›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

a truly disturbing threat

NihilanthNihilanth Member Posts: 1,357
in Off-Topic Discussion

I just read this on CNN.com.  CLICK  It really makes me nervous.  We are putting all our focus right now on Iran's nuclear "threat" when North Korea not only has them, but is obviously willing to test/use them.

I hope this doesn't turn into a political battle like so many posts on these forums do.  Regardless of your political stance, there's no denying that North Korea is a definite threat that needs to be dealt with by some means.

Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft
Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II
XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT

Comments

  • lardmouthlardmouth Member Posts: 701

    At this point, I don't think anything will be done regarding Iran and/or N. Korea.  They'll end up making them, sanctions or not.  Too much of the world is willing to allow them to arm, and have faith that these nations would only use them as a deterence.  I think the generation born today will have to deal with a intercontinental nuclear armed Iran and N. Korea. 

  • NecranNecran Member Posts: 309



    YEARS ago, when america was freaking out about the vague possibility Sadam Hussain had WMD's, North Korea announced to the world they were building nukes, America was cool with it then, maybe the leader of North Korea said something that pissed off Dubya, and now they are a "threat".

    Am i the only one that thinks it's a bit messed up America claims no other country can be trusted with nukes, when they're the only country to drop nukes on cities full of innocent people?

    Chances are other countries don't like America threatening the rest of the planet with their 2000+ nukes, having one or two might not be a bad way to say back off.

    And yes America does have that many nukes, for awhile there with russia it became a battle over who could destroy everything on the planet the most times.
  • Bama1267Bama1267 Member UncommonPosts: 1,822

    Originally posted by Necran
    YEARS ago, when america was freaking out about the vague possibility Sadam Hussain had WMD's, North Korea announced to the world they were building nukes, America was cool with it then, maybe the leader of North Korea said something that pissed off Dubya, and now they are a "threat".

    Am i the only one that thinks it's a bit messed up America claims no other country can be trusted with nukes, when they're the only country to drop nukes on cities full of innocent people?

    Chances are other countries don't like America threatening the rest of the planet with their 2000+ nukes, having one or two might not be a bad way to say back off.

     However unfortunate it may have been that the US dropped 2 nukes on innocnent civilians....it beat the alternative. An invasion of Japan would have brought far more casualties to the US...than dropping 2 bombs and the war was over. Japan was warne  after the first bomb....Jyet they still did not heed the warning and did not surrender. All the lives lost by Japanese soldiers and civilians in WW2 have only theyre own government to thank for it.

     As far as America being cool with Korea having nukes back then? They werent then either...but there isnt anything the US can do about it. Personally I dont think its really a big deal....the leader is quite radical  but I highly doubt he intends to ever use them in anyway other than the defense of his own country.

    Also...the US isnt the only country that doesnt want other countries having nukes. It may be the one that gets the most hype about it. But I guarantee you Japan, China, and Russia would rather not see them have nukes either.

  • Yoottos'HorgYoottos'Horg Member UncommonPosts: 297

    Originally posted by Necran



    YEARS ago, when america was freaking out about the vague possibility Sadam Hussain had WMD's, North Korea announced to the world they were building nukes, America was cool with it then, maybe the leader of North Korea said something that pissed off Dubya, and now they are a "threat".

    Am i the only one that thinks it's a bit messed up America claims no other country can be trusted with nukes, when they're the only country to drop nukes on cities full of innocent people?

    Chances are other countries don't like America threatening the rest of the planet with their 2000+ nukes, having one or two might not be a bad way to say back off.

    And yes America does have that many nukes, for awhile there with russia it became a battle over who could destroy everything on the planet the most times.


    America has never been and most likely never will be "cool" with North Korea or Iran having nuclear weapons. The only possible and still very, very remote way America would be "cool" with North Korea or Iran to even have nuclear REACTORS (never weapons) would be if there was a huge change in their respective governments (i.e. no longer ruled by fanatics). As it stands both those countries are quite frankly run by unstable governments who have no right having nuclear weapons.

