Will North Korea launch nuclear missiles towards the U.S.A

@allboxcars:

the current instability with a dysfunctional puppet south of the Yalu?

That probably sounds better to the Chinese than the 10th Mountain. At least it did 59 years ago.

It’s not a question of North Korea to launch nukes against anyone or anything, their goals is to let the US and Japan, and also China to let them live their life with the booze and whores, and lots of cash and such, while the NC leadership let a substantial number of their own people starve to death.

Even if I live in Europe and not in the US, I would not feel threatened by Kim Jung IL /NC if I was a US citizen.
Some people are more stable with booze than anti psychotics, and Kim Jung il would not follow any advise other than his own, anyway.  :roll: :evil: :lol: :-D :-)

Lets hope that Kim Jung iL drinks himself to death pretty soon, but this can take several years, imo, and hopefully/probably his successor will probably be at least slightly more sensible and rational, both in behavior and in the political/diplomatically ways.

A few points.

1. Currently N. Korea does not have the means to deliver a nuke to America. Hawaii possibly but that is a small target at the max range of what they supposedly have.

2. Kim is crazy but I don’t think he is THAT crazy. Launching a nuke at the US would be suicide. Keep in mind no other nation has EVER used a nuclear device in war except the US.

3. I don’t think China would really back N. Korea all that far if push came to shove. China seems more interested in returning to what they consider their rightful place as one of the world leaders and less in the whole Communist world revelation. Simply put, they would rather sell goods to the US and Europe than back a bunch of nut jobs whom they gain nothing from.

@zerohour49:

Well if there was a war Japan and South Korea vs North KOrea we know japan and south korea would prob own on North Korea but i think if japan and south korea started to push out north korea and start to threatin china territoryy china would no doubt get involved… then usa would more than likely get along…

As stated, China has more interest in trading with the US than supporting a pint sized dictator with nothing to offer.  I think we all learned from Korea/Vietnam.  Or at least hope so.

but we all remember the vietnam conflict our soilders basically had to fight with thier hands tied behind their backs….

The means to the end you desire from that conflict are not worth it, nor would the result be favorable.  Winning, if even possible, would have invalidated everything we are supposed to stand for.

and if america got involved i think the un would keep usa fighting with our hands tied behind our back…

The UN disproved of our last venture into Iraq, but it didn’t amount to much.

Because people now think that we shouldnt elimmentate socialism or communism we should just put a leash on it….

Uh…those are not crimes.  There is no reason to eliminate them.  And if you think you can anyway, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

To bring up a new topic if there was another war  what countries would be on america, japan, and south korea who would be on that side and who would be on china and north korea’s side….

I don’t see any reason to believe a World War is at hand, or that the lines would be drawn as you imagine.

@Jermofoot:

but we all remember the vietnam conflict our soilders basically had to fight with thier hands tied behind their backs….

The means to the end you desire from that conflict are not worth it, nor would the result be favorable.  Winning, if even possible, would have invalidated everything we are supposed to stand for.

Winning was possible if we our people and government would have been willing to invade North Veitnam. That should have been the policy starting in 56 when the North Veitamese began their attacks southward. By 69 we had killed all the south veitnamese communists and it probalby would have been still practical to carry the war north if it wernt for the politicians/voters/cronkite. Instead we egaged in useless operation in Cambodia, stratigic bombing of the North, and veitnamization. For almost two years it semi-worked after we pulled out but then the south got major blitzkreiged.

If you think the Chinese done as it did in Korea if we went north, I am sure that move would have pissed off the soveits, plus we had really great tech and the narrowness of much of the Northern and central terrain in veitnam would have prevented as succseful chinese counter-attack or swarm tactics.

@Emperor_Taiki:

Winning was possible if we our people and government would have been willing to invade North Veitnam. That should have been the policy starting in 56 when the North Veitamese began their attacks southward.

Vietnam was no more than colonial meddling that started with our support of French occupied territories.  We actually subverted democracy to satisfy our own notions of “security.”  This is why the war continued for so long.  We would have come out far ahead not getting into it in the first place.  We saw it as fighting communism (dumb) when the Vietnamese saw it as unification, overthrowing foreign invaders, and the beginning of autonomy.

To think that killing more Vietnamese (and Americans) for no purpose than scoring a victory is surely a dark stain on what we supposedly stand for.

( removed last line). Lets keep it friendly please.

The North Veitnamese saw it as unification.

And I argee the half-heated and theoretical way our leaders pursued the war was ubsurd, ineffective and wrong.

But having “communist” dicatorships spring up across the whole without putting up any resistence would defenitently be detremental to capitalism, the US and its allies. And I think the destruction that the war caused did at least retard the spread of Communism, after all Communists nations did seem to go downhill from 1975 onwards. We wernt exactly supporting democracy in veitnam, but wouldnt you say that the NVA and VC made democracy rather difficult. And I think it is important to spread democacy around the world because it tames populations and leaders if they have a demacratic government.

Being a Canadian we always have an opinion on everything. :-D

In my opinion I believe North Korea is acting like a spoiled teenage child wanting attention.

Think about it. They have been isolated from the real world for half a century now and they want in on the world action but are not sure how to proceed to get the US to pay attention to them, so they threat nuclear to strike a cord and get noticed. The more US ignores them the worst it will get, but I do not believe they are going to be that stupid to actually start something they cannot win. The US will eventually come around to them and give them some the attention they want, and give their poor egos that little bit of a stroking they are longing for. The US is (right now) trying to smooth things a little (for Japan’s sake) but does not like being threatened, and I do not think they have much interest in NK either way.

