Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/20/2005 2:16:55 AM EDT
Wow has it even been a day?

link

North Korea Demands Nuke Reactor From U.S.

By JAE-SOON CHANG

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea said Tuesday it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United States first provides an atomic energy reactor, casting doubt on its commitment to a breakthrough agreement reached at international arms talks.

The North insisted during arms talks that began last week in Beijing that it be given a light-water reactor, a type less easily diverted for weapons use, in exchange for abandoning nuclear weapons. The agreement reached at the talks' end Monday - the first since the negotiations began in August 2003 - says the six countries in the negotiations will discuss the reactor issue ``at an appropriate time.''

Both the United States and Japan, members of the six-nation disarmament talks, rejected the North's latest demand.

``This is not the agreement that they signed and we'll give them some time to reflect on the agreement they signed,'' U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in New York, where he was with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at meetings of the U.N. Security Council.


``The Japanese side has continuously said that North Korea's demand is unacceptable,'' Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura told reporters.


The Beijing agreement called for the North to abandon it arms efforts and accept inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency in exchange for energy, economic and security aid.


But the North's statement Tuesday indicated it was again raising the reactor demand as a prerequisite for disarming.


``We will return to the NPT and sign the safeguards agreement with the IAEA and comply with it immediately upon the U.S. provision of LWRs, a basis of confidence-building to us,'' the North's Foreign Ministry said in the statement, carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.


``The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of (North Korea's) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing LWRs,'' the North said.


The impact of the North's statement wasn't immediately clear. During the years of debate over its weapons program, the communist nation has sometimes given confusing or dramatic statements as it publicly maneuvers for negotiating leverage.


Other countries at the talks made clear that the reactor could only be discussed after the North rejoins the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and accepts inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency - which North Korea pledged to do in Monday's agreement.


U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli emphasized earlier in Washington that the ``appropriate time'' for discussing the reactor means only after the North comes in compliance with those conditions.


``It's a theoretical proposition in the future, contingent on dismantling having taken place, resigning up to the NPT and having IAEA safeguards in place,'' he said Monday in Washington.


The North's position is likely to be a major sticking point in talks slated to begin in early November on implementing Monday's agreement.


The North had demanded during the six-nation talks in Beijing - which include China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas - that it be allowed to keep a civilian nuclear program for power generation after it disarms.


But the United States strongly opposed the demand, and Monday's agreement only acknowledged that the North had ``stated'' its claim to that right.


The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush has opposed anything resembling a 1994 U.S.-North Korea agreement, which promised the North two light-water reactors for power. That project stalled amid the current crisis that broke out in late 2002 over the North's resumed nuclear weapons program.


Associated Press writer Burt Herman in Beijing contributed to this report.



09/19/05 23:14


Can't we just bomb them to death already? No ground war just an asskicking? Seriously who really gives a danmed about them?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:22:39 AM EDT
No, we cant bomb them. We have to fight a War on Terror against a country that had nothing to do with it and that costs us billions.
And we've put ourself into a position we cant get out of.

Thanks Bush!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:22:50 AM EDT
thats a big suprise, didn't need ms cleo for that
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:25:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MuRDoC:
thats a big suprise, didn't need ms cleo for that





No shit.
Hell, maybe we should stop the food shipments then see what tune he sings.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:28:08 AM EDT
I say just nuke them. Nobody will help them. Nobody is that stupid. We fly recon planes over there that take photos so why not fly about 20 of them over and push out a present for each city.

Fuck enough already.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:55:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
No, we cant bomb them. We have to fight a War on Terror against a country that had nothing to do with it and that costs us billions.
And we've put ourself into a position we cant get out of.

Thanks Bush!


Actually, even if we did not invade Iraq we could not invade North Korea. You may have forgotten the small country to its north with a small army that intervened the last time we invaded NK.

That and some intelligence sources believe NK has had nukes since the Clinton administration.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:27:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
Actually, even if we did not invade Iraq we could not invade North Korea. You may have forgotten the small country to its north with a small army that intervened the last time we invaded NK.

