2
0

Anyone think that Kim wouldn't use nuclear weapons if attacked?


 invite response                
2017 Sep 19, 8:30am   2,890 views  18 comments

by HEY YOU   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

" That TOTALLY confirms the prevailing independent analysis all across Eurasia; Washington is now run by a military junta - with Kelly, Mad Dog and McMaster just the tip of the spear. Trump is a figurehead. The incredibly shrinking T. Rex is not even a footnote. The Hillbilly From Hell is a mere - useful - neocon puppet."

Military action by the U.S. might lead to exciting times.

http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2017/09/attention-thereal-killer-in-this-itvw.html

Comments 1 - 18 of 18        Search these comments

1   NuttBoxer   2017 Sep 19, 11:04am  

Yes, if the electricity isn't on, he won't be able to launch it.
2   Strategist   2017 Sep 19, 11:19am  

Preventing dictatorships from acquiring nukes makes us the good guys, not the bad guys. I don't understand why it's so difficult to grasp such a simple concept?
4   Ceffer   2017 Sep 19, 12:13pm  

Kim Kardashian would.

And as we all know, what happens with the Kardashians is always very, very important.
5   Shaman   2017 Sep 19, 1:11pm  

anonymous says
one of those "good" and "justifiable " wars even though we are totally ignoring the genocide in Myanmar


Some rabble-rousing Muslims did their Islam boom-boom thing to a military junta with no morals or sense of scope. Now they are getting completely hosed and nobody cares.
Is that a problem? Or is it an example for other countries who have to deal with Muslims?
6   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Sep 19, 1:23pm  

Trump needs a Dennis Rodman lookalike who is dying of cancer. He can go on a suicide mission and blow up Un in exchange for posthumous notoriety and money for his heirs.
7   NuttBoxer   2017 Sep 19, 1:38pm  

Strategist says
Thank You. Finally someone with a sane understanding of the situation. All the past Presidents kicked the can down the street, endangering million of lives along the way. I hope Trump takes out their nukes and kills the regime leadership.


The military industrial complex would be proud to hear it citizens spouting such drivel! Forget about past failures in:

Korea... Wait, did we create the present regime and their popular support, yes we did!
Vietnam
Iraq, but maybe I'm speaking too soon since we STILL have troops there.
Afganistan, Yemen, Syria - or as I like to call them "Drone Paradise"
8   Strategist   2017 Sep 19, 2:20pm  

NuttBoxer says
Strategist says
Thank You. Finally someone with a sane understanding of the situation. All the past Presidents kicked the can down the street, endangering million of lives along the way. I hope Trump takes out their nukes and kills the regime leadership.


The military industrial complex would be proud to hear it citizens spouting such drivel! Forget about past failures in:


Past failures or past successes are irrelevant when you have a looming threat that needs to be dealt with now.
I would just nuke Pyongyang when Rocket Man is celebrating with another parade, and be done with it.
9   anonymous   2017 Sep 19, 4:07pm  

. Iran wasn't launching rockets over Japan.
2. Iran wasn't threatening the USA with nuclear obliteration.
3. Iran isn't still technically at war with us.
4. Iran is a comparatively open society with access to Western media. (Jon Stewart was allowed free access and interviewed people)
5. Iran doesn't have concentration murder and rape camps.
6. Iran doesn't have a massive conventional army on the border ready to strike a key ally.
7. Iranian people are generally pro-Western and many dream of living here.
8. Iran is an important ally of Russia while China has essentially disowned North Korea.
9. North Korea and South Korea are one divided nation and a war with North Korea would be heavily supported in all aspects by South Korea.
10. Iran isn't controlled by a madman dictator. All reports are the Iranian government is a constant tug of war between secular and religious interests. Moderation is usually the result.

1. Why would Iran want to shoot missiles over Japan ?
2. That topic is open to debate as to what was or wasn’t said
3. The answer is no, the U.S. is not technically still at war with North Korea – at least not in the strictest sense of the word. That’s because the United States never declared war on North Korea when the conflict began in 1950. President Truman sent U.S. military forces to the peninsula in June of that year under the guise of “police action,” in an effort to placate the Soviet Union. You see, Truman’s “police action” policy included a promise to the Soviet Union that UN troops would not advance past the 38th parallel.
4. Ruled by a theocracy that can and will censor what they feel like.
5. You know none of these murder and concentration camps exist because ?
6. Turkey and Pakistan are not key allies ? You have information on troop strength on these borders ? Lets not forget our great ally Saudi Arabia is just a stones throw away as well.
7. You do not know what the aspirations are of the average North Korea do you ? This may come as a surprise to you but not everyone aspires to come here.
8. China has publicly disowned North Korea in some fashion but if you are naïve enough to believe Russia and China are going to stand idly by
while the U.S. "destroys" North Korea not sure what to tell you but I wouldn't bet your vast financial empire on that happening.
9. Do not count on overwhelming support from the South Korean citizens for war. This goes more or less with your statements on point number eight. The only overwhelming support for war on the peninsula is from those wanting to play with their weapons. The South does not want the burden of having to deal with a "unified" Korea. They have seen how well we help in nation building after we get done playing war.
10. They don't have a madman dictator(s) ? My god - the press and Dubya were lying to us all this time ? You think Ahmadinejad was playing with a full deck ? I could have sworn they were part of the Aixs of Evil...
10   mell   2017 Sep 19, 5:22pm  

jazz_music says
Think low tech.


