why USA doesnt attack north korea
-
the moment a N'korea nuclear missile is fired towards USA, 10 would probably be travelling from the opposite direction towards them.Originally posted by fifteen:no.they are not.they have no intentions to invade N.korea..they wanted to settle things peacefully.ok.just imagine it.its USA attack,N.korea would TEST THEIR NEUCLEAR WEAPONS on USA.just imagine a neuclear war.lols.then if it was successful in overthrowing USA,they would try to threaten other countries with their neuclear weapons.lols.
N'korea might hurt US if US could not intercept its missiles, but no way can it overthrow US lah. -
well...Originally posted by UandMe:the moment a N'korea nuclear missile is fired towards USA, 10 would probably be travelling from the opposite direction towards them.
N'korea might hurt US if US could not intercept its missiles, but no way can it overthrow US lah.
somehow, i have a hunch that kim dun see it that way.
-
IMO, the US would be the first one to use the nuke, not DPRK. By going nuclear, it will be an effective deterrent, making the US think twice whether to attack it or not.
What is the success rate of the Patriot? 100%? -
Kim definitely is not so stupid to think that he can overthrow the US lah. Possessing nuclear weapon simply makes other countries think twice about attacking it, not that it can win anyone just because it has nuclear weapons.Originally posted by Ristar:well...
somehow, i have the hunch that kim dun see it that way. -
Wtf does kim knows?Originally posted by Ristar:well...
somehow, i have a hunch that kim dun see it that way.
What hes doing now is hiding behind his commanders and needing all the help from his bilateral relations -
a lot higher than the Taepodong 2.Originally posted by ctstalin:IMO, the US would be the first one to use the nuke, not DPRK. By going nuclear, it will be an effective deterrent, making the US think twice whether to attack it or not.
What is the success rate of the Patriot? 100%? 
please stop acting like an ill informed a$$ for future discussions to carry on, u who think that one accident equals to useless weapons system.
wat is the success rate of a AIM-7? AIM-120 AMRAAM? AIM-54?
u expect 100% for everything? wake up kiddo, the world doesnt work this way. -
currently,north korea has the needed uranium to work on the production of nuclear weapon but its estimanted years before they would have possibly acheive.Originally posted by Ristar:a lot higher than the Taepodong 2.
please stop acting like an ill informed a$$ for future discussions to carry on, u who think that one accident equals to useless weapons system.
wat is the success rate of a AIM-7? AIM-120 AMRAAM? AIM-54?
u expect 100% for everything? wake up kiddo, the world doesnt work this way. -
i'm not a military fanatic who goes round reading up on the latest weaponsOriginally posted by Ristar:a lot higher than the Taepodong 2.
please stop acting like an ill informed a$$ for future discussions to carry on, u who think that one accident equals to useless weapons system.
wat is the success rate of a AIM-7? AIM-120 AMRAAM? AIM-54?
u expect 100% for everything? wake up, lad, the world doesnt work this way.
i'm just asking you to provide statistics, call me an ass for wat?
if u simply cannot accept alternative arguments, what are you doing here? -
i was talking about the tested but failed Taepodong 2, the only ICBM in the DPRK's inventory capable of reaching US soil.Originally posted by 0lala:currently,north korea has the needed uranium to work on the production of nuclear weapon but its estimanted years before they would have possibly acheive.
therefore, the capability of the ICBM is dubious, at best. -
but i did, didnt i?Originally posted by ctstalin:i'm not a military fanatic who goes round reading up on the latest weapons
i'm just asking you to provide statistics, call me an ass for wat?
if u simply cannot accept alternative arguments, what are you doing here?
u must be pretty smart to demand 100% standards. why dun u go n invent weapons with 100% accuracy? and no, i dun mean the Aimbot in computer games. -
rub your eyes dude? i asked for the success rate of the patriot, i didn't say it MUST be 100%Originally posted by Ristar:but i did, didnt i?
u must be pretty smart to demand 100% standards. why dun u go n invent weapons with 100% accuracy? and no, i dun mean using the Aimbot on computer games.
please quote if i really said that.
-
Originally posted by ctstalin:
ah, the pot calling the kettle black?
rub your eyes dude? i [b]asked for the success rate of the patriot, i didn't say it MUST be 100%
please quote if i really said that.
[/b]Originally posted by ctstalin:
this sounds familiar? this mundane discussion about the Patriot weapons system actually spawned with this particular statement.
How reliable is the Patriot when it shot down one of its own aircraft in Iraq before?
u r implying that the Patriot is an unreliable weapons system just because of one allied aircraft that was shot down. if u havent realised already, US troops always commit fratricide.
with the same logic applied to every weapons system, the M16A1, M4A1, Fragmentation grenade, and everything that can kill another friendly soldier is an unreliable weapon, therefore every weapon is unreliable.
and as for statistics, why dun u go and search google?
like to be spoonfed, arent we? -
Erm, seemingly the Taepodong 2 only has range to reach Alaska. So if DPRK incinerates the backyard of US, US might just exterminate all of them using something like, two Tridents?
