Anyone with half a brain in this thread realizes you are a moron speaking about a topic which you are clearly ignorant.

Iraq 1 happened in 1991.

Lol, wow my memory must be going. I swear it was 1993. I guess I'm getting old.

Says lolwil whose only historical reference point for wars is WW2, because he's a pig ignorant, uncultured moron.

Now get back to work and work harder, sucker.

Right Iraq started then and we have been engaged and militarily active to one degree to another since.

What the actual? What's FDR got to do with it? Are you confusing him with his successor Harry S Truman, who took the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in circumstances nothing like those now applying?

It's insane to suggest that the United States should now engage in unprovoked nuclear first use. In an area just forty miles from the South Korean capital Seoul. And in a theatre of considerable interest to China.

Yes. Sorry. I meant Truman. Why can't we use the same calculation for number of lives lost with or without nukes even if the circumstances are different?

I'm not saying let's nuke NK tomorrow. I'm saying that if it comes down to war with NK, ending it the quickest manner possible seems best. And if you're willing to just wait it out until an insane madman has a fully working long range nuclear arsenal, then it's going to be an all out nuclear war anyway. I fail to see how that's any better.

Your point about Seoul is well taken though. That's why I'm posting on 2p2 and not drawing up battle plans as an acting general.

Wil, what do you think about:

a) There is no motivation behind DPRK to attack anyone since it's obviously an insane idea from a risk:reward standpoint. I'm not saying you do this but ton of people seem to portray them as some sort of a cartoon villain while the facts say you are dealing with incredibly smart people(try building a nuke, for one).

b) If you declared war on DPRK as some sort of preventive measure, Seoul would get leveled and since it holds ~25 million in its metro area, that would be a bad idea.

You realize no one in this thread is supporting you, right? It's because you look like an absolute fool, but not one wants to tell you that. I will. You look like a fool.

+1

If I had to guess I'd say the US maybe shoots down a missle, they declare it an act of war and then it escalates extremely quickly. The fighting will be determined by what the north does. If they fire at Seoul then a full scale invasion will occur. If they invade the south they will push for a few days and then the south will counter and crush them. If a nuke goes off, we kill everyone.


Nothing can be done. It's unfortunate Seoul is where it is but we just have to accept it. We've been through it before and we can rebuild what is lost.

lolwil fantasising about a nuclear holocaust and claiming 25 million deaths are merely "unfortunate" is a new low.

You've gone completely insane. All those nights you've been working have clearly taken their toll. Seek help or get a new job, boot-licking sucker.

So, uh, we're all good with a parroting cretin spewing the screenplay for The Turner Diaries Part 2: The Internationalening?

I mean, it takes A LOT for me to see the toxic bile on this forum and not go, "LOL, AHAH, yes, more, more, give me more preciouses," and instead go, "OK, um, that's about all I can stand right there, time to wrap it up."

Like, you know ToothSayer never even went as far as what wil is suggesting in that post, right?

He doesn't but he's probably going to lie to you in the next post.

Wait.

To be fair, if NK was a muslim country, I'm sure TS be all-in.

In 1945, Truman didn't strictly know what the weapons would do. Oppenheimer told him that each bomb might kill just 10,000. And the Allies had been conducting unrestricted air warfare on a colossal scale for years. The March fire-raid on Tokyo probably killed more people than either of the atomic bombs, certainly more than Nagasaki. And there was the prospect of the war dragging on into 1946, with a full-scale invasion of Japan, at the cost of untold Allied and enemy lives. Hence the decision.

But for the US, nowadays, to start a war, simply in pursuit of a policy, and chuck nuclear weapons around as a mere expedient... it would probably finish the US as a world power. The country would become a pariah, and China would pull the plug on the US economy any way they could.

Kim can't actually use nuclear weapons for fear of nuclear retaliation. He's probably not so mad that he would do that. Even 'crazy' dictators still act out of rational self-interest. They don't mind other people getting killed in wars, but the trouble with nuclear weapons is they can destroy the dictator's stuff. His palaces and... stuff. And his reign might end. The more likely danger is that Kim would try to export nuclear technology -- North Korea doesn't have any high-value exports otherwise. But that will need to be monitored by intelligence and diplomacy and possibly a bit of 'hard power' at the right point at the right time. Although it would have helped if the US had managed to stop the Pakistanis giving Kim nuclear technology in the first place.

The vulnerability of Seoul is one of the main problems in dealing with North Korea.

Someone close to him might just do everyone a favor and shoot him if he's on the brink of getting them all killed.

Probably just as well it's only Kim Jong-Un who's got nuclear weapons, not wil.

China just might be able to arrange an unfortunate accident for him, if he became a big enough embarrassment. US policy should keep China on the spot: 'He's your guy, and we regard his actions as your actions.'

That Kim Jong-un is not a religious person is helpful in this regard. He's thinking only what makes him more powerful. There's no afterlife for him. There's only his family's destiny. A family that will be wiped out if he goes to far.

lol, what is the size of the US debt as percentage GDP?

jfyi, they behind Ireland, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Singapore and Italy when it comes to public debt. The US is a healthy economy no matter what your commie sources say! Are you using the same sources arguing that refugees are necessary to prevent our pensioners starving in the future?

I know you have a hard on on commie dictators, but who were out of Kim Un Yong's league in 'laughableness' with all due respect to your commie indoctrinated opinion?

If you want a serious answer try asking a serious question, Marnazi.

My questions are not respectful since I am addressing a dirty commie. What I am asking is pretty clear though.