North Korea To Have Nukes Capable of Reaching America within 1 Year

[Stokely]

Speaking of Iraq...who can blame any country for wanting nukes after that debacle? America went after a country on false pretenses exactly because they 1) were in an area where we wanted to be able to start "spreading Democracy" and needed bases and 2) didn't have anything scary to throw at us. We killed hundreds of thousands of people, helped start a new wave of terrorism, and destabilized the entire region...over blatant lies and pitiful justifications. If you are a country in such a place that we might covet, our track record is of aggression for no good reason, so of course you want to defend yourself. The only defense against America is nukes, or to be large enough (China) that even a conventional war makes everyone lose economically.

 

[soundforbjt]

I think Trump and lil Kim need to have a face to face, Trump would probably love him, he seems to have a thing for dictators..

 

[agent00f]

Same arguments were being discussed here, in AT in 2002-2003 .. Everyone was damn sure Saddam had WMDs. Forum members cheered and welcomed the invasion of Iraq and (as a result) death of 300.000 Iraqi's when the real intent was to destabilise the region, plant the seeds of extremism from which ISIS has risen, divide Iraq into 3, divide Syria, set up a Kurdish state as the new ally in the region etc. All these plans are summarised as the "Grand Middle East Project", were in our knowledge as the people of this region, maybe you have never heard.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-...e-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

So, North Korea is just another version of the same story. Any new weapon tested by United States is not a threat to world peace but any underdog should be smashed. Why ? Because this is how you remain as the sole hegemon. As an American you might think that this is righteous and cool, but billions on the world see it otherwise. Yeah, I hear you saying "F*** T***", just accept the fact and use profanity as much as you like.

Actually the motives behind iraq were outlined well before away from public spotlight in the Proj for new American Century doc. Of course politically speaking white welfare and killing brown people riles up the GOP base, but these people really did beleive they were going to met as liberators and install a successful puppet regime.

 

[woolfe9998]

I am hearing this from multiple sources. What I am also hearing is that the minute North Korea gets the technology it will be begin selling nukes to the highest bidder (it is desperate for cash). A professor from Marquette was talking on the radio that there is no doubt in the intelligence community that North Korea will actively sell ballistic missiles to Middle East terrorists for the right price.

Would nuclear strikes on NYC, Washington DC and LA cripple the United States or would they be minor setbacks? Is America expected to sit back and take the first hit? Could we be hit within the year? Could I fear monger anymore than this?

Would the nuking of NYC, DC and LA be a "minor setback?" I'm hoping this question was rhetorical and not serious...

 

[Bubblehappy]

I really don't understand what the big deal about all this is about. So they are advancing their missile program, and likely will have nuclear capabilities at some point in time. And they are threatening America with their words, again as usual. They will never be a superpower and will never have the arsenal to cripple most of America with a single attack, and any nuke lobbed at us would result in a total annihilation of their country. Leave it alone. There's no benefit of us going in and being our usual global police, not in this situation. The number of deaths would be staggering, and there's absolutely no reason for us to stick our nose in this matter.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Would the nuking of NYC, DC and LA be a "minor setback?" I'm hoping this question was rhetorical and not serious...

Some of us would think of it as urban renewal.

 

[woolfe9998]

I just want to point out that the OP tends to suffer from paranoia.

I, myself, do not wet my pants at the thought of countries getting nuclear weapons (through their own research). It forces countries to respect each other and look for alternative was to solve problems.

You know who else tends to "suffer from paranoia?" Kim Jong Un. OP is correct in one respect: NK is not a rational actor. I cannot get on board with the assumption that we can be certain KJU will act rationally to avoid cataclysmic consequences to his own people. We have enough experience with our own malignant narcissist head of state to know that such people can be erratic and do not always do what we would expect a rational actor to do. I do not advocate a military attack here because it would be insane. However, not being at all concerned with NK having nukes, plus missiles capable of delivering them here, is bizarre.

Worse yet is the idea that it's actually beneficial to have more nuclear armed countries. That's like saying the more people who walk around with guns, the safer everyone will be because of mutual deterrence. No, the more people who have deadly weapons, the more likely it is for someone to do something reckless or insane. It only takes one world leader to have a bout of delusional paranoia and that's all she wrote.

