0
UNdiscovered Wrote:
No seriously if it comes down to it
I value to lives of Americans over North Koreans
If one of those country's had to get taken down a level then it damn well will be be North Korea, I trust Obama with nuclear weapons, not that nut who runs North Korea, and I trust Obama will make the necessary sacrifices for the greater good.
Icebaby Wrote:
I'm just going to go on a good guess and believe he's mainly trolling.
Although, to refer to your earlier question, you're not the only person who doesn't feel the need to drop the bomb on anyone because they're making threats and having acted upon them.
Riyakou Wrote:
I'm sure the citizens of North Korea would feel the same in such a situation.
So, what denies them the same factor of killing us to protect themselves, especially considering how big of a threat the U.S. apparently is to them?
Do you see how backwards your statement is? Everyone wants to survive, so why not push towards a solution to where no one dies?
UNdiscovered Wrote:
It would be totally justifiable if North Korea was nuked. Sometimes you must resort to nuclear warfare, and that okay because its just a natural progression mankind has made in war. Nuclear bombs can actually prevent the loss of unnecessary lives, at the cost of some Koreans, many Americans could be saved. Thats just how it works, sacrifices must be made for the greater good, and a world without North Korea doesn't seem so bad.
It would be totally justifiable if North Korea was nuked. Sometimes you must resort to nuclear warfare, and that okay because its just a natural progression mankind has made in war. Nuclear bombs can actually prevent the loss of unnecessary lives, at the cost of some Koreans, many Americans could be saved. Thats just how it works, sacrifices must be made for the greater good, and a world without North Korea doesn't seem so bad.
I'm sure the citizens of North Korea would feel the same in such a situation.
So, what denies them the same factor of killing us to protect themselves, especially considering how big of a threat the U.S. apparently is to them?
Do you see how backwards your statement is? Everyone wants to survive, so why not push towards a solution to where no one dies?
I'm just going to go on a good guess and believe he's mainly trolling.
Although, to refer to your earlier question, you're not the only person who doesn't feel the need to drop the bomb on anyone because they're making threats and having acted upon them.
No seriously if it comes down to it
I value to lives of Americans over North Koreans
If one of those country's had to get taken down a level then it damn well will be be North Korea, I trust Obama with nuclear weapons, not that nut who runs North Korea, and I trust Obama will make the necessary sacrifices for the greater good.
thats the thing it isnt just n kroea. we also have pakistan palistine, iran yemen pretty much most of the middle east and i say atomic bomb there asses and send a message and than they will learn not to be animals in the world. not just to the usa but to there own people. lets be real no matter how much our guys say dont do this or that those people laugh and think oh suicidal bombings are funny or the rape of a few american reporters is funny.
before people bitch and say we need more diplomacy what has it done so far? it has done nothing. these countries hate us burn our flag and yet they love the money we send them through federal aid so we the usa are idiots in that department.
no matter what we do for those people we are still labeled the devil or the enemy so if thats what they want hey thats what they should get imo
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
0
coltess Wrote:
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
coltess Wrote:
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
Terrorists are not a country, they are an idea. You can't bomb an idea. We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save hundreds of thousands of lives to force a warring nation into surrender. Al-Quaeda is not country, it's a ideological group located not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. We are not at war with Afghanistan - we are at war IN Afghanistan.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what a "nuke" is. The Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equal to 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively and took the lives of over 200,000 people and irradiated 350,000 more.
Modern Nuclear Weapons carry an average yield equal to 300 kilotons of TNT. The decimation that those devices can cause is unfathomable as nuclear testing is done in smaller amounts and calculated upward. Detonating a modern nuclear weapon could also drastically effect the environment all across the globe; crop failures, temperature drops, famine for God's sake! Millions nowhere even near the impact site might die!
Finally, do you think that Russia, Pakistan, India, and China would appreciate such destruction in their back yard? Ruining their environment? We would irradiate the major water supplies of China, Pakistan, and India setting them against each other in a battle for fresh water, possibly resulting in more Nuclear war, if not against each other, than against us for starting it in the first place.
Nuclear Weapons are a last last last resort.
