Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on April 14, 2013, 12:33:13 PM
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
US, Japan offer new nuclear talks with North Korea
nypost.com ^
Posted on April 14, 2013 3:04:02 PM EDT by tsowellfan
TOKYO — The United States and Japan opened the door Sunday to new nuclear talks with North Korea if the saber-rattling country lowered tensions and honored past agreements, even as it rejected South Korea's latest offer of dialogue as a "crafty trick."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in Tokyo that North Korea would find "ready partners" in the United States if it began abandoning its nuclear program...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
-
What do you think the correct approach is?
-
What do you think the correct approach is?
Open up a little canned sunshine on their asses.
-
this is the right approach,it's the only approach
-
I'm extremely torn.. I see merit in this, but personally, I'd tell them to fuck off.
You do anything to the US or it's allies and I'll flatten your entire country is probably what I would say. Then again, I'm kind of tired of the bullshit.
-
I'm extremely torn.. I see merit in this, but personally, I'd tell them to fuck off.
You do anything to the US or it's allies and I'll flatten your entire country is probably what I would say. Then again, I'm kind of tired of the bullshit.
x2.
Hard to say.. NK is kind of pathetic, they're like the loudmouth punk kid that talks a bunch of shit but weighs 100 lbs soaking wet..... You know it's like beating up an infant, but you also know there is always the possibility of the kid going crazy and bringing a shotgun to school.
-
i hope all the people saying "he's not a threat" realize he is a leader with NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
He is a leader who has vowed to destroy us.
He is leading a nation who has TRIED to hit hawaii with rockets, but failed.
imagine letting your neighbor take drunken potshots at your front door with his 9mm because "oh, Stanley's a terrible shot, he always misses..."
LMAO...
-
i hope all the people saying "he's not a threat" realize he is a leader with NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
He is a leader who has vowed to destroy us.
He is leading a nation who has TRIED to hit hawaii with rockets, but failed.
imagine letting your neighbor take drunken potshots at your front door with his 9mm because "oh, Stanley's a terrible shot, he always misses..."
LMAO...
So you agree w this or no?
-
So you agree w this or no?
i agree the minute ANY leader fires a rocket at us, we need to put 20 JDAMS into his rocket-building facilities.
They are setting off nukes and pointing them at our troops - that CERTAINLY calls for pre-emptive strikes on everything that resembles nuclear facilities.
I dont get why clinton/bush wimped out (and why obama probably will too). I would have flattened their plants on minute one, then politely asked them to take a breather and think things over.
-
i agree the minute ANY leader fires a rocket at us, we need to put 20 JDAMS into his rocket-building facilities.
They are setting off nukes and pointing them at our troops - that CERTAINLY calls for pre-emptive strikes on everything that resembles nuclear facilities.
I dont get why clinton/bush wimped out (and why obama probably will too). I would have flattened their plants on minute one, then politely asked them to take a breather and think things over.
but you are ok w obama/kerry pussing out right?
-
but you are ok w obama/kerry pussing out right?
fuccck no. I am not stupid enough to judge the action until the results arrive - if obama gives them a handjob while bribing them with a million barrels of oil, i'll classify him as a punk wimp like Dubya.
If obama gets into talks, learns details of the faciliites thru talks then suddenly an 'accidental' fire without repsonsibility burns up all their facilities, hey, Bravo!!!
We'll see where these talks lead. NK was setting off nukes on bush's watch in 2005, right? I hope they don't try that on obama - and if they do, i hope he cooks em.
historically, obama has been the guy to put the lights out for guys like kadaffi and bin laden. It woudnt surprise me to him do some more ballsy shit here. We'll see. LIke I said, only a fool would make a judgemnt this early.
-
240, seriously....
Are you really freaking out this bad over this? Are you really scared? Or are you just playing games?
I can understand to a certain extent because you didn't grow during the cold war. But common logic should calm your fears.
-
240, seriously....
Are you really freaking out this bad over this? Are you really scared? Or are you just playing games?
I can understand to a certain extent because you didn't grow during the cold war. But common logic should calm your fears.
We all agree they have nukes. We all agree they promised to destroy us.
The only debate here is "can they deliver their nukes?"
I'm thinking it's entirely possible they put a nuke on a donkey or tugboat and deliver that shit to the USA. WHy does every anti-war person here keep assuming the weak rockets will be the delivery system?
I'm not scared, per se - I live on the other coast of USA. I'm more of the mindset that we have to take out their plants now whlie they have 5 nukes, NOT when they have 50 nukes and they're auctioning them off on Ebay to the meanest terr'ist with $ to spend.
I think they're a MUCH bigger threat than Iraq ever was. Agreed on that point alone?
-
We all agree they have nukes. We all agree they promised to destroy us.
The only debate here is "can they deliver their nukes?"
That's not the only debate. Why are you unrealistically narrowing it down ?
I'm thinking it's entirely possible they put a nuke on a donkey or tugboat and deliver that shit to the USA. WHy does every anti-war person here keep assuming the weak rockets will be the delivery system?
I'm not scared, per se - I live on the other coast of USA. I'm more of the mindset that we have to take out their plants now whlie they have 5 nukes, NOT when they have 50 nukes and they're auctioning them off on Ebay to the meanest terr'ist with $ to spend.
Logic says a country's leadership will consider the inevitable consequences before any major action is taken. NK leadership will lose their power and die almost instantly if nukes are used. That is certain.
Hence no tangible threat.