Nuclear weapons will be used in anger within this century, probably before mid century. In fact, nuclear weapons will almost certainly cause the extinction of our species at some point in time. Let's not hasten our demise by suddenly being unconcerned with nuclear proliferation. We should be making sure that nuclear materials, such as those associated with the former Soviet Union, are fully secured. Liberals used to oppose nuclear proliferation for good reason. Now some of us seem to think that we need to advocate that the worst and most delusional regimes in the world should have nukes, just because they're afraid the "military industrial complex" is trying to use this as an excuse to attack. The only thing crazier than us bombing NK right now is us suddenly deciding that we're OK with everyone having nukes. I honestly don't know what you're thinking.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

It's the logical conclusion of an isolationist.

 

[ElFenix]

I wonder how, if you paid this much attention to the news on North Korea, that you missed THIS.
What you describe was already done in the latest missile test.

North Korea tested a missile that could reach Chicago

If the missile was fired on a flatter, standard trajectory, it would have major US cities such as Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago well within its range, with the possible ability to reach as far as New York and Boston, according to David Wright, a missile expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists.​

this may already have been covered in this thread but having a missile that can reach chicago and having a nuclear payload for the top of that missile that can reach chicago are two different things.

 

[ivwshane]

You know who else tends to "suffer from paranoia?" Kim Jong Un. OP is correct in one respect: NK is not a rational actor. I cannot get on board with the assumption that we can be certain KJU will act rationally to avoid cataclysmic consequences to his own people. We have enough experience with our own malignant narcissist head of state to know that such people can be erratic and do not always do what we would expect a rational actor to do. I do not advocate a military attack here because it would be insane. However, not being at all concerned with NK having nukes, plus missiles capable of delivering them here, is bizarre.

Worse yet is the idea that it's actually beneficial to have more nuclear armed countries. That's like saying the more people who walk around with guns, the safer everyone will be because of mutual deterrence. No, the more people who have deadly weapons, the more likely it is for someone to do something reckless or insane. It only takes one world leader to have a bout of delusional paranoia and that's all she wrote.

Nuclear weapons will be used in anger within this century, probably before mid century. In fact, nuclear weapons will almost certainly cause the extinction of our species at some point in time. Let's not hasten our demise by suddenly being unconcerned with nuclear proliferation. We should be making sure that nuclear materials, such as those associated with the former Soviet Union, are fully secured. Liberals used to oppose nuclear proliferation for good reason. Now some of us seem to think that we need to advocate that the worst and most delusional regimes in the world should have nukes, just because they're afraid the "military industrial complex" is trying to use this as an excuse to attack. The only thing crazier than us bombing NK right now is us suddenly deciding that we're OK with everyone having nukes. I honestly don't know what you're thinking.

What does history show us? How many dictators have attacked more powerful nations in fits of rage or out of delusion?

 

[Jaskalas]

What does history show us? How many dictators have attacked more powerful nations in fits of rage or out of delusion?

North Korea is completely isolated with delusional education that is FAR removed from anything resembling objective reality. Having North Korea as a nuclear power is like putting Creationists in charge of an Evolution conference and expecting rational results.

 

[pcgeek11]

I really don't understand what the big deal about all this is about. So they are advancing their missile program, and likely will have nuclear capabilities at some point in time. And they are threatening America with their words, again as usual. They will never be a superpower and will never have the arsenal to cripple most of America with a single attack, and any nuke lobbed at us would result in a total annihilation of their country. Leave it alone. There's no benefit of us going in and being our usual global police, not in this situation. The number of deaths would be staggering, and there's absolutely no reason for us to stick our nose in this matter.

They felt the same way about Japan before they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Meh, No big deal. Japan what are they going to do? They are little.

 

[ivwshane]

North Korea is completely isolated with delusional education that is FAR removed from anything resembling objective reality. Having North Korea as a nuclear power is like putting Creationists in charge of an Evolution conference and expecting rational results.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[pauldun170]

North Korea is completely isolated with delusional education that is FAR removed from anything resembling objective reality. Having North Korea as a nuclear power is like putting Creationists in charge of an Evolution conference and expecting rational results.