We can break China, too. No problem at all. If China goes to war against the USA it's going extinct like a Panda bear. China does not have enough oil, it it totally dependent on sea trade, and their Commie ways can't sustain them long term. We'll smash the North Koreans and the Chinese will have to shoot them as they flee the border because they can't feed them.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:39:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 3:41:50 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
We can break China, too. No problem at all. If China goes to war against the USA it's going extinct like a Panda bear. China does not have enough oil, it it totally dependent on sea trade, and their Commie ways can't sustain them long term. We'll smash the North Koreans and the Chinese will have to shoot them as they flee the border because they can't feed them.



I have news for you: China isn't the backward power it once was. It is a thoroughly modern power with a massive air force and technology as good as ours. (Thanks, Mr. Clinton!)

China can hold Taiwan hostage and can be supplied by Russia in case of a conflict with the US.

China is not a paper tiger.

Fighting them would cost America a LOT, and frankly I don't think America is willing to pay the price. China is in a better position because their entire populace is enslaved, so they don't really have to worry about public opinion.

North Korea is jerking us around because Kim Jong Il, that narcissistic bastard, knows he can get away with it. Because of all the "careful" and "measured" foreign policy the libbies have demanded for years, he now has nukes and the ability to do as he pleases.

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:42:13 AM EDT
... Who in this crowd popped the cork of their finest bubbly upon North Korea's original proclamation?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:00:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
I have news for you: China isn't the backward power it once was. It is a thoroughly modern power with a massive air force and technology as good as ours. (Thanks, Mr. Clinton!) China can hold Taiwan hostage and can be supplied by Russia in case of a conflict with the US. China is not a paper tiger. Fighting them would cost America a LOT, and frankly I don't think America is willing to pay the price. China is in a better position because their entire populace is enslaved, so they don't really have to worry about public opinion. North Korea is jerking us around because Kim Jong Il, that narcissistic bastard, knows he can get away with it. Because of all the "careful" and "measured" foreign policy the libbies have demanded for years, he now has nukes and the ability to do as he pleases.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! China's military sucks, they cannot defend their trading routes, no long range capability. What are they going to do? Invade the mid-East or the water of SE Asia for oil? send an air guard for their container ships? Help from Russia? Russia can't help itself! Russia will stab China in the back when the lead starts flying.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:06:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MuRDoC:
thats a big suprise, didn't need ms cleo for that



+1

I'm beginning to wonder if Baghdad Bob isn't over there running the show behind the scenes.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:12:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! China's military sucks, they cannot defend their trading routes, no long range capability.



They don't need long range capability.

They have sufficient nuclear capability to pose a threat to every country in the region, countries that could not hope to resist them.

Whether you realize it or not that complicates the situation.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but asymetric warfare is the rule of the day. Lots of folks would be willing to take various actions on China's behalf should it come to a conflict with the US.



What are they going to do? Invade the mid-East or the water of SE Asia for oil?
send an air guard for their container ships? Help from Russia? Russia can't help itself! Russia will stab China in the back when the lead starts flying.



Russia will do what is in its own interests when the lead starts flying. Just like all nations do.

You seem far more optomistic about a conflict with China than our military planners do, BTW. Methinks they have a better grasp of the situation than you do....
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:12:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
I have news for you: China isn't the backward power it once was. It is a thoroughly modern power with a massive air force and technology as good as ours. (Thanks, Mr. Clinton!) China can hold Taiwan hostage and can be supplied by Russia in case of a conflict with the US. China is not a paper tiger. Fighting them would cost America a LOT, and frankly I don't think America is willing to pay the price. China is in a better position because their entire populace is enslaved, so they don't really have to worry about public opinion. North Korea is jerking us around because Kim Jong Il, that narcissistic bastard, knows he can get away with it. Because of all the "careful" and "measured" foreign policy the libbies have demanded for years, he now has nukes and the ability to do as he pleases.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! China's military sucks, they cannot defend their trading routes, no long range capability. What are they going to do? Invade the mid-East or the water of SE Asia for oil? send an air guard for their container ships? Help from Russia? Russia can't help itself! Russia will stab China in the back when the lead starts flying.



One country I wouldn't under-estimate would be China.

vmax84
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:19:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
We can break China, too. No problem at all. If China goes to war against the USA it's going extinct like a Panda bear. China does not have enough oil, it it totally dependent on sea trade, and their Commie ways can't sustain them long term. We'll smash the North Koreans and the Chinese will have to shoot them as they flee the border because they can't feed them.



You may care to do some reading here, then rethink your statement.

communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=57;t=000004;p=1

thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=8
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:22:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
They don't need long range capability. They have sufficient nuclear capability to pose a threat to every country in the region, countries that could not hope to resist them. Whether you realize it or not that complicates the situation.

So what are they going to do? Play nuclear hostage taker of nations in order to get their demands? Hah! Taiwan, Japan and the USA will break them so hard.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but asymetric warfare is the rule of the day. Lots of folks would be willing to take various actions on China's behalf should it come to a conflict with the US.
Good, that will piss off the USA so that we won't hesitate to Nuke entire countries.

Russia will do what is in its own interests when the lead starts flying. Just like all nations do.
That makes Russia an unreliable ally for China, thank you for helping my case! You seem far more optomistic about a conflict with China than our military planners do, BTW. Methinks they have a better grasp of the situation than you do... I'm definitely more optimistic because I'm not a sissy. China has many competitors and enemies in the region who also lean towards the USA. It will be an easy fight, especially if it goes nuclear.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:26:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Backstop:
You may care to do some reading here, then rethink your statement.

Yeah, OK, when I want to learn about China I pay attention to sissy white folks! You guys are so negative about a war with China that I think it's about time to go to war with them. Let's see who is right and who gets to eat crow. You read it here in arfcom, I predict China's ass-whooping.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:31:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
So what are they going to do? Play nuclear hostage taker of nations in order to get their demands? Hah! Taiwan, Japan and the USA will break them so hard.



Japan's military is TINY.

China can vaporize Tokyo.

Whether you recognize it or not, that complicates things.



Good, that will piss off the USA so that we won't hesitate to Nuke entire countries.







That makes Russia an unreliable ally for China, thank you for helping my case!



It means that Russia is an unreliable entity for ANYONE. Unpredictables with lots of military hardware, a desperate economic situation and nuclear weapons hardly makes things more simple.



I'm definitely more optimistic because I'm not a sissy. China has many competitors and enemies in the region who also lean towards the USA. It will be an easy fight, especially if it goes nuclear.



There is no such thing as an "easy fight", ESPECIALLY if it goes nuclear.

Things are dramatically more complicated and dangerous than you realize. I believe in such a conflict the US will prevail, but at what cost? Do you SERIOUSLY understand the consequences of unleashing the nuclear genie again? Do you have ANY idea what that would mean for the US?

We can't put panties on the heads of a few Iraqi prisoners without half the world screaming, including half the population in THIS country, and you expect that when we start slinging nukes around that suddenly everyone will become more sensible rather than less?

Hardly.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:32:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
Yeah, OK, when I want to learn about China I pay attention to sissy white folks! You guys are so negative about a war with China that I think it's about time to go to war with them. Let's see who is right and who gets to eat crow. You read it here in arfcom, I predict China's ass-whooping.



We don't fight wars to see who eats crow.

People die in wars.

Our best soldiers die.

The helpless and innocent die.

War is not to be treated with such frivolity.

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:44:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
Japan's military is TINY. China can vaporize Tokyo. Whether you recognize it or not, that complicates things.

No, it simplifies. If Japan joins the fight, then there is less complication. If China nukes Tokyo, then there is less complication. The biggest complication is your quibbling.


We've got more Nukes and they work better, too. You can't say anything to refute that so you have to post a smiley.

It means that Russia is an unreliable entity for ANYONE. Unpredictables with lots of military hardware, a desperate economic situation and nuclear weapons hardly makes things more simple.
Exactly! You are counting on Russia helping China and I am not counting on Russia helping us. I'm counting on Russia turning on China out of desperation once China starts getting creamed.

There is no such thing as an "easy fight", ESPECIALLY if it goes nuclear.
Nuclear wars are easy wars. We just send the birds and sit back because we know ours will work.

Things are dramatically more complicated and dangerous than you realize. I believe in such a conflict the US will prevail, but at what cost? Do you SERIOUSLY understand the consequences of unleashing the nuclear genie again? Do you have ANY idea what that would mean for the US?
It means that we win. Which is my whole point. We'll beat China anyway. It's simply a war of damage control for our side and inflicting maximum damage on their side.

We can't put panties on the heads of a few Iraqi prisoners without half the world screaming, including half the population in THIS country, and you expect that when we start slinging nukes around that suddenly everyone will become more sensible rather than less? Hardly.
Hardly? Not at all. The US population is a powder keg. We're just looking for good excuses to beat up on people right now. You know it, I know it, the Democraps definitely know it. If the SHTF, expect a leader much tougher than Bush to get elected who will lead the USA to take on the entire planet and WIN.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:47:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
Japan's military is TINY. China can vaporize Tokyo. Whether you recognize it or not, that complicates things.

No, it simplifies. If Japan joins the fight, then there is less complication. If China nukes Tokyo, then there is less complication. The biggest complication is your quibbling.


We've got more Nukes and they work better, too. You can't say anything to refute that so you have to post a smiley.

It means that Russia is an unreliable entity for ANYONE. Unpredictables with lots of military hardware, a desperate economic situation and nuclear weapons hardly makes things more simple.
Exactly! You are counting on Russia helping China and I am not counting on Russia helping us. I'm counting on Russia turning on China out of desperation once China starts getting creamed.

There is no such thing as an "easy fight", ESPECIALLY if it goes nuclear.
Nuclear wars are easy wars. We just send the birds and sit back because we know ours will work.

Things are dramatically more complicated and dangerous than you realize. I believe in such a conflict the US will prevail, but at what cost? Do you SERIOUSLY understand the consequences of unleashing the nuclear genie again? Do you have ANY idea what that would mean for the US?
It means that we win. Which is my whole point. We'll beat China anyway. It's simply a war of damage control for our side and inflicting maximum damage on their side.

We can't put panties on the heads of a few Iraqi prisoners without half the world screaming, including half the population in THIS country, and you expect that when we start slinging nukes around that suddenly everyone will become more sensible rather than less? Hardly.
Hardly? Not at all. The US population is a powder keg. We're just looking for good excuses to beat up on people right now. You know it, I know it, the Democraps definitely know it. If the SHTF, expect a leader much tougher than Bush to get elected who will lead the USA to take on the entire planet and WIN.



Uhhh.....

If you think war is ever "simple", then you lack historical perspective.

If you think that nuclear war is "easy", then you seem to lack common sense.

And if your last sentence expressed your true sentiments, then you seem to lack sanity as well....
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:47:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
They don't need long range capability. They have sufficient nuclear capability to pose a threat to every country in the region, countries that could not hope to resist them. Whether you realize it or not that complicates the situation.

So what are they going to do? Play nuclear hostage taker of nations in order to get their demands? Hah! Taiwan, Japan and the USA will break them so hard.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but asymetric warfare is the rule of the day. Lots of folks would be willing to take various actions on China's behalf should it come to a conflict with the US.
Good, that will piss off the USA so that we won't hesitate to Nuke entire countries.

Russia will do what is in its own interests when the lead starts flying. Just like all nations do.
That makes Russia an unreliable ally for China, thank you for helping my case! You seem far more optomistic about a conflict with China than our military planners do, BTW. Methinks they have a better grasp of the situation than you do... I'm definitely more optimistic because I'm not a sissy. China has many competitors and enemies in the region who also lean towards the USA. It will be an easy fight, especially if it goes nuclear.





If they only have a couple dozen nukes, that's enough to incinerate every large city we have and take out 3/4 of our population (and a slow death by the way). No one wins. I'm not against self defense, but Jesus, why wish for it. Go away, yer such an idiot.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:52:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
We don't fight wars to see who eats crow. People die in wars. Our best soldiers die. The helpless and innocent die. War is not to be treated with such frivolity.

Are you French? Why don't you salute with both hands straight in the air to the Chinese dragon? You sure sound like a pansy liberal.

Cindy Sheehan Mode On We don't fight wars to see who gets the oil. Everybody dies in war (uh... people die anyway Cindy). Oh my son, he died in war (uh... how about Chinese babies getting aborted during "peacetime"). The poor, helpless, and innocent commies might suffer, sniffle sniffle, cry cry. War is so special, war complicates things, gazillions of years of armed conflict can't be right. Damn you Rove! Cindy Sheehan Mode Off
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:54:14 AM EDT
I don't understand why we've not told them straight out, "We're only at a cease fire, the war never ended, cease your nuclear program or will nuke you into the stone age, end of story, what will it be"?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:55:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
<snip>

And if your last sentence expressed your true sentiments, then you seem to lack sanity as well....



