Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > How do you want your nukes done?

How do you want your nukes done?
Thread Tools
rampant
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2002, 05:44 AM
 
Raw, medium, or rare.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiap...ukes/index.html


North Korea warns of 'catastrophe'
Tuesday, December 24, 2002 Posted: 11:46 AM EST (1646 GMT)

PYONGYANG, North Korea (CNN) -- The refusal by the United States to negotiate with North Korea over its nuclear program could lead to an "uncontrollable catastrophe," North Korea's state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper has warned.

In Seoul, the South Korean Cabinet was told that North Korea is moving nuclear fuel rods containing enough plutonium to build two warheads out of a holding area at a nuclear plant that had been sealed.

The United States has been trying to handle the North Korean nuclear crisis diplomatically as it gears up for possible war with Iraq.

Over the weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell consulted with allies in Asia about North Korea's moves.

But the North Korean newspaper said only the United States and North Korea can come to a settlement.

"If the U.S. persistently tries to internationalize the pending issue between the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] and the U.S. in a bid to flee from its responsibility, it will push the situation to an uncontrollable catastrophe," the newspaper said.

In addition, North Korean Defense Minister Kim Il Chol was quoted by the state news agency as saying the crisis was reaching "an extremely dangerous phase."

In the event of a nuclear conflict, he said, North Korea would deal a "merciless punishment" to the United States.

"If they, ignorant of their rival, dare provoke a nuclear war, the army and people of the DPRK led by Kim Jong Il, the invincible commander, will rise up to mete out determined and merciless punishment to the U.S. imperialist aggressors with the might of single-hearted unity more powerful than A-bomb," he said.

While North Korea has said it wants to open negotiations with the United States, U.S. officials have so far refused, saying the United States will not enter into dialogue in response to threats or broken commitments.

South Korea's outgoing president, Kim Dae-jung, condemned Pyongyang's decision to take down monitoring cameras, break seals on its nuclear plants and move the fuel rods.

"We have said it repeatedly and sometimes we presented it on documents that we can never go along with North Korea's weapons of mass destruction, including missiles or nuclear weapons, and that this is the absolute condition for talks," Kim said.

While Bush administration officials said they are continuing to work diplomatically, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned North Korea not to assume that the United States was not capable of acting militarily on two fronts, even as it prepares for a war with Iraq.

"If they do, it would be a mistake," Rumsfeld said at a news conference Monday.

If necessary, Rumsfeld said, the U.S. military was perfectly capable of fighting both North Korea and Iraq simultaneously.

"We are capable of fighting two major regional conflicts," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing.

"We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other. And let there be no doubt about it."

Over the weekend, the North started removing the safety seals and blocking surveillance cameras placed by international monitoring agencies at facilities in Yongbyong.

On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the North Koreans were continuing to dismantle the monitoring devices and break seals on its nuclear facilities.

IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said North Korea had unilaterally continued the process of disrupting IAEA safeguard measures at its nuclear facilities.

"On 23-24 December, the DPRK cut most of the seals and impeded the functioning of surveillance equipment installed at both the fuel rod fabrication plant and the reprocessing facility," ElBaradei said.

"To date, seals have been cut and surveillance equipment impeded at a total of three facilities at Yongbyong: the 5 megawatt reactor including the associated spent fuel pond, the fuel rod fabrication plant and the reprocessing facility."

Unless the IAEA is able to reinstate its safeguard measures without delay at the facilities, ElBaradei said, it will not be able to provide assurances that North Korea is not diverting nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices as required by its safeguard agreement pursuant to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

ElBaradei said the rapidly deteriorating situation in the DPRK raises "grave non-proliferation concerns." He is currently consulting with the chairman and member states of the IAEA board of governors on ways and means to address this "disturbing development," an IAEA statement said.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, ElBaradei said not only have the North Koreans taken "the cameras and surveillance verification monitoring equipment from the power reactor where they supposedly want to produce electricity, but [they] continue to take all the equipment from the spent fuel and the reprocessing plant which would enable them, if they restart the program, to make plutonium in a pretty few months and that's a pretty disturbing trend."