 

[bshole]

What does history show us? How many dictators have attacked more powerful nations in fits of rage or out of delusion?

Japan attacked America even though it knew objectively it had no chance.
North Korea attacked American forces in Korea in the 50s even though it had no chance of winning.... and won..... and we had atomic weapons at the time....

 

[J.Wilkins]

North Korea is completely isolated with delusional education that is FAR removed from anything resembling objective reality. Having North Korea as a nuclear power is like putting Creationists in charge of an Evolution conference and expecting rational results.

So it's pretty much like the Trump admin?

Holy crap that is scary.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Japan attacked America even though it knew objectively it had no chance.
North Korea attacked American forces in Korea in the 50s even though it had no chance of winning.... and won..... and we had atomic weapons at the time....

It was a tie!

 

[bshole]

It was a tie!

Actually it really isn't over is it? Objectively they (or Pakistan) probably represent the biggest threat in the world to us.

 

[ivwshane]

Japan attacked America even though it knew objectively it had no chance.
North Korea attacked American forces in Korea in the 50s even though it had no chance of winning.... and won..... and we had atomic weapons at the time....

Japan was being ran by a crazy dictator at the time?

Korea attacked US forces in Korea? That doesn't sound like they attacked the US first.

Maybe you don't understand the question.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Actually it really isn't over is it? Objectively they (or Pakistan) probably represent the biggest threat in the world to us.

No, not even close. The biggest threat to the inhabitants are terrorists (when we are talking about outside force) and after that it's Russia hands down.

Russia wants the Baltic States so bad they can taste it and have expressed a will to do what they did in Ukraine about their "own population" and the US just vowed to defend them at all costs. NK is a threat to NK only, their every move is watched and should a missile ever be sent towards the US it would be intercepted LONG before it posed any danger.

Russia is the only real threat there is because of geopolitical and NATO considerations.

Oh an yeah, you're right, it's not technically over, the English won, the rest of you tied on defeat.

 

[VRAMdemon]

What "North Korea" wants is the survival of its regime. There are already a number of ways in which they do that - mainly through sheer brutality of their people. It also continues to evade sanctions with the assistance of smuggling and some varying degrees of tacit support of China and Russia, both of whom value NK for its ability to complicate American designs on influencing the region. I'm not a NK expert but it probably wants more economic support from the outside world, including the US. Nukes are its way of blackmailing the rest of the world to ensure the survival of its regime, which puts the US in a difficult dilemma. It can give in and get peace for a few years, or it can stand its ground and make the situation more volatile in the short term.

The danger has always been an accident or a misunderstanding. Obviously NK understands that launching a preemptive strike against the US or any of its allies would elicit a response that would pretty much ensure the near annihilation of its regime and many innocent people along with them, and obviously any preemptive strike by the United States has always brought with it the threat of major destruction to cities in South Korea and Japan, along with US military facilities in these areas. It's unlikely that either country would seek a war but one or both countries could set off a chain of events that would nevertheless result in one. A bomber gets shot down in a military exercise, the lack of diplomatic channels, an overreaction by an emotional president, and next thing you know we could awaken to a hot war.

I really don't think the danger is a misunderstanding or open war with North Korea. The danger is North Korea becoming a global proliferator of wmd and missile technology, which those third countries then use, or those countries become unstable and the weapons fall into the hands of private actors. I think the right idea in that a diplomatic solution is the only real and rational option. I think the US must try to establish direct talks with the NK regime. It maybe sounds like capitulation to the demands of a child having a tantrum, but sometimes attention is what's required in order to keep the child from hurting himself and others. Especially when the child is in possession of nuclear weapons.

 

[agent00f]

You know who else tends to "suffer from paranoia?" Kim Jong Un. OP is correct in one respect: NK is not a rational actor. I cannot get on board with the assumption that we can be certain KJU will act rationally to avoid cataclysmic consequences to his own people. We have enough experience with our own malignant narcissist head of state to know that such people can be erratic and do not always do what we would expect a rational actor to do. I do not advocate a military attack here because it would be insane. However, not being at all concerned with NK having nukes, plus missiles capable of delivering them here, is bizarre.

