Its not because of the war excercises its because of Justin Bieber. North Koreo doesn't want Bieber fever so they will nuke the US to stop it.
That's something I was just thinking about. Considering the whole "War on Terror" thing, would the US even be able to spare enough troops for a confrontation? Personally I just think this is a bunch of crazy speculation and nothing's really gonna happen anytime soon.gh0ti said:Wow, 15 pages, please forgive me for not reading to check if this has been pointed out, but - North Korea CAN'T nuke America. It doesn't have the capability to develop warheads. At most all it can do at the moment is induce a nuclear explosion, and perhaps strap one to a rocket. To get that rocket across the Pacific is beyond their means right now. They could however, nuke South Korea.
As with all insane regimes, you've got to hope their desire for self-preservation outweighs their desire to massacre their enemies.
Frankly, I think this whole thing is more pointless sabre-rattling. The North is too weak to launch a profitable invasion of the South, and the US is too bogged down in the Middle East to take any military action.
The first line of OPs none spoiler tagged post says:Normalgamer said:So America and South korea are the ones poking North korea when North korea is the one threatening nuclear war?TimeLord said:No, do you?Normalgamer said:Do you live in North Korea?TimeLord said:So basically, America and South Korea are poking North Korea with a big stick to see if it will attack them or cower back in fear!
Why? I mearly stated my view on the matterIf not, you really need to not post such rubbish
How so? I mean apart from crazy dictator leader partif you are then it's understandable since your basically a prisoner.
My claim is not unsubstantiated, it was confirmed by reporters from my country who interviewed Hilary Clinton.stinkychops said:No. You're putting forth a motivation for the US that is unsubstantiated. There is nothing unfair about doing military exercises, which will serve as practice if shit hits the fan, in waters which allow it.
It DOES serve as practice. Your claim is neither correct or incorrect, its your opinion, and that does not render me wrong at all.
Do you seriously have even a shred of support for NK? If you do I'm appalled.
They aren't much of one, no.martin said:Is that a challenge?Double A said:If they fire even ONE nuke, our Airforce will make SURE that there is nothing living in that country. And then after WE'RE done with them, the combined UN force will be there to make sure they don't come out of their underground for another 50 years.
North Korea is an insignificant mouse compared to America.
Them taking over South Korea is about as likely as Canada taking Texas.
I've already leveled my Animal Friend perk twice.Jedoro said:The nukes aren't supposed to fall for another two years at best, 67 years at worst. Oh well, time to prepare for Yao Guai now.
Double A said:Haha, it was a joke about the Texas thing.martin said:Is that a challenge?Double A said:If they fire even ONE nuke, our Airforce will make SURE that there is nothing living in that country. And then after WE'RE done with them, the combined UN force will be there to make sure they don't come out of their underground for another 50 years.
North Korea is an insignificant mouse compared to America.
Them taking over South Korea is about as likely as Canada taking Texas.
They aren't much of one, no.
Tsaba said:Instead of being silly, your just being a troll, please stop.etherlance said:Well I guess the stories I heard about the USA kicking out all left handed people must be true.Tsaba said:That is rather absurd, everyone who goes in country knows to shake with your right hand.
I realize this. Well, most of it. I know we've had nuclear subs and tactical nukes. For decades we've had a "strategic nuclear bomber fleet" on standby near Alaska, ready to go if the command was given, or as some might say, "if the button is pushed..."massuh said:What are you talking about?
The US Air Force also operates a strategic nuclear bomber fleet. The bomber force consists of 94 B-52 Stratofortresses, and 19 B-2 Spirits.
In addition to this, the US armed forces can also deploy smaller "tactical" nuclear weapons either through cruise missiles or with conventional fighter-bombers. The U.S. maintains about 400 nuclear gravity bombs capable of use by F-15, F-16, and F-35.
And the US Navy currently has 18 Ohio-class submarines deployed, of which 14 are ballistic missile submarines. Each submarine is equipped with a complement of 24 Trident II missiles, and some Trident missiles are equipped with the W88 warhead. Approximately 12 U.S. attack submarines are equipped to launch, but do not currently carry nuclear Tomahawk missiles.
There is about 30,000 US troops in S. Korea at the moment.ImpostorZim said:That's something I was just thinking about. Considering the whole "War on Terror" thing, would the US even be able to spare enough troops for a confrontation? Personally I just think this is a bunch of crazy speculation and nothing's really gonna happen anytime soon.gh0ti said:Wow, 15 pages, please forgive me for not reading to check if this has been pointed out, but - North Korea CAN'T nuke America. It doesn't have the capability to develop warheads. At most all it can do at the moment is induce a nuclear explosion, and perhaps strap one to a rocket. To get that rocket across the Pacific is beyond their means right now. They could however, nuke South Korea.
As with all insane regimes, you've got to hope their desire for self-preservation outweighs their desire to massacre their enemies.
Frankly, I think this whole thing is more pointless sabre-rattling. The North is too weak to launch a profitable invasion of the South, and the US is too bogged down in the Middle East to take any military action.
Well, if we do give in to the bankrobbers threats, then we have a good chance of saving a lot of the hostages and the ability to make a surprise attack when there's no immediate danger.stinkychops said:Furthering your analogy.
the bank robber is killing his hostages. He is also threatening the police on the outside if they don't back away further and lower all their weapons. Then China is standing by supporting his actions.
So, we give in to his demands and we remove one immediate threat and allow a future threat to exist?
Are you a supporter of preventing climate change? Said prevention will damage the economy. Should we allow climate change to grow harder to reverse so that the immediate threats are reduced?
Of course I am a supporter of the people of NK, I just disagree with the idea that these military exercises are threatening them in any way.
What reasoning would the US have to invade/liberate/destroy NK?
I know China is still very oppressive, but I don't think they'd be stupid/ignorant enough to attack at least one military superpower, let alone multiple if Europe gets involved.stinkychops said:I would add to the benifits:
Not showing weakness. Reality check for NK.
Being better prepared for future attacks.
I agree that there was a threat, but I think its far less than you imagine.
You also clearly have a higher opinion of China then I do.