It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kojac
N.K needs to be punished or brought into line somehow, that's obvious, but how?
Whilst I do not condone NK’s actions in any way shape or form, I think it very odd that you say they need “punishing”?
After all, EVERY major country pointing fingers and tsk, tsking (USA, Britain, France, Russia, China et. Al) have ALL in the past exploded nuclear bombs in "tests"!
In fact, it was only a few years ago that France was blowing up innocent atolls in the Pacific Ocean – devastating marine life for miles around.
Was France punished? Was France sanctioned against? Hmmm, no they were not…probably because they are big players in the UN.
I am not having a go at you – I am just appalled at the blatant double standards.
I have a great idea – how about all the countries without nukes, impose sanctions against all those countries that do have them – because the best way to avoid a nuclear war, is not to have any nukes at all!
After some quick observations, it appears that the American people want some action taken against N. Korea. Yet, our "representative" governments sit on an idle pedestal: let's hurry up and wait.
Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
After some quick observations, it appears that the American people want some action taken against N. Korea. Yet, our "representative" governments sit on an idle pedestal: let's hurry up and wait.
For once they are doing the right thing. Wait for North Korea to make a big mistake where the world will create a coalition to bring the regime down.
Originally posted by WatchNLearn
Originally posted by kojac
N.K needs to be punished or brought into line somehow, that's obvious, but how?
I am not having a go at you – I am just appalled at the blatant double standards.
I have a great idea – how about all the countries without nukes, impose sanctions against all those countries that do have them – because the best way to avoid a nuclear war, is not to have any nukes at all!
O.K, good point WatchNLearn, but as far as i'm concerned 2 wrongs don't make a right. IMHO, there should be no Nukes owned by anyone. For that matter, according to the N.P.T the major powers should be downscaling their Nukes, but that is a matter for another thread.
I am against Nucleur weapons altogether, but while their still here, I am totally supportive of Non Proliferation. It's a simple matter of the Law of Averages. The more countries that have Nukes, the more likely it is that they will get used. Personally, I enjoy the world i live in without Nucleur War. Don't you?
Let me ask you a question WatchNLearn, would you trust the current N.K dictatorship with Nucleur Weapons?
Do some research on this country. They make Iran look like paridise.
[edit on 12/06/2005 by kojac]
Originally posted by iori_komei
I think we should threaten to nuke them, and if they don't obey the inter-
national community, we hit every military base with a few ICBM missiles
and set off a small tactical nuke off 10 miles from Pyonyang (in an unpop-
ulated area).
Originally posted by malganis
Couldn't we hit their artillery as well?
Originally posted by GiantPanda1979
It makes me sick how this country has gotten soft. If someone was holding a knife in your face what would you do? I personally and as a proud red blooded american would grab up anything i could and turn that person into mush. Wake up America before its too late.....There was a time when this country answered to no one.....why should we start now
Originally posted by malganis
Couldn't we hit their artillery as well?
Because North Korea has a wide range of military means (including artillery, missiles, and ground-force operations) that can inflict significant damage on the South, pre-emptive strikes could not destroy all of North Korea's weapons before they could be used. Pre-emptive strikes against North Korean artillery and missiles would require South Korean cooperation and the deployment of additional U.S. aircraft, reconnaissance assets, and artillery. Counter-battery artillery fire and air strikes could be used to target North Korea artillery, but would be unable to prevent North Korea from doing considerable damage to Seoul.
Originally posted by Chris McGee
There's a huge amount of firepower there in fortified positions. Taking it all out before they did huge damage to the South Korean capital would be next to impossible.
Originally posted by freeradical
One thing that doesnt get much media attention is that NK has chemical and biological weapons that have been fine tuned by tests on "political prisoners", its own citizens!
Originally posted by 27jd
That link seemed to imply it would be very difficult, but not impossible. Of course there would have to be an acceptance of likely damage to Seoul, but I'm sure every measure would be taken to minimize it. I guess it just depends on how much the parties involved think it's worth to take Kim out....
One U.S. military estimate suggested that U.S. and South Korean military forces might suffer 300,000-500,000 casualties within the first 90 days of fighting, in addition to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties