I was going to say it in this thread, but I didn’t want to get scolded, so I’m saying it here:
FUCK
**FUCK **
**FUCK FUCK FUCK!! **
**HAVE YOU ALL GONE FUCKING INSANE??? **
**FUCK!! **
BANG
Yes, well I have gone insane, do you have a problem with that, sonny Jim?
Yes, it’s nuts to think about using nuclear weapons, especially since they shouldn’t be necessary in the slightest, even IF there’s an all-out war.
Right. I guess getting pitted by the most partisan extremist without even a rudimentary understanding of nuclear brinksmanship is not the worst thing that could happen.
If you can’t win a conventional war in the Korean Peninsula without the total destruction of South Korea and millions of civilian casualties - your solution is?
This is a terrible pit rant- overreliance on the word “fuck” (4 years out of date), the font size and color change is soooooo AOL (5 years out of date), and there’s really no substance to it. I’d give it a 1.5 out of “pitty”, but you managed to try and fuck up a Great Debate with a substanceless post containing a gratuitous Bush potshot and spelled Amerika with a “K”, which I thought was anti-"K"linton-gun-rack-on-pick-up-truck-redneck territory (and at least 5 years out of date). A -2 at best.
I’m shocked Stoid! Shocked I tell you, that you are so cooly cynical about other perceived socio-economic and political hypocrisies, and yet this one has your mascara all smeared. People are power tripping animals. Get used to it. It’s a realpolitik (k’s are kool!) consideration that we have to destroy some countries in order to save them. Don’t get M.A.D.! Get rads!
It 9000 degrees celsius in the shade baby!
Well, mojo, I wasn’t playing to the critics, just had to express exactly how I felt.
OK, let’s finger paint this for the slower or understanding impaired: I was suggesting that if over one million North Korean soldiers come streaming accross the DMZ under cover of the most oppressive artillery barrage in human history, it might be necessary to use nuclear weapons to avoid the most civilian casualties since WWII.
Any intelligent responses, other than partisan grunting noises?
astro, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Uh, yeah.
If a million North Korean soldiers come streaming across the DMZ under cover of the most oppressive artillery barrage in human history, and we launch a nuke at North Korea, those one million North Korean soldiers won’t wanna go home.
tongue only slightly in cheek
Maybe they’ll go home if we ask them “pretty please”.
Or, perhaps we can bribe them some more.
I’m sure you don’t know what you are talking about, but thanks for playing.
We would hit the front line troops or the staging areas for the reserves. We would be nuking the North Korean troops.
I repeat, we would be using nuclear weapons to blunt the North Korean advance. If anyone actually knows anything about nuclear terminology, strategy, or the North Korean situation, feel free to pipe in at any time.
There are about 10.5 million innocent Seoul residents. Oh, and they love the internet.
Solutions to a North Korean combined forces attack into South Korea anyone?
A solution Beagle?
FUCK! Have you gone INSANE?
Find a way to prevent even a conventional war in the first place.
You know what’s a good way to prevent a conventional war? Park a nuclear sub of the coast of the bad guys and threaten to turn them into glowing goop if they so much as flinch at the border.
Thanks for you insight, Ms. Crow.
Beagle…Just what do you think NK’s response to a nuke attack would be? Would Tokyo be glowing? How many millions live there? Taiwan nuclear rubble maybe?
Yep…nuking them first would work.
Bingo. Don’t rule out a first use of nuclear weapons.
Does it really matter once Seoul is gone and destroyed? Is South Korea an acceptable loss?
huh???
You are saying that killing NK troops with a nuke is worth the destruction of Tokyo or Taiwan??