If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
New Korean War
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Pyongyang, March 22 (KCNA) -- The United States is the most dangerous nuclear rogue state attempting to destroy humankind, says Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary it goes on: The U.S. is the world's most cursed nuclear criminal as it was the first to produce and use nuclear weapons in war history.
It is the world's biggest nuclear possessor and is now keen on the development and production of new types of weapons of mass destruction while ceaselessly carrying out nuclear tests in a bid to produce new types of nukes.
It is massproducing biological and chemical weapons and frequently staging biological and chemical warfares in a bid to use them in an actual war.
The Soviet Union was the main target of the U.S. nuclear strategy in the Cold War era, but after its demise the U.S. shifted the target of its nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states.
All this goes to eloquently prove that the U.S. is chiefly to blame for the nuclear threat that throws humankind into constant nuclear horror and uneasiness.
Its threat to use nuclear weapons against those countries that go against the grain with it as it pleases is little short of disclosing that it is the world's worst nuclear rogue state and the most dangerous nuclear terrorist country.
The large-scale joint military exercises, a combination of the "reception, staging, onward movement and integration exercise" and the "Foal Eagle," launched by the U.S. in all parts of South Korea are all-out war maneuvers aimed to put into practice the "plan to mount a preemptive nuclear attack" on the DPRK and an extremely dangerous move to ignite a nuclear war.
It is quite foolish of the hawkish bush group to try to contain the DPRK through a nuclear attack.
It is the revolutionary spirit of the army and people of the DPRK to return fire for fire and mercilessly retaliate against the imperialists' moves for aggression. those who invade the inviolable territory of the DPRK will never be able to go scotfree wherever they are in the world.
In pursuance of the U.S. imperialists' hostile policy toward the DPRK the South Korean war hawks are levelling their guns at fellow countrymen who are working hard to ensure the peace of the country and security of the nation and achieve independent reunification by its concerted efforts. This is a thrice-coursed criminal act.
The DPRK can neither pardon nor show any mercy to the U.S. imperialists who are keen to stifle the DPRK by force of arms, while making nuclear blackmail and staging sabre-rattling, and the South Korean war hawks subservient to them.
It is the revolutionary spirit and the unshakeable will of the DPRK to return fire for fire, react to retaliation and answer an all-out war with an all-out war.
If the U.S. imperialists and the South Korean war hawks make a preemptive attack on the DPRK at last, ignorant of its warning, they are sure to be burnt to death in the fire kindled by them.
The DPRK will not remain a passive onlooker to the Bush administration's inclusion of the DPRK in the seven countries, targets of U.S. nuclear attack, but take a strong countermeasure against it.
The present political and military situation where the U.S. is openly threatening the DPRK with nuclear weapons proves once again how just it was when it exerted tremendous efforts to increase its capacity for self-defence.
If the U.S. intends to mount a nuclear attack on any part of the DPRK just as it did on Hiroshima, it is grossly mistaken.
A nuclear war to be imposed by the U.S. nuclear fanatics upon the DPRK would mean their ruin in nuclear disaster.
I don't know how "reliable" north korean media is - proabably not very - but they pump out worrying language like this every day. Talking about nuclear war and a coming war with America.
I find this language worrying to say the least, especially as it seems Bush may well try to take out North Korea after Iraq.
0
Comments
Its a VERY big step from shithole Iraq to a nuclear capable country backed by China.
Any war on that island will result in millions and millions of dead. The North Koreans will lose a war against the South and America but so many millions will die.
The US will not start a war with North Korea. That is a certainty for at least the forseeable future. North Korea attacking the South is a more plausible scenario. Their country is in crisis and may well launch a desperate attack on the south. Either that or the peope will rise up against another totally fucked up communist regime.
Again, theres no chance the USA will attack North Korea.
And - just to be perfectly clear - how many times has the US unleashed nuclear weapons in aggressive action against ANY FUCKING ONE? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
North Korea... another example of the incredible wealth that communism brings to its masses. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
North Korea has not ONE DAMNED THING that the US covets... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Now, if N Korea initiates attacks upon US installations, or interests, they might find themselves on the receiveing end of a reckoning. Nuclear? Not bloody likely!
But it is entertaining the hear their sabres rattling, ain't it? I think it's their knees a quakin' that's makin' all the rattlin' noises... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
US ain't playin' no "attrition" games like it did in Korea in the 50's, and VN in the 60's. Afghanistan should be a clear indication that we will stomp the chocolate out of ANYBODY who attacks us, or shelters them who initiate the attacks.
If NORTH KOREA wants a war, they will have to start it.
Ummm... if they are so incredibly stupid as to do so, best keep a bottle of "White-Out" handy to touch up all of yer maps, 'cause N Korea will cease to exist.
No offense, Balddog, but - as Jeffereson Airplane said, decades ago - it is a PENINSULA! <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Thank you for the introduction - you should put that warning at the start of all your posts!
