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 octotom
reply to post by amilot1
I personally believe that North Korea is more interested in taking out South Korea than the US. However, they don't realize that in doing so, it's going to mean that US is involved as well!
Originally posted by Black_Fox
I just heard on CNN that the U.S says they wont forcefully board the ship.
But,it would direct it to the nearest port,and that country would then board and search the ship.
That would all be good and well,but wouldnt that intale N.Korea complying with being "directed" into said port?
I wonder what possible action would be taken if the ship refused and kept heading to N.Korea.
Korea has gone on record saying any boarding of thier ships,would be considered an act of war.
I hope this dosent become a flashpoint for another needless war.
And I say needless,in the sense that the U.S dosent have to be the ones to enforce the U.N resolution.There are other countries that can take the lead for a change.
Originally posted by nine0099thousand
Originally posted by Black_Fox
I just heard on CNN that the U.S says they wont forcefully board the ship.
But,it would direct it to the nearest port,and that country would then board and search the ship.
That would all be good and well,but wouldnt that intale N.Korea complying with being "directed" into said port?
I wonder what possible action would be taken if the ship refused and kept heading to N.Korea.
Korea has gone on record saying any boarding of thier ships,would be considered an act of war.
I hope this dosent become a flashpoint for another needless war.
And I say needless,in the sense that the U.S dosent have to be the ones to enforce the U.N resolution.There are other countries that can take the lead for a change.
your avatar is so awesome that I stopped reading mid-sentance and stared at it so long that I forgot what the thread was about.
Anyways, I think North Korea uses the term "act of war" way too loosely. The problem is that eventually, someone is going to slip up and just assume that NK isn't being completely serious. It will be at THAT point when NK blows it's fuse and goes off the deep end.
Here's to hoping that NK's citizens rise up and take their country back!
Originally posted by Darkblade71
Well all we can do is watch and speculate for now.
Yeah, south korea would take a pounding but they have been ready for it for years. So has the USA. This war has been all planned out way in advance by the US and South Korea.
Originally posted by Raider of Truth
This is playing out smiliar to the PS2 game "Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction" for all those who played it in the old gen days,you know what i mean
en.wikipedia.org...
10Q for the link..from there i went to nuclear war and found this...
Potential consequences of a regional nuclear war
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.[14]
there's no need for the whole world to be involved for such an event being catasrophic
also found this...which i hope are not in the hands of koreans..
Nuclear terrorism
Main article: Nuclear terrorism
Nuclear terrorism by non-state organizations is an unknown factor in nuclear deterrence thinking, as states possessing nuclear weapons are susceptible to retaliation in kind, but sub- or trans-state actors are not. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the possibility that former Soviet nuclear weapons might become available on the black market (so-called 'loose nukes'), while no warheads are known to be have been mislaid, it has been alleged that suitcase-size bombs might be unaccounted for. A similar threat may exist via dirty bombs.
Originally posted by mloco
Isnt this a UN sanction? what makes it the US place to "track" this ship or even watch it? since when did they become the world police? the UN has its own forces that all the un countries provide units to so if this NK ship is going against sanctions then it should be the UN looking at it?