funny that liberals want to disarm every law abiding American who target shoots with an AR-15 but seem to think that a nuclear armed NK or Iran is no big deal.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: funny that liberals want to disarm every law abiding American who target shoots with an AR-15 but seem to think that a nuclear armed NK or Iran is no big deal.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: funny that liberals want to disarm every law abiding American who target shoots with an AR-15 but seem to think that a nuclear armed NK or Iran is no big deal.
Who is more likely to kill Americans? "Law abiding citizens", or the North Korean govt.?
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: funny that liberals want to disarm every law abiding American who target shoots with an AR-15 but seem to think that a nuclear armed NK or Iran is no big deal.
Nations should have the right to keep and bear arms. Because nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: funny that liberals want to disarm every law abiding American who target shoots with an AR-15 but seem to think that a nuclear armed NK or Iran is no big deal.
Justin wrote: Nations should have the right to keep and bear arms. Because nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people.
Flirty has so many things confused here it's a little hard to know how to respond.
yeah...nothing like allowing psycho dictators to have access to weapons which can destroy the whole world.
Your country doesn't mind about that most times, as long as they buy what you sell and don't buy from the Russians or the Chinese.
The Saudis seem to be on a spending spree in the US and Germany these last few years. That's good for your military-industrial complex and saves a lot of jobs. Of course their enemies have to keep up with the arms race, which in turn is good for the arms manufacturers in Russia and China.
It's a win-win for everyone. Until those weapons are used. But even then, it's only brown people killing each other, nothing that concerns us much.
Russian Katarina wrote: Your country doesn't mind about that most times, as long as they buy what you sell and don't buy from the Russians or the Chinese.
It's a competitive marketplace. We don't like it when they buy from the French, either.
The Saudis seem to be on a spending spree in the US and Germany these last few years. That's good for your military-industrial complex and saves a lot of jobs. Of course their enemies have to keep up with the arms race, which in turn is good for the arms manufacturers in Russia and China.
War toys always have a market.
It's a win-win for everyone. Until those weapons are used. But even then, it's only brown people killing each other, nothing that concerns us much.
In this thread's case, we've got a number of troops on the tripwire from the pudgy little madman to the north. We had a number of troops that didn't come back from there, either.
Russian Katarina wrote: Your country doesn't mind about that most times, as long as they buy what you sell and don't buy from the Russians or the Chinese.
It's a competitive marketplace. We don't like it when they buy from the French, either.
War toys always have a market.
In this thread's case, we've got a number of troops on the tripwire from the pudgy little madman to the north. We had a number of troops that didn't come back from there, either.
North Korea just wants grain and oil. They need to feed their people somehow. Given that every dime they make goes into their military-industrial complex, the people would starve otherwise.
South Korea, China and the US prefer a tyrannical but stable North Korea to a hungry, unstable North Korea with a desperate madman at the trigger of a nuclear bomb and a vast arsenal of conventional rockets aimed at Seoul, a city of 10 million inhabitants in spitting distance of the DMZ.
They have played this game for decades now. As long as you give them what they want, they are content and contained within their own borders and the only people who have to suffer under them are their own.
The threat from instability in Pakistan is of far more pressing concern. There's a chance of an Islamist takeover and that nation's nuclear programme is also considerably more advanced than North Korea's.
I'll trust law abiding US citizens over a psychotic dictator any day...but that's just me.
How about US Presidents?
After all, the only person in history to authorize the use of nuclear weapons against an enemy was Harry Truman. Wasn't Stalin or Gorbachev or Mao. It was haberdasher Harry Truman.
And in order for those weapons to actually be used? Required the cooperation of hundreds (maybe even thousands) of Americans involved in the various stages that produced the weapons, got them into delivery vehicles, launched and operated those bombers....
Now, let's just say that lil' Kim decides that he is tired of being the only rich playboy in his nation and that he feels like committing suicide by glow in the dark.....
So, he orders his Generals to launch a missile with a nuclear warhead at the USA or Japan....
Now we have to believe that every member of the chain of command from the Generals who receive the orders all the way down to the technician who fuels the missile and the technicians who maintain and arm that nuclear warhead are also insane and suicidal.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US Navy depth-charged a nuclear missile submarine belonging to the Soviet Navy (in International waters). The submarine lost its ability to communicate with the rest of the Soviet Navy or its home base, and given where it was being attacked, could have legitimately considered that the US and USSR were at war and fired its nuclear missiles. It didn't.
The rest of the world (especially Pakistan, India and Israel) has demonstrated far more control and concern over the use of nuclear devices than the United States has.
Given the choice? I'd trust those North Korean Generals to choose not to commit suicide over trusting our politicians in Washington D.C. who are unlikely to feel any personal impact from a decision to use a tactical nuclear device somewhere.
Longwatcher
Posts: 3,635
Newport News, Virginia, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
yeah...nothing like allowing psycho dictators to have access to weapons which can destroy the whole world.
Personal pet peeve.
- At no time in the history of the human race to date have we had the capability to destroy the whole world. The planet is tougher then we are.
- At the point in time we (the human race collectively) had the most nucs we would have had to actively cooperate to kill off 99% of all human life on the planet.
- We no longer have enough nucs collectively to do that even if for some suicidal reason we wanted to. I thank START I signed by Saint Ronnie the Raygun for that
End of pet peeve...
- The most likely NK delivery method for a nuc is by ship to near a port (it need not be a NK ship).
- At one point in my life, I used to provide targeting info to the folks that plan where our (USA) nucs went.
At some point China is going to bitch slap North Korea. There is going to come a time when North Korea's actions are going to begin to mess with China's income from the rest of the world...and China will take care of North Korea.
what many of you forget, is that the UN and most of the world do not want nuclear arms in the hands of terrorists and roque nations. NK nor Iran "deserve" the right to have WMD's.
| 
| 
| edu