Politics It's Getting Close to the Point of Nuking North Korea

[AK_Stick]

12 minutes ago, willie-pete said:

Yep, but subs weren't as much fun as trains.  

 

Better view too

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, AK_Stick said:

That's neither our stated policy nor what the question was.

 

You asked who stated that quote. I proved it was you.

What is our stated policy?  Go ahead and spell it out, along with citations.

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, tsmo1066 said:

No we cannot, because he doesn't have any. The only fixed "launch sites" he uses for ICBMs are for testing. In the real SHTF, his KN-14s and KN-20s operate off of mobile launchers that can be hidden, moved, and can launch from anywhere.

You do not understand that which you are arguing.

Do you even realize that North Korea DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE NUCLEAR CAPABLE ICBMS?  Not now.  They are desperately trying to develop them, which is why it is so dangerous.  They do not have nuclear capable mobile ICBMs because they do not have nuclear capable ICBMs.  You are completely clueless.

We developed them.  The Soviet Union developed them.  North Korea does not have them.

[fortyofforty]

Once again, back to the fundamental questions at the heart of this debate, instead of getting off on idiotic tangents in which you are proven wrong time and time again.

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

[tsmo1066]

18 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Do you even realize that North Korea DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE NUCLEAR CAPABLE ICBMS?

No, and neither do you. Fact is, we don't have very good intel on exactly what "Lil Kim" has, or how much of it, or whether his warheads can be mounted on the ICBMs. We THINK he's still a couple of years away from such technology, but then again, we also thought the KN-20 was still two years away - until he launched one in July of 2017. In addition, China, who has by far the best intelligence on North Korean nuclear capabilities, has been reporting for more than 2 years that NK already likely has at least 20 nuclear warheads that can be mounted on their KN-08 missiles (non ICBM), and that further advances are far closer than the US had previously suspected (if not already online). 

https://www.rt.com/news/252213-north-korea-nuclear-warheads/

Your advocacy for a pre-emptive strike is at best nothing short of nuclear Russian Roulette for the mainland United States, and it also guarantees a nuclear response from NK against both South Korea and Japan, both of which the KN-08 can easily reach with its 5000-6000Km range.

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by tsmo1066

[tsmo1066]

And before you go off on yet another tangent, the answer is YES, the KN-08 is also mobile.

[fortyofforty]

11 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

No, and neither do you. Fact is, we don't have very good intel on exactly what "Lil Kim" has, or how much of it, or whether his warheads can be mounted on the ICBMs. We THINK he's still a couple of years away from such technology, but then again, we also thought the KN-20 was still two years away - until he launched one in July of 2017. In addition, China, who has by far the best intelligence on North Korean nuclear capabilities, has been reporting for more than 2 years that NK already likely has at least 20 nuclear warheads that can be mounted on their KN-08 missiles (non ICBM), and that further advances are far closer than the US had previously suspected (if not already online). 

https://www.rt.com/news/252213-north-korea-nuclear-warheads/

Your advocacy for a pre-emptive strike is at best nothing short of nuclear Russian Roulette for the mainland United States, and it also guarantees a nuclear response from NK against both South Korea and Japan, both of which the KN-08 can easily reach with its 5000-6000Km range.

 

Yet you are absolutely certain he has mobile ICBMs with nuclear warheads.

Your advocacy of a do nothing policy guarantees the world becomes steadily more dangerous, and it also guarantees that we will be held hostage for the next seventy years.

[fortyofforty]

And North Korea is still trying to develop nuclear weapons small enough to fit on ICBMs.  Before you go off on another tangent, doing nothing guarantees they get there.

[fortyofforty]

30 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Once again, back to the fundamental questions at the heart of this debate, instead of getting off on idiotic tangents in which you are proven wrong time and time again.

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

Care to try, or are you still too scared to answer?

[tsmo1066]

19 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Yet you are absolutely certain he has mobile ICBMs with nuclear warheads.

Your advocacy of a do nothing policy guarantees the world becomes steadily more dangerous, and it also guarantees that we will be held hostage for the next seventy years.

The whole point is that we are NOT certain. That's why I compared a pre-emptive strike to Russian Roulette for the mainland United States. Maybe he has a round in the chamber...and maybe he doesn't. I'm not willing to gamble with the lives of millions of Americans to find out, and I'm certainly not willing to GUARANTEE the deaths of millions of American allies at the hands of his already-existent KN-08 warheads.