    No, it is not "messed" up that America has nuclear weapons. Hell we developed them, we unfortunately brought them into reality. And as far as droping two nuclear bombs on Japan...well that was a, in my opinion, a good thing! Yes, it was a good thing! Japan was known for their fanatic and seriously suicidal tactics during WWII and it was well known that it would have cost the United States hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of soldiers to take the main island of Japan. Droping the two nuclear wepons on the Japanese was a gamble that payed off. It should also be known that some of the military leaders in Japan at the time of the nuclear attacks still wanted to continue on with the war even after the bombs have been droped. Now I ask you, which country was more insane? The United States for developing these horrific weapons or Japan for wanted to continue an all bust lost war after these horrific weapons had been used against them?!

    As far as the United States seriously threatening the "World" with our nuclear weapons...well that is simply ludicrous! Have you ever heard of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)? Well essentially it means that there are so many nuclear weapons out there in the world that we can literally blow the Earth up ten times over; therefore it is in everybodys best interest to never use the bomb again. So if the United States launched nuclear weapons at ANY COUNTRY without the complete and unconditional backing of the ENTIRE U.N. (Which will NEVER happen by the way) there would be retaliation from the U.K., Russia, France, Germany and the select other countries with nuclear weapons. The United States would no longer exist...hell the entire planet would no longer exist! It would be literally M.A.D. to use nuclear weapons in this day-and-age.

    For more on M.A.D. check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Assured_Destruction
    And for general foreign policy of the United States...well watch the news and read up a little please.


  • PhoenixsPhoenixs Member Posts: 2,646
    Noone in the world today will ever drop nukes, except USA maybe. It's suicide, like taking a gun putting it into you mouth and waiting 2 days to pull the trigger. It's purely scare tactics.

    But countries like Iran have a point. They have the right to have them. How disturbing that might be, they have it. If USA, France and so on are allowed to have them, they have too. Just fyi Yoottos'Horg, Germany has no nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear weapons should be abolished completely. These are weapons that are totally unacceptable.

    There are no excuses for USA dropping the bombs on Japan. They where purely dropped on civillians. Not only did the bombs kill alot of innocent people when they exploded, but thousands have died in the years after because of the radioactivity. Mutations, cancer and all sorts of shit like that. That is what makes nuclear weapons so evil. People that didn't even live at the time the bombs where dropped are victims.


  • JackcoltJackcolt Member UncommonPosts: 2,170

    Originally posted by Phoenixs
    Noone in the world today will ever drop nukes, except USA maybe. It's suicide, like taking a gun putting it into you mouth and waiting 2 days to pull the trigger. It's purely scare tactics.

    But countries like Iran have a point. They have the right to have them. How disturbing that might be, they have it. If USA, France and so on are allowed to have them, they have too. Just fyi Yoottos'Horg, Germany has no nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear weapons should be abolished completely. These are weapons that are totally unacceptable.

    There are no excuses for USA dropping the bombs on Japan. They where purely dropped on civillians. Not only did the bombs kill alot of innocent people when they exploded, but thousands have died in the years after because of the radioactivity. Mutations, cancer and all sorts of shit like that. That is what makes nuclear weapons so evil. People that didn't even live at the time the bombs where dropped are victims.



    And that's the problem. If we abolish Nuclear weapons, and a psycho dictator decides to make a couple in secrecy, we don't really have any defense against it. Nuclear weapons are rather used as a threat to say: "back the fuck off"

    Bah that's the bad thing about weapons. Can't live with them, and can't live without them because of some people.

