North Korea

[Crasherfromwayback]

I ask when will we fucking learn to heed the lessons of fucking history!

Hey Mr History Professor! What is the only country that's ever used an atomic bomb on innocent civilians? My memory is failing me...

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all what I said, and just proves how thick you are.

Your exact quote:

I'm def not down with genocide. BUT, I'm even less down with the killing of the same innocents by our bullets and bombs.

So, in a choice between Genocide and Armed Intervention - you've indicated that armed intervention is the least preferable option. By that extension (considering this is a Binary choice) that means that Genocide has a higher preference.

Either what you meant isn't what you typed or maybe the thick person isn't who you think it is.

Aye, but it's not 1939 anymore is it, Dopey?

Narcisstic Sociopath with a hatred for a particular group, engaged in brutal repression of the populace and actively developing a Cult of Personality for the dictator by means of a Massive nationwide Propaganda scheme, desperately trying to achieve Military Parity with it's neighbours.

Tell me again how it's nothing like 1939...

Best he'll be able to do is head a missile off. Which we'll blow out of the sky before anyone is killed. THEN, and only THEN, we can do something about it. Fuck me you're simple.

First off - no Weapons system is 100% reliable - so will we be able to blow it out of the sky? last I looked, the tech being tested had an 80% success rate - and when the risk of failure would most likely be a death toll in excess of a Million people - you want to play those odds?

Next - Do you know that if the missle is intercepted, the Nuclear warheads will fail safe? you might shoot down the body of the missle, but Gravity is a thing - do you know if they won't detonate on impact?

Do you know if they have developed MRV - I believe the current Trident's are capable of having up to 10 MRVs, each one supposed to be around the 100 Kt mark - so with an 80% success rate - that's 2 100 Kt warheads getting through - that's the equivelent of 16 Hiroshimas.

Assume then that it's destroyed completely in flight - do you know what the environmental, social and ecological impact will be of having enriched fissile material powderised in the upper atmosphere? I'd guess that it would make Chernobyl look like a Picnic.

So yeah - Great plan.

10/10.

[Katman]

And who is it that's prone to threats of nuclear warfare?

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-...-option-upheld

[Katman]

Narcisstic Sociopath with a hatred for a particular group, engaged in brutal repression of the populace

Sounds like Netanyahu again.

[TheDemonLord]

Hey Mr History Professor! What is the only country that's ever used an atomic bomb on innocent civilians? My memory is failing me...

Your point?

Or are you trying to judge the child on the Sins of the Father?

[TheDemonLord]

Sounds like Netanyahu again.

Except that pesky mandate of the People part...

[Crasherfromwayback]

Or are you trying to judge the child on the Sins of the Father?

Ooooh. How profound! Another question for you. If the worlds biggest bully (who just happens to have a habit of invading other counties for their belongings), was very heavily armed with a huge nuclear arsenal, would you yourself want to have access to the same weapons? And if that very same bully tried to tell you you weren't allowed them, what would you do? Serious question.

[TheDemonLord]

Ooooh. How profound! Another question for you. If the worlds biggest bully (who just happens to have a habit of invading other counties for their belongings), was very heavily armed with a huge nuclear arsenal, would you yourself want to have access to the same weapons? And if that very same bully tried to tell you you weren't allowed them, what would you do? Serious question.

For sure it's a serious question, but it's phrasing is entrenched in a deep ideological bias that I don't share.

So before I answer - let me ask a counter question:

Is it right that an armed Police officer (ie they have a gun) stops someone who repeatedly beats their partner with their fists from obtaining a Gun?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that in the above scenario - you would want the officer stopping that person - am I correct?

Back to your question - it hinges on whether or not you think the US is the worlds biggest Bully. For sure, we could argue at great length about the pros and cons of US foreign policy over the last 70 odd years. But there is one immutable fact that you must consider - if I pile the corpses of everyone the US has killed, either explicitly in war or implicitly as the result of US intervention (and I'm using the Katman definition here, not the one I agree with) - you get a generous guesstimate (so using the highest numbers available and some very hasty maths) of around 5-10 million people - in the course of 70 years.

Now, you could make a case that this is clear proof that it's the worlds biggest bully - except when you consider what Communism did in the same time frame - the lowest estimates are about 150 Million people.

Who is the bigger Bully? Those that killed 10 Million, or those that killed 150 Million? Suppose now I add some context that a fair amount of those 10 Million was done in the effort to stop the spread of the ideology that killed 150 Million - Are they still a Bully? Because stopping someone who is rampantly killing other people isn't generally associated with the actions of a Bully.

Again, back to the question - if I was ideologically possessed or I had feelings of inadequacy - then of course, I would act in the manner you've described - but I must ask - are these the sort of people that you want with access to Nuclear Weapons? Back to the Police analogy, if one were to apply for a Firearm and your reasons were either ideologically based for wanting it or because you felt inferior and 'wanted to feel like a real man' - I'd bet that you'd get a big fat 'DENIED' stamp on your application - because these aren't the sort of people you want running round with Firearms, much less Nuclear Weaponry.

To close then - I would seek clear diplomatic boundaries and establish my independent sovereignty, I would have a defence force with a primary focus on defending my country and my people and a secondary focus on providing humanitarian assistance as and when needed. I would seek to maintain good working relationships with the countries I trade with and have ties to (cultural and historical) . And I would keep eternally vigilant for threats and seek to deal with them (diplomatically or otherwise) before they escalated into a crisis.

[Katman]

Now, you could make a case that this is clear proof that it's the worlds biggest bully - except when you consider what Communism did in the same time frame - the lowest estimates are about 150 Million people.

Let me guess.....

You got that figure from the same source that warned us of COMMUNISM!!!!

[Katman]

Back to your question - it hinges on whether or not you think the US is the worlds biggest Bully.

Yes - yes they are.

[TheDemonLord]

Yes - yes they are.

See the part about Ideological perspectives that I don't agree with...

[TheDemonLord]

Let me guess.....

You got that figure from the same source that warned us of COMMUNISM!!!!

Multiple sources actually - Some neutral, some with bias - but the reality is - can you point to a Communist regime that didn't end up as a brutal dictatorship with a failed economy?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Who is the bigger Bully?

Ummmm...these cunts perhaps?



All for our own good of course!

[Crasherfromwayback]

- can you point to a Communist regime that didn't end up as a brutal dictatorship with a failed economy?

China?







































..............what do I win?

[Katman]

can you point to a Communist regime that didn't end up as a brutal dictatorship with a failed economy?

Vietnam's doing pretty well for themselves.

Plus they got to give America a fucking good kicking along the way.