North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My facts are right, we attacked Japan with nuclear weapons. That's a fact. You want to spin semantics on the word attack go ahead, but no other sovereign nation has used nuclear weapons in a hostile act against another sovereign nation except the US. And we happen to have the largest military budget in the world.

More on the semantics: The word attack is defined as:
"to set upon with violent force" attack - definition of attack by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia., verb tr. definition 1

I think dropping nuclear bombs on an industrial city constitutes an attack. period.

You're so pedantic. (Pithy enough for you?)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

So you agree it works as a deterrent?

Absolutely. The US has shown it will use nuclear weapons. I believe it would still be willing to do so. More importantly, I think other countries believe we are willing to do so.

We have the biggest stick in the world and are willing to use it.

Now, flip sides (as CRed suggests):
You and your another guy in your neighborhood (let's call him Sam) don't particularly like each other. Sam's the wealthiest guy in town and has, for all intents and purposes, access to an ulimited personal arsenal. Sam's generally been seen as a good guy in the community, but he is best friends with someone you hate and you & Sam have exchanged some testy words over a variety of issues. Your are also competing with Sam in business.

After a particularly testy exchange with Sam's friend, Sam has parked his armed-to-the-teeth tank next to your driveway - off your property, but pretty much right next to it - points the gun at your front door, and has it manned with his friends and family at all times. BTW, in the past, another neighbor blatantly attacked Sam (everyone agrees Sam was the victim) and Sam went and, using a similar tank, blasted the neighbor's house to smithereens.

Did I mention the tank was huge. Oh, BTW, there is no police force in your neighborhood. To the extent, In fact, your guy out there, generally bankrolls the only (albeit generally ineffective) police force.

So, Mr. I-Can-Own-Whatever-Damn-Weapon-I-Want-To-Effectively-Deal-With-Any-Threat-Posed-To-Me (a position with which I generally don't disagree), isn't conceivable you just might be a bit nervous by that turn of events?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Gee... I wonder why??

I understand the logic and rationale of the US strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I actually agree with the rationale.

But how does that change the fact that we don't need to make video threats, or bellicose statements, because when we fly a B-2 6000 miles, we have already demonstrated that, as a country, we will use nuclear weapons if we feel that it will enhance our national security.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I understand the logic and rationale of the US strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I actually agree with the rationale.

But how does that change the fact that we don't need to make video threats, or bellicose statements, because when we fly a B-2 6000 miles, we have already demonstrated that, as a country, we will use nuclear weapons if we feel that it will enhance our national security.

We demonstrated it 68 years ago.
And have threatened no one with a nuclear strike since then.
Bleeding hearts like to bleat about it often and make it sound like it happened recently.
North Korea and Iran are threatening to nuke people with speeches and videos today.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Absolutely. The US has shown it will use nuclear weapons. I believe it would still be willing to do so. More importantly, I think other countries believe we are willing to do so.

We have the biggest stick in the world and are willing to use it.

Now, flip sides (as CRed suggests):
You and your another guy in your neighborhood (let's call him Sam) don't particularly like each other. Sam's the wealthiest guy in town and has, for all intents and purposes, access to an ulimited personal arsenal. Sam's generally been seen as a good guy in the community, but he is best friends with someone you hate and you & Sam have exchanged some testy words over a variety of issues. Your are also competing with Sam in business.

After a particularly testy exchange with Sam's friend, Sam has parked his armed-to-the-teeth tank next to your driveway - off your property, but pretty much right next to it - points the gun at your front door, and has it manned with his friends and family at all times. BTW, in the past, another neighbor blatantly attacked Sam (everyone agrees Sam was the victim) and Sam went and, using a similar tank, blasted the neighbor's house to smithereens.

Did I mention the tank was huge. Oh, BTW, there is no police force in your neighborhood. To the extent, In fact, your guy out there, generally bankrolls the only (albeit generally ineffective) police force.

So, Mr. I-Can-Own-Whatever-Damn-Weapon-I-Want-To-Effectively-Deal-With-Any-Threat-Posed-To-Me (a position with which I generally don't disagree), isn't conceivable you just might be a bit nervous by that turn of events?

Yeah, like I'm perfectly innocent in all this......

[Chico23231]

Like father, like son: Kim Jong-un looking at things | euronews, world news

Im really happy about this tradition. Good job Un!

If your not familar, this is a favorite site behind Tom Selleck Sandwich Waterfalls:

kim jong-il looking at things

This is something I really thought Il was good at, looking at things.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Yeah, like I'm perfectly innocent in all this......

Fine. "Your" best friend threatened to blow up Sam's house - and you didn't give your friend the smack down or were seen delivering dynamite to said friend. Sam's tank is now parked in front of your house - gun pointed at your door. You, will undoubtedly, meekly turn your back on your friend and ask Sam to pretty please move his tank.

Regardless of who holds the moral high-ground, and even assuming Sam does, are "You" (who by the way, have ample access to your own weaponry) more or less likely to escalate with the Sam's tank parked in front of your house?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

We demonstrated it 68 years ago.
And have threatened no one with a nuclear strike since then.
Bleeding hearts like to bleat about it often and make it sound like it happened recently.
North Korea and Iran are threatening to nuke people with speeches and videos today.

