Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
"...marks a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the (Korean People's Army) and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defense capability...," "...a great leap forward in the building of a great prosperous powerful socialist nation." So, it seems that they really are wanting to be erased from the map. What do you think of NK's defiant testing of nuclear weapons? Granted, it was apparently a weak bomb (550 tons of TNT - weaker than the 1945 bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but a step towards a possibly dangerous time. Even China told them to back off, yet the heeded all warnings. What's next?
i don't know. but it cant be good. if they keep ignoring other nations then war will be almost certain
tbh, I think that the U.S. is going to sit back for a short while --- while it prepares for yet another war --- and see how the world takes all of this. I think military action is a bit obvious at this stage. They won't even listen to their allies ... and we need to do something before they have the capability of getting those weapons into enemy territory. Keep in mind, North Korea is also one of the largest providers of missile technology to middle eastern nations that many countries are at war with. What is stopping N. Korea from attempting to smuggle nuclear weapons into the middle east (besides the US Navy)? Something needs to be done ... and fast. And hopefully anyone with half a brain would agree.
who really gives a fuck, not like the US hasn't launched plenty of nukes - how come the US is allowed nukes but not NK? (they are for defence remember!) If Russia got a big lead in the nuke race and then said - USA no nukes for you! nobody would have listened, if countries want to sit on their high horse and look down on NK, try getting rid of any nukes they are in possesion of first.
Quote: who really gives a fuck, not like the US hasn't launched plenty of nukes - how come the US is allowed nukes but not NK? (they are for defence remember!) If Russia got a big lead in the nuke race and then said - USA no nukes for you! nobody would have listened, if countries want to sit on their high horse and look down on NK, try getting rid of any nukes they are in possesion of first. Considering North Korea is a bunch of loose canons and they have no "rules" They get the sudden urge to attack USA or someone else, they will simply launch the missle. They are somewhat alot like the radical retards like Osama bin Laden. They HATE the USA. No one is attacking them except shit they bring on themselves. If they would just shut up and abide by rules like most other countries, this wouldnt even be a problem. USA is not the MAIN country they need to worry about, NK and China are allies, But you go pissing your friends off to much, they wont be your friends no more. China is no one to fuck with.
Can you say WWIII? China sides with NK over NK - USA and China go to war - USA gets assistance from places like France, Uk, and other western European countries, China gets assistance from NK, etc, etc... And, if the timeframe hits it about right, I'll be somewhere between 19 and 30, perfect milatary service age.
[PA Pirate wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 11:57]who really gives a fuck, not like the US hasn't launched plenty of nukes - how come the US is allowed nukes but not NK? (they are for defence remember!) If Russia got a big lead in the nuke race and then said - USA no nukes for you! nobody would have listened, if countries want to sit on their high horse and look down on NK, try getting rid of any nukes they are in possesion of first. You're joking, right? EVRY1 GETZ AWAY WIF IT. Y KANT DEY LOL?! You have no clue about the seriousness of the situation. I mean, China, NK's closest ally, was telling them to back down and not to test nuclear weapons... that tells you something.
I thought this was a super late post about Terrell Owens. lol China is upset about this and ready to act. Obviously you need to bone up on your knowledge CarrierII...
PA Pirate wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 11:57 who really gives a fuck, not like the US hasn't launched plenty of nukes - how come the US is allowed nukes but not NK? (they are for defence remember!) Um, most of the world gives a fuck. Why? Because they're hell bent on using those weapons and taunting the world. The arms race in the cold war (emphasis on cold) was more of a "race for a new technology" and "international influence" than N.Korea's interests in nukes. They want it so they can 'influence' their peninsula with brute force. Also, they do not cooperate with international policy and regulation like many other nations. IAEA Director General Taken from: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2006/prn200617. html Statement by IAEA Director General 9 October 2006 | IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei deeply regrets, and expresses serious concern, about the reported carrying-out of a nuclear test earlier today by the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK). This reported nuclear test threatens the nuclear non-proliferation regime and creates serious security challenges not only for the East Asian region but also for the international community. The breaking of a de-facto global moratorium on nuclear explosive testing that has been in place for nearly a decade and the addition of a new State with nuclear weapon capacity is a clear setback to international commitments to move towards nuclear disarmament, said the Director General. Dr. ElBaradei further reiterates the urgent need - more than any time before - for establishing a legally binding universal ban on nuclear testing through the early entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty. Dr. ElBaradei continues to believe in the importance of finding a negotiated solution to the current situation regarding the DPRK nuclear issue. The Director General believes that resumption of dialogue between all concerned parties is indispensable and urgent. ... PA Pirate wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 11:57 If Russia got a big lead in the nuke race and then said - USA no nukes for you! nobody would have listened, This was back in a time when the technology was new and there were no defined superpowers (post WWII). PA Pirate wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 11:57 if countries want to sit on their high horse and look down on NK, try getting rid of any nukes they are in possesion of first. They are. Calm yourself of this drama and take a step back to look at the severity of the situation as well as the fact. This != good
Personally I'm way more concerned about Iran getting nukes. NK just wants nukes for bragging rights and as leverage. Iran has flat out said that they plan to destroy Israel as soon as they are capable.
