So what is everyone's views on this cuntry?

 

I personally think they are a bunch of absolute t****. The whole situation atm is just childish and pathetic. -_- They're creating war for themselves?! :blink:

 

Hopefully their next nuclear bomb will just backfire and sink the lot of em or something. :arrr:

They have really dropped themselves in it. What good do they think they would do with that test?

 

Apparently one of their pen pushers said that the success of the test has made their people very happy, i reckon what would make them more happy was plenty of food and decent standard of living and not money wasted on weapons capable of killing millions <_<

So what is everyone's views on this cuntry?

 

well sometimes its hard to say as you dont know what propaganda is flying over the JSA, so even though its a fukked up regime you dont know how far the truth goes before its just hyped up by others.

 

 

I think it's incredibly smart of them to do this, they've pretty much guaranteed that no one will DARE to invade them now... We'll actually have to do a deal with North Korea now that they are a Nuclear power, just as we had to take Pakistan and India seriously as potential world powers when they gained the technology....

 

Let's face it, if Saddam had had nukes, no way we'd've gone into Iraq... I honestly dont think that any country can be blamed for wanting to get their hands on this technology, blame the Americans for all this, they opened up the bottle and let that particular genie out in 1945 when they bombed Japan, you cant blame others for wanting a piece of the pie....

A madman who's cheated his way to office in charge of a powderkeg country laden with nuclear warheads....?

 

Hmm..... that's the US out of the way - now let's talk North Korea.......

A very mysterious nation... I've seen a couple docs and read a few articles about DPRK and it's a very disturbing situation there. Its inhabitants are utterly brainwashed. Has anyone seen footage of when Kim Il-Sung died in 1994? Thousands of people collapsing and rolling on the streets weeping uncontrollably. They absolutely worship their leader.

 

There are two manners of going about the nuclear argument... Do they have the right to nuclear power? Of course they do and as Grimly said it's obvious why they'd want to acquire nuclear weapons and all the credibility (or fear) that comes with them. However it is also one of the poorest nations on earth in which millions of people have died of starvation in the last decade alone. Using the few resources they have to persue such technology (not to mention Jong-Il's lavish lifestyle) while the vast majority remain destitute is obviously regrettable and should be condemned.

Edited October 10, 200618 yr by Consie

However it is also one of the poorest nations on earth in which millions of people have died of starvation in the last decade alone. Using the few resources they have to persue such technology (not to mention Jong-Il's lavish lifestyle) while the vast majority remain destitute is obviously regrettable and should be condemned.

 

 

Of course you could apply this argument as well to UK and US in a way, between us we spend a really terrifying amount on the military and both our nations have people living in cardboard boxes and sh!tty trailer parks, so.... I know it doesnt really compare the the sheer destitution of the NK people, but poverty does exist both here and in the US as well and our leaders just seem to turn a blind eye to it, just as the North Korean Govt does...

A madman who's cheated his way to office in charge of a powderkeg country laden with nuclear warheads....?

 

Hmm..... that's the US out of the way - now let's talk North Korea.......

 

have you ever thought of talking to c4? might be funnier than some of the folk on it :lol:

A very mysterious nation... I've seen a couple docs and read a few articles about DPRK and it's a very disturbing situation there. Its inhabitants are utterly brainwashed. Has anyone seen footage of when Kim Il-Sung died in 1994? Thousands of people collapsing and rolling on the streets weeping uncontrollably. They absolutely worship their leader.

 

 

well of course! they have little boxes in their houses that transmit a radio programme that you can turn off that goes on and on how you must love your leader and if not you wont get any cabbage to eat* (i know this could get on to the ig nobels again with subliminal noizes but wont go there)

 

*note: dog is too expensive for everyone to eat, apart from the presidents lot if you are wondering

 

Let's face it, if Saddam had had nukes, no way we'd've gone into Iraq... I honestly dont think that any country can be blamed for wanting to get their hands on this technology, blame the Americans for all this, they opened up the bottle and let that particular genie out in 1945 when they bombed Japan, you cant blame others for wanting a piece of the pie....

