By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - USA drops a MOAB on ISIS target in Afghanistan

KLAMarine said:
JRPGfan said:

If its the US that kicks off a war that goes with these types of weapons.... yes other countries could blame the US, if North korea uses such a weapon on them, because of the US's actions.

 

Basically you nuke North Korea, and because they cant reach the US, they ll have to resort by takeing their anger out on other nearby countries.

Its their threat.

You bomb us, we bomb your allies.

So a situation could go from US bombs North korea to China launches fires at the US, because they know their going to get hit by north korea soon, due to the american attack.

You cannot be serious.

So rather than bombing North Korea in anticipation of North Korea striking at China, China will go to war with the US rather than the North Korea that attacked them?

I should remind you China's relationship with the US, Japan, and South Korea is infinitely more lucrative than its relationship with North Korea.

JRPGfan said:

This is why I dont believe the US has any power to do anything to north korea.

Their leader is crazy, and if the US pushes, it could end really badly for everyone.

The US has the power to do a number of things. Problem is China's very wary of anything happening in the peninsula as are surrounding territories but rest assured that North Korea's actions against surrounding territories will come back to hit North Korea itself.

Ideally, a fight between the US and North Korea should be limited between North Korea and the US and if North Korea lashes out at US allies or other countries, North Korea will only make more enemies. North Korea is already very isolated as it is, politically and economically.

NK has nothing to gain but the US and allies have a lot to lose. Crazy scenario NK vaporize Tokyo and Seoul of the world chart before surrendering. Where would that leave the world economy. Wars are won with money and tech not with soldiers these days.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Around the Network

This is the MABUS as predicted in Nostradamus quatrain. It refers to a bomb the US will use against its enemies and bring fire upon the Earth.



Qwark said:
KLAMarine said:

You cannot be serious.

So rather than bombing North Korea in anticipation of North Korea striking at China, China will go to war with the US rather than the North Korea that attacked them?

I should remind you China's relationship with the US, Japan, and South Korea is infinitely more lucrative than its relationship with North Korea.

The US has the power to do a number of things. Problem is China's very wary of anything happening in the peninsula as are surrounding territories but rest assured that North Korea's actions against surrounding territories will come back to hit North Korea itself.

Ideally, a fight between the US and North Korea should be limited between North Korea and the US and if North Korea lashes out at US allies or other countries, North Korea will only make more enemies. North Korea is already very isolated as it is, politically and economically.

NK has nothing to gain

It can gain security but also the weaponry to resume the Korean War it started some 60 years ago.

Qwark said:

the US and allies have a lot to lose. Crazy scenario NK vaporize Tokyo and Seoul of the world chart before surrendering. Where would that leave the world economy.

The US and allies also have something to gain: preventing NK from further fortifying its arsenal, arsenal which would lead to ever greater destructive power.

Qwark said:

Wars are won with money and tech not with soldiers these days.

Great news then. When it comes to money and tech, North Korea is absolutely DEMOLISHED by some of the world's leading economic and technological leaders: USA, Japan, and South Korea. China would be wise to ultimately side with its far more economically-lively trading partners.



KLAMarine said:
Qwark said:

NK has nothing to gain

It can gain security but also the weaponry to resume the Korean War it started some 60 years ago.

Qwark said:

the US and allies have a lot to lose. Crazy scenario NK vaporize Tokyo and Seoul of the world chart before surrendering. Where would that leave the world economy.

The US and allies also have something to gain: preventing NK from further fortifying its arsenal, arsenal which would lead to ever greater destructive power.

Qwark said:

Wars are won with money and tech not with soldiers these days.

Great news then. When it comes to money and tech, North Korea is absolutely DEMOLISHED by some of the world's leading economic and technological leaders: USA, Japan, and South Korea. China would be wise to ultimately side with its far more economically-lively trading partners.

Sure but is an economic crisis far greater than the one that started in 2010 and presumably 30 million lives worth taking that risk. NK does nothing if not provoked, preliminary militairy actions are unwise in that matter. Just as provoking Russia and NK with military exercises and building militairy bases within 100 miles of their borders is unwise. Also for what a false sense of security for a country that has nothing besides a big mouth and a few nukes it can't fire into orbit and only over short distance.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Qwark said:
KLAMarine said:

It can gain security but also the weaponry to resume the Korean War it started some 60 years ago.

The US and allies also have something to gain: preventing NK from further fortifying its arsenal, arsenal which would lead to ever greater destructive power.

Great news then. When it comes to money and tech, North Korea is absolutely DEMOLISHED by some of the world's leading economic and technological leaders: USA, Japan, and South Korea. China would be wise to ultimately side with its far more economically-lively trading partners.

Sure but is an economic crisis far greater than the one that started in 2010 and presumably 30 million lives worth taking that risk. NK does nothing if not provoked, preliminary militairy actions are unwise in that matter. Just as provoking Russia and NK with military exercises and building militairy bases within 100 miles of their borders is unwise. Also for what a false sense of security for a country that has nothing besides a big mouth and a few nukes it can't fire into orbit and only over short distance.

Where does one draw the line then? NK continues to build its arsenal. Where does one draw the line?



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
Qwark said:

Sure but is an economic crisis far greater than the one that started in 2010 and presumably 30 million lives worth taking that risk. NK does nothing if not provoked, preliminary militairy actions are unwise in that matter. Just as provoking Russia and NK with military exercises and building militairy bases within 100 miles of their borders is unwise. Also for what a false sense of security for a country that has nothing besides a big mouth and a few nukes it can't fire into orbit and only over short distance.

Where does one draw the line then? NK continues to build its arsenal. Where does one draw the line?

Whenever they can build suborbital nuclear MIRVS which pose a real threat to the US. Not with an arsenal that will end up somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. If you let NK be like Europe mostly does, you wouldn't even be mentioned by that news lady with that sexy commanding voice;)



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Qwark said:
KLAMarine said:

Where does one draw the line then? NK continues to build its arsenal. Where does one draw the line?

Whenever they can build suborbital nuclear MIRVS which pose a real threat to the US. Not with an arsenal that will end up somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. If you let NK be like Europe mostly does, you wouldn't even be mentioned by that news lady with that sexy commanding voice;)

I'd say the line was crossed when NK acquired the nuke. After that, surrounding countries should have all descended upon NK and ended things swiftly.



If I saw that rocket for real, I would have thought its a Space shuttle heading to the moon. The size is incredible.

A better name for the MOAB should have been Thunderbird 2.



Sharu said:
Nice. USA had 15 of this bombs. Now one less. And 30 terrorists killed for 300 mln usd is a bit expensive, no?

considering they aren't worth a penny yes.



KLAMarine said:
Qwark said:

Whenever they can build suborbital nuclear MIRVS which pose a real threat to the US. Not with an arsenal that will end up somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. If you let NK be like Europe mostly does, you wouldn't even be mentioned by that news lady with that sexy commanding voice;)

I'd say the line was crossed when NK acquired the nuke. After that, surrounding countries should have all descended upon NK and ended things swiftly.

That is kind of hypocritical considering most of those countries or there allies have plenty of nukes. Hell Trump want to make even more nukes and yet condemns NK for it. Just let that country be what it wants to be. It's not like they are posing a treath towards US and let that region solve this problem themselves. China will prevent NK from ever using a nuke in the first place. Besides we know what happens when US invades a country and more importantly what happens after.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar