Yeah, it's kind of ironic to use a soundtrack from American videogames in an anti-American, anti-Capitalist propaganda campaign.
Also how in a statement they said they are only "responding to the increasing hostile policy of the US to North Korea and it's nuclear threats." I believe they have confused the actual positions...
North Korea's ruling elite like to project their own actions upon America and South Korea to keep their citizens zealous and loyal to the regime. It's very common for them to make documentaries on the "terrible living conditions of America," how they have to eat snow and birds to stay alive, among many other outright lies, and then have the audacity to tell them that North Korea is a paradise, and the evil U.S. imperialists and the South Korean puppets seek to destroy it for whatever reason.
North Korea is just posturing, as a way to make their new leader appear strong and formidable. They could never take us in a traditional military war. However, these days it's all about nukes. N. Korea is advancing their nuclear capabilities at a pretty astonishing rate, and they believe this is their ace in the hole. Unfortunately it kinda is. We don't really possess the capability to shoot down any nukes they may send our way with impunity. We DO have anti-missile defense systems, but they are nowhere near foolproof. President Obama admitted that the anti-missile countermeasures we have in place on the west coast and in Alaska are not very effective. So if they did launch a nuclear strike against the U.S., it could very well hit American soil and even one nuke detonating in a populated area would be...well, bad. We do possess the power to retaliate with our own nuclear strength, which is enough to blow up the entire world several times over pretty much. However, we can't attack them with nukes as willy-nilly as they can attack us. Directly below them is S. Korea and directly to the east of them is China, both allies. We can't really risk accidentally hitting them or making them suffer the effects of nuclear fallout. Then not only do we risk losing them as allies (especially China, which is like half our economy) but we then also risk losing the trust of all our other allies as well. I have also heard that it is an attention-getting ploy to try and get other nations to sit down to talks with them, which sounds easy enough... but that would make us and the U.N. appear weak because we would then be playing their game and be letting them get away with all the rule-breaking they've been doing lately, which we cannot allow. I'm no military strategist or diplomacy expert, but it seems to be a very sticky situation for everyone involved. The best we can hope for is that N. Korea cools down and backs off.
Well, North Korea could never hit the US mainland with a nuke or any other missile, they simply don't have enough range. Also, any missile launched from them would have to go through the anti-missile defenses of the area it is launched from then our own which was put in place to defeat a swarm of missiles coming from Russia, I'm pretty sure a missile or two would be easy prey
While that's true, they are indeed not 100% foolproof, and the new ones will take years to install. However, if North Korea were to use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. or any of its allies, they'd essentially be dropping thirty times more nuclear devastation upon themselves.
Espically considering the US nuclear arsenal is large enough and accurate enough to wipe nukes off the face of the Earth 3 times over and still have many left over, and everyone wouldn't even have time to pull up their pants
Yup, and North Korea is well aware of that. It's unfortunately fortunate that their higher ups want nothing more than to keep their twisted regime going.
Y'know, it's funny. Reagan said that we needed anti-missile systems and he was laughed out of Congress. I bet ol' Reagan is having a fun time laughing at them all now.
Finally, somebody with a somewhat realistic statement. The U.S can't fully retaliate without the consent of the U.N... specially without the consent of Russia, China. Not to mention I don't really see china or Russia kindly allowing the U.S to simply retaliate all that easy, knowing there is a chance that once there is a unified Korea the U.S might build military installations so close to their borders. Let's remember that the U.S has pushed for tougher sanctions on North Korea's and Iran's nuclear weapons research while allowing Israel, Pakistan and other countries to continue theirs. that pretty much made the U.S loose credibility with Moscow and Peking. Now we do have Anti-missile defense systems, that doesn't entirely guarantees that the U.S or it's allies won't be hit... is it possible? yes, highly likely? not really. Let's also take into consideration the the U.S has already been through two long wars of attrition for over a decade, and the fact that it no longer is able to do preemptive nuclear strikes, that leaves the U.S at a pretty vulnerable position. It is true we posses the most advanced and powerful military in the world, but it also takes the resources needed to conduct a large scale operation in Korea.
Don't forget Aether, it would be the South Koreas, not 20,000 US troops doing most of the work. You seem to not realize that if North Korea fell, China wouldn't care if it made the region more stable. Also, your claim that it would need UN sanctioning is utterly void, think 9/11 and Afganistan, no country would sit around and wait for the UN to say okay when it's attacked, that's simply an completely unfeasible thing to claim. Remember, probably within the first 3 hours of the start of direct armed conflict, precision strikes would have already beheaded North Korea's leadership and the pitiful North Korea infrastructure would be even further destroyed and ruined. North Korea is a house of cards that likes to talk big game but can't actually do anything. - - Auto Merge - - Just remember, this isn't the Cold War anymore, China and Russia aren't about to let a tiny, insignificant rouge state ruin their economy by declaring war on the US. I think this pic describe the situation quite well: Spoiler: Pic
So, like this? (No language or anything bad in this one) [video=youtube;t8nrdiQqFAs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8nrdiQqFAs[/video]
It's funny you mention this. If recall correctly we marched into Afghanistan not to take down a country, but to fight a war on terror, so don't get facts mixed up. even back then there was a vote by congress to decide weather the U.S went into war or not. so nope... 9/11 and its aftermath are two complete different stories. Now, if I recall correctly... we also marched into Iraq with the excuse that the Iraqis had WMDs... we did not allow U.N inspectors to finish their work on the area and simply marched into the country even back then congress had to pass a vote and there also was a vote by U.N members. Which makes you wonder, why did we march on Iraq so quickly, with just the speculation of them probably having WMDs yet we don't march on North Korea even though there is concrete evidence they already have WMDs.
Very simple, there are several reasons from Bush Junior probably feeling like he had to finah 'Daddy's War', oil, the risk of Saddam's chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, etc. With North Korea, we usually try to just treat it like that one annoying, crazy kid in class, just keep him away from everyone and occasionally buy him lunch out of pity, because he doesn't know any better. And how is 9/11 not a perfect example? We were attacked by a terrorist entity, so we attacked a nation who's government was harboring said terrorist before any UN or Congressional vote was had. Wanna know what happened in both of those instances? The president used his constitutional powers to launch military action without congressional approval(at least at the moment.) what you're thinking of is probably the vote that told George Bush Jr that he had the reins if it came to that he thought war was necessary I guess you don't realize that the US is sworn to 'counting any attack upon it or her allies with equal or greater force' and that is one the UN recognizes with virtually all nations. To the UN, if you are attacked, then you can go ahead and attack for the defense of your nation.
First of, according to international law as codified in the UN Charter, disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal. Now, you mentioned that a nation is entitled to retaliation in the event of an attack by another nation. Let’s take a closer look to what that really means in the case of the U.S and the 9/11 attacks. That condition was not fulfilled unfortunately, however, because the attacks were not carried out by another nation: Afghanistan did not attack the United States; therefore it had no real involvement, at least not under international law. Also the 19 men charged with the crime were not Afghans. The U.S claimed to have had authorization by the U.N, however, the US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. - - Auto Merge - - Let's also not forget the war on Afghanistan didn't start until a month later of the attacks, and that there were plans to invade Afghanistan even up two two months before the attacks were even carried out.