Twice. Which is infinitely more times than any other nation on Earth.
Doh!
I knew that, honest <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Thanatos, do you know how many US troops are over in South Korea? Ive read a couple of threads about a possible war between north and south and it sounds very bad for the guys on the front lines during that first attack.
As I recall, the first act of war was by Japan, committed against the US.
Since the US action was in response to Japanese aggression, that negates those two bombs as "acts of aggression"...
Now, since you seem to be taking N Korea's side in the issue...
HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES HAS THE US COMMITTED ACTS OF MILITARY AGGRESSION USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Some may think your assinine stupidity is "cute", but it is simply pathetic.
Not certain.
Thanatos Jr is in Iwakuni, Japan, and his unit is monitoring activity in Korea, as best as I am able to decipher (w/o compromising intel, which I am certainly not privy to in this instance).
N Korea has been making threats for half a century. I think they are again just waving their dicks for attention... I don't think they are ready to have them collectively stomped into the dirt. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The USA has about 37,000 troops in south korea, along with about 250,000 south korean troops.
That is opposed to North Koreas army of 1,100,000 troops. Thats one hell of a lot more, but they are most likely poorly trained and use old outdated equipment. I think the north korean army is the 3rd largest in the world or something like that.
37k Americans + 250k ROK troops against the North...I know where my money is.
Depends on the definition of "aggression".
An act can be aggressive even if it is provoked.
Some may think your arrogant defence of your country on every front is "noble", but it is simply pathetic.
ag·gres·sion Pronunciation Key (-grshn)
n.
The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
aggression
\Ag*gres"sion\, n. [L. aggressio, fr. aggredi: cf. F. agression.] The first attack, or act of hostility; the first act of injury, or first act leading to a war or a controversy; unprovoked attack; assault; as, a war of aggression. ``Aggressions of power.'' --Hallam
Pretty clear cut in my eyes.
The practice or habit of launching attacks.
Hostile or destructive behavior or actions
: violent action that is hostile and usuallyunprovoked [syn: hostility] 4: the act of initiating hostilities 5: deliberately unfriendly behavior
Suggest you open them a little wider then. We got that off the same webpage. Selective viewing perhaps?
Not really, I just didnt scroll down to the last definition. The two above were accurate enough. Besides, we are talking about Thanatos's definition here as it was his statement. Which do you think he was referring to?
>noun [mass noun] hostile or violent behaviour or attitudes towards another; readniness to attack or confront
ORIGIN early 17th cent. (in the same sense "an attack"): from Latin aggressio(n-), from aggredi "to attack", from ad- "towards" + gradi "proceed, walk".
How can ANY sane person classify nuking a civilian area during war as not hostile or violent?
My point was it's an ambiguous word and Thanatos nearly ruptured his splein at the very suggestion of an alternative to his view.
We both know which he was referring to, whichever shines the best light on the states, naturally.
Every online dictionary has primary definitions stating similar things to mine. Dont have access to an OED and it costs to get the online one so i cant dispute what you said.
(Edited for spelling)
[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: Vox populi, vox Dei ]
Personally I believe that these comments are a little sabre rattling after GWB's comments about the 'axis of evil' - North Korea is goinmg to be look for a cheap source of food soon, and nothing is cheaper than theft...and there is a big superstore just south of them...
The aggressive act which brought the US into WW2 was perpetrated upon the US by Japan. While you might prefer that the US not have entered WW2 at all, so that LONDON could have been the Hiroshima after Hitler got a viable nuclear and rocket program married, act of the matter is that the US did get involved.
History.
It is also a fact that the US was committed to completing the action against Japan. Only the complete fool leaves an enemy functioning, and capable of re-arming, replentishing, and then re-entering the conflict. And YES, US has made that mistake, repeatedly, including Iraq.
Given the choice of two bombs sustaining the damage they did, or a conventional invasion costing the lives of 100 times what Nagasaki and Hiroshima suffered.
Like it or not - and I really don't give a shit which one you prefer - the use of the nuclear weapons in that instance saved millions of lives, and not just US lives, either.
The relevant concern would be the assertion by North Korea that the US is a "rogue" country that would use nuclear weapons in a aggressive, pre-emptive attack on North Korea.
Again, I once more ask you WHEN THE FUCK US HAS EVER USED NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN AN ACT OF AGGRESSION?
You want to play the little cutsy red herring game of arguing definitions, when the question is whether the US will launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on poor benign victim North Korea.
New to this, aren't you.
Ruptured my spleen?
Not bloody likely.
Performing a de-esophagation upon a child like you would hardly spill my coffee cup, much less get me excited to the point of raising my blood pressure.
You are someone who blathers debate as your "confrontation", from the safety of hiding behind a monitor thousands of miles away.
I am someone who has spent my time on the "two-way rifle range", and confrontation was of the bloody and lethal kind.
