North Korea

[Steeve]

It's ok, you'll have some more tomorrow. See you then moron.

I wonder who besides humors that votes your post up. It must be great company.

 

This time it's some cock named steeeeeeeeve or something. Really thinks he's the guy to lead a coup against Mike for not banning Kac on his say so.

Against Mike? You must have misread. Against humors. And you're blaming me for it. Which is pretty sad. You must have some great standards. Mike banned humors. He was told that he'd never be allowed back on the forum. He promised not to let him off the hook. He banned multiple accounts of him. But the little douchebag was persistant and kept making new accounts. Mike gave up.

[darksoul]

I wonder who besides humors that votes your post up. It must be great company.

 

My money is on Kac doing the plus 1's but that doesn't mean we're in the same company. In fact you 2 are more like one another. Both have some sort of illusion that you're important and both give others aggro if they don't agree with you.

[Steeve]

My money is on Kac doing the plus 1's but that doesn't mean we're in the same company. In fact you 2 are more like one another. Both have some sort of illusion that you're important and both give others aggro if they don't agree with you.

I don't have don't have an illusion of importance. I'm a great optimist. I have confidence in people's judgement to know better than to talk to a guy who posts swastikas on a forum. And you're upset why? You do put yourself in the same company by acting this way

[Guest]

My money is on Kac doing the plus 1's but that doesn't mean we're in the same company. In fact you 2 are more like one another. Both have some sort of illusion that you're important and both give others aggro if they don't agree with you.

 

No am am fine homie. This guys is complete douche and on my nerves all the time.

[darksoul]

You do put yourself in the same company by acting this way.

 

In your opinion which is worth shit. From a guy who comes into a thread and threatens people with -1's if they don't do as he says. Maybe the West should be more scared if your weapons if mass destruction than the North Koreans lol.

[darksoul]

I wonder who besides humors that votes your post up. It must be great company.

 

 

Against Mike? You must have misread. Against humors. And you're blaming me for it. Which is pretty sad. You must have some great standards. Mike banned humors. He was told that he'd never be allowed back on the forum. He promised not to let him off the hook. He banned multiple accounts of him. But the little douchebag was persistant and kept making new accounts. Mike gave up.

 

How am I blaming you for it? My problem was and is your attitude. And if you look back at your posts you'll see you were taking digs at Mike. I simply dramatised the situation to make you feel more comfortable.

[Guest]

In your opinion which is worth shit. From a guy who comes into a thread and threatens people with -1's if they don't do as he says. Maybe the West should be more scared if your weapons if mass destruction than the North Koreans lol.

 

Maybe the West should be more scared of your weapons of mass destruction than the North Koreans lol.

 

 

HAHA DARKSOUL AT HIS BEST! EPIC!

[Steeve]

In your opinion which is worth shit. From a guy who comes into a thread and threatens people with -1's if they don't do as he says. Maybe the West should be more scared if your weapons if mass destruction than the North Koreans lol.

A threat? Yes it was my intention to make people scared. Don't be silly. Maybe you're the one who's making all the drama. It's only an indication that people don't agree with what you say or do. Obviously if people start to get that responding to humors isn't popular it will decrease. It's really hard for me to see how anybody in their right mind could think that that's a bad idea.

[darksoul]

It's really hard for me to see how anybody in their right mind could think that that's a bad idea.

 

It's not a bad idea. Good luck with your endeavour and please keep us all informed, I would very much appreciate it.

[Guest]

 

 

So NK is possible to shoot that far?

Nk hasnt showed anything that actually works. Maybe they do. The question is does it work?

[Guest]

Nk hasnt showed anything that actually works. Maybe they do. The question is does it work?

 

I think we can find it out to late.

[Guest]

You sound so bitter. Don't be a sourpuss. You don't have to do it. I only want to encourage others into a combined effort to get rid of that scumbag. It would be fairly easy if people weren't complete idiots. If you want to be dumb and talk to a racist scumbag troll, go ahead. You won't achieve anything but make yourself look like a fool and get a minus one from me as long as I can give them.

Why do you talk like someone who is uneducated. This is why I wont respond to you anymore. Try school, English program and get your education and stop talking like that. Peace.

[Guest]

 

 

I think we can find it out to late.

I think even us they have stuff that works, you really think they would do that. Its suicide and nk knows it. They have been threating to use nukes or rocket s for years and what was the end result. Nothing. So if any of the other think they are a joke I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Nk is a joke, hell the guy name steve also is a joke so listening to them both talk makes you realize one thing. They are one big joke.

[Guest]

I think even us they have stuff that works, you really think they would do that. Its suicide and nk knows it. They have been threating to use nukes or rocket s for years and what was the end result. Nothing. So if any of the other think they are a joke I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Nk is a joke, hell the guy name steve also is a joke so listening to them both talk makes you realize one thing. They are obe big joke.

 

I dont think that they will start to shoot all over the world bet there is some risk that they can shoot at like South Korea.

[Timmy]

I don't think that was what Timmy meant by that. I think he was simply asking why North Korea would want to nuke Russia. Russia has done nothing to provoke North Korea. I can see how you might think that he was making an Anti-American statement though, but that is not how I saw it.

 

Exactly. I'm making the point that North Korea are not threatening to nuke any nearby nation they can "for fun". People can pretend they are just "mad" or "evil" if they like, but from a North Korean point of view they are defending themselves from a US/Allies threat (true or not).

It's not "anti-American" to take a step back and question some of the propaganda.

[Guest]

 

 

I dont think that they will start to shoot all over the world bet there is some risk that they can shoot at like South Korea.

With the us there I bet you they wont. They were shitting their pants when the us flied 2 of their stealth bombers over. This will end with nk as usually just decide to do nothing. If the us wasn't there then I say they would have but now sk has all the better tech they better pray someone in nk fire something in sk and cause damage cause they will be barbique sause.

[Guest]

With the us there I bet you they wont. They were shitting their pants when the us flied 2 of their stealth bombers over. This will end with nk as usually just decide to do nothing. If the us wasn't there then I say they would have but now sk has all the better tech they better pray someone in nk fire something in sk and cause damage cause they will be barbique sause.

 

So can I ask to you what would be the scenario if NK dropped nuke on SK or did some other attack on them that made big impact.

[Guest]

 

 

So can I ask to you what would be the scenario if NK dropped nuke on SK or did some other attack on them that made big impact.

 

 

So can I ask to you what would be the scenario if NK dropped nuke on SK or did some other attack on them that made big impact.

I can you this. Any rocket gets fired on any us base is 100% the us bomb nk until there is nothing left. You think the invasion of Baghdad was bad. This would be a blood bath and china who used to back nk and supply them would do nothing. They fire on any sk base would be the result of an all out war and sk would gve them a taste of what the sk can do. Thats how it would play out for them. Either way it ends bad for the nk.

[Guest]

 

I can you this. Any rocket gets fired on any us base is 100% the us bomb nk until there is nothing left. You think the invasion of Baghdad was bad. This would be a blood bath and china who used to back nk and supply them would do nothing. They fire on any sk base would be the result of an all out war and sk would gve them a taste of what the sk can do. Thats how it would play out for them. Either way it ends bad for the nk. Why you think the nk hasn't attack. They may play dumb bit they ant that stupid.

[Guest]

I can you this. Any rocket gets fired on any us base is 100% the us bomb nk until there is nothing left. You think the invasion of Baghdad was bad. This would be a blood bath and china who used to back nk and supply them would do nothing. They fire on any sk base would be the result of an all out war and sk would gve them a taste of what the sk can do. Thats how it would play out for them. Either way it ends bad for the nk.

 

I just think that NK is more times stronger then Iraq and they will not give up till they all are killed. Of course if they cant launche these nukes them nothing will happen because they simple will not be able to do anything but if they have a possibility to do it they could have the time to do it even if the US have allready launched. Of course of they start it NK at some point will not be on map anymore but I just dont want to see that happening it could end up worse then it sounds.

[Erik]

Take France for example. We saved their sorry asses not once, but twice from the Germans. Had we not intervened (twice) they would have been a permanent addition to the German Empire. What thanks do we get from them?

 

Don't pretend US entry in either war was done out of benevolence, we both know it was all about self interest. Also the US forces really didn't do much good in WW1, it was the French who worked out how to use tanks (which was the development that won the war), and it was French/Australians/British/Canadians who won most of the important battles.