North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear program in 1994 in exchange for new reactors and shipments of alternative fuel oil.

North Korean officials said they have been forced to restart the program because a U.S.-led consortium decided to stop the alternative shipments after Pyongyang disclosed it had an active nuclear weapons program. The United States believes North Korea already has as many as three nuclear warheads in addition to the plutonium that could be used to make two more.
If only the post nuclear world was as fun as fallout's.
     
The Dude
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2002, 07:49 AM
 
I get the feeling nothing will come of this. It doesn't make any sense, but it's my gut instinct.

Then again, a nice nuclear winter wouldn't be bad for this species.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2002, 08:18 AM
 
I fully expect to wake up one morning to hear that the US has leveled the nuclear plant in North Korea.

and the world will be a bit safer for a while.
     
Saetre
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lost in Thought
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2002, 10:37 AM
 
I have a feeling that those grumpy looking omish luddite dudes with hoes and funny hats have will have the last laugh.
Little children are savages. They are paleolithic creatures.
- E. O. Wilson
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2002, 10:54 AM
 
North Korea is being a major b*tch. The earlier policy under Clinton (and current Bush) and South Korea has been appeasement, and rather Saudi-like: give the bad people what they want so they don't make trouble. It has failed, the Great Satan is pulling back from material support (oil, etc.), and the North Koreans are hating it.

But don't doubt for a minute that they'll go very far if they have too. That would include testing a nuclear weapon. Something must be done about their program and before it reaches critical levels. This isn't a problem just for the Great Satan. All responsible nuclear powers--France, UK, Russia, Great Satan, China--are in this.

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2002, 11:29 AM
 
Once again, we're cleaning up Clinton's mess.

check the date on this article...August 1998

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/980...ear/index.html

A massive underground complex detected in North Korea could be used to revive the country's frozen nuclear weapons program, The New York Times reported Monday.

White House and U.S. Defense Department officials fear the complex is part of an effort to renege on a 1994 agreement for North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions in exchange for billions of dollars in Western aid, officials privy to the information told the Times on condition of anonymity.

North Korean officials have said that the United States has not lived up to its end of the pact, called the Agreed Framework, because the U.S. Congress hasn't authorized fuel shipments to North Korea.

The shipments, worth tens of millions of dollars, are the crux of the U.S. contribution to a $6 billion pot to finance a North Korean electric energy program.

Thousands of workers on project
Spy satellites photographed a site with thousands of workers burrowing into a mountainside 25 miles (40 kilometers) northeast of Yongbyon, the nuclear center where North Korea was believed to have made enough plutonium for at least six bombs before the 1994 accord, the Times' sources said.

There is no evidence that North Korean workers have started pouring cement for a reactor or a plant that would convert nuclear waste into bomb-quality plutonium, which is barred by the accord, said a top U.S. official.

Intelligence estimates of how long it would take to complete the project ranged from two to six years, depending in part on how much outside help is received, The New York Times said.

South Korean officials played down the finding, U.S. officials said, because they feared undermining President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy" toward North Korea, an effort to reopen aid and dialogue with the Stalinist government in Pyongyang.

At a meeting this week between North Korean officials and the U.S. special envoy for Korean nuclear issues, Charles Kartman, the United States will be expected to demand that the North stop all work at the new site. It was not clear whether the North already knew that its activity was detected.

Speculation on motive
It was possible, U.S. officials said, that the mysterious North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, was trying to rebuild the nuclear program the West stopped in 1994. Kim may also have hoped to bolster his standing with the North Korean military.

This may be a particularly critical time to placate the right wing, because Kim Jong Il is expected, next month, to be given all of the titles held by his father, Kim Il Sung, North Korea's founder.

The elder Kim died in July 1994, just weeks after having defused the confrontation with the United States by telling former President Carter that he was willing to trade away the nuclear program in return for Western aid.

Another possibility was that Kim Jong Il intended to trade away the new nuclear complex the way his father traded away the last one -- if he can extract a high enough price.

American officials told the Times that building a nuclear reactor underground was an enormously difficult technical task for any country, much less one starving as a result of economic collapse, drought and floods.

Discovery of the complex by U.S. intelligence agencies follows a string of provocations by the North, including missile sales to Pakistan and the incursion of a small North Korean submarine carrying nine commandos off the South Korean coast this year.
     
Ozmodiar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Quetzlzacatenango
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2002, 01:21 PM
 
I propose this: Load up one B2 with ten nukes. They take off from Missouri, so fuel it up nice and send a couple of refuelers with it. First have it fly over Iraq, and drop half the payload in various places there. Then fly over to North Korea and drop the rest. The next day, Bush apologizes to Iran, Turkey, South Korea, China, and Japan for the fallout, and the U.S. offers to pay their medical bills.

And Rumsfeld is right, if Korea thinks they can pick a fight with us while we're at war with Iraq, they have another thing coming. Remember that surge of patriotism after 9/11? Just wait until there's a state-sponsored attack on US soil. Bye bye, Korea.
     
rampant  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: permanent resident of the Land of the Easily Aroused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2002, 03:21 PM
 
Actually, all the article really says is that if we attack Korea with nuclear weapons, they'll be able to retalliate with lots of nukes as well. Same old same old.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2002, 04:30 PM
 
Originally posted by rampant:
Actually, all the article really says is that if we attack Korea with nuclear weapons, they'll be able to retalliate with lots of nukes as well. Same old same old.
If we attack N. Korea with nuclear weapons, they will no longer have the ability to respond in kind. There's really no need to use nuclear weapons, anyhow. Conventional warheads are plenty devastating enough.


I don't believe N. Korea has the technology nor the hardware required to deliver a nuclear payload onto American soil. So, if we screw this up, one of N. Koreas close enemies will feel the wrath - not Americans. Or we could just leave well enough alone and keep our noses out of their business entirely. After all, it isn't our ass on the line. Send some UN peacekeepers over there or something.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 12:18 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I don't believe N. Korea has the technology nor the hardware required to deliver a nuclear payload onto American soil. So, if we screw this up, one of N. Koreas close enemies will feel the wrath - not Americans. Or we could just leave well enough alone and keep our noses out of their business entirely. After all, it isn't our ass on the line. Send some UN peacekeepers over there or something.
****, I don't think we want our friends over there to get nuked either. It would really suck if South Korea or Japan or someone got hit with the A-bomb. Especially Japan - they've already had to deal with it once from us during WWII...

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Nimisys
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 12:19 AM
 
actually technically both the US and South korea are still at war with each other, althoughy there was no Formal decloration of war, but a standing cease fire since 1956. so this means we are still enemies
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 10:57 AM
 
Originally posted by Nimisys:
actually technically both the US and South korea are still at war with each other, althoughy there was no Formal decloration of war, but a standing cease fire since 1956. so this means we are still enemies
You mean North Korea. The UN intervened and led a successful fight against the North. MacArthur made a brilliant landing at Inchon, pushed all the way up--too close to China--and 100,000 Chinamen poured across the border. The UN forces got pushed back, and things eventually settled off at the current demarcation.

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 11:25 AM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
****, I don't think we want our friends over there to get nuked either. It would really suck if South Korea or Japan or someone got hit with the A-bomb. Especially Japan - they've already had to deal with it once from us during WWII...

You mean the 'friends' that want us to stop sticking our nose into other people's business?

This is not our problem. This is a problem for people that live within range of N. Korean missiles.

If the US was in range, then it would become our problem and it would be dealt with.

Seriously, I think Americans are getting sick of "helping". 99% of the time it doesn't even affect us, anyway.

Handle it your own damn self.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 11:28 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Once again, we're cleaning up Clinton's mess.
[/i]
Cleaning up? Not sure I'd use that terminology. We have yet to see exactly how this will pan out.
FWIW, I think OUR view of the current administration is of no consequence. It is the world view which will effect how this is played out. Much in the same way we tailor our interactions with each other to suit the dynamic- or perceived dynamic- so shall this be. And let's face it. The worldwide perception of Bush is less than... nice.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 11:39 AM
 
Originally posted by maxelson:
The worldwide perception of Bush is less than... nice.
The worldwide perception of the Great Satan is less than... nice. So it matters little to consider world opinion, when world opinion is not concerned with security, but rather with doing everything it can to foil US policy, even if that policy is fully or partially the correct and needed one. Therefore, in light of this, the Great Satan is correct in pursuing, to the best of its ability, a policy which is acceptable to some of the nations only some of the time. That's the best it will ever get. It will never get all of the nations some of the time, or some of the nations all of the time.

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 11:42 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
This is not our problem. This is a problem for people that live within range of N. Korean missiles.

If the US was in range, then it would become our problem and it would be dealt with.

Seriously, I think Americans are getting sick of "helping". 99% of the time it doesn't even affect us, anyway.

Handle it your own damn self.
It is our problem--meaning a worldwide problem. Nuclear proliferation is serious, and can have serious consequences. NK is a weird place with weird rulers.

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 11:52 AM
 
Spliffo, are you FULLY isolationist, or is this just a part time thing? Or is that just another one of those button pushing statements.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 12:18 PM
 
The US Constitution does not provide for the welfare of countries other than the United States.

N. Korean nuclear warheads cannot hit US soil.

Therefore, it is not a problem the US needs to deal with.

Heck, it ain't a big deal to anybody I know.

The only folks I hear whining about N. Korean nukes are the ones who live in range of their missiles. Fancy that. Perhaps they might be more willing to deal with the problem - since, after all, it's their own ass they are protecting.

I'm not being 'isolationist' at all....even though the rest of the world is SCREAMING for the US to be more 'isolationist' and to butt-out of world affairs.

Let's give 'em what they want. There's a really good chance the world is right and we truly DO need to mind our own business.

Let's start with N. Korea. It isn't an issue that affects the safety of Americans on American soil.
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 12:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The US Constitution does not provide for the welfare of countries other than the United States.
But often the welfare of others DOES or WILL impact the welfare of the US. This is 5th-grade history.
by Spliffdaddy:
N. Korean nuclear warheads cannot hit US soil.
Can't hit US soil YET

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 12:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
But often the welfare of others DOES or WILL impact the welfare of the US. This is 5th-grade history.Can't hit US soil YET
Everything, it can be argued, affects US 'welfare'. I said 'safety'.

&

YET is the key word.

Should we bomb every country that MIGHT someday obtain the means to attack the US mainland?

I say we wait until N. Korea actually has a intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering a warhead onto US soil. Then it will become OUR problem - and we will deal with it (and the fools that sold an ICBM to N. Korea).
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2002, 12:40 PM
 
Kick back and pop open a cold one, Atef.

Let's watch how the rest of the world handles these issues. We'll take some notes and maybe smoke a fat spliff or something.

After all, this is America. As long as you stay away from tall buildings and government-owned facilities - the sky's the limit.

Yeah boy, I'm perfectly content to live my life and not give a damn about anybody that ain't American. Most Americans couldn't care less what happens outside of the 50 states. Seriously. It's a miracle that we haven't already locked-down the borders and declared 'every man for himself' outside. It's coming to that. When we have to choose between YOUR safety and OUR safety - you can rest assured that OUR safety comes first. and second.

Like a bunch of ill-mannered orphan children they beg from step-mommy and hate her if she doesn't deliver.

It's time for step-mommy to kick the rude punks to the curb. She may have raised them badly, but it wasn't her obligation to begin with.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 09:58 AM
 
I am a little shocked, but there's this: It seems Spliffy and I have something in common.
What he describes will never happen, but damn, just for ONE WEEK, I'd like to see the Government turn the phones off. ONE WEEK. ONE WEEK of "you kids go take care of yourselves. We are going to sit here and just tend to our own. ONE WEEK of no intervention. ONE WEEK of no military support. ONE WEEK of no MONETARY support. Israel can pay for its own weapons. Argentina can wallow in its own economy. The mid east can sink or swim. The troops all over the world get one week paid vaca. Double pay for the additional troops we place at boarders. Flights are domestic only. We buy nothing imported, we sell nothing outside. Our sole international contact consists of hanging out with Canada and having a beer and talking about the weather.

I would LOVE to see that. LOVE it.

Never happen.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 10:32 AM
 
We can't lock out Canada or Mexico...those people are cool. But the rest of the world is on their own.

As it should be.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 11:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We can't lock out Canada or Mexico...those people are cool. But the rest of the world is on their own.

As it should be.
I just don't think it will ever happen. Ah, well. There's always the fantasy.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
Angus_D
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 12:06 PM
 
I never cease to be amazed at the short-sightedness and just downright stupidity of Americans.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 12:15 PM
 
Hm. Interesting observation. Perhaps expounding on said rant will lend more credibility? Or are you just the slap and run type?

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 12:34 PM
 
OK. Slap and run. Courageous. Well, at least we know where we can put that comment, now. Where's my "no credence" pile? Ah, yes. There it is.
::flush::

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 02:33 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We can't lock out Canada or Mexico...those people are cool. But the rest of the world is on their own.

As it should be.
One could think you never left your country. But wait, you 'know' something about Canada or Mexico. Hm, so you crossed the borders south and north. Wow.
Widening the own horizon is not one of your daily interests.

PB.
     
Nimisys
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 02:37 PM
 
Originally posted by Angus_D:
I never cease to be amazed at the short-sightedness and just downright stupidity of Americans.
this coming from someone living in a country that adobted the ten year rule... where if britian didn;t see any immediate threat in the next ten years, militray spending would be reduced to 10% of what it used to be, just enough to mantain status quo... of cource then when hitler came on the screen and attack britian's military was a weak and empty shell of its formal self. then we had to come save your asses. which at the time looked short sighted and down right stupid to the US population since it was just another european war.

funny thing happened during the 1996 election cycle, clinton got a big donation from china, and then china somehow saw there missle program jump from 10% chance of missles being able to hit US shores to 98% chance overnight. given the fact that north korea and china are buddies, how long until the missle system clinton gave china, gets passed over to N.Korea?

maybe all this missle defence spending isn;t such a short-sighted mistake afterall.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 02:43 PM
 
Hey, Nim. Don't sweat it. If the guy can throw out a statement like that and then run away, well, he does not deserve to be heard. Coward posting.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 02:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Ozmodiar:

And Rumsfeld is right, if Korea thinks they can pick a fight with us while we're at war with Iraq, they have another thing coming.
Just to steer this thread off topic with something petty and small, that should be "they have another think coming."

:o
     
Angus_D
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Nimisys:
this coming from someone living in a country that adobted the ten year rule... where if britian didn;t see any immediate threat in the next ten years, militray spending would be reduced to 10% of what it used to be, just enough to mantain status quo... of cource then when hitler came on the screen and attack britian's military was a weak and empty shell of its formal self. then we had to come save your asses. which at the time looked short sighted and down right stupid to the US population since it was just another european war.
I'm not saying Britain is particularly wonderful either, it's just that time and time again Americans have either thought "It's none of our business, let them sort it out themselves" and then years later have had it come back and slap them in the face. Or they have fiddled too deeply in other people's business.

Let us take for example Afghanistan. Who originally supported the Taliban against the Russians? Oh, yes, it was the USA. When it was no longer of immediate importance, everybody ran away and left the country in ruins. We all know what that led to.

Not to mention the whole "we can fight on two fronts" thing. That's just silly. Or, are we forgetting what happened the last time the US went to war on the other side of the world?

Why exactly are we suddenly going after Iraq any way? Hell, if they can't find Osama how are they going to find Saddam? And anyway, didn't most of the September 11th bombers come from Saudi Arabia, why not go after them too?

If North Korea starts randomly nuking people, you can be sure it will affect Americans.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:22 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The US Constitution does not provide for the welfare of countries other than the United States.

N. Korean nuclear warheads cannot hit US soil.

Well ... they could hit parts of western Alaska .... if you count that as important.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Nimisys:
this coming from someone living in a country that adobted the ten year rule... where if britian didn;t see any immediate threat in the next ten years, militray spending would be reduced to 10% of what it used to be, just enough to mantain status quo... of cource then when hitler came on the screen and attack britian's military was a weak and empty shell of its formal self. then we had to come save your asses. which at the time looked short sighted and down right stupid to the US population since it was just another european war.

funny thing happened during the 1996 election cycle, clinton got a big donation from china, and then china somehow saw there missle program jump from 10% chance of missles being able to hit US shores to 98% chance overnight. given the fact that north korea and china are buddies, how long until the missle system clinton gave china, gets passed over to N.Korea?
Well ... they aren't so much "buddies" any more. China is #2 in the pissed-off at North Korea line, right behind us. I think someone will level that reactor before it produces plutonium. The question is: Will it be us or China?

Of course it will be us holding back the North from anexing South Korea immediately afterwards.


maybe all this missle defence spending isn;t such a short-sighted mistake afterall.
Really ..... who knew?
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Angus_D:
I'm not saying Britain is particularly wonderful either, it's just that time and time again Americans have either thought "It's none of our business, let them sort it out themselves" and then years later have had it come back and slap them in the face. Or they have fiddled too deeply in other people's business.

Let us take for example Afghanistan. Who originally supported the Taliban against the Russians? Oh, yes, it was the USA. When it was no longer of immediate importance, everybody ran away and left the country in ruins. We all know what that led to.

Not to mention the whole "we can fight on two fronts" thing. That's just silly. Or, are we forgetting what happened the last time the US went to war on the other side of the world?

Why exactly are we suddenly going after Iraq any way? Hell, if they can't find Osama how are they going to find Saddam? And anyway, didn't most of the September 11th bombers come from Saudi Arabia, why not go after them too?

If North Korea starts randomly nuking people, you can be sure it will affect Americans.
And when is it that America has NOT been in a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't situation?
Seems when we ARE NOT involved, everyone is hollaring. If we are, everyone is hollaring. So, in your estimation, where SHOULD we be? You seem to be playing both sides in this argument, even.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:30 PM
 
Originally posted by driven:



Really ..... who knew?
...and it STILL does not work yet. Nor will it for quite some time.
Bush just ordered vaporware. The most expensive vaporware in history.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:40 PM
 
This just gets better and better ....

U.N.: North Korea has violated DMZ agreement

I know it makes a great tie-in to the James Bond film "Die Another Day", but enough already.
     
Angus_D
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:40 PM
 
Originally posted by maxelson:
And when is it that America has NOT been in a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't situation?
Seems when we ARE NOT involved, everyone is hollaring. If we are, everyone is hollaring. So, in your estimation, where SHOULD we be? You seem to be playing both sides in this argument, even.
Well, you act as if there are two options:
1) Go in and nuke the bastards,
2) Sit back and do nothing.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:42 PM
 
No, I don't. That is YOUR assumption. I have given you no reason to think it.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:53 PM
 
Originally posted by Angus_D:
Let us take for example Afghanistan. Who originally supported the Taliban against the Russians? Oh, yes, it was the USA.
If you are going to post anti-American diatribes, it helps to at least know the chronology of what you are writing about. The Taliban are much more recent than you are apparently thinking. They were also mainly created by Pakistan.