You were expecting someone who posts 1300 times in one month to actually THINK before he posts? Silly man.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:57:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
We don't fight wars to see who eats crow. People die in wars. Our best soldiers die. The helpless and innocent die. War is not to be treated with such frivolity.

Are you French? Why don't you salute with both hands straight in the air to the Chinese dragon? You sure sound like a pansy liberal.

Cindy Sheehan Mode On We don't fight wars to see who gets the oil. Everybody dies in war (uh... people die anyway Cindy). Oh my son, he died in war (uh... how about Chinese babies getting aborted during "peacetime"). The poor, helpless, and innocent commies might suffer, sniffle sniffle, cry cry. War is so special, war complicates things, gazillions of years of armed conflict can't be right. Damn you Rove! Cindy Sheehan Mode Off



I guess I was right about the whole sanity thing....
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:57:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
If you think war is ever "simple", then you lack historical perspective.

What's not simple about it? They're the enemy, we're going to kill their men and destory their equipment.

If you think that nuclear war is "easy", then you seem to lack common sense.
What's so hard about it? We have the equipment, we know it works. Theirs is questionable and fewer in number. They have a larger population squeezed into more crowded target areas.

And if your last sentence expressed your true sentiments, then you seem to lack sanity as well...
You don't think the USA will toughen up? You don't think we'll actually take on the world if need be? You don't think there are tougher leaders than Bush in the USA waiting in the wings? You lack sanity my friend.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:58:26 AM EDT
28 posts per day? is this sgtar15?

txl
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:00:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
I guess I was right about the whole sanity thing....

I guess you don't understand that you sound like a chinese commie appeaser. Where's your historical perspective Johnny?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:00:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLewis:
28 posts per day? is this sgtar15?

txl



I doubt it. He is suspended by IP, which means that unless he is at a library computer or something he isn't posting.

Sarge never sounded that nutty either.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:01:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
We don't fight wars to see who eats crow. People die in wars. Our best soldiers die. The helpless and innocent die. War is not to be treated with such frivolity.

Are you French? Why don't you salute with both hands straight in the air to the Chinese dragon? You sure sound like a pansy liberal.

Cindy Sheehan Mode On We don't fight wars to see who gets the oil. Everybody dies in war (uh... people die anyway Cindy). Oh my son, he died in war (uh... how about Chinese babies getting aborted during "peacetime"). The poor, helpless, and innocent commies might suffer, sniffle sniffle, cry cry. War is so special, war complicates things, gazillions of years of armed conflict can't be right. Damn you Rove! Cindy Sheehan Mode Off



Thanks for playing who's the biggest fool in the thread. Feel free to run for office on the "America whoop-ass vs The Planet" platform. Until then, the adults will weigh our real options out there.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:02:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLewis:
28 posts per day? is this sgtar15? txl

All some can do is point at post counts instead of their own opinions or ideas. Sounds like my ideas are hitting home, eh?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:04:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
I guess you don't understand that you sound like a chinese commie appeaser. Where's your historical perspective Johnny?



There is a difference between being an appeaser and having a sober understanding of what war means, especially NUCLEAR war.

Nobody wins a nuclear war.

You just survive them if you are lucky.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:05:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
Thanks for playing who's the biggest fool in the thread. Feel free to run for office on the "America whoop-ass vs The Planet" platform. Until then, the adults will weigh our real options out there.

You're welcome. I'm glad that you are weighing the "real" options while Strategic Command handles all the missiles.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:13:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
There is a difference between being an appeaser and having a sober understanding of what war means, especially NUCLEAR war. Nobody wins a nuclear war. You just survive them if you are lucky.

What is the difference between an appeaser and a sober understander?

We have won and survived a nuclear war. It was WW2. We dropped two nukes on one country that we had already isolated, whose allies we had already broken, whose homeland we were about to invade. We didn't "have to" nuke Japan. But we did so in order to save more of OUR soldier's lives. Historians and even the Japanese grudgingly admit that continuing a conventional war would have cost more of THEIR lives, too. But somehow you think we won't do it again with an enemy the magnitude of China? We're actually MORE likely to use Nukes against China because of the cost of a conventional war.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:22:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 5:23:33 AM EDT by Backstop]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
You were expecting someone who posts 1300 times in one month to actually THINK before he posts? Silly man.