This topic is like the religous topics. No-one gets anywhere and by the end of the topic you are all fighting amongst yourselves.
puddle_splasher wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 05:57 This topic is like the religous topics. No-one gets anywhere and by the end of the topic you are all fighting amongst yourselves. It's politics, of course, there's going to be differences of opinion.
Think about it. The US government WANTED the DPRK to go ahead with the nuke test. The world is now aligned against the DPRK and the pressure is on far more so than it would have been if they had abandoned the test.
I think that could be true. The testing pissed off enough nations, and now we can demand that NK (fuck calling them by their 'real' name) be repremanded for their actions. China even agrees, so the USA's agenda could have been swayed by that. Mounting tension between allies is never a good thing, and that's what we see here with NK and China.
Blazer wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 05:51 Personally I'm way more concerned about Iran getting nukes. NK just wants nukes for bragging rights and as leverage. Iran has flat out said that they plan to destroy Israel as soon as they are capable. Yeah, man, I agree. But two things on that note: (1) Iran gets missile technology from North Korea. I've seen it first hand while I was in the military in the persian gulf. Who is to stop them from shipping nuke warheads with them? (2) Just because other nations have worse motives doesn't clear North Korea. ;-P
You know we could stop feeding...them. What are they going to do, nuke us because we don't give them enough rice?
Hey, it was enough for Japan to attack. Though it was resources that were cut off, instead of food.
Actually, yes. That's one of the major reasons they want so much international attention. The North Koreans are dying by the bucketfull because they have an old, crazy dictator who doesn't grasp the concept that he can't manage a country by letting everyone starve. Do you want this guy to have a bunch of nukes?
If you hate Bush, I can't imagine how much you hate Jong Il. If you don't, then you're an idiot. Simply put. There is no way you can like this guy or even support him.
But, he's so ronery...
Sure hes the worst regime leader in the last century, sure his power relies on what the people dont know, sure his people are starving. But who cares. They dont know anybetter, at least not yet. Let him have his nukes, until he plans on blowing up the world. let him be, i mean come on, Kim Jong Ill is in a way, just trying to get richer, and maybe for the world to not look down on him as a trechorous regime communist leader.
cheekay77 wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 23:29 Sure hes the worst regime leader in the last century, sure his power relies on what the people dont know, sure his people are starving. But who cares. They dont know anybetter, at least not yet. Let him have his nukes, until he plans on blowing up the world. let him be, i mean come on, Kim Jong Ill is in a way, just trying to get richer, and maybe for the world to not look down on him as a trechorous regime communist leader. You're kidding, right? They threatened to detonate a nuke, they did. Now they're threatening the US with a nuclear tipped missile. From what I've read, NK doesn't bluff. Granted, this time I think that they're stretching it a bit, since they seem to suck horribly at missiles. Either way, he now has leverage and plans to use it. Unfortunately, China doesn't want the USA being involved in any of their affairs, so they're going to try desperately to keep NK from crumbling. Though, they do want punishment for NK... but I think that's more or less an attempt to show the rest of the world that they want to be peaceful, but at the same time keep a nice buffer between them and US troops.
I used to doodle comics of Kim Jong Il as a really short basketball player and slam dunking. He played for the ICBMs. I'll try to find one and scan it lol.
U927 wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 18:48 But, he's so ronery... ROFL - Team America rocks!
Shows something of the relationship between China and NK doesn't it...
My speculation is that China is going to be sick of NK's shit and squish them like a bug. China is mad at NK already, and the more shit NK talks, the worse their relations are going to be with China. China wants peace, and they don't want the U.S. troops being near the border, so I can only guess that China will be more apt to squish them than let the U.S..
Hmm, stopping a threat? ZOMG IMPERIAL CHINA!!!! NO BLOOD FOR OIL CHINA! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 08:51 cheekay77 wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 23:29 Sure hes the worst regime leader in the last century, sure his power relies on what the people dont know, sure his people are starving. But who cares. They dont know anybetter, at least not yet. Let him have his nukes, until he plans on blowing up the world. let him be, i mean come on, Kim Jong Ill is in a way, just trying to get richer, and maybe for the world to not look down on him as a trechorous regime communist leader. You're kidding, right? They threatened to detonate a nuke, they did. Now they're threatening the US with a nuclear tipped missile. From what I've read, NK doesn't bluff. Granted, this time I think that they're stretching it a bit, since they seem to suck horribly at missiles. Either way, he now has leverage and plans to use it. Unfortunately, China doesn't want the USA being involved in any of their affairs, so they're going to try desperately to keep NK from crumbling. Though, they do want punishment for NK... but I think that's more or less an attempt to show the rest of the world that they want to be peaceful, but at the same time keep a nice buffer between them and US troops. Your right, but isnt it true that US gets most of its missle technology from NK? Or is that SK? Its one of them, now before i look like an idiot, im going to say that i am unsure.
cheekay77 Your right, but isnt it true that US gets most of its missle technology from NK? Or is that SK? Its one of them, now before i look like an idiot, im going to say that i am unsure. Being enemies with NK, I'm highly doubting that we get any technology from NK, let alone military weaponry.
j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 16:30 cheekay77 Your right, but isnt it true that US gets most of its missle technology from NK? Or is that SK? Its one of them, now before i look like an idiot, im going to say that i am unsure. Being enemies with NK, I'm highly doubting that we get any technology from NK, let alone military weaponry. Dude, not saying im 100% right, but i could have sworn that on CNN the anchor dude was saying something like "and considering the fact that they give the US most of their missle technology, the NK government is a dangerous threat"
That's absolutely impossible. North Korea didn't successfully launch their long-range missile capable of reaching the United States. Why would we be getting technology from them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2 They failed that test launch. The United States, however, has had several intercontinental ballistic missiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_miss ile#Current_and_former_U.S._ballistic_missiles
Heh *looks as missile parts sprawled out next to him* "Made in Korea" and "Made in Taiwan"
warranto wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 13:55 Hey, it was enough for Japan to attack. Though it was resources that were cut off, instead of food. Hell yes. But in the form of sending armed missiles to him from the sky. More to the point. Many countries have nukes. England, France, Russia, Canada(they have some US nukes from the NATO alliances of the Cold War), Pakistan, India, Israel, former USSR countries, and the USA(We have the most...combined) to name a few. Most of these countries have signed treaties to not use them and disarm/destroy them after seeing just how powerful they are. The USA even bought up most of the former USSR's nuke to disarm and keep out of terrorist hands. Hydrogen and Neutron bombs are another story. All of those were made during the cold war and are not allowed to be armed by those Non-nuclear treaties. ATM, the only real concern is a war between North Korea and Japan/China. The are blocked on all sides by armies or navies, I doubt they'll sneak out a nuke, however, they may sneak out information. But, the US will probally not rally to war as most of you seem to think. It is more finacially feasible for us to stay out of it. I'll list the reasons if you'd like, but I'm feeling lazy atm. As for WWIII, you are quite wrong. They lack any ability to hurl any guided or unguided missile(Let alone one with a nuclear payload) to the US, any European country, and BARELY have the ability to hit Japan. So, chances are, at the absolute worst, they'll either toss em into South Korea, China, or Japan or do some other act to coerse them into war and a Korean theater will open that'll end in a fight(armed or unarmed) between China and South Korea over control of the conquered North Korea. Not saying other countries won't join in, but I seriously doubt any North Korean allies having the balls or ability to help them or that it won't be an ugly long war, but that it won't be an apocalypse, WWIII, or some nuclear show of arms. I feel sorry for the south Koreans...
j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 15:30 cheekay77 Your right, but isnt it true that US gets most of its missle technology from NK? Or is that SK? Its one of them, now before i look like an idiot, im going to say that i am unsure. Being enemies with NK, I'm highly doubting that we get any technology from NK, let alone military weaponry. You are a dumbass. We had nukes, ICBMs, and other nuclear weapons before North or South Korea were even created. If memory serves me correct, the US funded the Manhattan Project in WWII, which was long before the Korean war and why in a blue hell would we get technology from a third world ally of our enemy during the cold war!?!?!?