Yeah but even that low tech could have devastating consequences for their surrounding countries that they actually can reach (not to mention Guam if credible).
11   WookieMan   2017 Sep 19, 5:41pm  

mell says
Yeah but even that low tech could have devastating consequences for their surrounding countries that they actually can reach (not to mention Guam if credible).

Not sure if I'm misreading you mell. Jazz's theory is actually very valid. They could easily steal or buy a ship under another nationality under the auspices of legit maritime transportation/shipping purposes. Barrel right into or at least close to our ports or hell even the shoreline would be close enough and detonate a nuke. It's not just Guam, Japan or that region. It's our own coastal cities. This is unfortunately why this is a big deal, which you've acknowledged in comment 22. Obviously allies getting fucked up is bad, but we really have no idea what their intentions are. These missile launches could all just be one big diversion. They may have zero intention of miniaturizing a nuke and putting it on a missile. This is why it can't continue to go on another 4-8-12 years. They can almost certainly put the damn thing on a boat at this point unfortunately.

There's going to be some sort of conflict. It a matter of when, not if. I'm with you on this being a necessary armed conflict and that others of recent vintage were not very logical.
12   mell   2017 Sep 19, 5:49pm  

WookieMan says
Not sure if I'm misreading you mell. Jazz's theory is actually very valid. They could easily steal or buy a ship under another nationality under the auspices of legit maritime transportation/shipping purposes. Barrel right into or at least close to our ports or hell even the shoreline would be close enough and detonate a nuke. It's not just Guam, Japan or that region. It's our own coastal cities. This is unfortunately why this is a big deal, which you've acknowledged in comment 22. Obviously allies getting fucked up is bad, but we really have no idea what their intentions are. These missile launches could all just be one big diversion. They may have zero intention of miniaturizing a nuke and putting it on a missile. This is why it can't continue to go on another 4-8-12 years. They can almost certainly put the damn thing on a boat at this point unfortunately.

There's going to be some sort of conflict. It a matter of when, not if. I'm with you on this being a necess...


Yeah may have misread it. However they don't have to go all nifty (despite low-tech) with a plan with high failure, they could simply unleash havoc on their surrounding countries, esp. SK and then claim whoever attacked them caused this. There's enough US "friends" within their proximity, esp. if they get surprised and can't go through with a more nifty diabolical plan. Also this is a real humanitarian tragedy for so many years now where it doesn't need to be, climate and resources are ok and they could have flourishing trade with their neighbors instead.
13   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Sep 19, 9:58pm  

Strategist says
China and Russia are not gonna go to war with the US for the sake of NK. They need the US. They may kick up a fuss, but that's about it.


Yeah and their leaders will swallow their humiliation publicly and the people will not complain.

China is an emergent power extremely nationalistic and self-conscious about what it sees as past humiliations by the west and Japan. They will likely go to war at the slightest provocation. Btw they have something like 100 millions more men than women, and losing some losers would not mean much to them.
14   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 19, 10:46pm  

Those decades of sanctions sure worked on Kim.

Are those missiles liquid fueled or solid booster? It makes a difference : you can't keep early development liquid fueled rockets ready indefinitely; they need cooling. How many does he have? Can he put a nuke payload on one?

If his rockets are as primitive as the first Ballistic Missiles, and he can't fit a nuke warhead on them, then it's now or never.

Or, start squeezing the fuck out of China's Trade and give them an out to save face when they get rid of "Rocket Man".

This is an existential issue that's far more important than the iPhone X or crap from Amazon. Guam or LA can survive a supply chain disruption among Apple Stores. It can't survive a nuke.
15   komputodo   2017 Sep 19, 11:27pm  

North Korea is the buffer zone between China and the US military bases...China doesn't want US military bases next door. Just like the USA doesn't want Russian bases next door.
16   Strategist   2017 Sep 21, 9:48am  

komputodo says
North Korea is the buffer zone between China and the US military bases...China doesn't want US military bases next door. Just like the USA doesn't want Russian bases next door.


Stupid politicians creating problems where none exists. USA, China and Russia are not gonna attack each other. They need to stop playing these stupid war games and start cooperating with each other to make the world a better place for future generations. Deal with NK, Mid East, and terrorism for starters. It's in everybody's interest.
Fucking morons.
17   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 21, 12:53pm  

Maybe when the first and second nuke tests happened, we should have been on North Korea like white on rice instead of dicking around in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Just a thought.
18   Strategist   2017 Sep 21, 2:15pm  

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Maybe when the first and second nuke tests happened, we should have been on North Korea like white on rice instead of dicking around in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Just a thought.


Trump wasn't President then. Trump will fix what the other losers broke.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions