Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jhaelin]

what if everything that's going on in iraq and starting in iran, are part of a greater and older goal of our administration?

what if the enemy is and has always remained russia, because they are the only nuclear threat that prevents america from complete nuclear supremacy.

with the new developments in our nuclear arsenal and the continued progress of taking space under our complete military control,

will we be safer in the future when we can wield the threat of first strike without the fear of any reprisal attacks.
if we can nuke anyone including russia and china, and not worry about them responding because of our missle defence and space ordinants, will we be safer?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20070220&articleId=4873

[DanielP]

I don't think we'll be any safer, but we as a people will be much wiser. It does depend on the president and administration in charge is tho. I do think that the other nations will feel less safer.

Back during the Korean war, America was the only nation claiming to have and have used atomic weapons. When the UN was close to conquering the whole of North Korea when reaching the border with China (if any hard-core Korean History buff wants to call me on what I'm saying, please do) the Chinese pushed us back. General Mc.Arthur, the leader of the UN forces there wanted America to go to war vs the Chinese all the way, even use the Atomic bomb if necessary.

Thank Goodness the American president Truman was wise enough not to push the war that far, and this cauzed an uproar as Truman, the new president, and McArthur, a war hero were in conflict.

I can imagine tho, in those circumstances, more military alliances from foreign countries forming vs the US just to ensure their survival.

[jinju]

Truman made a mistake. MacArthur was right. Infact, too bad it didnt go further. Conquer NK, then hit China. In 10-20 years time you will understand why China should have been brought to its knees back then.

[Gopher]

OP betrays strange assumptions.

America's strategic weapons package (intercontinental, ballistic missiles; long-range bombers; missile submarines; and tac-nukes under each theater commander, including air-to-ground and artillery shells, to name but two) has pretty much been superior all along.

And, according to Dutch political scientist Kees van der Pijl's "From Gorbachev to Kosovo: Atlantic Rivalries and the Reincorporation of Eastern Europe," Review of International Political Economy 8 (2001): 275-310, Moscow adopted a first-strike policy in the 1990s. Remains in effect today. If Russia goes to war, Moscow will employ nuclear weapons.

So I am not sure what OP's concerns are here.

(And relax, please. van der Pijl is one of yours: far, far to the left and railing against American gains in post-Cold War European affairs. So he is not arguing against Russia to defend Washington's line.)

[jhaelin]

[Gopher]

[Sincinnatislink]

[jhaelin]

[Gopher]

[Gopher]

[jhaelin]

[W.T.Carl]

MAD only works with sane people. Are muslims sane?

[Kuros]

I am for the US attaining nuclear supremacy. I would like the US to continue to be the only power to have ever used nuclear weapons. But it will not happen. Established government powers will always be able to get beyond the US' nuclear defenses, if only by using a great deal of MIRV ICBMs.

The purpose of the missile defenses are for emerging nuclear powers such as North Korea or Iran.

[stevemcgarrett]

What are you dolts yapping on about? The U.S. couldn't have nuclear supremacy anyhow. China, Pakistan, India, Israel, France, Britain, North Korea and Russia all have the bomb.

jinju:

You're smoking weed if you think an American invasion of Manchuria would not have met with massive resistance. While poorly equipped, the Red Army had tens of millions of recently deactivated soldiers to use as cannon fodder (those who went to the Yalu River were a drop in the bucket). The U.S. would have had to use nuclear weapons and I don't think that would have sat too well with the UN Security Council not to mention American public opinion.

[contrarian]

adventurer:

What are you dolts yapping on about? The U.S. couldn't have nuclear supremacy anyhow. China, Pakistan, India, Israel, France, Britain, North Korea and Russia all have the bomb.


France would surrebder an collaborate just like WWII

China a larger player with older technology. One American Boomer has more capability then the entire Chinese arsenal. The NMD would work well against China. The Russians are more worried about the CHinese than the Americans.

Pakistan is a bit player and is Indian.

Israel has over 200 new sophistacted nukes and is a US ally. Britain is a US ally. North Korea jas had a very small fizzle.

Russia is a serious player and has a lot. We should give the Russisns whatever they want in their tiffs with the Muslim world (chehnya).