Worse yet is the idea that it's actually beneficial to have more nuclear armed countries. That's like saying the more people who walk around with guns, the safer everyone will be because of mutual deterrence. No, the more people who have deadly weapons, the more likely it is for someone to do something reckless or insane. It only takes one world leader to have a bout of delusional paranoia and that's all she wrote.

Nuclear weapons will be used in anger within this century, probably before mid century. In fact, nuclear weapons will almost certainly cause the extinction of our species at some point in time. Let's not hasten our demise by suddenly being unconcerned with nuclear proliferation. We should be making sure that nuclear materials, such as those associated with the former Soviet Union, are fully secured. Liberals used to oppose nuclear proliferation for good reason. Now some of us seem to think that we need to advocate that the worst and most delusional regimes in the world should have nukes, just because they're afraid the "military industrial complex" is trying to use this as an excuse to attack. The only thing crazier than us bombing NK right now is us suddenly deciding that we're OK with everyone having nukes. I honestly don't know what you're thinking.

North Korea is completely isolated with delusional education that is FAR removed from anything resembling objective reality. Having North Korea as a nuclear power is like putting Creationists in charge of an Evolution conference and expecting rational results.

Seems the guy arming himself and acting crazy to ward off american "liberation" is a lot smarter than these rational geniuses.

Japan attacked America even though it knew objectively it had no chance.
North Korea attacked American forces in Korea in the 50s even though it had no chance of winning.... and won..... and we had atomic weapons at the time....

The korean war was fought between the americans and chinese.

 

[Jhhnn]

Japan attacked America even though it knew objectively it had no chance.
North Korea attacked American forces in Korea in the 50s even though it had no chance of winning.... and won..... and we had atomic weapons at the time....

You apparently think you know things about the Korean war that aren't true. There were no American forces in Korea at the time hostilities broke out but were rushed in quickly. The DPRK nearly succeeded in pushing us off the peninsula in August 1950-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pusan_Perimeter

Yet were nearly defeated before the Chinese intervened in October-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

We then set out to blast the north flat from the air with all the ordnance left over when the invasion of Japan became unnecessary. We did an excellent job of it & reduced the country to abject poverty. We earned their hostility.

They had to be tough & smart in their own peculiar way to survive. They're in an increasingly bad spot militarily because their shit is old & obsolete & because their backing from Russia & the Chinese is shaky. Given their history it's only logical for them to create a nuclear deterrent.

 

[pmv]

The North Koreans have had plenty of examples of what happens to enemies of the US that don't have nuclear weapons. It doesn't seem very surprising they want a deterrent.

 

[cytg111]

Speaking of Iraq...who can blame any country for wanting nukes after that debacle? America went after a country on false pretenses exactly because they 1) were in an area where we wanted to be able to start "spreading Democracy" and needed bases and 2) didn't have anything scary to throw at us. We killed hundreds of thousands of people, helped start a new wave of terrorism, and destabilized the entire region...over blatant lies and pitiful justifications. If you are a country in such a place that we might covet, our track record is of aggression for no good reason, so of course you want to defend yourself. The only defense against America is nukes, or to be large enough (China) that even a conventional war makes everyone lose economically.

All that may be true but it is too late to "do the right thing" ie. scale back agressive foreign politics in ie. the middle east. The bomb is a game changer. Underdeveloped nations cant be allowed thermo nuclear weapons for the sheer reason that if one goes off all of them might... and then we all dead. By sheer linear deduction the more bombs there are the larger the odds that one will go off, all will go off. We all dead. We need to remove the ones allready in existence not make new ones, specially not in NK!
Also we need to appreciate what it means that russian rocket engineers are making a killing helping NK with their missile efforts... Do we really believe that this is happening without Putins knowledge? If I am reading this geo sheize correctly then NK is about to become the Cuban missile crisis v2.0. Putin is engineering this like a pro, sock puppeteering the orange dofus, dear leader and everyone else in one go... When the west moves on NK, and we will, it will be with Putins hand up our behinds, we will alienate China further and a new axis of power will arise, an axis that aim to eclipse the west in terms of geo political power. How the hell could you elect Trump. Point being if you scale back geo political ambitions now someone else is coming for your lunch. And cake.