Breaking News::::::North Korea fires two short-range missiles (3:00 AM EDT) after testing nukes

Originally Posted by LilStarZ07

welp ... obama taking that "nice guy" approach is probably gonna get us killed or our country severely damaged ... congrats everyone!
indifferent.gif
 
Originally Posted by TBONE95860

Originally Posted by theconditioner


I know 99.9% of NT won't read this, but for the .1% who want to understand the dynamics of US/N. Korean relations, read this. Or at least read the underlined material.


Summarized:

each time the US used an aggressive policy to pressure North Korea

into giving way, the latter became more recalcitrant. By contrast, when Washington

relied on a more cooperative attitude Pyongyang usually responded with

concessions. Tension on the Korean peninsula thus decreased only when the

US adopted a 'give-and-take' diplomatic style in recognition that Pyongyang's

recalcitrance can, and should, be read as a bargaining tactic to get something in

return for giving up the nuclear option.

Oh please

indifferent.gif

And of course you provide no counter argument. You should really just stick to posting news links.
 

The Takeover wrote:

LilStarZ07 wrote:
welp ... obama taking that "nice guy" approach is probably gonna get us killed or our country severely damaged ... congrats everyone!
indifferent.gif




Richard Cheney school of fear mongering. Unless we bomb you we are terrorist sympathizers. welp Bush's iron fist approached served us well and kept ussafe after 9/11. 9/11 not counting, neither does the anthrax scare
indifferent.gif


indifferent.gif



L for Stan
 
Report: North Korea Fires Two Short-Range Missiles Off East Coast


SEOUL, South Korea - A South Korean news agency is reporting that North Korea hastest-fired two short-range missiles from an east coast launch pad.

The Yonhap news agency cites an unnamed government sources as saying the missiles have arange of about 80 miles (130 kilometers).

The reports says one was a surface-to-air missile and the other was a ground-to-shipmissile. Both were fired Tuesday afternoon.



Article prior to launch....
[h2]N. Korea ReadiesRockets[/h2]Condemned by the U.N. for its nuclear test, North Korea appears set to launch moreshort-range missiles
 
give me a late pass but i just learned today that Kim Jong Il's father's 100th birthday is in 2012.
isnt that the year when the world is supposed to end?
 
Originally Posted by yancancook90

give me a late pass but i just learned today that Kim Jong Il's father's 100th birthday is in 2012.
isnt that the year when the world is supposed to end?
eek.gif
 
Originally Posted by nologo02184

what most of you all don't understand is that just because a country has a nuclear bomb does not mean it is going to use it. you're confusing capability with willingness.

since the end of world war II, no nuclear arms have been used in any conflict. i don't see that changing any time soon. many nuclear arms scholars have said that when states finally do realize their nuclear ambitions, they also recognize the new power that they have, and it's often a very sobering effect.

you won't have world war III simply because all of these nations know it would be the absolute end of mankind. it's basic game theory/the security dilemma.

Thank you. Finally someone who gets it.
Originally Posted by dunksnjordans1992

damn im goin into the marines and this %!+% might go down

Nothing will go down. Have fun in Afghanistan.
 
So when can I expect WW3 to commence?

I need to know when I can start acting a damn fool without any fear of repercussions because of the impending destruction of the Earth.
 
052609_nkmissiles2.jpg


Report: North Korea Fires Two Short-Range Missiles Off East Coast

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea launched tests Tuesday of two more short-range missiles a day afterconducting a nuclear test, news reports said, pushing the regime's confrontation with world powers further despite the threat of U.N. Security Councilaction.

Two missiles - one ground-to-air, the other ground-to-ship - with a range of about 80 miles (130 kilometers) weretest-fired Tuesday from an east coast launch pad, the Yonhap news agency and YTN television reported, citing unnamed South Korean officials.

South Korea's spy chief, Won Sei-hoon, had informed lawmakers earlier Tuesday that North Korea appeared to bepreparing to test-fire more missiles, according to Park Young-sun, a legislator who attended the closed-door session.

Pyongyang also test-fired three short-range missiles Monday in the hours after conducting an underground nuclear testin the northeast, Yonhap said.