What would terrify you into a coronary, boors me to sleep.
Stick to the topic, the specific question, quit wandering about to distract/confuse the issue, or admit you don't know shit about what you are blathering...
Nicely put, MoK!
The Japanese were on the verge of surrender anyway; there's the popular myth that they were going to "fight to the last man", but after the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed 80,000 civilians, almost as much as the A-bomb, they knew it was over with. They also knew that they'd come out of it a lot better if they surrendered and negotiated terms, and didn't force a war of attrition.
So why did the whiter-than-white Truman use "the bomb", if even he knew they were about to give up? For two main reasons:
They'd tested the bomb, but never in a combat situation. The reason Tokyo was not targetted was that cloud-cover would limit their ability to measure the bomb's effects. Two bombs were used; plutonium and uranium (I forget which was at which) to investigate the difference in the effectiveness. The bombings were a cold-hearted test of a new device.
Truman was one of the first "cold-war warriors". Unlike FDR, he had an irrational distrust of the Soviet Union. He knew they would be the post-war enemy, and that they didn't have atomic capability. The use of the atomic bomb on Japan would send an important message of superiority to Stalin. Despite being their "allies", Truman did not inform the USSR that they had the bomb, nor that they intended to use it. In fact, he dropped the bomb on Hiroshima only days after the USSR had entered the war against Japan at the request of the USA. This served to make the USSR look like glory-hunters, even though they didn't know about the bomb. The bombings were a device of rhetoric.
Neither of these reasons are that the atomic bomb was a war-winning strategy - it wasn't - the hopeless military situation was the cause for Japanese surrender; the bombs just appear to catalyse it.
If you can reference me one respected modern historian who expresses major disagreement with that argument, then I will reconsider its status as close to historical fact as possible.
Furthermore, even if "100 times" more lives would have been lost had the allies fought their way in conventionally, at least those lives would have been military ones; people who's job it was to fight. Not innocent, and I mean wholly innocent, women and children who were slaughtered in their tens of thousands by the US. And you think 11/9 was an attrocity; it pales in comparison.
I answer again, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945.
I will continue to answer this the same. Noone is about to accept your revisionist, America-worshipping view of history.
Frankly, its time to sit up and accept that the US is not 100% right 100% of the time. You might find it makes some of your more reasoned positions (although I can't say I've personally encountered any) easier to defend.
Damn... I think I gotta give an "OO-RAH" to MoK on that one... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Well, not really. How many American civilians did the Japanese kill??? I doubt it was anywhere near 2000, let alone the 50,000+ your nukes killed.
That's like saying, "you stood on my foot, now I'm going to shoot you". The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was like a bee stinging an elephant. It caused minimal damage, despite what Hollywood says, with very few casualties. Compare that to the hundred's of thousands you killed whilst retaliating.
How many times has any other country committed an act of aggression with nukes???
The USA, still has the record for killing the most people, 90% of them innocent with the push of a button. I'd call that an act of military aggression.
Whowhere, in case you missed it there was quite a time between Pearl harbour and the atom bombs. During that time, more than a couple of US soldiers died...Back then civilians were viable targets to allies. Im sure you know that we, the British were some of the worst in that regard.
Japan vs America....Japan were the aggressors, they started that war, not the Americans.
Vox, as interesting as your cut and paste is, what on earth does it have to do with the discussion? Nobody is debating the merits of the atom bombs over Japan.
[ 26-03-2002: Message edited by: Balddog ]
Believe it or not I was actually exaggeratiing with the ruptured splein remark, but thanks for ranting it put weight behind the statement.
The only thing I "blathered" about was the definition of "aggression". Which has been cleared up nicely.
So as for the original question...
Twice.
A military victory of that proportion is hardly a "bee-sting"...
You would prefer that the US have played to Chamberlain's example, and let Germany, Italy, and Japan subjugate the whole damned world?
Somewhat reality-challenged, are you?
<img src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/biggrinshoot.gif" alt="image">
They didn't enter the war until 1941 - we entered two years before in 1939. It was in fact us that had the courage to stand up to Hitler and say "no more". You were happy to stay holed up in the Americas, like cowards, not getting involved. You only entered the Pacific war with Japan when they attacked you. Even then, you weren't going to enter Europe - it was Hitler's declaration of war against you that forced your hand on that one.
Check your facts before espousing rubbish in future, revisionist.
It was a response to Thanatos' erroneous assertion that the use of the atomic bombs brought a premature end to the war. The c+p provides counter assertion as well as viable, realistic reasons for the use of the bomb, which were nothing to do with saving soldiers' lives.
He said no such thing. He said that the US was committed to completing the action against Japan and that an invasion of Japan would have cost 100 times more lives..
Please show me where he said the bombs ended the war prematurely. Methinks youve been planning this argument for a while and just had to get the digs in on America somehow.