Blast wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 18:34 j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 15:30 cheekay77 Your right, but isnt it true that US gets most of its missle technology from NK? Or is that SK? Its one of them, now before i look like an idiot, im going to say that i am unsure. Being enemies with NK, I'm highly doubting that we get any technology from NK, let alone military weaponry. You are a dumbass. We had nukes, ICBMs, and other nuclear weapons before North or South Korea were even created. If memory serves me correct, the US funded the Manhattan Project in WWII, which was long before the Korean war and why in a blue hell would we get technology from a third world ally of our enemy during the cold war!?!?!? I think you meant to quote the person who posted before me. I know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we get any missile technology from North Korea. In fact, I proved otherwise. Either you don't know how to read, or you quoted the wrong person. I'll be kind and guess the latter.
Blast More to the point. Many countries have nukes. England, France, Russia, Canada(they have some US nukes from the NATO alliances of the Cold War), Pakistan, India, Israel, former USSR countries, and the USA(We have the most...combined) to name a few. Most of these countries have signed treaties to not use them and disarm/destroy them after seeing just how powerful they are. The USA even bought up most of the former USSR's nuke to disarm and keep out of terrorist hands. Actually, our stockpile is less than Russia's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_ weapons#Estimated_worldwide_nuclear_stockpiles
... We have nukes? No? Canada
j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 17:52 Blast More to the point. Many countries have nukes. England, France, Russia, Canada(they have some US nukes from the NATO alliances of the Cold War), Pakistan, India, Israel, former USSR countries, and the USA(We have the most...combined) to name a few. Most of these countries have signed treaties to not use them and disarm/destroy them after seeing just how powerful they are. The USA even bought up most of the former USSR's nuke to disarm and keep out of terrorist hands. Actually, our stockpile is less than Russia's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_ weapons#Estimated_worldwide_nuclear_stockpiles Those are active. I mean total. And yes, I was talking to the historically retarded guy you also quoted. And also yes, Canada has nukes. They were left there from the Cold War, although they were commissioned and built by the US, many of them remain on Canadian soil and under Canadian control. Even some of the active sites in the US have dual keys between Canadian and US soldiers.
Blast wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 19:16 Those are active. I mean total. No... United States 5,735/9,960 Russia 5,830/16,000 Those are the totals. Also, Canada does not have any warheads anymore. Not since 1984. Canada has a well developed nuclear technology base, large uranium reserves and markets reactors for civilian use. While Canada has the technological capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, there is no hard evidence it has done so, nor has Canada ever stated an intention to do so. Canada has been an important contributor of both expertise and raw materials to the American program in the past, and had even helped with the Manhattan Project. In 1959, NATO proposed to Canada that the RCAF assume a nuclear strike role in Europe. Thus in 1962 six Canadian CF-104 squadrons based in Europe were formed into the RCAF Nuclear Strike Force armed with B28 nuclear bombs (originally Mk 28) under the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program; the Force was disbanded in 1972 when Canada opted out of the nuclear strike role. Canada accepted having American W-40 nuclear warheads under dual key control on Canadian soil in 1963 to be used on the Canadian BOMARC missiles. The Canadian air force also maintained a stockpile of AIR-2 Genie unguided nuclear air-to-air rockets as the primary wartime weapon on the CF-101 Voodoo all-weather interceptor after 1965. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared Canada would be a nuclear weapon-free country in 1971, and the last American warheads were withdrawn in 1984. Canada gave India its first research reactor, the CIRUS, in 1956 and this reactor was used to make the nuclear material used in India's first nuclear device. Canada also produces the renowned CANDU reactor and has sold the technology to several countries, including China, South Korea, India, Romania, Argentina, and Pakistan. However there is no credible evidence that CANDU reactors were used to breed weapons grade material for either India and Pakistan. Canada nevertheless cut off nuclear trade with those two countries after they detonated nuclear weapons.