0
coltess Wrote:
Terrorists are not a country, they are an idea. You can't bomb an idea. We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save hundreds of thousands of lives to force a warring nation into surrender. Al-Quaeda is not country, it's a ideological group located not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. We are not at war with Afghanistan - we are at war IN Afghanistan.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what a "nuke" is. The Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equal to 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively and took the lives of over 200,000 people and irradiated 350,000 more.
Modern Nuclear Weapons carry an average yield equal to 300 kilotons of TNT. The decimation that those devices can cause is unfathomable as nuclear testing is done in smaller amounts and calculated upward. Detonating a modern nuclear weapon could also drastically effect the environment all across the globe; crop failures, temperature drops, famine for God's sake! Millions nowhere even near the impact site might die!
Finally, do you think that Russia, Pakistan, India, and China would appreciate such destruction in their back yard? Ruining their environment? We would irradiate the major water supplies of China, Pakistan, and India setting them against each other in a battle for fresh water, possibly resulting in more Nuclear war, if not against each other, than against us for starting it in the first place.
Nuclear Weapons are a last last last resort.
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
coltess Wrote:
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
Terrorists are not a country, they are an idea. You can't bomb an idea. We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save hundreds of thousands of lives to force a warring nation into surrender. Al-Quaeda is not country, it's a ideological group located not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. We are not at war with Afghanistan - we are at war IN Afghanistan.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what a "nuke" is. The Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equal to 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively and took the lives of over 200,000 people and irradiated 350,000 more.
Modern Nuclear Weapons carry an average yield equal to 300 kilotons of TNT. The decimation that those devices can cause is unfathomable as nuclear testing is done in smaller amounts and calculated upward. Detonating a modern nuclear weapon could also drastically effect the environment all across the globe; crop failures, temperature drops, famine for God's sake! Millions nowhere even near the impact site might die!
Finally, do you think that Russia, Pakistan, India, and China would appreciate such destruction in their back yard? Ruining their environment? We would irradiate the major water supplies of China, Pakistan, and India setting them against each other in a battle for fresh water, possibly resulting in more Nuclear war, if not against each other, than against us for starting it in the first place.
Nuclear Weapons are a last last last resort.
i know exactly what nukes are dont talk to me like im an idiot
i come from a military family thank you very much
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
i know exactly what nukes are dont talk to me like im an idiot
i come from a military family thank you very much
coltess Wrote:
Terrorists are not a country, they are an idea. You can't bomb an idea. We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save hundreds of thousands of lives to force a warring nation into surrender. Al-Quaeda is not country, it's a ideological group located not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. We are not at war with Afghanistan - we are at war IN Afghanistan.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what a "nuke" is. The Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equal to 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively and took the lives of over 200,000 people and irradiated 350,000 more.
Modern Nuclear Weapons carry an average yield equal to 300 kilotons of TNT. The decimation that those devices can cause is unfathomable as nuclear testing is done in smaller amounts and calculated upward. Detonating a modern nuclear weapon could also drastically effect the environment all across the globe; crop failures, temperature drops, famine for God's sake! Millions nowhere even near the impact site might die!
Finally, do you think that Russia, Pakistan, India, and China would appreciate such destruction in their back yard? Ruining their environment? We would irradiate the major water supplies of China, Pakistan, and India setting them against each other in a battle for fresh water, possibly resulting in more Nuclear war, if not against each other, than against us for starting it in the first place.
Nuclear Weapons are a last last last resort.
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
coltess Wrote:
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
Terrorists are not a country, they are an idea. You can't bomb an idea. We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save hundreds of thousands of lives to force a warring nation into surrender. Al-Quaeda is not country, it's a ideological group located not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. We are not at war with Afghanistan - we are at war IN Afghanistan.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what a "nuke" is. The Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equal to 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively and took the lives of over 200,000 people and irradiated 350,000 more.
Modern Nuclear Weapons carry an average yield equal to 300 kilotons of TNT. The decimation that those devices can cause is unfathomable as nuclear testing is done in smaller amounts and calculated upward. Detonating a modern nuclear weapon could also drastically effect the environment all across the globe; crop failures, temperature drops, famine for God's sake! Millions nowhere even near the impact site might die!
Finally, do you think that Russia, Pakistan, India, and China would appreciate such destruction in their back yard? Ruining their environment? We would irradiate the major water supplies of China, Pakistan, and India setting them against each other in a battle for fresh water, possibly resulting in more Nuclear war, if not against each other, than against us for starting it in the first place.
Nuclear Weapons are a last last last resort.
i know exactly what nukes are dont talk to me like im an idiot
i come from a military family thank you very much
I'll talk to you like an idiot if you advocate idiocy.
About Me
Get that ass BANNED
0
Hoo Hoo you tell em coltess.
0
coltess Wrote:
I'll talk to you like an idiot if you advocate idiocy.
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
i know exactly what nukes are dont talk to me like im an idiot
i come from a military family thank you very much
coltess Wrote:
Terrorists are not a country, they are an idea. You can't bomb an idea. We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save hundreds of thousands of lives to force a warring nation into surrender. Al-Quaeda is not country, it's a ideological group located not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. We are not at war with Afghanistan - we are at war IN Afghanistan.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what a "nuke" is. The Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equal to 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively and took the lives of over 200,000 people and irradiated 350,000 more.
Modern Nuclear Weapons carry an average yield equal to 300 kilotons of TNT. The decimation that those devices can cause is unfathomable as nuclear testing is done in smaller amounts and calculated upward. Detonating a modern nuclear weapon could also drastically effect the environment all across the globe; crop failures, temperature drops, famine for God's sake! Millions nowhere even near the impact site might die!
Finally, do you think that Russia, Pakistan, India, and China would appreciate such destruction in their back yard? Ruining their environment? We would irradiate the major water supplies of China, Pakistan, and India setting them against each other in a battle for fresh water, possibly resulting in more Nuclear war, if not against each other, than against us for starting it in the first place.
Nuclear Weapons are a last last last resort.
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
coltess Wrote:
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
Terrorists are not a country, they are an idea. You can't bomb an idea. We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save hundreds of thousands of lives to force a warring nation into surrender. Al-Quaeda is not country, it's a ideological group located not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. We are not at war with Afghanistan - we are at war IN Afghanistan.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what a "nuke" is. The Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equal to 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively and took the lives of over 200,000 people and irradiated 350,000 more.
Modern Nuclear Weapons carry an average yield equal to 300 kilotons of TNT. The decimation that those devices can cause is unfathomable as nuclear testing is done in smaller amounts and calculated upward. Detonating a modern nuclear weapon could also drastically effect the environment all across the globe; crop failures, temperature drops, famine for God's sake! Millions nowhere even near the impact site might die!
Finally, do you think that Russia, Pakistan, India, and China would appreciate such destruction in their back yard? Ruining their environment? We would irradiate the major water supplies of China, Pakistan, and India setting them against each other in a battle for fresh water, possibly resulting in more Nuclear war, if not against each other, than against us for starting it in the first place.
Nuclear Weapons are a last last last resort.
i know exactly what nukes are dont talk to me like im an idiot
i come from a military family thank you very much
I'll talk to you like an idiot if you advocate idiocy.
keep talking princess because id knock the shit out of you if i caught you out in the real world talking to me the way you did
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
keep talking princess because id knock the shit out of you if i caught you out in the real world talking to me the way you did
coltess Wrote:
I'll talk to you like an idiot if you advocate idiocy.
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
i know exactly what nukes are dont talk to me like im an idiot
i come from a military family thank you very much
coltess Wrote:
Terrorists are not a country, they are an idea. You can't bomb an idea. We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save hundreds of thousands of lives to force a warring nation into surrender. Al-Quaeda is not country, it's a ideological group located not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. We are not at war with Afghanistan - we are at war IN Afghanistan.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what a "nuke" is. The Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equal to 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively and took the lives of over 200,000 people and irradiated 350,000 more.
Modern Nuclear Weapons carry an average yield equal to 300 kilotons of TNT. The decimation that those devices can cause is unfathomable as nuclear testing is done in smaller amounts and calculated upward. Detonating a modern nuclear weapon could also drastically effect the environment all across the globe; crop failures, temperature drops, famine for God's sake! Millions nowhere even near the impact site might die!
Finally, do you think that Russia, Pakistan, India, and China would appreciate such destruction in their back yard? Ruining their environment? We would irradiate the major water supplies of China, Pakistan, and India setting them against each other in a battle for fresh water, possibly resulting in more Nuclear war, if not against each other, than against us for starting it in the first place.
Nuclear Weapons are a last last last resort.
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
coltess Wrote:
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
Terrorists are not a country, they are an idea. You can't bomb an idea. We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save hundreds of thousands of lives to force a warring nation into surrender. Al-Quaeda is not country, it's a ideological group located not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. We are not at war with Afghanistan - we are at war IN Afghanistan.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what a "nuke" is. The Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equal to 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively and took the lives of over 200,000 people and irradiated 350,000 more.
Modern Nuclear Weapons carry an average yield equal to 300 kilotons of TNT. The decimation that those devices can cause is unfathomable as nuclear testing is done in smaller amounts and calculated upward. Detonating a modern nuclear weapon could also drastically effect the environment all across the globe; crop failures, temperature drops, famine for God's sake! Millions nowhere even near the impact site might die!
Finally, do you think that Russia, Pakistan, India, and China would appreciate such destruction in their back yard? Ruining their environment? We would irradiate the major water supplies of China, Pakistan, and India setting them against each other in a battle for fresh water, possibly resulting in more Nuclear war, if not against each other, than against us for starting it in the first place.
Nuclear Weapons are a last last last resort.
i know exactly what nukes are dont talk to me like im an idiot
i come from a military family thank you very much
I'll talk to you like an idiot if you advocate idiocy.
keep talking princess because id knock the shit out of you if i caught you out in the real world talking to me the way you did
K.
About Me
Get that ass BANNED
0
I am dying here holy shit
UNdiscovered Wrote:
No seriously if it comes down to it
I value to lives of Americans over North Koreans
If one of those country's had to get taken down a level then it damn well will be be North Korea, I trust Obama with nuclear weapons, not that nut who runs North Korea, and I trust Obama will make the necessary sacrifices for the greater good.
Icebaby Wrote:
I'm just going to go on a good guess and believe he's mainly trolling.
Although, to refer to your earlier question, you're not the only person who doesn't feel the need to drop the bomb on anyone because they're making threats and having acted upon them.
Riyakou Wrote:
I'm sure the citizens of North Korea would feel the same in such a situation.
So, what denies them the same factor of killing us to protect themselves, especially considering how big of a threat the U.S. apparently is to them?
Do you see how backwards your statement is? Everyone wants to survive, so why not push towards a solution to where no one dies?
UNdiscovered Wrote:
It would be totally justifiable if North Korea was nuked. Sometimes you must resort to nuclear warfare, and that okay because its just a natural progression mankind has made in war. Nuclear bombs can actually prevent the loss of unnecessary lives, at the cost of some Koreans, many Americans could be saved. Thats just how it works, sacrifices must be made for the greater good, and a world without North Korea doesn't seem so bad.
It would be totally justifiable if North Korea was nuked. Sometimes you must resort to nuclear warfare, and that okay because its just a natural progression mankind has made in war. Nuclear bombs can actually prevent the loss of unnecessary lives, at the cost of some Koreans, many Americans could be saved. Thats just how it works, sacrifices must be made for the greater good, and a world without North Korea doesn't seem so bad.
I'm sure the citizens of North Korea would feel the same in such a situation.
So, what denies them the same factor of killing us to protect themselves, especially considering how big of a threat the U.S. apparently is to them?
Do you see how backwards your statement is? Everyone wants to survive, so why not push towards a solution to where no one dies?
I'm just going to go on a good guess and believe he's mainly trolling.
Although, to refer to your earlier question, you're not the only person who doesn't feel the need to drop the bomb on anyone because they're making threats and having acted upon them.
No seriously if it comes down to it
I value to lives of Americans over North Koreans
If one of those country's had to get taken down a level then it damn well will be be North Korea, I trust Obama with nuclear weapons, not that nut who runs North Korea, and I trust Obama will make the necessary sacrifices for the greater good.
You just don't seem to get it, man.
We're talking about avoiding that. Of course we would rather have our own country survive. So would they. But why let it get that far?
Take a moment to stop thinking about what you would want if North Korea should strike, and think about would could be done to prevent such an event on either side.
It really does bother me that so many people are discussing solutions of warfare to this issue. Why isn't anyone putting forth an effort to say, "Let's not bring about any casualties this time."
0
Riyakou Wrote:
You just don't seem to get it, man.
We're talking about avoiding that. Of course we would rather have our own country survive. So would they. But why let it get that far?
Take a moment to stop thinking about what you would want if North Korea should strike, and think about would could be done to prevent such an event on either side.
It really does bother me that so many people are discussing solutions of warfare to this issue. Why isn't anyone putting forth an effort to say, "Let's not bring about any casualties this time."
UNdiscovered Wrote:
No seriously if it comes down to it
I value to lives of Americans over North Koreans
If one of those country's had to get taken down a level then it damn well will be be North Korea, I trust Obama with nuclear weapons, not that nut who runs North Korea, and I trust Obama will make the necessary sacrifices for the greater good.
Icebaby Wrote:
I'm just going to go on a good guess and believe he's mainly trolling.
Although, to refer to your earlier question, you're not the only person who doesn't feel the need to drop the bomb on anyone because they're making threats and having acted upon them.
Riyakou Wrote:
I'm sure the citizens of North Korea would feel the same in such a situation.
So, what denies them the same factor of killing us to protect themselves, especially considering how big of a threat the U.S. apparently is to them?
Do you see how backwards your statement is? Everyone wants to survive, so why not push towards a solution to where no one dies?
UNdiscovered Wrote:
It would be totally justifiable if North Korea was nuked. Sometimes you must resort to nuclear warfare, and that okay because its just a natural progression mankind has made in war. Nuclear bombs can actually prevent the loss of unnecessary lives, at the cost of some Koreans, many Americans could be saved. Thats just how it works, sacrifices must be made for the greater good, and a world without North Korea doesn't seem so bad.
It would be totally justifiable if North Korea was nuked. Sometimes you must resort to nuclear warfare, and that okay because its just a natural progression mankind has made in war. Nuclear bombs can actually prevent the loss of unnecessary lives, at the cost of some Koreans, many Americans could be saved. Thats just how it works, sacrifices must be made for the greater good, and a world without North Korea doesn't seem so bad.
I'm sure the citizens of North Korea would feel the same in such a situation.
So, what denies them the same factor of killing us to protect themselves, especially considering how big of a threat the U.S. apparently is to them?
Do you see how backwards your statement is? Everyone wants to survive, so why not push towards a solution to where no one dies?
I'm just going to go on a good guess and believe he's mainly trolling.
Although, to refer to your earlier question, you're not the only person who doesn't feel the need to drop the bomb on anyone because they're making threats and having acted upon them.
No seriously if it comes down to it
I value to lives of Americans over North Koreans
If one of those country's had to get taken down a level then it damn well will be be North Korea, I trust Obama with nuclear weapons, not that nut who runs North Korea, and I trust Obama will make the necessary sacrifices for the greater good.
You just don't seem to get it, man.
We're talking about avoiding that. Of course we would rather have our own country survive. So would they. But why let it get that far?
Take a moment to stop thinking about what you would want if North Korea should strike, and think about would could be done to prevent such an event on either side.
It really does bother me that so many people are discussing solutions of warfare to this issue. Why isn't anyone putting forth an effort to say, "Let's not bring about any casualties this time."
dude again what has it done so far with just playing the lets wait and let diplomacy work argument?
how long do you really believe that can last because so far iran is saying fuck you to us in regards to there nuke program, n korea is giving us the finger in regards to attacking s korea all the time. also pakistan gave us the big fuck you when they lied and hid bin laden for 10 years so we just go ok we forgive you for hiding the guy who bombed us and killed 30 000 people?
and you wonder why we are laughed at as a country
About Me
0
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
coltess Wrote:
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
Though I believe in Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent, I do not believe such carnage is justified for sabre rattling. Nuclear Weapons should be a last last last last last last last resort, and for a nation as insignificant as North Korea, pointless.
We'd not need nukes to deal with them, and President Obama knows this, and though I disagree with him on a good number, his championing of drones is one of the few points we agree on (except on U.S. Soil). A few drones could bring that regime to an end quickly and very few innocents would die.
again if we used nukes back after when we were attacked on 911 dont you think those countries would say ok we made a mistake and pissed off the wrong country? i mean holy shit dont you realise how many people died on that day? but i guess killing 30,000 of our guys dosent mean we should kill 30 or even 60 000 of theres
we couldve saved trillions on this war bullshit just by dropping nukes on that country including the tora bora mountains in wich the government ( usa) dropped the ball when we had bin laden trapped. but nooooo we had to send in tropps to afghanistan plus iraq with the tax payers dime
im not always pro war but id rather drop a few nukes on those countries instead of paying trillions of dollars and losing thousands of soilders lives
this post gave me diarrhea
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
dude again what has it done so far with just playing the lets wait and let diplomacy work argument?
how long do you really believe that can last because so far iran is saying fuck you to us in regards to there nuke program, n korea is giving us the finger in regards to attacking s korea all the time. also pakistan gave us the big fuck you when they lied and hid bin laden for 10 years so we just go ok we forgive you for hiding the guy who bombed us and killed 30 000 people?
and you wonder why we are laughed at as a country
Riyakou Wrote:
You just don't seem to get it, man.
We're talking about avoiding that. Of course we would rather have our own country survive. So would they. But why let it get that far?
Take a moment to stop thinking about what you would want if North Korea should strike, and think about would could be done to prevent such an event on either side.
It really does bother me that so many people are discussing solutions of warfare to this issue. Why isn't anyone putting forth an effort to say, "Let's not bring about any casualties this time."
UNdiscovered Wrote:
No seriously if it comes down to it
I value to lives of Americans over North Koreans
If one of those country's had to get taken down a level then it damn well will be be North Korea, I trust Obama with nuclear weapons, not that nut who runs North Korea, and I trust Obama will make the necessary sacrifices for the greater good.
Icebaby Wrote:
I'm just going to go on a good guess and believe he's mainly trolling.
Although, to refer to your earlier question, you're not the only person who doesn't feel the need to drop the bomb on anyone because they're making threats and having acted upon them.
Riyakou Wrote:
I'm sure the citizens of North Korea would feel the same in such a situation.
So, what denies them the same factor of killing us to protect themselves, especially considering how big of a threat the U.S. apparently is to them?
Do you see how backwards your statement is? Everyone wants to survive, so why not push towards a solution to where no one dies?
UNdiscovered Wrote:
It would be totally justifiable if North Korea was nuked. Sometimes you must resort to nuclear warfare, and that okay because its just a natural progression mankind has made in war. Nuclear bombs can actually prevent the loss of unnecessary lives, at the cost of some Koreans, many Americans could be saved. Thats just how it works, sacrifices must be made for the greater good, and a world without North Korea doesn't seem so bad.
It would be totally justifiable if North Korea was nuked. Sometimes you must resort to nuclear warfare, and that okay because its just a natural progression mankind has made in war. Nuclear bombs can actually prevent the loss of unnecessary lives, at the cost of some Koreans, many Americans could be saved. Thats just how it works, sacrifices must be made for the greater good, and a world without North Korea doesn't seem so bad.
I'm sure the citizens of North Korea would feel the same in such a situation.
So, what denies them the same factor of killing us to protect themselves, especially considering how big of a threat the U.S. apparently is to them?
Do you see how backwards your statement is? Everyone wants to survive, so why not push towards a solution to where no one dies?
I'm just going to go on a good guess and believe he's mainly trolling.
Although, to refer to your earlier question, you're not the only person who doesn't feel the need to drop the bomb on anyone because they're making threats and having acted upon them.
No seriously if it comes down to it
I value to lives of Americans over North Koreans
If one of those country's had to get taken down a level then it damn well will be be North Korea, I trust Obama with nuclear weapons, not that nut who runs North Korea, and I trust Obama will make the necessary sacrifices for the greater good.
You just don't seem to get it, man.
We're talking about avoiding that. Of course we would rather have our own country survive. So would they. But why let it get that far?
Take a moment to stop thinking about what you would want if North Korea should strike, and think about would could be done to prevent such an event on either side.
It really does bother me that so many people are discussing solutions of warfare to this issue. Why isn't anyone putting forth an effort to say, "Let's not bring about any casualties this time."
dude again what has it done so far with just playing the lets wait and let diplomacy work argument?
how long do you really believe that can last because so far iran is saying fuck you to us in regards to there nuke program, n korea is giving us the finger in regards to attacking s korea all the time. also pakistan gave us the big fuck you when they lied and hid bin laden for 10 years so we just go ok we forgive you for hiding the guy who bombed us and killed 30 000 people?
and you wonder why we are laughed at as a country
You're advocating a stance which would kill millions, injure millions more, irradiate water and croplands, and possibly spark a real nuclear war with another country, just to kill either a small percentage of people or two dictators with big mouths.
Do you really want the United States of America to kill millions of innocent people out of revenge and fear?
That makes us no better than them.
coltess Wrote:
You're advocating a stance which would kill millions, injure millions more, irradiate water and croplands, and possibly spark a real nuclear war with another country, just to kill either a small percentage of people or two dictators with big mouths.
Do you really want the United States of America to kill millions of innocent people out of revenge and fear?
That makes us no better than them.
You're advocating a stance which would kill millions, injure millions more, irradiate water and croplands, and possibly spark a real nuclear war with another country, just to kill either a small percentage of people or two dictators with big mouths.
Do you really want the United States of America to kill millions of innocent people out of revenge and fear?
That makes us no better than them.
Hmm... a person who is terribly angry at a different country, wants to destroy them all by sending a nuke... Despite that this has been known since this thread started, he's starting to sound a lot like...
No... can it be? Are we talking to America's Kim Jong Un?
About Me
Get that ass BANNED
0
More like Tim John Dumbass
About Me
I feel so alone, gonna end up a Big ole pile of them bones.
0
What people don't understand is that innocent lives are at stake when it comes to conflicts like these. My main worry is that if we go to war it'll be a nuclear war between the U.S. and China and Russia. This kid talking about nuking people is highly ignorant. Because if we nuke North Korea we'll get nuked by their allies.
annilation Wrote:
What people don't understand is that innocent lives are at stake when it comes to conflicts like these. My main worry is that if we go to war it'll be a nuclear war between the U.S. and China and Russia. This kid talking about nuking people is highly ignorant. Because if we nuke North Korea we'll get nuked by their allies.
What people don't understand is that innocent lives are at stake when it comes to conflicts like these. My main worry is that if we go to war it'll be a nuclear war between the U.S. and China and Russia. This kid talking about nuking people is highly ignorant. Because if we nuke North Korea we'll get nuked by their allies.
Blind patriotism is what it is.
Some people, especially in the United States, are so "for their country" that they fail see the value of anyone outside of their country, or even worse, they feel no one outside of their country has any value.
This is most likely the case for those who are prone to warmongering; they view nearly everyone outside of their country as inferior. Actions taken from views like these are what lead to thousands - or millions - of casualties.
annilation Wrote:
What people don't understand is that innocent lives are at stake when it comes to conflicts like these. My main worry is that if we go to war it'll be a nuclear war between the U.S. and China and Russia. This kid talking about nuking people is highly ignorant. Because if we nuke North Korea we'll get nuked by their allies.
I wouldn't really call China North Korea's ally, that implies some sort of equal partnership. North Korea is more like China's pet.What people don't understand is that innocent lives are at stake when it comes to conflicts like these. My main worry is that if we go to war it'll be a nuclear war between the U.S. and China and Russia. This kid talking about nuking people is highly ignorant. Because if we nuke North Korea we'll get nuked by their allies.
0
Do you think its okay to post those extremely long quotes?
About Me
Get that ass BANNED
0
Do you think it is okay to keep on arguing with this kid who thinks blowing up everybody is going to solve the problem? I think not.
© 1998-2025 Shadow Knight Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Mortal Kombat, the dragon logo and all character names are trademarks and copyright of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.