- 1,665
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
Originally Posted by LilStarZ07
welp ... obama taking that "nice guy" approach is probably gonna get us killed or our country severely damaged ... congrats everyone!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by LilStarZ07
welp ... obama taking that "nice guy" approach is probably gonna get us killed or our country severely damaged ... congrats everyone!
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
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!
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
L for Stan
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?
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.
Originally Posted by dunksnjordans1992
damn im goin into the marines and this %!+% might go down
Yeah you're right..... we might as well give nuclear bombs to Iran, Al-Qaedah, Hezbollah, North Korea, and others.Originally Posted by 18key
Thank you. Finally someone who gets it.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.
Originally Posted by NomadicSole21
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?
Originally Posted by TBONE95860
Yeah you're right..... we might as well give nuclear bombs to Iran, Al-Qaedah, Hezbollah, North Korea, and others.Originally Posted by 18key
Thank you. Finally someone who gets it.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.
Because clearly they are no threat to anyone's safety.
Originally Posted by TBONE95860
Yeah you're right..... we might as well give nuclear bombs to Iran, Al-Qaedah, Hezbollah, North Korea, and others.Originally Posted by 18key
Thank you. Finally someone who gets it.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.
Because clearly they are no threat to anyone's safety.