I agree with frimmel that China needs the US too much and with a44bigdog on all three of his points as well. China has made too much headway in the last decade to destroy all they have accomplished over a north - south fued that is half a century old.

Once Kim dies and the north opens up slowly more and more to radio, tv and internet, its people will not want a war, but will want change towards more say and more freedoms and liberties, more like a Chinese democracy.

Thats my two cents worth. 8-)

I believe that no country will ever directly attempt to use a nuclear weapon against another country that also posses that weapon. Even if a mad dictator would want it, I have faith that his generals are clever enough to not set their country and our world to doom.

Also, China might be friendly with Korea, but I doubt China would actually be involved in a conflict if N.Korea acts stupid

Also, no WWIII close, sorry bro.

I believe OBama, and future American presidents will be more concerned about USA reputation than Bush, so UN will have some impact.

I believe both Iran and North Korea are more or less the same. None really want to strike someone with Nuke (IRan hates Israel, but will not strike first). They just want some attention, some strenght on the international market.

Countries should act like us, Canada. No need for weapons, no need for nuclear weapon (I’ve read somewhere that Canada is probably a country that can build a nuke very quickly due to our numerous nuclear reactors and our technology). I suppose international news never mention us, its like we don’t exist. Except when baby seals get hunted. That’s the only time you will hear about Canada

@Omega:

Countries should act like us, Canada. No need for weapons, no need for nuclear weapon (I’ve read somewhere that Canada is probably a country that can build a nuke very quickly due to our numerous nuclear reactors and our technology). I suppose international news never mention us, its like we don’t exist. Except when baby seals get hunted. That’s the only time you will hear about Canada

The whole “Existence of Canada” issue is a bunch of liberal propaganda, no country could that perfect! :-D

but on a more seirous note, I hope you understand that the independence of your country aswell as most others is the perpetual responsibilty of the United States Armed Forces.

I have no doubt that USA armed forces are playing a major role in today international scene. I also do not believe in : let’s stop war, let’s stop making weapon. Its not that easy.

That said, some weapons, especially weapons of mad destruction, appear to me uneeded. If ever they were to be used again (I’m trying to argue that no nation would directly use them, never), it would be our doom. That some countries are struggling to acquire them, it appears to me illogical, although I can understand their deside to be acknowledged as major power in their area. Luckily for us, Canadians, none of our politicians have that desire of playing a bigger role worldwide. We do our parts with UN peace keeping, we give money (not enough) to the poor. That’s it. We are usually ranked high in term of peace, lack of corruption, good place to live, etc. But you will never see us playing major roles.

However, recent decision by conservative party make me believe that we are going the wrong way. Maybe you are aware of this : Northern part of Canada is melting (well not Canada, but the sea), and is now a major dispute between countries. Our beautiful Prime Minister want to increase our military power in the area to claim the sea. That is the wrong way IMO and is contrary to our ways of life.

I think it is false to say that our Independence is directly guaranteed by USA armed forces. Our natural position give us a powerful defense against the rest of the world that might hate us for I don’t know what reason. Only USA could seriously invade us, and they don’t realy want it, do you? :P
But like said earlier, I agree that USA armed forces are playing a major role in today balance of power. But I wouldn’t go as far as saying that you make peace -.-

And I do not believe any country can threaten the USA today, not even in the state you are economically. You are probably your biggest enemy if you ask me.
Call me optimist if you wish, but I do not believe that a major war will happen again if we all do our parts. Of course, that is if USA can acknowledge that there are other countries in this world, and that some of them, if not all, wants to participate in the future of mankind (No more With us or against us bushit, please)

No harm intended :) Usa is a great nation and great country to have below us

So basically what you are saying is ……Peace through superior firepower.

@Brain:

So basically what you are saying is ……Peace through superior firepower.

I also think I picked up on:

Threatening Canada.
Needing nukes in case of a homeland invasion…to possibly nuke our own soil in that event?
That the military needs to be armed to the teeth in case of invasion, but then civilians also need to be armed in such a manner to protect themselves from that same military or the enemy (in case the best, most equipped military in the world can’t stop them).

Okay I left out:

Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.

If we’re not careful we are going to feel like a one legged man in a butt-kicking contest.

There are very few humans who disagree with that; if someone is attacked, we/they have a “right” to defend/retaliate,
but these questions and matters are very complex and difficult, there are no simple answers.

It’s very unlikely (imo) that North Korea will attack South Korea, and/or Japan or USA or any US allies with nukes.

North Korea probably has only a few nukes (if that). They are still in their nuclear infancy. They do not have an Intercontinental Balistic Missile to deliver the nuke, so they are limited to Japan or South Korea as targets. Would you bomb your cousins right next door to you and radiate your own soil because they have a different political view? I do not think so. I know they despise Japan, but they would be no match against Japan and it’s allies. Therefore, if they decided in their grand wisdom to drop a nuke on anyone, they better do it as terrorist strike without taking responsibility, or they will be blasted back to the stone age by the rest of the world.
If I was in charge and that happened, I would not hesitate to retaliate, an eye for an eye. :x

I agree with an eye for an eye. However it only takes one crazy person to launch a nuke. When you retaliate you will kill more than the person that you are targeting.

I think anyone launching a nuke should ride it in, Slim Pickens style.