    No. There is really no excuse for using a-bombs on Japan. But Japan is partially responsible too. They probably knew the power of the nuclear bomb, and should have backed off before.


    image
    image

  • NihilanthNihilanth Member Posts: 1,357

    I completely agree that it would be national suicide for any country to use an atomic bomb.  I also completely agree with Phoenixs when he says that nuclear weapons should be completely abolished.  Unfortunately, that's not an option.  Even if somehow every country in the world banded together and vowed to get rid of absolutely all of their nuclear weapons (which isn't going to happen), there's still thousands of nukes that people have no idea where they are, mostly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The potential for them to fall into the hands of people (terrorists) who have no concern for themselves or others and WOULD use them is extremely high.  Let's face it, we're stuck with nukes.  We need to learn how to deal with them.

    Most countries in the world that do have nuclear weapons, including the USA, have them purely for defensive purposes.  And by defensive, I mean having them purely as retaliation to someone else's nuclear strike.  Some people around the world might not believe that, but I guarentee you it's true.  You may not agree with American politics, but any President the USA has ever had as well as any we ever will have knows/will know the fact that launching an offensive nuclear strike would do nothing more than get the entire world on our asses...more than they already are.  Not only that, but any President who used offensive nukes would lose almost all homeland support immediately. 

    Countries like Iran and North Korea have done things in the past that give countries good reason to fear them getting nukes.  Iran for example, has flat out said they would like to wipe Israel off the map.  How would you feel if you lived in Israel, and a country well within striking range of you and who wanted you and your contrymen dead was getting nukes? 

    For the topic of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes, there are excuses.  I don't care where you're from, all governments are (are should be) more concerned for their own people than for those of other countries.  That's not saying they don't care at all for anyone else, but they are more interested in helping their own people than others.  So, faced with the decision of losing a projected 1 million of your own country's soldiers, or less than half of that of someone else's civilians, most governments wouldn't really have to think that hard.  How do you send a letter home to a grieving mother who's son was drafted into the army and died, how do you tell her that you could have ended the war without her son dying, but because you wanted to save the enemy's lives you didn't?  How do you send a million of those?  You can't.  No one is arguing that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrible, and it should never have HAD to come to that.  But it did, and many thousands of innocent people died as a result.  It's a terrible fact and one that America will have to live with on its conscience forever.  However, I doubt you'll find too many Americans who wouldn't have backed up the decision because of what I stated above.

    Also, think of this.  Yes it's true that both cities were populated by a vast majority of civilans.  However, in both cities there WERE military facilities very important to the Japanese war effort.  (If you don't believe this, read any book on the bombings and it will be there.  Even the book Hiroshima by John Hersey, one that largely takes the side that the bombings were completely wrong, says this.)  They weren't blind targets.  They DID have strategic value.  If we wanted to kill less people, we could have hit a smaller town/city that had NO military value, but that would have been for NO purpose other than to kill innocent civilians and scare the Japanese into surrendering.  Or, we could have just nuked Tokyo.  That would have ended the war almost immediately.  We didn't because it would have had MUCH larger loss of life than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

    Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft
    Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II
    XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT

  • PhoenixsPhoenixs Member Posts: 2,646

    Originally posted by Jackcolt
    And that's the problem. If we abolish Nuclear weapons, and a psycho dictator decides to make a couple in secrecy, we don't really have any defense against it. Nuclear weapons are rather used as a threat to say: "back the fuck off"

    Bah that's the bad thing about weapons. Can't live with them, and can't live without them because of some people.


    I realize this. It's sad that it has to be like this. Why can't there be something like a Punkbuster for the real world that blocks people from making and using nuclear weapons?
  • asagiriasagiri Member Posts: 5

    hey guys....do u know why neither of the biggest and/or strongest states dont start the war?
    B neither of states wants to be responsible for earth planet and humanity destruction.
    ::::07::
    Just think about it...how much nuclear weapons have world?
    thats why we have to love mother nature... ::::08::

  • JackcoltJackcolt Member UncommonPosts: 2,170

    Originally posted by Phoenixs

    Originally posted by Jackcolt
    And that's the problem. If we abolish Nuclear weapons, and a psycho dictator decides to make a couple in secrecy, we don't really have any defense against it. Nuclear weapons are rather used as a threat to say: "back the fuck off"

    Bah that's the bad thing about weapons. Can't live with them, and can't live without them because of some people.


