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 on 29 August 2017
VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

Do you think the response would have to be all that big to deal with the threat? I don't.

Well, if the response wouldn't have to be all that big, that must mean the threat isn't all that big.

But it still exists, and increases if nothing is done.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 29 August 2017
bigtakilla said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, if the response wouldn't have to be all that big, that must mean the threat isn't all that big.

But it still exists, and increases if nothing is done.

So, that opens other questions. Should we go at war with every single country that we consider to be a threat, even if only a slight one?



bigtakilla on 29 August 2017
VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

But it still exists, and increases if nothing is done.

So, that opens other questions. Should we go at war with every single country that we consider to be a threat, even if only a slight one?

If that country is actively aggressive to us and its neighbors, yes. The 4 year old grows up, to swing it back to an earlier use of symbolism.



VGPolyglot on 29 August 2017
bigtakilla said:
VGPolyglot said:

So, that opens other questions. Should we go at war with every single country that we consider to be a threat, even if only a slight one?

If that country is actively aggressive to us and its neighbors, yes. The 4 year old grows up, to swing it back to an earlier use of symbolism.

This only works if you view the US as an entirely benevolent force, and ignore all of the atrocities they've committed.



bigtakilla on 29 August 2017
VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

If that country is actively aggressive to us and its neighbors, yes. The 4 year old grows up, to swing it back to an earlier use of symbolism.

This only works if you view the US as an entirely benevolent force, and ignore all of the atrocities they've committed.

I'm speaking from a viewpoint of a citizen who has been threatened with nuclear weapons. I think it's in our best interest to take care of the problem before it gets out of hand.



Around the Network
monocle_layton on 29 August 2017
KratosLives said:
could the missile have landed in japan ?

Yes. Even if it was deacticated, that'd be similar to NK literally throwing a heavy bus from the sky onto some populated area of Japan. And that's the worst scenario. If it's activated...then you know what happens

VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

So, you're wanting to stay out of war because he has the capability to kill millions, but are also saying don't go to war because they're harmless?.. I'm just a little confused. They are a threat, allowing them to get bigger weapons makes them more of a threat.

Do they really have the capacity to kill millions?

Superman4 said:

Bomb the shit out of the north. Any Missle fired in the direction of a county with the capability of hitting that country is an act of war. They didnt tell Japan that they were going to fire the missle over them as a test and if they did Im sure Japan would have told them no.

So in other words by killing a whole bunch of people.

People are gonna die either way. Which one will cause the least amount of deaths and the least amount of damage? This is more serious than people think.

 

We can't go with Star's nuking everything option, and we can't simply allow the possibility of a nuke hitting Japan to be possible.

epicurean said:
China and Russia don't want to hurt N. Korea too bad because they are technically allies, but even moreso, they don't want a new, Western Friendly North Korea on their doorstep. The best (of all terrible solutions) that I see is ousting the current gov't, then letting China help put a new gov't in place there. Hopefully that would keep China and Russia happy, and Japan, S. Korea, and the US could all breath easier knowing there isn't a psychotic threatening to nuke them.

It's also going to take a multi nation humanitarian effort - people in N. Korea are already starving, and it will only get worse if there is an attack.

But I don't know all the details, and I'm sure this isn't all that great of a plan, either.

Yeah we're gonna be seeing an event that'll be uglier than the Syrian issue. I've already seen Syrian refugees in my areas. It'd be awful to see more people who had to leave their country



VGPolyglot on 29 August 2017
bigtakilla said:
VGPolyglot said:

This only works if you view the US as an entirely benevolent force, and ignore all of the atrocities they've committed.

I'm speaking from a viewpoint of a citizen who has been threatened with nuclear weapons. I think it's in our best interest to take care of the problem before it gets out of hand.

I assume most Americans don't live their daily lives in fear of a nuclear attack from North Korea.



bigtakilla on 29 August 2017
VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

I'm speaking from a viewpoint of a citizen who has been threatened with nuclear weapons. I think it's in our best interest to take care of the problem before it gets out of hand.

I assume most Americans don't live their daily lives in fear of a nuclear attack from North Korea.

Because they don't have nukes.



VGPolyglot on 29 August 2017
bigtakilla said:
VGPolyglot said:

I assume most Americans don't live their daily lives in fear of a nuclear attack from North Korea.

Because they don't have nukes.

They've had successful tests.



bigtakilla on 29 August 2017
VGPolyglot said:
bigtakilla said:

Because they don't have nukes.

They've had successful tests.

All the reason to stop sitting on this.