j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 18:20 Blast wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 19:16 Those are active. I mean total. No... United States 5,735/9,960 Russia 5,830/16,000 Those are the totals. Also, Canada does not have any warheads anymore. Not since 1984. Canada has a well developed nuclear technology base, large uranium reserves and markets reactors for civilian use. While Canada has the technological capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, there is no hard evidence it has done so, nor has Canada ever stated an intention to do so. Canada has been an important contributor of both expertise and raw materials to the American program in the past, and had even helped with the Manhattan Project. In 1959, NATO proposed to Canada that the RCAF assume a nuclear strike role in Europe. Thus in 1962 six Canadian CF-104 squadrons based in Europe were formed into the RCAF Nuclear Strike Force armed with B28 nuclear bombs (originally Mk 28) under the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program; the Force was disbanded in 1972 when Canada opted out of the nuclear strike role. Canada accepted having American W-40 nuclear warheads under dual key control on Canadian soil in 1963 to be used on the Canadian BOMARC missiles. The Canadian air force also maintained a stockpile of AIR-2 Genie unguided nuclear air-to-air rockets as the primary wartime weapon on the CF-101 Voodoo all-weather interceptor after 1965. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared Canada would be a nuclear weapon-free country in 1971, and the last American warheads were withdrawn in 1984. Canada gave India its first research reactor, the CIRUS, in 1956 and this reactor was used to make the nuclear material used in India's first nuclear device. Canada also produces the renowned CANDU reactor and has sold the technology to several countries, including China, South Korea, India, Romania, Argentina, and Pakistan. However there is no credible evidence that CANDU reactors were used to breed weapons grade material for either India and Pakistan. Canada nevertheless cut off nuclear trade with those two countries after they detonated nuclear weapons. I stand corrected on Canada's nukes. However, those numbers do not include dismantled or disassembled nukes. I know for a fact that the US has thousands more(The military base in my city used to house several and used to have plenty of information on disposal, safety, and dissassembly schedules, and numbers).
I didn't think that Russia has/had more nukes, and that wiki said that the estimates are generally quite inaccurate.
The United States always had more (total) nuclear weapons than any other nation. I wouldn't trust any wiki on that sort of statistic. I didn't check the date on that, but I'm sure it doesn't include the warheads that are a quarter-turn-to-activate-ready if you catch my meaning. Which the US has a lot of. Another statistic to throw in there is that nearly 90% of the USSR's ICBMs are land-based and are in known locations. Nearly 90% of the US's ICBMs are naval-based and are hidden around the world. As much as I like Bush, he's being a complete pussy right now by saying he won't do anything militaristic and I think the brainless critics of him around the world are to blame. Now he's walking on eggshells. N.K. needs to have their ass bombed back about 20 years. Oh, and heaven forbid N.K. even TRIED to nuke the US. I don't think we still have a "MAD" policy anymore, but I'm pretty sure we'd sink them to the ocean if one went off.
fl00d3d As much as I like Bush, he's being a complete pussy right now by saying he won't do anything militaristic and I think the brainless critics of him around the world are to blame. Now he's walking on eggshells. N.K. needs to have their ass bombed back about 20 years. Oh, and heaven forbid N.K. even TRIED to nuke the US. I don't think we still have a "MAD" policy anymore, but I'm pretty sure we'd sink them to the ocean if one went off. China is an ally of NK. We REALLY don't want to be against China. We don't now how far we can go with this NK situation and not ruin relations with China. Personally, I think China has a lot more sway with NK than we do even if we were to threaten military action. Plus, if we just sit back and laugh while NK makes empty threats about sending nuclear-tipped missiles at us, it'll just silence them and make China speak up. China doesn't want U.S. troops anywhere near their border. If we go to war with NK, troops will be at China's doorstep. The more NK pushes China's buttons with threatening the U.S., the less we'll have to worry about.
j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 18:20 Blast wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 19:16 Those are active. I mean total. No... United States 5,735/9,960 Russia 5,830/16,000 Those are the totals. Also, Canada does not have any warheads anymore. Not since 1984. Canada has a well developed nuclear technology base, large uranium reserves and markets reactors for civilian use. While Canada has the technological capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, there is no hard evidence it has done so, nor has Canada ever stated an intention to do so. Canada has been an important contributor of both expertise and raw materials to the American program in the past, and had even helped with the Manhattan Project. In 1959, NATO proposed to Canada that the RCAF assume a nuclear strike role in Europe. Thus in 1962 six Canadian CF-104 squadrons based in Europe were formed into the RCAF Nuclear Strike Force armed with B28 nuclear bombs (originally Mk 28) under the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program; the Force was disbanded in 1972 when Canada opted out of the nuclear strike role. Canada accepted having American W-40 nuclear warheads under dual key control on Canadian soil in 1963 to be used on the Canadian BOMARC missiles. The Canadian air force also maintained a stockpile of AIR-2 Genie unguided nuclear air-to-air rockets as the primary wartime weapon on the CF-101 Voodoo all-weather interceptor after 1965. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared Canada would be a nuclear weapon-free country in 1971, and the last American warheads were withdrawn in 1984. Canada gave India its first research reactor, the CIRUS, in 1956 and this reactor was used to make the nuclear material used in India's first nuclear device. Canada also produces the renowned CANDU reactor and has sold the technology to several countries, including China, South Korea, India, Romania, Argentina, and Pakistan. However there is no credible evidence that CANDU reactors were used to breed weapons grade material for either India and Pakistan. Canada nevertheless cut off nuclear trade with those two countries after they detonated nuclear weapons. But for some reason I am not too worried they have more than us... I mean 9,960 nukes is more than plenty to wipe out all of our threats...like a hundred times.(MAD strategy anyone?) And I am not too worried about pissing off China when it comes to North Korea...just remember the main factor that influences world powers: Economy, and guess who buys China's shit the most? Bingo, the US.
Just wanted to note that Russia PWNs all (siggy).
Silly tesla coils...
Quote: Lewis Black: Just look at all the footage coming out of north korea, its all black and white even though it was filmed in color. Conan: What? Lewis Black: The north koreans are so evil, they dont emit color! Rough quote. That's why you dont allow nukes.
You're all thinking like dumbasses. Think on the global scale and open your fucking eyes. Watch Kim Jong Il sell the nuclear weapons to pet countries like Syria and Lebanon (via Iran). Then realize that if he starts selling stuff to them, that Jerusalem will = a crater.
Joey, why else do you think we're trying to put sanctions on their exports? Why else do you think the U.S. wants to inspect outgoing and incoming merchant ships? We want to make sure that there are no nuclear weapons leaving North Korea and getting into the hands of Middle Eastern countries.
j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 13 October 2006 21:06 Joey, why else do you think we're trying to put sanctions on their exports? Why else do you think the U.S. wants to inspect outgoing and incoming merchant ships? We want to make sure that there are no nuclear weapons leaving North Korea and getting into the hands of Middle Eastern countries. No shit. People in this forum are like LOEL THEY'RE GONNA NUKE JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA, CHINA HATES THEM (they don't lol). OMG LOS ANGELES I say we tell Kim Jong Il to cut the shit, before we stuff him in one of his Taepodong missles and send him to the moon.
Yoshimitsu wrote on Fri, 13 October 2006 21:25 j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 13 October 2006 21:06 Joey, why else do you think we're trying to put sanctions on their exports? Why else do you think the U.S. wants to inspect outgoing and incoming merchant ships? We want to make sure that there are no nuclear weapons leaving North Korea and getting into the hands of Middle Eastern countries. No shit. People in this forum are like LOEL THEY'RE GONNA NUKE JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA, CHINA HATES THEM (they don't lol). OMG LOS ANGELES I say we tell Kim Jong Il to cut the shit, before we stuff him in one of his Taepodong missles and send him to the moon. OT: His Tae-Po-Dong missles cant reach very far off the coast of Japan, let alone the moon. That was one of the first things that US thought, can they nuke us? Their best missle is the Taepodong (or however its spelt) And no, their not meant for overseas bombing.
I used to believe in M.A.D., but I'm not sure it will work now. Too many variables to consider. Sheesh. It's not as simple as it was in the 50's. I guess an eye for an eye will make the whole world a blazing inferno that can support life no further, after all. Ah, well. I never liked Earth that much, anyway.