Would you support a war against Korea?

I would agree that such a nation should be wiped from the face of the earth, but I don't think that anyone in power would have the guts to do it. Too many people worried about "innocent people".

north Korea should just go back being north Korea.

Originally posted by KidRock
Apparently there have been stories that Korea was actually aiming the missile at Hawaii..or close to it. If this story is found to be valid and Korea was aiming the Taepodong-2 at Hawaii would you support a war against Korea? Any citizen with have a brain would think, "they are firing missiles at us? Yes of course I support it". But we have some liberals on these boards so I would like to see what they think.

Are you sure you weren't intending to post this on in the conspiracy thread? If the media maps shown on news networks of where the missiles fell are even slightly reliable they reveal that they would have to have been a long way of course, or were about to do some crazy about faces to get to Hawaii. In fact I have seen zero evidence that it was anything other then some saber rattling and test firing of mostly dud missiles.

I think that any citizen with a brain would want some hard evidence before going to another war - like actual provocation. Of course bombing Hawaii would be justification for serious sanctions or military retaliations - but that didn't happen, and unless the west is doing some major covering up there is no evidence that they were even trying to do that (and one can't help but wonder, judging by the missile type, payloads etc - what on earth would have been the point of firing them at Hawaii? Even if they did hit something, well, it would hardly be a mighty blow to the US)

I would agree that such a nation should be wiped from the face of the earth, but I don't think that anyone in power would have the guts to do it. Too many people worried about "innocent people".

Hmm. I mean, of course, who minds if innocent people die while their nation is being wiped out, they most certainly would have to have been complicit with the governments that did the giving of the nuclear material wouldn't they?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
some saber rattling and test firing of mostly dud missiles.

This happened on the fourth of July, did it not? Sabre rattling indeed.

And of course Ann Coulter came out and said that the person who deserves direct blame for this situation is Bill Clinton. I wasn't able to hear the entire interview, but I'm sure she blames him because the "liberal media" thinks the democrats pay off our enemies to behave while they're in power and when the kick-ass and take names Republicans gain control and they don't kowtow before our enemies.

Originally posted by docb77
I would agree that such a nation should be wiped from the face of the earth, but I don't think that anyone in power would have the guts to do it. Too many people worried about "innocent people".

😆 Of course people in power would have the guts to do it. By the way, you warmongrel you, wiping a nation from the earth would mean changing its government, not killing anyone/everyone in its borders.

Originally posted by Alliance
😆 Of course people in power would have the guts to do it. By the way, you warmongrel you, wiping a nation from the earth would mean changing its government, not killing anyone/everyone in its borders.

Hey, I'm a warmonger not a warmongrel. Well, I may be a bit of a mongrel too, I am an american.

Besides, according to the doctrine of mutally assured destruction. The retaliation for a nuclear strike would be another one. A nuke landing on their capital would sure bring about a change in Government

A thought - Does that mean we already wiped Iraq from the earth?

Well considering that South Korea has the largest standing army in the world right now I really can see North Korea getting to far with their nukes. To many of the superpowers have too much economic might including China that they can impose embargos to the nth degree.

As for an earlier comment a nuke (not counting tactical nukes) has never been fired in a war and that includes the USA, it was an Atomic bomb, big difference.

Originally posted by Alliance
If a nation was ever found to have supplied nukes to a terrorist organization the nationa would be wiped from the face of the Earth.

Honestly, I think the US has no right to say who can have nukes and who cant. WE are the only nation to have been stupid enough to use them.

Stupid question: Are you American? 😕

Originally posted by autumn dreams
Stupid question: Are you American? 😕

Well, he referred to the atomic bombings of Japan in terms of we, so process of reason suggests that yes, he would be. Though I am uncertain what the relevance of the question is.

I would support a war only if they attack somebody.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Well considering that South Korea has the largest standing army in the world right now I really can see North Korea getting to far with their nukes. To many of the superpowers have too much economic might including China that they can impose embargos to the nth degree.

As for an earlier comment a nuke (not counting tactical nukes) has never been fired in a war and that includes the USA, it was an Atomic bomb, big difference.

I hate to disagree with you there, but Atomic bombs are nuclear. Fission is a nuclear process. You're basically splitting a nucleus - hence the nuclear. Fision bombs are generally called A or Atomic bombs. Fusion bombs are H or Hydrogen bombs. Both kinds are nuclear, just different branches of nuclear science.