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

Forums - Politics Discussion - North Korea launches missile that flies over Japan, Jp Prime Minister reacts

bigtakilla said:
VGPolyglot said:

They've had successful tests.

All the reason to stop sitting on this.

Again, if they nuke someone, there goes their whole deterrent.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

All the reason to stop sitting on this.

Again, if they nuke someone, there goes their whole deterrent.

And there goes a lot of lives. Is it worth the risk?



bigtakilla said:
VGPolyglot said:

Again, if they nuke someone, there goes their whole deterrent.

And there goes a lot of lives. Is it worth the risk?

So, the solution is to do something that we know will cause in a lot of lives lost in order to avoid a possibility of there being lives lost?



VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

And there goes a lot of lives. Is it worth the risk?

So, the solution is to do something that we know will cause in a lot of lives lost in order to avoid a possibility of there being lives lost?

That's the ethical question. We cost a lot of lives, but only the smallest fraction compared to what may happen. Let's say NK does for whatever reason fire a nuke. Then what do we do? Hope they only got one? Shoot one back? How many will die from starvarion and relocation as well as nuclear fallout?



bigtakilla said:
VGPolyglot said:

So, the solution is to do something that we know will cause in a lot of lives lost in order to avoid a possibility of there being lives lost?

That's the ethical question. We cost a lot of lives, but only the smallest fraction compared to what may happen. Let's say NK does for whatever reason fire a nuke. Then what do we do? Hope they only got one? Shoot one back? How many will die from starvarion and relocation as well as nuclear fallout?

And my response is that it's not worth the loss of life to do so.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

That's the ethical question. We cost a lot of lives, but only the smallest fraction compared to what may happen. Let's say NK does for whatever reason fire a nuke. Then what do we do? Hope they only got one? Shoot one back? How many will die from starvarion and relocation as well as nuclear fallout?

And my response is that it's not worth the loss of life to do so.

Then you are willing to put literally millions of peoples lives at risk of nuclear attack than sacrifice a couple hundred thousand to ensure that never happens (because let's face it, it isn't WWII where we bomb cities anymore. That's not how wars are fought in 2017.)



bigtakilla said:
VGPolyglot said:

And my response is that it's not worth the loss of life to do so.

Then you are willing to put literally millions of peoples lives at risk of nuclear attack than sacrifice a couple hundred thousand to ensure that never happens (because let's face it, it isn't WWII where we bomb cities anymore. That's not how wars are fought in 2017.)

The US bombs constantly. What do you mean we don't fight wars like that anymore?



VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

Then you are willing to put literally millions of peoples lives at risk of nuclear attack than sacrifice a couple hundred thousand to ensure that never happens (because let's face it, it isn't WWII where we bomb cities anymore. That's not how wars are fought in 2017.)

The US bombs constantly. What do you mean we don't fight wars like that anymore?

Not cities full of civilians.



bigtakilla said:
VGPolyglot said:

The US bombs constantly. What do you mean we don't fight wars like that anymore?

Not cities full of civilians.

So, how would they get to Kim Jong-un then?



VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

Not cities full of civilians.

So, how would they get to Kim Jong-un then?

Same way we got Osama Bin Laden. Hell, he's in parades all the time.