    I realize this. It's sad that it has to be like this. Why can't there be something like a Punkbuster for the real world that blocks people from making and using nuclear weapons?

    Exactly! If we could effectively abolish nukes, so that you couldn't make them or use them, it would be great. As said, the problem is we can't ensure that dictators doesn't acquire some nukes.

    Enable VAC2 :P

    image
    image

  • methane47methane47 Member UncommonPosts: 3,694

    Originally posted by Nihilanth

    Also, think of this.  Yes it's true that both cities were populated by a vast majority of civilans.  However, in both cities there WERE military facilities very important to the Japanese war effort.  (If you don't believe this, read any book on the bombings and it will be there.  Even the book Hiroshima by John Hersey, one that largely takes the side that the bombings were completely wrong, says this.)  They weren't blind targets.  They DID have strategic value.  If we wanted to kill less people, we could have hit a smaller town/city that had NO military value, but that would have been for NO purpose other than to kill innocent civilians and scare the Japanese into surrendering.  Or, we could have just nuked Tokyo.  That would have ended the war almost immediately.  We didn't because it would have had MUCH larger loss of life than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

    Originally posted by Bama1267

    However unfortunate it may have been that the US dropped 2 nukes on innocnent civilians....it beat the alternative. An invasion of Japan would have brought far more casualties to the US...than dropping 2 bombs and the war was over. Japan was warne  after the first bomb....Jyet they still did not heed the warning and did not surrender. All the lives lost by Japanese soldiers and civilians in WW2 have only theyre own government to thank for it.


    What would you if there is a country that is trying to keep peace. But there is a looming threat because of another nation that is building deadly nuclear weapons. That could change you and your nations existance forever. That nation isn't America. That nation is any country that was probably looking at the threat of the united states. with them building their WMDs. Do you think the US wouldn't have attacked japan in any case?
    They were basically setting up base on islands in the pacific.. easy access to Japan. America was already in the motions for war.

    And you say that Japan didn't head the warning of the first bomb. Well tell me this. If a country comes and Drops a bomb on New York City. Do you think the U.S.A. wouldn't retaliate? Are you really so entrenched in so called patriotism that you can;t see that Japaneez are people too? You basically took out thousands of civilians. and You are saying Japan deserved it? Japan attacted Pearl Harbor... But that was a Naval Base... Not a major city with hundreds of thousands of women and children.

    There is no excuse for what the U.S. did. On that day of the bomb. The world lost a part of their humanity. And then what do we find out like 2 weeks ago? Dubya was planning on Nukin Iraq??! What is wrong with the American Government. and you applaud and congratulate these people that are causing pain and suffering?

    The US of A goes around bombing countries all the time. Bombing bunkers because people are building weapons there. I wonder how you'd feel if countries bombed ever US bunker here on Home turf.
    people need to just take a peek from someone elses point of view.. and not just take things as they are handed to you on Fox News.

    image
    What's your Wu Name?
    Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
    Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
    "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
    <i>ME<i>

  • lardmouthlardmouth Member Posts: 701

    1. The USA is not solely responsible for the creation and use of the A-bomb.  The allies (yes, Canada too) helped build the A-bomb, and agreed that should Japan not unconditionally surrender, they would be used.  The allies developed the bomb and supported using them.

    2.  Many, many more would have died without the use of the bomb.   The detractors here have the comfort of not having to face an invasion on a "total war" entrenched japanese military and citizenry.  It's absolutely stunning to repudiate the use of the bombs based on how many japanese were killed.

  • ScorpesScorpes Member Posts: 830

    Facts are the war in Iraq is just going to increase the need/want for a nuclear weapon. Iraq was said it "could eventually" have a nuclear weapon, whereas at the time N.Korea, was incredidly close or allready had one. So we attck the country that didnt have one.

