Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

North Korea threatens the US with nuclear attack: Pyongyang warns it is ready to use weapons 'at any time' as it revamps atomic bomb fuel production plants

Director of North's Atomic Energy Institute said scientists had made improvements to 'guarantee reliability' of nuclear deterrent

Comes a day after Pyongyang said it is ready to launch satellites aboard long-range rockets

Latest sabre-rattling will escalate tensions between North, South and US


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/15/09/2C5551C100000578-3234879-image-a-1_1442305279817.jpg

Fearful? A man watches a news report at a railway station in Seoul on Tuesday on the confirmation from North Korea that its nuclear reactor has resumed operations


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234879/N-Korea-says-improving-nuclear-weapons-quality-quantity.html

That's one of the things about NK- where some countries saber-rattle for specific geopolitical goals, they'll just up and start doing stuff for no apparent reasons. They worry me much more than Iran.

Originally posted by Q99
That's one of the things about NK- where some countries saber-rattle for specific geopolitical goals, they'll just up and start doing stuff for no apparent reasons. They worry me much more than Iran.

Yeah, Iran is very predictable in their self-interest.

With North Korea it's very hard to find rhyme and reason at times.

Look what happens when you give a terrorist regime nuclear weapons.

But wait

"It's not what it seems and it's all chest puffing"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Look what happens when you give a terrorist regime nuclear weapons.

But wait

"It's not what it seems and it's all chest puffing"

I think you have that skewed.

You should be flipping out over this, considering NK actually has nukes, has actually threatened to use them and is run by a lunatic.

But forget NK, let us focus on Iran.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think you have that skewed.

You should be flipping out over this, considering NK actually has nukes, has actually threatened to use them and is run by a lunatic.

But forget NK, let us focus on Iran.

Yea I am flipping over this, and who gave them nukes?????

OH YEA, IT WAS A CLINTON, did you forget????

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea I am flipping over this, and who gave them nukes?????

OH YEA, IT WAS A CLINTON, did you forget????

What are you referring to?

6TcbU5jAavw

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea I am flipping over this, and who gave them nukes?????

OH YEA, IT WAS A CLINTON, did you forget????

No, you really don't seem to be. They've been pursuing nukes since the 50's with the help of the former USSR and built their yellowcake processing facilities in the early to mid 80's.

The scariest part is, I think Kim Jong Un doesn't care if he and all his people die just to make a point.

All it would take is one nuke and we lose most of our country.

Sure, by launching our nuke, we wipe out NK completely, but thats the thing. He doesn't seem to care that destroying half our country will wipe his out completely.

Its ****ing scary to think about.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
6TcbU5jAavw

Oh Rob

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
6TcbU5jAavw

Oh, okay, you are referring to the agreement that was designed to stop North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons, which ultimately failed. That's unbelievably disingenuous to pretend that Bill Clinton gave North Korea nuclear weapons, he tried to stop it, but North Korea got them through other means.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, okay, you are referring to the agreement that was designed to stop North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons, which ultimately failed. That's unbelievably disingenuous to pretend that Bill Clinton gave North Korea nuclear weapons, he tried to stop it, but North Korea got them through other means.

It was a deal that Clinton signed that was weak, just like this Iran deal.

Your disingenuous claim failed again.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It was a deal that Clinton signed that was weak, just like this Iran deal.

Your disingenuous claim failed again.

No, you keep lying, and it's pretty pathetic.

LoL, you and your choice clips without context.

NK had signed the NPT in the 80's and in the 90's finally allowed inspectors, which is where that speech started, as talks towards NK abandoning its nuclear weapons in return for light water reactors. It was rocky from the start and in 2003 it all went to shit.

Should be noted that 2002 was the year GW Bush declared NK to be part of the "axis of evil"

NVM, you basically captured that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you keep lying, and it's pretty pathetic.

Just like you lie about everything else, like your stance on immigration when it comes to the US.

Oh I forgot, its Bushes fault again.

Lets see.

Clinton sigs a weak deal, it fails on Bush's terms..so its Bush's fault.

Obama signs weak deal with Iran, falls apart on the next president, its now fault.

Liberal's seem to think they are genius cause they know people only remember the current events, they dont remember the past.

Like Obama Campaigning, I will get troops out of Iraq

then "I got the troops out of Iraq"

Or how about "you can keep your doctor and your plan"

Um nope you cannot.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Just like you lie about everything else, like your stance on immigration when it comes to the US.

How do you think I lied about my stance on immigration to the US?

not really sure what the solution to nk is...

someone on another forum once asked why not just invade and crush their regime? is it cause they'll nuke sk or japan or something?

i think they definitely need to be taken out somehow... they're never going to come around and are only going to grow more dangerous as time goes on.

even if it means flattening the whole country with a surprise nuclear attack... i would consider that a good idea if we somehow managed to get china and russia and them involved so it doesn't escalate into a full blown nuclear war... which would likely never happen so i dunno

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lets see.

Clinton sigs a weak deal, it fails on Bush's terms..so its Bush's fault.
Yeah how, odd, during Clinton's term it was rocky at times, but cool. Then under the US' new administration and aggressive tone, talks start to sour.