 

 

thats bollox really m8, if saddam had nukes he would have used them long since.... and 'blaming' america for discovering how to split the atom first is irrelevant. if the jerrys or the japs had got that technology first the world now would be a much different place.

thats bollox really m8, if saddam had nukes he would have used them long since....

 

so you mean he didnt know mr khan the nice pakistani man :lol: from what i've read it looks like he would sell any nice dicktactorhead the plans for the tech.

 

and just think if the NKs make the bomb and sell them on to others

thats bollox really m8, if saddam had nukes he would have used them long since.... and 'blaming' america for discovering how to split the atom first is irrelevant. if the jerrys or the japs had got that technology first the world now would be a much different place.

 

Hitler was pretty much beaten by 1944, he really lost the war after his disastrous attempt to invade Russia, so it would never have come up, the Japanese had no real access to the sort of tech the Americans did, so again, no real chance there... The Americans had no real need to use the Atom Bomb on Japan, Japan had begun retreating all over the shop after Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal, the Yanks only used it purely to test their new weapon on large civilian populations (neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were of any real strategic, political or economic importance, it was mass-murder, pure and simple, but of course history is written by the winners as we all know and the victors dont tend to be branded as war criminals or put on trial...)... Japan would've surrendered in a matter of months, if not weeks, it was not necessary....

 

And, exactly, if Saddam had had WMDs, he more than likely would have used them, so, the fact that he didn't do it means he never had them in the first place; just renders the argument to invade Iraq even more null and void.....

i notice how the French as always are trying to back away from the situation saying it was probably a failed nuclear warhead, or a large bomb

Hitler was pretty much beaten by 1944, he really lost the war after his disastrous attempt to invade Russia, so it would never have come up, the Japanese had no real access to the sort of tech the Americans did, so again, no real chance there... The Americans had no real need to use the Atom Bomb on Japan, Japan had begun retreating all over the shop after Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal, the Yanks only used it purely to test their new weapon on large civilian populations (neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were of any real strategic, political or economic importance, it was mass-murder, pure and simple, but of course history is written by the winners as we all know and the victors dont tend to be branded as war criminals or put on trial...)... Japan would've surrendered in a matter of months, if not weeks, it was not necessary....

 

And, exactly, if Saddam had had WMDs, he more than likely would have used them, so, the fact that he didn't do it means he never had them in the first place; just renders the argument to invade Iraq even more null and void.....

 

 

the yanks nuked hiroshima in revenge for pearl harbour.... period.

Hitler was pretty much beaten by 1944, he really lost the war after his disastrous attempt to invade Russia, so it would never have come up, the Japanese had no real access to the sort of tech the Americans did, so again, no real chance there... The Americans had no real need to use the Atom Bomb on Japan, Japan had begun retreating all over the shop after Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal, the Yanks only used it purely to test their new weapon on large civilian populations (neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were of any real strategic, political or economic importance, it was mass-murder, pure and simple, but of course history is written by the winners as we all know and the victors dont tend to be branded as war criminals or put on trial...)... Japan would've surrendered in a matter of months, if not weeks, it was not necessary....

 

And, exactly, if Saddam had had WMDs, he more than likely would have used them, so, the fact that he didn't do it means he never had them in the first place; just renders the argument to invade Iraq even more null and void.....

The invasion was pretty successful actualy, the german army did get withni a few miles of moscow, had killed 1 million russians who were retreating. What caused their faliure was the russian winter. They weren't prepared for it.

 

i don't think Japan would of surrendered that easily though, the yanks did do it however to save a few thousand of their own men, instead they'd rather kill a few hundred thousand jap civilians.