 

 

If the US closed oversea bases and stopped the military welfare program, here is a list of countries that would give a shit off the top of my head:

Japan

Taiwan

S. Korea

Israel

Saudi Arabia

Australia

Phillipines

Any of the former Soviet states that are now independent

Poland

Eastern Europe

Turkey

Germany

 

Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and the Phillipines fit the 'near china, no nukes' model I mentioned earlier.

 

Turkey and Israel have no need to worry, Israel especially militarily outstrips its neighbours by a huge margin.

 

Australia would have nuclear weapons in 30 minutes if the US started withdrawing, enough raw materials in Australia exist to basically kill everyone.

 

Some former soviet states might need to worry, but they already do -- US military presence didn't stop Russia from fucking with Georgia a few years ago.

 

The US would suffer for failing to support Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia is what prevents oil prices tripling overnight.

[JLP]

 

Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and the Phillipines fit the 'near china, no nukes' model I mentioned earlier.

Agreed. South Korea and Taiwan have some sort of decently outfitted and trained military. They are using mostly American equipment and technology. Japan was limited in what they were allowed to spend post WW2. Recently they have been drastically increasing their defense budget as territorial disagreements with China have increased in intensity. The Phillipines have increased their spending as well, but lack the resources or economy to ever be much of a threat to China if the were intent on expanding.

Turkey and Israel have no need to worry, Israel especially militarily outstrips its neighbours by a huge margin.

Israel would be easily the hardest hit country by this. Their militarily is mostly composed of US manufactured weaponry sold to the Israelis at a discount. Most of the money they spend on it is actually foreign aid from America. Israel doesn't exist without American patronage. Turkey has much the same set-up. They allowed US bases and anti-missile systems in exchange for technology and military aid.

Australia would have nuclear weapons in 30 minutes if the US started withdrawing, enough raw materials in Australia exist to basically kill everyone.

Australia has uranium yes, but uranium doesn't magically turn into a nuclear warhead. It needs to be processed in nuclear plant and refined to a weapons grade level. Australia doesn't even have nuclear power plants at this point. Nuclear power plants are incredibly time consuming and expensive to build. It takes over 5 years from groundbreaking to operational status and that is for a basic power supplier. At that point it would require some operation time to produce enough byproduct to be able to create a weapon of any size. You would also need to have some sort of ballistic missile delivery system, which im pretty sure the Aussies do not have. They would probably have to purchase it from Uncle Sam. The Australians have recently consented to having US Marines in Australia again, so they must not be as secure in their security as you are with all that deadly uranium in the ground.

Some former soviet states might need to worry, but they already do -- US military presence didn't stop Russia from fucking with Georgia a few years ago.

Russia didn't fuck with Georgia, Georgia attacked Russian forces in S. Ossetia. The whole background is a little complicated so I won't give the whole history, but basically S, Ossetia doesn't want to be a part of Georgia and Georgia claims it. Their was a far more intense conflict in the early 90s that involved war crimes and massacres. Russian troop have been stationed in S. Ossetia ever since. All indications were that Bush gave the Georgians the OK and was caught offguard by how poorly the Georgians did and how far the Russians were willing to go. Had the Russians not withdrew after the cease-fire, this could have flared up far worse. Georgia would never have the balls to even think about attempting a military adventure like this without US backing.

The US would suffer for failing to support Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia is what prevents oil prices tripling overnight.

The US suffers for supporting S.A. already. US bases in SA are what got the radical muslims so upset in the first place. They have to sell their oil somewhere so I don't understand how it would cause prices to triple over night if we stopped supporting their dictatorship.

However, if oil prices were to triple over night, then the vast shale reserves that the US has are instantly economically viable and would be extracted. The amount of oil located in the US is always under reported by the government here.

[Erik]

Agreed. South Korea and Taiwan have some sort of decently outfitted and trained military. They are using mostly American equipment and technology. Japan was limited in what they were allowed to spend post WW2. Recently they have been drastically increasing their defense budget as territorial disagreements with China have increased in intensity. The Phillipines have increased their spending as well, but lack the resources or economy to ever be much of a threat to China if the were intent on expanding.

 

The only threat to China in the region is India tbh, Pakistan is safe enough because nobody is insane enough to attack a nuclear armed nation but they have a pretty ineffectual military which is locked in perpetual conflict with Taliban types in the north of the country.

 

China is, however, smart enough to know that major conflict wouldn't help their economy (they don't have a big arms sector like the US), so I doubt they try to occupy any large areas.

 

 

Israel would be easily the hardest hit country by this. Their militarily is mostly composed of US manufactured weaponry sold to the Israelis at a discount. Most of the money they spend on it is actually foreign aid from America. Israel doesn't exist without American patronage. Turkey has much the same set-up. They allowed US bases and anti-missile systems in exchange for technology and military aid.

 

Israel is already so far ahead of the rest of the region in terms of military technology that it's kind of insane, and Turkey would probably beat anyone besides Israel in the region with or without US assistance.

 

 

 

Australia has uranium yes, but uranium doesn't magically turn into a nuclear warhead. It needs to be processed in nuclear plant and refined to a weapons grade level. Australia doesn't even have nuclear power plants at this point. Nuclear power plants are incredibly time consuming and expensive to build. It takes over 5 years from groundbreaking to operational status and that is for a basic power supplier. At that point it would require some operation time to produce enough byproduct to be able to create a weapon of any size. You would also need to have some sort of ballistic missile delivery system, which im pretty sure the Aussies do not have. They would probably have to purchase it from Uncle Sam. The Australians have recently consented to having US Marines in Australia again, so they must not be as secure in their security as you are with all that deadly uranium in the ground.

 

Australia lets the US set up camp in parts of the country that are largely useless for other purposes and the US pays for the privilege. It's basically free money and allows Australia to play the good guy at various international summits.

 

Australia could probably also buy from India if they needed to (or Israel), India and Australia especially could negotiate some deals with both sides having a lot to offer (Australia, at this point, doesn't sell Uranium to India).

 

 

Russia didn't fuck with Georgia, Georgia attacked Russian forces in S. Ossetia. The whole background is a little complicated so I won't give the whole history, but basically S, Ossetia doesn't want to be a part of Georgia and Georgia claims it. Their was a far more intense conflict in the early 90s that involved war crimes and massacres. Russian troop have been stationed in S. Ossetia ever since. All indications were that Bush gave the Georgians the OK and was caught offguard by how poorly the Georgians did and how far the Russians were willing to go. Had the Russians not withdrew after the cease-fire, this could have flared up far worse. Georgia would never have the balls to even think about attempting a military adventure like this without US backing.

 

While true that Georgia attacked Russia, South Ossetia was Georgian territory, it's hard to see Russia as being a benevolent power in this scenario (especially with their actions in Chechnya and Dagestan over the years); Russia also uses pretty much any excuse to go and fuck with former soviet states militarily or otherwise. It also wouldn't really surprise anyone if Russia was backing the Ossetian separatists.

 

 

The US suffers for supporting S.A. already. US bases in SA are what got the radical muslims so upset in the first place. They have to sell their oil somewhere so I don't understand how it would cause prices to triple over night if we stopped supporting their dictatorship.

However, if oil prices were to triple over night, then the vast shale reserves that the US has are instantly economically viable and would be extracted. The amount of oil located in the US is always under reported by the government here.

 

The oil shocks of the 1970s are evidence enough that the impact on the US economy would be pretty bad; domestic production, even if ramped up massively, wouldn't compensate for a long time -- plus the price of oil rises the longer its kept in the ground, if the US started having to dig up that oil it would be worth a lot less long term (and Saudi oil a lot more) which would also eliminate a US economic contingency. Right now the oil in the ground in the US are constantly increasing in price, and unless someone invents an efficient substitute for oil (in all uses, of which there are many) that won't change.

[JLP]

The only threat to China in the region is India tbh, Pakistan is safe enough because nobody is insane enough to attack a nuclear armed nation but they have a pretty ineffectual military which is locked in perpetual conflict with Taliban types in the north of the country.

 

China is, however, smart enough to know that major conflict wouldn't help their economy (they don't have a big arms sector like the US), so I doubt they try to occupy any large areas.

Russia is a far bigger threat than India dreams of being. India and China's shared border is the Himalayas. They had two wars there in the 60's but not much happened because of the difficulty of campaigning in that theatre.

China is in the same boat as Japan was in the 1920's-30's. Their population is expanding past their resources. China is in need of everything from drinking water to energy. Their gross mismanagement of environmental concerns during their rapid industrialization has really made their situation rather dire. China would possibly even benefit far more with an armed conflict that would kill of a portion of their population in return for the rather rich maritime area's they are now in dispute with their neighbors over. Their current level of growth is pretty unsustainable and once that levels off they will have huge internal problems.

China has been building and investing heavily in a blue water navy for the last 10-15 years, that's where all the fear prompting the S.E. Asia arms race is coming from.

 

Israel is already so far ahead of the rest of the region in terms of military technology that it's kind of insane, and Turkey would probably beat anyone besides Israel in the region with or without US assistance.

Israel did rather poorly in their last armed conflict in Lebanon in 06. That was against Hezzbolah armed with RPG's. Iran has been arming hezbollah past that point in the last few years. Many people give the Israeli's too much credit based on their past results. That is the biggest mistake a military can make, the old saying of "fighting the last war".

Israel has a modern military, but it is all on the US's dime and technology. They would fall apart financially if they had to spend their own money to outfit their military to the level it is today. Israel has it's nukes as a deterrent, but their potential targets are so close that it's really hard to see them launching in anything other than a suicidal last ditch effort.

 

Australia lets the US set up camp in parts of the country that are largely useless for other purposes and the US pays for the privilege. It's basically free money and allows Australia to play the good guy at various international summits.

This is rather silly. If that was true, why are the Aussies just now letting them in? What has changed in the last few years? It's easy to conclude that they are nervous about China and are wanting the Marines there as a deterrent and to help them train and learn new tactics. Australia was always safe due to it's isolation but with China developing a Navy I am sure they are rightfully nervous. After all, you pointed out how mineral and resource rich it is and it lacks much man-power or military strength at this point.

 

Australia could probably also buy from India if they needed to (or Israel), India and Australia especially could negotiate some deals with both sides having a lot to offer (Australia, at this point, doesn't sell Uranium to India).

At least you've moved on from the silly notion that uranium can be magically be made into a nuclear weapon. So assuming Australia takes all the expensive and time consuming steps necessary to build plants and achieve weapons grade material they still need a delivery platform. The only potential target I can think of for an Aussie nuke would again be China. India has ICBM's of dubious range and quality, that is true. The problem there is that any ICBM India sells to Australia would have India within its range as well. I just don't see that happening. Israel may sell ICBM's but once again these are American funded and built/developed. In this scenario you brought up the US is no longer helping Israel so i doubt they sell off their ICBM's when they are under much more of a greater threat than Australia.

 

While true that Georgia attacked Russia, South Ossetia was Georgian territory, it's hard to see Russia as being a benevolent power in this scenario (especially with their actions in Chechnya and Dagestan over the years); Russia also uses pretty much any excuse to go and fuck with former soviet states militarily or otherwise. It also wouldn't really surprise anyone if Russia was backing the Ossetian separatists.

There really are no benevolent powers in any war, believing otherwise is just swallowing propaganda. Chechnya and Dagestan were Russian territory at one time just like S. Ossetia was Georgian territory at one time. I'm not going to say who was right and who was wrong in any of these situations, I tend to side with the separatists who don't want to live under the rule of people they would see as foreigners.

 

 

The oil shocks of the 1970s are evidence enough that the impact on the US economy would be pretty bad; domestic production, even if ramped up massively, wouldn't compensate for a long time -- plus the price of oil rises the longer its kept in the ground, if the US started having to dig up that oil it would be worth a lot less long term (and Saudi oil a lot more) which would also eliminate a US economic contingency. Right now the oil in the ground in the US are constantly increasing in price, and unless someone invents an efficient substitute for oil (in all uses, of which there are many) that won't change.

The technology that allows hard to get to oil wasn't around in the 70's. It's really kind of pointless to make that comparison. There are already plenty of alternatives to oil as a fuel, we just lack the motivation to change over.

There is actually a guy in my town that drives a car he converted to run on alcohol. He has a legal still in his basement that he makes his fuel with out of vegetables. So there are already viable solutions to gasoline, but oil is too big a business for the world to go off of without being forced for some reason. One of the best things that could happen to the world is for the house of Saud to fall. Their would be some short term pain but eventually we would be forced to make a lot of overdue changes for the long term better.

[Erik]

Russia is a far bigger threat than India dreams of being. India and China's shared border is the Himalayas. They had two wars there in the 60's but not much happened because of the difficulty of campaigning in that theatre.

China is in the same boat as Japan was in the 1920's-30's. Their population is expanding past their resources. China is in need of everything from drinking water to energy. Their gross mismanagement of environmental concerns during their rapid industrialization has really made their situation rather dire. China would possibly even benefit far more with an armed conflict that would kill of a portion of their population in return for the rather rich maritime area's they are now in dispute with their neighbors over. Their current level of growth is pretty unsustainable and once that levels off they will have huge internal problems.

China has been building and investing heavily in a blue water navy for the last 10-15 years, that's where all the fear prompting the S.E. Asia arms race is coming from.

 

Russia is a non event, Russia cannot supply her own people, let alone a military campaign on foreign soil. Russia and China have been buddy buddy anyway, they seem as reliably aligned as the US and Britain.

 

China is already at the point where their population is shrinking of natural causes, their theory as I've been able to gather it is that the Chinese economy will have moved past most forms of manual labour in 20 years or so (China is already sourcing manufactured goods from other countries), at which point more people isn't a positive.

 

 

Israel did rather poorly in their last armed conflict in Lebanon in 06. That was against Hezzbolah armed with RPG's. Iran has been arming hezbollah past that point in the last few years. Many people give the Israeli's too much credit based on their past results. That is the biggest mistake a military can make, the old saying of "fighting the last war".

Israel has a modern military, but it is all on the US's dime and technology. They would fall apart financially if they had to spend their own money to outfit their military to the level it is today. Israel has it's nukes as a deterrent, but their potential targets are so close that it's really hard to see them launching in anything other than a suicidal last ditch effort.

 

Israel has fought with hands behind its back due to international pressure for a long time now, if the United States withdrew support they aren't getting much in the way of international support and will fight however they need. Their nuclear capacity is also the best in the region by a mile, second strike capability and reliability.

 

 

This is rather silly. If that was true, why are the Aussies just now letting them in? What has changed in the last few years? It's easy to conclude that they are nervous about China and are wanting the Marines there as a deterrent and to help them train and learn new tactics. Australia was always safe due to it's isolation but with China developing a Navy I am sure they are rightfully nervous. After all, you pointed out how mineral and resource rich it is and it lacks much man-power or military strength at this point.

 

The Aussies have had the US Navy in the country for decades, Australia probably let the US Marines set up in the North of the country for 3 reasons -- probably some mix of them

 

1) To alleviate US diplomatic pressure, Australia has had a fairly left wing government in since 2007 and hasn't wanted to bolster troop numbers in Afghanistan or Iraq (when it comes to peace keeping and training Australia has one of the better armies out there) when the US has been doing surges.

 

2) The US may never have actually asked before, the US has been expanding its presence in SEA lately.

 

3) Concerns about China, and more likely; Indonesia (the largest Muslim country on earth, which is sadly becoming more radical by the day).

 

The Chinese navy really only exists to try and bully around some of the nearby archipelago and island nations and keep an eye on shipping lanes, at this point at least it's not a major concern.

 

 

At least you've moved on from the silly notion that uranium can be magically be made into a nuclear weapon. So assuming Australia takes all the expensive and time consuming steps necessary to build plants and achieve weapons grade material they still need a delivery platform. The only potential target I can think of for an Aussie nuke would again be China. India has ICBM's of dubious range and quality, that is true. The problem there is that any ICBM India sells to Australia would have India within its range as well. I just don't see that happening. Israel may sell ICBM's but once again these are American funded and built/developed. In this scenario you brought up the US is no longer helping Israel so i doubt they sell off their ICBM's when they are under much more of a greater threat than Australia.

 

India would be pretty secure in the knowledge Australia won't attack them unless it's a return strike; India is one of Australias major trading partners, Australia has a big Indian population, and Australia isn't heavily into suicide. Regardless, Australia has the economy to purchase what it needs.

 

 

The technology that allows hard to get to oil wasn't around in the 70's. It's really kind of pointless to make that comparison. There are already plenty of alternatives to oil as a fuel, we just lack the motivation to change over.

 

The reason there's no motivation is because everything else is vastly more expensive.