The Security Council called Monday's underground atomic test in northeastern North Korea a "clearviolation" of a 2006 resolution banning the regime from developing its nuclear program and has begun working on a new resolution that could mean strongersanctions.

France called for new sanctions while the U.S. and Japan pushed for strong action against North Korea for testing abomb that Russian officials said compares in power to those that obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

North Korea had threatened in recent weeks to carry out a nuclear test and fire long-rangemissiles unless the Security Council apologized for condemning Pyongyang's April 5 launch of a rocket the U.S., Japan and other nations called a test ofits long-range missile technology.
 
Originally Posted by 18key

Originally Posted by nologo02184

what most of you all don't understand is that just because a country has a nuclear bomb does not mean it is going to use it. you're confusing capability with willingness.

since the end of world war II, no nuclear arms have been used in any conflict. i don't see that changing any time soon. many nuclear arms scholars have said that when states finally do realize their nuclear ambitions, they also recognize the new power that they have, and it's often a very sobering effect.

you won't have world war III simply because all of these nations know it would be the absolute end of mankind. it's basic game theory/the security dilemma.
Thank you. Finally someone who gets it.
Yeah you're right..... we might as well give nuclear bombs to Iran, Al-Qaedah, Hezbollah, North Korea, and others.
Because clearly they are no threat to anyone's safety.
 
Originally Posted by TBONE95860

Originally Posted by 18key

Originally Posted by nologo02184

what most of you all don't understand is that just because a country has a nuclear bomb does not mean it is going to use it. you're confusing capability with willingness.

since the end of world war II, no nuclear arms have been used in any conflict. i don't see that changing any time soon. many nuclear arms scholars have said that when states finally do realize their nuclear ambitions, they also recognize the new power that they have, and it's often a very sobering effect.

you won't have world war III simply because all of these nations know it would be the absolute end of mankind. it's basic game theory/the security dilemma.
Thank you. Finally someone who gets it.
Yeah you're right..... we might as well give nuclear bombs to Iran, Al-Qaedah, Hezbollah, North Korea, and others.
Because clearly they are no threat to anyone's safety.

I'm not saying "GIVE NK WEAPONS!" and chanting it on the street, I'm saying that no one is going to fire a nuke in this day and age. (By noone, I mean North Korea, South Korea, China and the US. Even Kim should know that if one nuke is in the air, he's done for.)

You cant equate North Korea to groups who have actually been trying to eliminate an entire group of people. Sure, NKis unstable, and shouldnt have weapons like this. But at the same time, NO ONE SHOULD. Sadly, this isn't a perfect world. I will agree with Kim being sounstable and whcked out of his got damn mind, that we do need to restrict him and what he can have. Which means no nukes.
 
Originally Posted by TBONE95860

Originally Posted by 18key

Originally Posted by nologo02184

what most of you all don't understand is that just because a country has a nuclear bomb does not mean it is going to use it. you're confusing capability with willingness.

since the end of world war II, no nuclear arms have been used in any conflict. i don't see that changing any time soon. many nuclear arms scholars have said that when states finally do realize their nuclear ambitions, they also recognize the new power that they have, and it's often a very sobering effect.

you won't have world war III simply because all of these nations know it would be the absolute end of mankind. it's basic game theory/the security dilemma.
Thank you. Finally someone who gets it.
Yeah you're right..... we might as well give nuclear bombs to Iran, Al-Qaedah, Hezbollah, North Korea, and others.
Because clearly they are no threat to anyone's safety.


Well we've already handed some to Israel, and we know how peaceful they are as a country.
eyes.gif
 
It will be interesting to see how the President handles this. Isn't being in office fun?!
 
not sure what the US can realistically do. Bush talked tough after the first test in 2004 but couldn't really act on anything. This test is much more of athreat to Chinese (and to a lesser extent Russian) power in the region than the US. we really can't do much about it.
 
let him play with his toys

if he lets one fly too far then he know he will get blown off the map

with that said i dont see them ever doing nothing to the U.S
 
Back
Top Bottom