 

 

Hitler was pretty much beaten by 1944, he really lost the war after his disastrous attempt to invade Russia, so it would never have come up, the Japanese had no real access to the sort of tech the Americans did, so again, no real chance there... The Americans had no real need to use the Atom Bomb on Japan, Japan had begun retreating all over the shop after Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal, the Yanks only used it purely to test their new weapon on large civilian populations (neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were of any real strategic, political or economic importance, it was mass-murder, pure and simple, but of course history is written by the winners as we all know and the victors dont tend to be branded as war criminals or put on trial...)... Japan would've surrendered in a matter of months, if not weeks, it was not necessary....

 

And, exactly, if Saddam had had WMDs, he more than likely would have used them, so, the fact that he didn't do it means he never had them in the first place; just renders the argument to invade Iraq even more null and void.....

 

 

I read that German scientists were trying to purify uranium-235 which could have been used to make a bomb. They also had invented the Ballistic misile V2, The scientists were then shipped to the US to continue their work, the US decided they better build a bomb before the Germans did.

 

As to Japan there is precious little evidence that the Japanese would have surrendered as it was seen as the ultimate cowardice, more likely they would rather commit suicide than be taken prisoner. Although the victims of the bomb was unfortunate, if the war had continued island by island all the way back to Japan then possibly the same amount could have been killed on both sides.

 

The US saw it as a way to end it quicker rather than later, the US had already planned to invade Japan in spring 1946, but obviously this invasion was were never completed. after Hiroshima the US warned Japan to surrender they didn't so they dropped the second 3 days later. Only then did they surrender.

 

With N Korea going after the bomb no wonder the Japanese are concerned, they know the damage it can do only too well. The danger is that the countries around N Korea like Japan,S Korea etc all decide to do the same. We will then have another arms race, only N Korea is an unknown problem. Would they use it, and if so against who.

the yanks nuked hiroshima in revenge for pearl harbour.... period.

 

doesn't justify two atomic bombs

the yanks nuked hiroshima in revenge for pearl harbour.... period.

 

Which the powers that be in the US actually had forward warning of anyway, the Japanese Ambassador actually had the declaration of war in his hand to give to the President the day before hostilities began, the fukkers in the Whitehouse knew it was gonna happen.... Pearl Harbour was a Naval Base, a proper, strategic military target, not two strategically unimportant cities full of innocent civilians... There's absolutely no comparison, it's murder pure and simple.... If the US had used the bomb on Tokyo or Okinawa (which is where the Emperor's seat of power was...) then that would perhaps be excused. Oh, but of course, you NEED Tokyo dont you because of its economic power, and god fukkin' forbid that the establishment would actually kill a head of State, even of an enemy power.....

 

As to Japan there is precious little evidence that the Japanese would have surrendered as it was seen as the ultimate cowardice, more likely they would rather commit suicide than be taken prisoner. Although the victims of the bomb was unfortunate, if the war had continued island by island all the way back to Japan then possibly the same amount could have been killed on both sides.

 

 

At least it would've all been pretty much soldiers that got killed and not innocent civilians though... Sorry, but I dont give a fukk about soldiers lives to be honest, they get paid to die... And the US/Japan war was just about bullsh!t economic reasons anyway, not for moral or ideological reasons like the War in Europe was fought, it was fought for oil mainly, hmmmm, same old story innit...?

 

I dont think North Korea would be more likely to actually use it than the Soviets or the Chinese were, they only want the ability to defend themselves from aggression (and really, who the fukk can blame them..?)... Why do we always make this assumption that only the so-called 'civilised' Western Democracies are allowed to dominate the world through superior weapons technology. Up until now, only one nation in the world has actually used a nuclear weapon against another sovereign state, and we all know who that was.... Also, when the US secretly gave nukes to the Israelis it totally broke every single UN non-proliferation treaty going... The US is NOW illegally running arms through British airports to the Israelis....

At least it would've all been pretty much soldiers that got killed and not innocent civilians though... Sorry, but I dont give a fukk about soldiers lives to be honest, they get paid to die

 

But isn't it true that in WW2 most soldiers were conscripted and had no choice,unlike todays professional army. I had relatives who fought in WW2 but they did not join willingly. So I disagree with your analogy of this.

 

Todays army in Iraq willingly joined so its different today.