They wouldn't attack their own...AussieReaper wrote:
California?ColCarnage wrote:
More like watch out random island in the pacific.bad-man wrote:
better watch out canada and mexico
that's most peoples policy...for those who can that isSpark wrote:
I thought US policy to a deliberate nuclear attack on US soil was - how shall I put it - reciprocity?
I can imagine some responding with a strongly worded letter of disapproval.usmarine wrote:
that's most peoples policy...for those who can that isSpark wrote:
I thought US policy to a deliberate nuclear attack on US soil was - how shall I put it - reciprocity?
lol...Kmarion wrote:
I can imagine some responding with a strongly worded letter of disapproval.usmarine wrote:
that's most peoples policy...for those who can that isSpark wrote:
I thought US policy to a deliberate nuclear attack on US soil was - how shall I put it - reciprocity?
yeah good point and what good will that do U.S. has like thousands and thousands of nukes its not like they are gonna use it if they do U.S. might use ten times that many nukes on them. Plus no one has used a nuke since WWII doubt that someone is gonna use one now. Plus its just an insurance policy " Kind of like saying dont mess with us since we have a nuke"... so then U.S. will try to impose some type of diplomatic relation with that country since they have a nuke.Turquoise wrote:
It might have the capacity to reach us, but will it actually hit its intended target?
The French.Kmarion wrote:
I can imagine some responding with a strongly worded letter of disapproval.usmarine wrote:
that's most peoples policy...for those who can that isSpark wrote:
I thought US policy to a deliberate nuclear attack on US soil was - how shall I put it - reciprocity?
And cutting off Kim's access to the Disney channel.Kmarion wrote:
I can imagine some responding with a strongly worded letter of disapproval.usmarine wrote:
that's most peoples policy...for those who can that isSpark wrote:
I thought US policy to a deliberate nuclear attack on US soil was - how shall I put it - reciprocity?
OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGODWEREALLGONNADIE!!!Lord_Palm-Of_Doom wrote:
Yes, North Korea does have a nuclear missile that can reach the USA. They say that they are launching a communications satellite into space but it is suspected to be for the nuke....well....this sucks.....
As long as they do not find the Pick of Destiny we are good!DonFck wrote:
OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGODWEREALLGONNADIE!!!Lord_Palm-Of_Doom wrote:
Yes, North Korea does have a nuclear missile that can reach the USA. They say that they are launching a communications satellite into space but it is suspected to be for the nuke....well....this sucks.....
No, wait. You assume too much.
having a nuke and wanting to use it are very different things.blademaster wrote:
yeah good point and what good will that do U.S. has like thousands and thousands of nukes its not like they are gonna use it if they do U.S. might use ten times that many nukes on them. Plus no one has used a nuke since WWII doubt that someone is gonna use one now. Plus its just an insurance policy " Kind of like saying dont mess with us since we have a nuke"... so then U.S. will try to impose some type of diplomatic relation with that country since they have a nuke.Turquoise wrote:
It might have the capacity to reach us, but will it actually hit its intended target?
Um...they were developing nukes long before Bush came into office, BN. It has nothing to do with Iraq.BN wrote:
having a nuke and wanting to use it are very different things.blademaster wrote:
yeah good point and what good will that do U.S. has like thousands and thousands of nukes its not like they are gonna use it if they do U.S. might use ten times that many nukes on them. Plus no one has used a nuke since WWII doubt that someone is gonna use one now. Plus its just an insurance policy " Kind of like saying dont mess with us since we have a nuke"... so then U.S. will try to impose some type of diplomatic relation with that country since they have a nuke.Turquoise wrote:
It might have the capacity to reach us, but will it actually hit its intended target?
What are the US's nukes? Deterrents.
IF THIS IS TRUE, then its merely a form of saying "i wont be invaded like iraq"
But everything to do with it being an insurance policy against US/UN/'Coalition of the Willing' invasion of the country.FEOS wrote:
Um...they were developing nukes long before Bush came into office, BN. It has nothing to do with Iraq.BN wrote:
having a nuke and wanting to use it are very different things.blademaster wrote:
yeah good point and what good will that do U.S. has like thousands and thousands of nukes its not like they are gonna use it if they do U.S. might use ten times that many nukes on them. Plus no one has used a nuke since WWII doubt that someone is gonna use one now. Plus its just an insurance policy " Kind of like saying dont mess with us since we have a nuke"... so then U.S. will try to impose some type of diplomatic relation with that country since they have a nuke.
What are the US's nukes? Deterrents.
IF THIS IS TRUE, then its merely a form of saying "i wont be invaded like iraq"
There hasn't been an invasion of nK in over fifty years (and that was due to nK's invasion of the South), despite multiple provocations. That's not going to change any time soon.Flecco wrote:
But everything to do with it being an insurance policy against US/UN/'Coalition of the Willing' invasion of the country.FEOS wrote:
Um...they were developing nukes long before Bush came into office, BN. It has nothing to do with Iraq.BN wrote:
having a nuke and wanting to use it are very different things.
What are the US's nukes? Deterrents.
IF THIS IS TRUE, then its merely a form of saying "i wont be invaded like iraq"
EVERYTHING happened AFTER BUSH and IRAQ stupidFEOS wrote:
Um...they were developing nukes long before Bush came into office, BN. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
I keep forgetting that.usmarine wrote:
EVERYTHING happened AFTER BUSH and IRAQ stupidFEOS wrote:
Um...they were developing nukes long before Bush came into office, BN. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
no problem. we will just ignore what clinton did for NK while we are at it.FEOS wrote:
I keep forgetting that.usmarine wrote:
EVERYTHING happened AFTER BUSH and IRAQ stupidFEOS wrote:
Um...they were developing nukes long before Bush came into office, BN. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
It makes everything so much more comfortable when one can ignore facts and place blame absent of actual fault.
Thanks for the reminder.
But he may just be delusional enough to pop one off on Seoul.JahManRed wrote:
They haven't made the bomb small enough to fit on a a rocket. So you stay out of your bunker for a while yet.
NK, is run by a crazy old delusional bastard. But he is not stupid enough to launch a nuke at the US. He ain't getting no 20virgins. It would be suicide on a national level. So chill. Id be more worried about Pakistan or Israel tbh.
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-02-26 14:37:40)
Last edited by Pubic (2009-02-26 14:52:40)
Um Iraq is just an example.FEOS wrote:
Um...they were developing nukes long before Bush came into office, BN. It has nothing to do with Iraq.BN wrote:
having a nuke and wanting to use it are very different things.blademaster wrote:
yeah good point and what good will that do U.S. has like thousands and thousands of nukes its not like they are gonna use it if they do U.S. might use ten times that many nukes on them. Plus no one has used a nuke since WWII doubt that someone is gonna use one now. Plus its just an insurance policy " Kind of like saying dont mess with us since we have a nuke"... so then U.S. will try to impose some type of diplomatic relation with that country since they have a nuke.
What are the US's nukes? Deterrents.
IF THIS IS TRUE, then its merely a form of saying "i wont be invaded like iraq"