Its just about a short man and his dreams, nothing more than this, I guess. -
actually, 2 was shot downOriginally posted by Ristar:this sounds familiar? this mundane discussion about the Patriot weapons system actually spawned with this particular statement.
u r implying that the Patriot is an unreliable weapons system just because of one aircraft that was shot down. if u havent realised already, US troops always commit fratricide.
with the same logic applied to every weapons system, the M16A1, M4A1, Fragmentation grenade, and everything that can kill another soldier is an unreliable weapon, therefore every weapon is unreliable.
and as for statistics, why dun u go and search google?
like to be spoonfed, arent we? my bad 
how many Taepodong-2 were launched? oneOriginally posted by Ristar:.........i think we can safely call that an isolated accident, can we not?...........
how many failed? one
does that mean T-2 is unreliable? -
yep, i guess u pretty much summed it all up for us, although i'd prefer u calling him a short and deranged man.Originally posted by jetabt767400:Erm, seemingly the Taepodong 2 only has range to reach Alaska. So if DPRK incinerates the backyard of US, US might just exterminate all of them using something like, two Tridents?
Its just about a short man and his dreams, nothing more than this, I guess. -
Oh, LOL, great...Originally posted by Ristar:yep, i guess u pretty much summed it all up for us, although i'd prefer u calling him a short and deranged man. -
why would DPRK shoot a block of iceOriginally posted by jetabt767400:Erm, seemingly the Taepodong 2 only has range to reach Alaska. So if DPRK incinerates the backyard of US, US might just exterminate all of them using something like, two Tridents?
Its just about a short man and his dreams, nothing more than this, I guess.
i have said before, Seoul and Tokyo would be a far better target -
1, on July 5 2006.Originally posted by ctstalin:how many Taepodong-2 were launched?
how many failed?
therefore, we dun even know if this contraption can work. -
If they shoot Seoul, then they need a fast invasion to South Korea, which their military can, but a long drawn out war if US and Coalition friends decide to come in via, let's say, Pusan. They don't have even enough time to get uranium and other recipes of mass destruction to send to those Coalition people, and by then DPRK will be history.Originally posted by ctstalin:why would DPRK shoot a block of ice
i have said before, Seoul and Tokyo would be a far better target
If they shoot Tokyo, the next day the short-and-derangled man will wake up in heaven, no way US will not do anything.
So, its just dreams that they can have the bomb, its just the technology and face they want to have. -
Its a good contraption, by the way, at most it will launch and fall back on the ground, incinerating the cameras on the pad and near the pad, and maybe some parts of the control buildings, at least it will work...Originally posted by Ristar:1, on July 5 2006.
therefore, we dun even know if this contraption can work. -
i like the way u think... i was thinking of it getting to the target.Originally posted by jetabt767400:Its a good contraption, by the way, at most it will launch and fall back on the ground, incinerating the cameras on the pad and near the pad, and maybe some parts of the control buildings, at least it will work...
better yet, they actually put a nuclear warhead that works and shoot themselves accidentally... -
Correct me if I am wrong, but this info is hard to get as we are outside the Hermit Country.
Taepodong 2 have what as guidance system, meaning computers/radar or human calculation?
Something like f(x)=-x^2+3x+5?
Or computer, which is quite unlikely, as they don't have a satellite also...
So if short-and-derangled man-with-an-unfinished-dream saw my equation, don't use it tomorrow or any day to launch your missile.
I failed my Maths... -
why dun we invent a heat intense laser which can shoot down planes? laser travel at the speed of light, it will be 100% accurate.Originally posted by Ristar:but i did, didnt i?
u must be pretty smart to demand 100% standards. why dun u go n invent weapons with 100% accuracy? and no, i dun mean the Aimbot in computer games. -
Already invented, now on a Boeing 747 testbed, ready for testing and shooting some lasers.
Laser weapons are widely use, but classified, in naval and ground forces. -
russain communism is dead after stalin died. us is only have to dealt with china. if s. korea is also part of war with n. korea, i have to go and join s. koreas army.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:There are lots to think when considering to attack North Korea. If US is going to attack North Korea, they have to deal with the Russians and Chinese as well. Both are big countries with many people.
US is also afraid to underestimate Russia and China. While US may seem superior in terms of technology, it doesn't mean Russia and China is nowhere near US.
And if US attacks, it's equivalent to D-Day. All are using nuclear weapons.
Lastly, US is bleeding madly from the war in Iraq. They spent a lot of money on it.