Man, no shit. I hadn't noticed that.

Is he Sarge?

EDIT:

I hadn't made it to the second page...looks like TxLewis beat me to it. HAHA
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:29:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
We're actually MORE likely to use Nukes against China because of the cost of a conventional war.



Other Boards I post on, a statement such as this requires supportive evidence such as links, articles, National Policy, etc.

Got any?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:40:25 AM EDT


Arm chair warriors

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:44:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pv74:


Arm chair warriors




I am a chairborne ranger
Live a life of imaginary danger
Expert in all matters of combat
'Long as I don't have to leave where I'm at

Chairborne, chairborne,
Nothing can beat the feel!
Chairborne, chairborne,
Just don't ask us to do it for real!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:45:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Backstop:
Other Boards I post on, a statement such as this requires supportive evidence such as links, articles, National Policy, etc. Got any?

None at all because it's my opinion. Based on past US actions during wartime where we nuked a country we knew we were going to defeat anyway, it stands to reason that we are more likely to nuke a country such as China today. Our weapons are better, our capability to deliver is better, and it would cost us more to fight conventionally.

Just for kicks here a good read. www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

"Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets [that are] important to achieve strategic and political objectives." (p. 7)
Sounds like Taiwan.

"Due to the combination of China's still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non nuclear forces, China is a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency." (p. 16-17)
There's China.

So let's see: critical role of nukes, WMD and conventional forces, strategic/political objectives, immediate or potential contingency.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:47:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By pv74:


Arm chair warriors




I am a chairborne ranger
Live a life of imaginary danger
Expert in all matters of combat
'Long as I don't have to leave where I'm at

Chairborne, chairborne,
Nothing can beat the feel!
Chairborne, chairborne,
Just don't ask us to do it for real!





Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:59:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pv74:
Arm chair warriors

Our enemies are not afraid because they already know they are going to be defeated by the US Military, so why worry? What they really fear are the armchair warriors in the US population who drive the politicians. Our enemies know that armchair warriors push hardest to use the US War Machine, while appeasers like John_Wayne represent their greatest hope in staving off the US War Machine.

So Americans have to decide wether or not they want to bleed to death over generations or fight. We've decided to fight the muslim hordes now instead of passing the buck onto future generations. The decision with China will be easier and the changeover from posturing (Clinton) to war (Bush) will be broader because China is a commie nation with clear targets.

The best Chinese: engineers, businessmen, workers, etc... will defect to the USA when the war starts. Afterwards, China as a world power will collapse from internal dissent and pressure from the USA. Then our soldiers get first dibs at Chinese hotties who know how to cook and clean! Woohoo!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:02:38 AM EDT
They are nothing but blackmailers.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:05:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LUGERMAN:
They are nothing but blackmailers.

Exactly. That's why we should shoot back. You don't let the Mob bleed your household or business to death! I don't care if Kim Jong Il's crime family is related to the Chinese Commie syndicate, they're all going down.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:08:57 AM EDT
You're killing me, Klub.

Two points and I'm gone.

1. Did you read the very next paragraph from the page you linked? Here it is:


However, “U.S. nuclear forces, alone are unsuited to most of the contingencies for which the United States prepares. The United States and allied interests may not require nuclear strikes.” A “new mix” of nuclear, non-nuclear, and defensive capabilities “is required for the diverse set of potential adversaries and unexpected threats the United States may confront in the coming decades.” (p. 7)


2. Did you notice the date of the paper you quoted?

8 January 2002


Neither side has been sitting on their collective hands in the last 3.5 years. If you would do some research regarding China's aggressive actions to modernize and strengthen its military, you would see your comments as others do; infantile and careless.