I think they're a MUCH bigger threat than Iraq ever was. Agreed on that point alone?
only cause they have nukes. But because of the point i made above, they aren't a tangible threat.
Now....
If it were Russia or China, YES! start building bomb shelters!
-
Very convincing trolling, well done.
lol
-
That's not the only debate. Why are you unrealistically narrowing it down ?
Logic says a country's leadership will consider the inevitable consequences before any major action is taken.
You're assigning logic to the NK leadership.
"Logic" says you don't set off nukes and fire rockets at the USA, doesn't it?
I'm not sure NK is the most logical bunch.
Additionally, since the nation is ranked #1 as the most controlled nation on earth - we're not exactly sneaking in spies nonstop to see what they're building and where. They're poor. They need money. How much would Al-quida pay for a nuke? We have hundreds of people coming across the border daily. They could deliver it without a rocket.
I mean... we blow up sites in places who have done a lot LESS than NK has done here.
DO you consider a nation with Nukes, who has made threats, and is desperately poor - to NOT be a threat? That's what I want to hear you say - they're not a credible threat?
-
You're assigning logic to the NK leadership.
"Logic" says you don't set off nukes and fire rockets at the USA, doesn't it?
I'm not sure NK is the most logical bunch.
Additionally, since the nation is ranked #1 as the most controlled nation on earth - we're not exactly sneaking in spies nonstop to see what they're building and where. They're poor. They need money. How much would Al-quida pay for a nuke? We have hundreds of people coming across the border daily. They could deliver it without a rocket.
I mean... we blow up sites in places who have done a lot LESS than NK has done here.
DO you consider a nation with Nukes, who has made threats, and is desperately poor - to NOT be a threat? That's what I want to hear you say - they're not a credible threat?
No. i am assigning thug logic that applies to garden variety dictators.
They men are at the very least pragmatic.
Applying what we do to what they might do is naive. We can do shit all over the place and there isn't a dam country on earth that can stop us.
You didn't hear me say anything, you read what i wrote though. They are not a tangible threat.
-
No. i am assigning thug logic that applies to garden variety dictators.
They men are at the very least pragmatic.
Applying what we do to what they might do is naive. We can do shit all over the place and there isn't a dam country on earth that can stop us.
You didn't hear me say anything, you read what i wrote though. They are not a tangible threat.
To the mainland U.S., no. Definitely a threat to South Korea, our troops there, and Guam.
-
To the mainland U.S., no. Definitely a threat to South Korea, our troops there, and Guam.
Just because they have the ability doesn't mean they will use it. The fact that the consequence, being total annihilation of the leadership along with a few million NK's, prevents any practical consideration.
-
Just because they have the ability doesn't mean they will use it. The fact that the consequence, being total annihilation of the leadership along with a few million NK's, prevents any practical consideration.
I doubt they will. Just addressing whether or not they pose a threat. It's legit IMO. I don't think the little fatty will be dumb enough to attack, but it's hard to predict what irrational people will do sometimes.
-
Send me in there!
-
I doubt they will. Just addressing whether or not they pose a threat. It's legit IMO. I don't think the little fatty will be dumb enough to attack, but it's hard to predict what irrational people will do sometimes.
I agree its a threat by definition, but not a "likely one" to ever happen. Like i said to 240, much different story if it was Russia or China saying those things.
-
You're assigning logic to the NK leadership.
"Logic" says you don't set off nukes and fire rockets at the USA, doesn't it?
I'm not sure NK is the most logical bunch.
Engaging in rational analysis (assuming some modicum of rationality on the part of other actors) is probably built into our mind/brains -- it's unavoidable. And anyway, doing so for the NK regime provides pretty satisfying explanations of its behavior, so I think that the onus is on those claiming that the regime is really acting irrationally this time to give us reasons to believe that this is the case.
After OIF in 2003, a compelling logic presented itself to the remaining "Axis of Evil" powers: unless you develop a credible WMD program as deterrent, the US will invade and topple your regime as it did Saddam's. NK did as such. So far, so logical. There's also a consistent history of aggressive maneuvers to placate local factions within the regime and to leech more resources from the world community either in the form of loosened sanctions or more aid. There's certainly no positive bargaining chip NK can offer consistent with their ideology, so they utilize a negative one. And its worked well enough for this and previous NK regimes -- again, logical enough.
Looking at the other side of the Pacific: the USG will have acted rationally if it estimates the cost of a nuclear strike on the West Coast (or some other genuinely aggressive NK action) and weighs this against the likely cost of a preventive (preemptive, whatever) operation to remove the regime. Since the probability of the aggressive NK action is so low -- at least if what I said above is right -- even if the nuclear strike would be extremely costly, it still makes sense not to launch the preventive operation. (E.g., if a nuclear bomb going off would cost the US economy $1 trillion and has, say, a 10% chance of occurring, then a preventive operation would have to cost less than $100 billion to be more rational -- pretty unlikely).
In short, it seems that either contestant's current behavior is approximately rational.
Additionally, since the nation is ranked #1 as the most controlled nation on earth - we're not exactly sneaking in spies nonstop to see what they're building and where. They're poor. They need money. How much would Al-quida pay for a nuke? We have hundreds of people coming across the border daily. They could deliver it without a rocket.
Don't you think NK being a potential threat to non-proliferation is a somewhat different subject than the current one?
-
240, seriously....
Are you really freaking out this bad over this? Are you really scared? Or are you just playing games?
I can understand to a certain extent because you didn't grow during the cold war. But common logic should calm your fears.
My thoughts exactly.