US support went to the Mujehedeen during the Soviet occupation (Dec 1979 to Feb 1989). But that was some years before the Taliban was organized. After the Soviets withdrawal there was the beginning of the Civil War. The Taliban organized in 1994 and took power around 1996 (at least, that's when they took Kabul). Some of the Taliban doubtless were former Mujehedeen, but many of the others ended up in the Northern Alliance, which opposed the Taliban. Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massood (who was assasinated by Al-Queda just before Sept. 11th.) is a good example.

The rest of your post is as stupid. For example: can't fight on two fronts? What do you think the US did in World War II? You are underestimating US military capabilities. I have the greatest of respect for the British Army, but Britain had to strain to send the Task Force to the Falklands and is straining now to send 20,000 to the Gulf. The US already has 50,000 deployed and the number will almost certainly double or quadruple just like it did in the last Gulf War. Even post Cold War, the US has a big and very deployable Army.

I'm also baffled why you think it matters whether or not Saddam is captured. So what! Once Baghdad is taken it doesn't much matter where he is. Whether he ends up like Noriega, or Milosovic, or perhaps like Hitler or Ceaucescu doesn't matter. Frankly, he could do an Idi Amin and go into quiet retirement as far as I am concerned. The important thing is to take him out of power.
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 04:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Angus_D:
Americans have either thought "It's none of our business, let them sort it out themselves" and then years later have had it come back and slap them in the face. Or they have fiddled too deeply in other people's business.
Because, moron, early US sentiments were at times isolationist. Things changed markedly after the Second World War, when the Great Satan realised that the world (yes, Europe too) would be incapable of defending itself against Communism. The US knows that, left to its own devices, the world would be an ever greater shitehole than it is already. Some pax Americana is better than none, impudent infidel.
by Agnus_Dimwit:
Let us take for example Afghanistan. Who originally supported the Taliban against the Russians? Oh, yes, it was the USA. When it was no longer of immediate importance, everybody ran away and left the country in ruins. We all know what that led to.
The blame for that situation is with the Soviets. The Mujahedeen were not the Taliban at that point in time. If the world was so concerned about the fate of the Afghans, why didn't it do more? The collective power of the world (and its finances) are more than that of the US. Take a hike. Your nonsensical vomit makes it clear that you will hate the US no matter what it does. You are one whose mind is not open to debate. Your previous sniping indicates that.

by Agnus_Doofus:
Not to mention the whole "we can fight on two fronts" thing. That's just silly. Or, are we forgetting what happened the last time the US went to war on the other side of the world?
Let me run down my little checklist here:
WIN. WW-1: other side of world.
WIN. WW-2: European front.
WIN. WW-2: Pacific front.
WIN. Korea (well, the South anyway)
LOSE. Vietnam.
WIN. Gulf War 1. Kuwait liberated.
WIN to date. Afghanistan. Taliban crushed, Al Queda routed. Some top Queda leaders captured.

So all in all, it looks like the Great Satan is quite good at kicking ass around the world. Whip out your little history books nextime, Agnus_Doodoo, and you might move up to Dog's Ass, which is a sight better than your current rank of Baboon's Ass.

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 05:00 PM
 
Simey, regardless of whether or not we agree on political matters, I gotta tell you: your handle on history is MUCH appreciated. I am REALLY glad we have you here. And, FWIW, EVERY time I've gone off fact checking your posts, I have found ONE thing: accuracy on your part.
You da man.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
Raidiant
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 05:11 PM
 
Americans wins everytime cause they are quite remote, from everyone else and will be rarely attacked.

The greatest inventions of the americans is the battle carrier, this allows attacking in long ranges, which is why america is so powerfull, also their technology is never challenged.

Also US is made up of immigrants so they have a bit of everything in their constructs making them superior as they consists of all the races put together.

however just like in history every empire will eventually reach its end, but the the US it might be only the beggining as a human lives a small time in history
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 05:26 PM
 
Originally posted by maxelson:
Simey, regardless of whether or not we agree on political matters, I gotta tell you: your handle on history is MUCH appreciated. I am REALLY glad we have you here. And, FWIW, EVERY time I've gone off fact checking your posts, I have found ONE thing: accuracy on your part.
You da man.
Thanks!

I guess what bugs me about this is it is such recent history. 1996!!
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 05:41 PM
 
Originally posted by Raidiant:
Americans wins everytime cause they are quite remote, from everyone else and will be rarely attacked.
WIN: American Revolution
WIN: War of 1812
WIN: Spanish-American War
WIN: Civil-War (Well, we can even beat ourselves pretty well too!)

(And several other domestic skirmishes.)
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 05:59 PM
 
Originally posted by Raidiant:
Americans wins everytime cause they are quite remote, from everyone else and will be rarely attacked.
Actually... it's historically easier to win wars on or near your own home turf than it is to win wars elsewhere in the world.
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 06:52 PM
 
Originally posted by itai195:
Actually... it's historically easier to win wars on or near your own home turf than it is to win wars elsewhere in the world.
Yes. In fact, the difficulties of all great powers have come from the problems of supply and prolonged force projection. The fact is, Radiant, that the American power you know of exists in spite of its distance, not because of it.

And you, Radiant, wrote that the US is
made up of immigrants so they have a bit of everything in their constructs making them superior as they consists of all the races put together
This is an idea that I find quite disturbing. And considering that 75 per cent of the US is white, that hardly constitutes enough input from other races to make the US 'superior'.

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 06:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
Yes. In fact, the difficulties of all great powers have come from the problems of supply and prolonged force projection. The fact is, Radiant, that the American power you know of exists in spite of its distance, not because of it.

And you, Radiant, wrote that the US isThis is an idea that I find quite disturbing. And considering that 75 per cent of the US is white, that hardly constitutes enough input from other races to make the US 'superior'.
Does the US still consist of that high of a percentage of European-Americans? I thought we were on track to have a majority Latin & Asian population by the end of the decade?
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 07:09 PM
 
Originally posted by driven:
Does the US still consist of that high of a percentage of European-Americans? I thought we were on track to have a majority Latin & Asian population by the end of the decade?
well, one page says 2000 figures as such:
72 white
12 black (af-am)
0.7 native american
11 latina/hispanic
4 Asian.

The white population as a percentage is decreasing. Doesn't matter much to me. If the whites mix with the hispanics and they have daughters who all get that great skin and firm, round booty, we can't lose!

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
Nimisys
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2002, 07:11 PM
 
technically in CA EVERY race is a minority now, the current white population is around 49% right now, with hispnaics at 30% and asians in the 20% area. it is a trend that is growing accross the country.

as for power projection it is something the japaneses figured out first with their targetting of carriers in the pearl harbor bombing. the fact that they weren't their is irrelavent since they were the primary targets. korea and vietnam were further strwengthing of the idea of projecting power and also showed thata modern military must be highly mobile. in the end the US could have won veitnam IF the feild commanders were allowed tro fight the war and not the arm chair generals in washington and their measured responce program. since the fall of the USSR the US militray has been moving away frm the large area land battles that the cold war and the prevous WW had been, but relazied further conflicts would be localized, requiring a lighter more mobile force. hince the lighter tanks, more powerful transport copters and smaller and more specialized forces. also you had the restructuring of the armed forces, eliminating sac, tac, mac, etc from the air force and replacing them with the mobile transport wing and air fighter wings. same with marine expeditionary forces, which could stablaize a region quite well.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:33 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,