Bye.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:11:38 AM EDT
China's population is 1.3 billion and 99.99% of them are extremely poor. The PLA spends most of its resources keeping those people from revolting. If the CCP does anything to upset the populus, (like attack Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or US) you'll see riots an the chinese empire will fall apart into warring factions as it has done for the last 1000 years.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:13:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
Our enemies are not afraid because they already know they are going to be defeated by the US Military, so why worry? What they really fear are the armchair warriors in the US population who drive the politicians. Our enemies know that armchair warriors push hardest to use the US War Machine, while appeasers like John_Wayne represent their greatest hope in staving off the US War Machine.



So now I am the great white hope of the chinese hordes........

Ya.

Sure.

You're a looney.

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:16:44 AM EDT
I don't know shit
But I can type

These mofos will believe my hype

I link to articles
That are three years old

ARFCOM folks are stupid so I'm told

I just signed up
But I ain't gonna pay

Folks say I won't be around long anyway

Why should I cough up
24 bucks

I really don't give a flying fux

I just came here
To stir up shit

And no I ain't from the gubmint

So that's about all
Whaddya say?

I just want to argue anyway.


Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:22:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 6:35:49 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]
Somebody needs to re-write blood upon the risers to accurately reflect Klub and the Chairborne Ranger Regiment properly....

He's the baddest of the rangers, all other members shake with fright,
As he logs onto the internet to start a pointless fight
All the world will know his prowess, all will tremble at the sight
He's gonna be the best post whore!

Glory glory the chairborne rangers!
Who can face all sorts of imaginary dangers!
Rough and ready for any action
Always at the vanguard of the fight!
He's gonna be the best post whore!

He types another diatribe, loaded with wit and skill
And when he sees them floundering, he moves in for the kill
He leaves with self assurance and pride in his iron will
He's gonna be the best post whore!

Glory glory the chairborne rangers!
Who can face all sorts of imaginary dangers!
Rough and ready for any action
Always at the vanguard of the fight!
He's gonna be the best post whore!

Like the Huns the mods all come in and warn him to tone it down
But our hero will ignore them because he is a big ass-clown
Finally he's banned and the site raises a joyful sound!
It's the end of another post whore!

There was blood upon the GD and the Pit is all in flames
As the death of our chairborne ranger receives some passing fame
Some will say good riddance, most will just forget his name!
It's the end of another post whore!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:25:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Backstop:
However, “U.S. nuclear forces, alone are unsuited to most of the contingencies for which the United States prepares. The United States and allied interests may not require nuclear strikes.” A “new mix” of nuclear, non-nuclear, and defensive capabilities “is required for the diverse set of potential adversaries and unexpected threats the United States may confront in the coming decades.” (p. 7)

Right, that means we're still going to use Nukes, duh.

Neither side has been sitting on their collective hands in the last 3.5 years. If you would do some research regarding China's aggressive actions to modernize and strengthen its military, you would see your comments as others do; infantile and careless. Bye.
So now that I've found something you asked dated in this decade post-9/11 you dismiss it? Sounds like you were being infantile and careless when you asked for citations in first place.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:29:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DnPRK:
China's population is 1.3 billion and 99.99% of them are extremely poor. The PLA spends most of its resources keeping those people from revolting. If the CCP does anything to upset the populus, (like attack Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or US) you'll see riots an the chinese empire will fall apart into warring factions as it has done for the last 1000 years.

Yep, exactly. Do you know why it took China decades to reach their status today even though they are positioned strategically? The commie party was too busy killing millions of Chinese instead of expanding their economy. That's a lot of bad blood right there. Bad blood that the USA can exploit if war breaks out. The PLA will be tied down near their cities to keep "order" while we move around blowing them up.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:36:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
So now I am the great white hope of the chinese hordes........ Ya. Sure. You're a looney.

No, I'm not. It's your appeasing defeatist attitude that has caused the US to pull back in the past when we should have had victory. www.vwam.com/vets/tet/tet.html

The cost in North Vietnamese casualties was tremendous but the gambit produced a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. ...

Giap's gamble had another side effect When the Tet Offensive began, many US officials believed that the N LF had offered the Americans a golden opportunity by fighting a pitched battle where it could be defeated in open combat. In effect, the NLF was "leading with its chin" and the massive losses it suffered bear this out The VC was not broken by the Tet Offensive but it was severely crippled by it and, from then on, the North took on the main burden of the war Further fighting in 1968 ...

Yep, American white boys in the media and at home defeated the US Military, not the Vietcong.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top