And we flew a B2 NUCLEAR CAPABLE bomber from the US to within 100 MILES of the Chinese border LAST WEEK. Are you ok if China flies a nuclear capable bomber to Tijuana and back?

MAD was exactly based on us threatening massive nuclear strikes. Reagan put Pershing II and the MX missile programs in play threatening strikes. We currently have a non-first strike policy only against those countries that do not have nuclear weapons. We have an intrinsic threat of using our nuclear arsenal, otherwise they would not be the deterrent.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

And we flew a B2 NUCLEAR CAPABLE bomber from the US to within 100 MILES of the Chinese border LAST WEEK. Are you ok if China flies a nuclear capable bomber to Tijuana and back?

MAD was exactly based on us threatening massive nuclear strikes. Reagan put Pershing II and the MX missile programs in play threatening strikes. We currently have a non-first strike policy only against those countries that do not have nuclear weapons. We have an intrinsic threat of using our nuclear arsenal, otherwise they would not be the deterrent.

Since South Korea and Japan is/are relatively close to China we have been flying these evil capable bombers near China for over 50 years, makes me wonder why you have your panties in a twist about it today.
But I'm going to think it doesnt matter to you because you're so hung up on the hypocisy of our militray and apparently dont care about any American interests allies abroad.
And its not about China, its about North Korea, so China can kiss my ass.
And we have been having these exercises for decades but since the media is hyping things up this month it makes the libs all fidgety.
Flavor of the week for the tree hugging community.

And I'd love to see a Chinese bomber try to go feet dry in Mexico.

[firstdown]

I have comfort knowing we do own the biggest stick. I'd perfer to bring the stick home and just wack the ass holes who try to F(*K with us but I don't think that going to happen.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Flavor of the week for the tree hugging community.

Agreed. We have John Kerry running State, Chuck Hagel running Defense and Brennan running CIA. We're now at the point where a Red Panda is leading a pack of timber wolves.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Since South Korea and Japan is/are relatively close to China we have been flying these evil capable bombers near China for over 50 years, makes me wonder why you have your panties in a twist about it today.
But I'm going to think it doesnt matter to you because you're so hung up on the hypocisy of our militray and apparently dont care about any American interests allies abroad.
And its not about China, its about North Korea, so China can kiss my ass.
And we have been having these exercises for decades but since the media is hyping things up this month it makes the libs all fidgety.
Flavor of the week for the tree hugging community.

And I'd love to see a Chinese bomber try to go feet dry in Mexico.

We haven't flown B2's there before.

What I am, not very well, trying to show, is that what we see as valid exercises, can be seen by others as threats or even provocations. We want to protect our allies, I get that, and that's not a problem, but do so in a manner fitting of the biggest guy on the block. Show restraint and exercise judicious caution. For Example, rather than sending the latest and greatest weaponry on a militarily meaningless flight, do a long range sortie from Kansas to Saudi Arabia, publicize it, and let China know in back channels that, hey if your guy tries to something, that trip might end up in your back yard.

There is diplomacy, and there is gunboat diplomacy, I only hope that the politicians and military men are smart enough to use the right one.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

We haven't flown B2's there before.

What I am, not very well, trying to show, is that what we see as valid exercises, can be seen by others as threats or even provocations. We want to protect our allies, I get that, and that's not a problem, but do so in a manner fitting of the biggest guy on the block. Show restraint and exercise judicious caution. For Example, rather than sending the latest and greatest weaponry on a militarily meaningless flight, do a long range sortie from Kansas to Saudi Arabia, publicize it, and let China know in back channels that, hey if your guy tries to something, that trip might end up in your back yard.

There is diplomacy, and there is gunboat diplomacy, I only hope that the politicians and military men are smart enough to use the right one.

If the time comes when it is necessary, how do you expect to do it right without training/practice?
Saudi Arabia isnt like the sea of japan.
A lot of differences to consider when you are flying a bomber.
I'd rather eliminate all variables and keep my B-2 pilots safe and provide the best training possible.

Anyways what difference does it make when we have had B-52s over there for so long?
A B-52 nuke is no less uglly than a B-2 nuke.
Not to mentiont the fact that if we do need to nuke North Korea it will come from a submarine.

And anyways these pre-broadcasted excersies were scheduled before North Korea decided to get all uppity.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

We haven't flown B2's there before.

What I am, not very well, trying to show, is that what we see as valid exercises, can be seen by others as threats or even provocations. We want to protect our allies, I get that, and that's not a problem, but do so in a manner fitting of the biggest guy on the block. Show restraint and exercise judicious caution. For Example, rather than sending the latest and greatest weaponry on a militarily meaningless flight, do a long range sortie from Kansas to Saudi Arabia, publicize it, and let China know in back channels that, hey if your guy tries to something, that trip might end up in your back yard.

There is diplomacy, and there is gunboat diplomacy, I only hope that the politicians and military men are smart enough to use the right one.

We have been showing restraint for over 50 years.

North Korea isnt interested in diplomacy.

They want to be a loud mouth swaggering bad ass on the block.

If there is a conflict there is no way we fill fire the first shot.


And when you have idiots like LiL Kim waving his nukes around, I am just fine with gunboat diplomacy.

[RedskinRat]