What we ARE certain of is that he already has dozens of nukes that can be mounted on his mobile, intermediate-range arsenal of KN-08s, and that even if he can't currently hit the US Mainland, he could undoubtedly paste the hell out of several of our closest allies in Asia in retribution.

Edited January 5, 2018 by tsmo1066

[tsmo1066]

4 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Your advocacy of a do nothing policy

Fabrication. I already answered your question regarding what should be done and even spelled out specifics. You are simply pretending that the only alternative to your all-out-war proposal is to "do nothing". Again, that's the logical fallacy of "false alternatives".

 

[fortyofforty]

15 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

Fabrication. I already answered your question regarding what should be done and even spelled out specifics. You are simply pretending that the only alternative to your all-out-war proposal is to "do nothing". Again, that's the logical fallacy of "false alternatives".

 

Then spell it out here.  Sometimes when you guys start spouting page after page of falsehoods, I might miss one nugget of value deeply concealed therein.  So:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

[fortyofforty]

I wonder, does North Korea get more dangerous over time, or less.  That's a fundamental question, too, one that many apparently choose not to ponder.

[tsmo1066]

2 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Then spell it out here.

No. I've already posted it. Go read it again.

Edited January 5, 2018 by tsmo1066

[fortyofforty]

22 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

No. I've already posted it. Go read it again.

Then we're done here.  Thanks for playing.  It's getting CLOSE to the point of nuking North Korea.  Closer every day.

[fortyofforty]

The question remains, for the honest among you:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.  Relatively minor damage and relatively low loss of life.  Are you willing to kill millions of Koreans in response?

[willie-pete]

He doesn’t need nuke capable ICBM’s. He can load plenty of biological and nerve agent on those missiles NOW.

[fortyofforty]

1 minute ago, willie-pete said:

He doesn’t need nuke capable ICBM’s. He can load plenty of biological and nerve agent on those missiles NOW.

Maybe, but the information coming out indicates he is still attempting to develop a biological weapon that will survive reentry.  Want to bet what happens if he gets another ten or twenty years to work on it?

[willie-pete]

10 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Maybe, but the information coming out indicates he is still attempting to develop a biological weapon that will survive reentry.  Want to bet what happens if he gets another ten or twenty years to work on it?

He’s had smallpox since the 60’s. It won’t take 10 years. Why do you think most of his tests have gone straight up and down. I’m betting they will be there in less than a year. In fact they can probably do it now. It’s nowhere as complicated as protecting a nuke from re-entry:

[AK_Stick]

It is rather commendable how he's able to look at facts, and come up with the absolute incorrect information 100% of the time.

 

 

I mean even Peace Warrior and KingAurtherHK get things right occasionally.

[fortyofforty]

17 minutes ago, willie-pete said:

He’s had smallpox since the 60’s. It won’t take 10 years. Why do you think most of his tests have gone straight up and down. I’m betting they will be there in less than a year. In fact they can probably do it now. It’s nowhere as complicated as protecting a nuke from re-entry:

A year then.  Time is on his side, not ours.

[fortyofforty]

3 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

It is rather commendable how he's able to look at facts, and come up with the absolute incorrect information 100% of the time.

 

 

I mean even Peace Warrior and KingAurtherHK get things right occasionally.

Thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion except idiocy and nonsense.  It's been quite an exercise trying to teach you English but it might be worth it in the end.

[fortyofforty]

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

[tsmo1066]

36 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Maybe, but the information coming out indicates he is still attempting to develop a biological weapon that will survive reentry.  Want to bet what happens if he gets another ten or twenty years to work on it?

And the dozens of nuclear warheads he has for his KN-08 missiles right now? How many dead Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Taiwanese and Singapore citizens constitute  "acceptable losses" as a result your pre-emptive strike when he doubtless retaliates against our Asian allies that he can hit with his existing nuclear arsenal?

[AK_Stick]

3 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion except idiocy and nonsense.  It's been quite an exercise trying to teach you English but it might be worth it in the end.

You have constantly misused the English language just in this thread where I've quoted you.

 

Attempting to be condescending doesn't work when you have been factually dug into a hole. The only person who believes any of the lies you've posted is you, hell you even lied about lying, and quoted articles that didn't state what you claimed as proof of your position.