Do you think it's possible NK didn't like being strong-armed and called to be part of a "axis of evil"?

Originally posted by red g jacks
not really sure what the solution to nk is...

someone on another forum once asked why not just invade and crush their regime? is it cause they'll nuke sk or japan or something?

i think they definitely need to be taken out somehow... they're never going to come around and are only going to grow more dangerous as time goes on.

even if it means flattening the whole country with a surprise nuclear attack... i would consider that a good idea if we somehow managed to get china and russia and them involved so it doesn't escalate into a full blown nuclear war... which would likely never happen so i dunno

Could there be any correlation to NK's recent actions, and the strict economic sanctions that were placed on the country?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah how, odd, during Clinton's term it was rocky at times, but cool. Then under the US' new administration and aggressive tone, talks start to sour.

Do you think it's possible NK didn't like being strong-armed and called to be part of a "axis of evil"?

So wait, we are not supposed to strong arm those that suppress their people and threaten nuclear war?

No wonder you want this Iran deal to pass.

Yea, let us pretend that one didn't come before the other and just stick with your "Clinton gave NK nukes".

Wait so we are not supposed to strong arm those who suppress their people and treat them like dogs?

If the US strong-armed every country that treated people like shit, the US would have a few less allies. eg Saudi Arabia is one of the worlds top offenders.

But this is of course you deflecting from the previous point.

Originally posted by Robtard
If the US strong-armed every country that treated people like shit, the US would have a few less allies. eg Saudi Arabia is one of the worlds top offenders.

But this is of course you deflecting from the previous point.

Oh I know Hilary does not have a problem with them, after all they treat women like this.

Its all good with her, but when it comes to US.

"Sexism!"

Obama needs to stop pussy-footing around and make a move.


A move that won't kill us.

Covert operation?

We send the same team that took out Bin Laden. Only this time we use Un as a hostage. Then, we FORCE North Korea to give us their nukes.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh I know Hilary does not have a problem with them, after all they treat women like this.

Its all good with her, but when it comes to US.

"Sexism!"

And now you've shifted the conversation onto blaming Hillary in some fashion. Right on schedule

Obama is a national honey badger but a international pussyfoot.

Originally posted by Robtard
And now you've shifted the conversation onto blaming Hillary in some fashion. Right on schedule

You brought up Saudia Arabia treating people bad, Hilary takes contributions from them.

Dirty and Corrupt Clintons

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Obama needs to stop pussy-footing around and make a move.


A move that won't kill us.

Covert operation?

We send the same team that took out Bin Laden. Only this time we use Un as a hostage. Then, we FORCE North Korea to give us their nukes.

The NK generals would probably write off Kim and then there'd be a power-struggle in NK.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You brought up Saudia Arabia treating people bad, Hilary takes contributions from them.

Dirty and Corrupt Clintons

Yeah, you totally got her there, everyone knows the Clintons are the only ones with ties to SA/The Royal Family

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh I forgot, its Bushes fault again.


You're literally trying to blame Clinton for something that happened 5 years into Bush's term.




This "you can never note Bush is responsible for anything, else I will accuse you of blaming everything on Bush," stuff is pretty silly.




Considering it failed in large part because, specifically, of the US's more aggressive stance causing talks to break down, and that was Bush, and most famously

You conclude the deal is weak because it's convenient to you, when it was working not only for years after it was made under Clinton, but several years under Bush, and Bush had years to try and make a new one if he could.


Additionally, you conclude that the deal hurt in some way. If the deal was not there, then they could've made nuclear weapons before. How did the deal hurt when Bush had it for 3 years, and then another 2 years of no deal with which to act? Why could he not have renegotiated in the first 3, or gotten a 'stronger' one in 2?


Bush's aggressive posturing didn't stop them. And nor did Bush chose to invade to stop them. What, other than a deal, or the things Bush did but didn't work, was supposed to stop them?

If your criticism of Bill is refusal to invade, I'd call that hypocritical considering George didn't. If your criticism is Bill wasn't aggressive and hard line enough diplomatically, I'd call that short-sighted, considering it didn't work for George... unless you view Clinton as just that much better a negotiator that he could've threatened them into line where Bush didn't, though personally I think it's more a matter of saber-rattling not being too effective on the whole.


What is Clinton supposed to do that hurt and prevented Bush from acting? Why didn't GWB's actions work if they're what your proposing BC to have done?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, you totally got her there, everyone knows the Clintons are the only ones with ties to SA/The Royal Family

Sorry Obama is the one with Oil ties, after all they funded his campaign.

ODS

Some of the comments on this page are full-retard.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sorry Obama is the one with Oil ties, after all they funded his campaign.

Actually, the bulk of his campaign money came from small US donors...

And the joke is that SA has ties with tons of politicians, especially the Bushes.

Article

" In House of Bush, House of Saud, I trace more than $1.4 billion in contracts and investments from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and their friends have had key roles. Saudi money bailed out Harken Energy when George W. Bush was on its board of directors. "

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Some of the comments on this page are full-retard. Yeah, maybe you should stop commenting then.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Yeah, maybe you should stop commenting then.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Obama needs to stop pussy-footing around and make a move.


A move that won't kill us.

Covert operation?

We send the same team that took out Bin Laden. Only this time we use Un as a hostage. Then, we FORCE North Korea to give us their nukes.

Yeah, lets just send in Solid Snake. Thats how it works, right?

Originally posted by Jmanghan
The scariest part is, I think Kim Jong Un doesn't care if he and all his people die just to make a point.

All it would take is one nuke and we lose most of our country.

Sure, by launching our nuke, we wipe out NK completely, but thats the thing. He doesn't seem to care that destroying half our country will wipe his out completely.

Its ****ing scary to think about.

You do realise north korea's nuclear capability is in the low kiloton range (less than 10) which as about 2/3 of the yield of Littleboy that was dropped on hiroshima.

This is its blast wave compared to manhattan
http://www.chemicalcake.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/blastradius.png

So where do you get this "one nuke and we lose most of our country" nonsense?

They could set it off high in the atmosphere and the EMP could cripple the entire north east. The only part of the U.S that matters...other then the Left Coast that is..

Originally posted by Flyattractor
They could set it off high in the atmosphere and the EMP could cripple the entire north east. The only part of the U.S that matters...other then the Left Coast that is..

Except that would require a delivery system that could reach the east coast. They don't even have one to reach the mainland West coast. In fact they can't even hit hawaii and can only just hit alaska and no one gives a **** about alaska.

Originally posted by jaden101
You do realise north korea's nuclear capability is in the low kiloton range (less than 10) which as about 2/3 of the yield of Littleboy that was dropped on hiroshima.

This is its blast wave compared to manhattan
http://www.chemicalcake.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/blastradius.png

So where do you get this "one nuke and we lose most of our country" nonsense? It depends on the size of ths nuke, and where it lands.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah, lets just send in Solid Snake. Thats how it works, right? Worked with Bin Laden, have no idea why it wouldn't work with Kim Jong Un.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Worked with Bin Laden, have no idea why it wouldn't work with Kim Jong Un.

Bin Laden was on the run and in hiding in a semi-friendly country.

Kim Jong Un is the head of a country...and is within the country....and while the country rattles sabres, he hasn't really done anything to the US that has enraged the population so much that killing him would be a political win.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
6TcbU5jAavw

Originally posted by jaden101
Except that would require a delivery system that could reach the east coast. They don't even have one to reach the mainland West coast. In fact they can't even hit hawaii and can only just hit alaska and no one gives a **** about alaska.



Baloney. Alaska is one of our most beautiful states. Don't want anything bad to happen to it.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
It depends on the size of ths nuke, and where it lands.
Even a 50 megaton nuke like the Tsar Bomba isn't going to destroy "half the country," that's just silly sensationalism.

I don't think they can even reach the good bits of Alaska....

Originally posted by Jmanghan
It depends on the size of ths nuke, and where it lands.


Jaden's picture is literally the worst place for it to land in the US, population density/casualty wise.


Stability wise, DC may be worse.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bin Laden was on the run and in hiding in a semi-friendly country.

Kim Jong Un is the head of a country...and is within the country....and while the country rattles sabres, he hasn't really done anything to the US that has enraged the population so much that killing him would be a political win. I didn't say "Kill".

However, capturing him and using him as a bargaining chip is a good idea.

"A bargaining chip for what?"

We use him to get their nukes, and send back a very pissed off Kim Jong Un.

I don't think North Korea has any main allies that would immediately jump in to declare war on the U.S.

Watch how fast that War goes. North Korea wouldn't last 2 weeks.

You capture Kim Jong Un, they likely just get a new leader who then declares war on the United States. We're not in the Middle Ages, ransoming leaders isn't how you manage statecraft.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You capture Kim Jong Un, they likely just get a new leader who then declares war on the United States. We're not in the Middle Ages, ransoming leaders isn't how you manage statecraft. We can't just let them nuke our country.

For some reason I think he's mad enough to do it just because. I mean, considering what he does to his own people, I doubt he cares what happens to them.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
We can't just let them nuke our country.

For some reason I think he's mad enough to do it just because. I mean, considering what he does to his own people, I doubt he cares what happens to them.
I think kidnapping their leader would be the best way to get them to nuke us, if they could nuke us.

Here's a rule of thumb: if a solution sounds really simple but no one's tried it, it's probably because it's a terrible idea.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
I didn't say "Kill".

However, capturing him and using him as a bargaining chip is a good idea.


One major problem there- there are people who don't like him, who'd love to take the slot themselves, and use his capture as a propaganda tool against us.

We need to hit them with an EMP and show the world what and EMP is, to much speculation

Or we just destroy them now, while we can, and hope their nuke lands in an underpopulated area.

Lets not pretend our Tsar Bombs wouldn't wipe them out of existence with almost no negative repercussions, save for a huge city-sized crater with a nuclear hazard.

But that could also backfire, and more likely it would land in a place of importance, or a big city.

To really throw the Norks into chaos. We could just make it so all of its citizens get internet access. Then they would tear the country apart themselves.