus has chosen D. If it were up to me, since we're currently at option "B," I say do a pre-emptive strike and take away NK's ability to annihilate us.

Of course, I'm talking about nukes. They still have chemical and bio weapons too, of course.

a reply to: carewemust

I dont deny that. It just seems that the chess pieces are in play in the grand design of the re carving of the 21st century Empires. Australia was asked by the US to start needling China over their island building a while back. There was an ATS thread that said that the PTB would start a "fake" war between China and the USA to bring about a new reserve Chinese currency reset. I see it happening as stated. The unfortunate part is the cost of millions dying

a reply to: dianajune

And a pre-emptive strike would some how magicially render any nukes he may have useless?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: dianajune

The U.S. needs to continue to show restraint with bombing North Korea, DianaJune. The U.S. knows that Seoul, South Korea is TOAST if we do that. N.K. has been building up armament for striking Seoul for 40 years. We couldn't stop that from happening without dropping H-bombs on North Korea...which would destroy Seoul as well.

As Defense Secretary Mattis said, "There are no good options". War is to be avoided at all costs.

What I wonder is why we haven't made a strike on Kim Jong himself. He's a big target that's always out and about. A sniper, poisoned dinner, or even a low yield cruise missile would get rid of him.

With all due respect, I think we've reached the point where our gloves must come off. NK is too much of a threat and Lil' Kim is nuts or evil enough to take out his perceived enemies.

I can't understand why our gov't hasn't dealt with those EMP satellites, which go over our country at least twice a day.

From reports I read last week, more missiles are on the move in NK. How do we know this won't be another test or the real deal?

We should at least take out those satellites. It would be a good start as far as reducing the threat.

originally posted by: introvert
Let Kim do whatever he damn well pleases. He's only trying to put his country in a position to where they wont be messed with by the Western powers.

We don't need to take any action unless we have 100% certainty that they are going to act on their threats.

That is even more ridiculous. 100 percent certainty means waiting for Kim's first strike. Only then will anyone know he will act on his threats by his action.

So lets wait until he nukes some target then that will be the 100 percent certainty you need.. Great logic.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: dianajune

And a pre-emptive strike would some how magicially render any nukes he may have useless?

A pre-emptive strike would render those EMP satellites about as useful as broken glass.

A pre-emptive strike on NK's nuke facilities would render them useless too.

We should at least start with those blasted satellites.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: carewemust

The next logical step is to remove Trump from the whitehouse, if not put Kim and Trump in a boxing ring wearing sumo suits and let them flab it out.

Exactly how will this solve the North Korea issue? Do you have any real input on how to solve this issue? I bet you don't. I bet you won't answer neither of my questions.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: whywhynot

A child pointing a water pistol and threatening to shoot is meaningless. A child pointing a loaded gun is a different matter.

If your neighbor—or anyone for that matter—says he's going to come to your house and shoot you, does that give you the right to go to his house and shoot him first?

No. you go back home get your own gun and wait for them to come and try it.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: introvert
Let Kim do whatever he damn well pleases. He's only trying to put his country in a position to where they wont be messed with by the Western powers.

We don't need to take any action unless we have 100% certainty that they are going to act on their threats.

That is even more ridiculous. 100 percent certainty means waiting for Kim's first strike. Only then will anyone know he will act on his threats by his action.

So lets wait until he nukes some target then that will be the 100 percent certainty you need.. Great logic.

That certainty is not and may not be dependent upon a first strike from NK. That is what many of you warmongers are missing.

Intelligence and nuance.

a reply to: dianajune

annihilate us

You obviously dont know what annihilation means, or have any care for the world around you. Whole countries have been annihilated and millions killed by your New York Wall St Israel regime.

Where are those trillions spent defending your country. Thats right they were spent overseas to further your economic interests.

What about the 150 wars the USA has been involved in the last 100 years.

Its all so cut and dried for you - LOL The greatest nation on earth humbled by planes being magically flown into the Twin Towers by box cutter wielding "camel herders" as you Americans like to call them. Meanwhile your leaders and Silverstein made billions out of the fiasco.

Wake up. You have another Sandy Hook like conspiracy in your own back yard of Las Vegas
and you worry about N Korea. Just distractions - keep paying your taxes

LOL