    N.Korea has no intentions of conquerering the world, they are terrified that they will be invaded at any moment. Having a nuclear weapon means instant deterent, being able to deliver the weapon to anywhere in the world means even a greater deterent.

    Think about it, if your a dictator or a regime thats hostile to the United States, having nuclear weapons is the ONLY way to prevent an attack and for them to take you seriously. The strategy of pre-emptive strikes gives all the incentive in the world for having nukes not scare people from it.

    Especially when alot of nations think we'll just make up any excuse to attack them, wether thats true or not, that is the perception.

  • methane47methane47 Member UncommonPosts: 3,694

    Originally posted by lardmouth
    2.  Many, many more would have died without the use of the bomb.   The detractors here have the comfort of not having to face an invasion on a "total war" entrenched japanese military and citizenry.  It's absolutely stunning to repudiate the use of the bombs based on how many japanese were killed.

    Well That is just a supposition isn't it? We dont know if there would have been more lives lost. All we DO know is that hundreds of thousands of HUMAN lives were lost because of the a-bombs dropped on japan.. And that was for the retaliation of the attack on a naval base.

    Quoted from here "The casualty list includes 2,335 servicemen and 68 civilians killed, with 1,178 wounded. Included are 1,104 men aboard the Battleship USS Arizona killed after a 1,760-pound air bomb penetrated into the forward magazine causing catastrophic explosions."  thats the casualty list from pearl harbor.... Please take a special note to civilians killed. 68 tops....

    Comparing that with Just the bombs alone.... firstly ... they dont even know the exact numbers... secondly.. civilian deaths outweight military deaths. And those two bombs weren't even the first time US and allies specifically attacked civilians, with bombings. Look I know it's a war... But the a-bomb tactic seems to me like a disregard for human life. Soldiers are supposed to die in war.. yeah i know that. But America traded the 68 civilian american deaths for the A-bomb.. and We dont even know How many that affected... and CONTINUED to affect for MANy many years... So when you guys start saying that Japanese deserved their fate... i just loose more respect for you. Becoming less and less human.

    I'm praying that you DON'T think those people in the world trade center deserved to die.

    image
    What's your Wu Name?
    Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
    Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
    "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
    <i>ME<i>

  • PhoenixsPhoenixs Member Posts: 2,646

    Originally posted by methane47

    Originally posted by lardmouth
    2.  Many, many more would have died without the use of the bomb.   The detractors here have the comfort of not having to face an invasion on a "total war" entrenched japanese military and citizenry.  It's absolutely stunning to repudiate the use of the bombs based on how many japanese were killed.

    Well That is just a supposition isn't it? We dont know if there would have been more lives lost. All we DO know is that hundreds of thousands of HUMAN lives were lost because of the a-bombs dropped on japan.. And that was for the retaliation of the attack on a naval base.

    Quoted from here "The casualty list includes 2,335 servicemen and 68 civilians killed, with 1,178 wounded. Included are 1,104 men aboard the Battleship USS Arizona killed after a 1,760-pound air bomb penetrated into the forward magazine causing catastrophic explosions."  thats the casualty list from pearl harbor.... Please take a special note to civilians killed. 68 tops....

    Comparing that with Just the bombs alone.... firstly ... they dont even know the exact numbers... secondly.. civilian deaths outweight military deaths. And those two bombs weren't even the first time US and allies specifically attacked civilians, with bombings. Look I know it's a war... But the a-bomb tactic seems to me like a disregard for human life. Soldiers are supposed to die in war.. yeah i know that. But America traded the 68 civilian american deaths for the A-bomb.. and We dont even know How many that affected... and CONTINUED to affect for MANy many years... So when you guys start saying that Japanese deserved their fate... i just loose more respect for you. Becoming less and less human.

    I'm praying that you DON'T think those people in the world trade center deserved to die.

    Hiroshima:
    Blast: 70000-80000
    Radiation: 60000
    Later years: Thousands

    Nagasaki:
    Blast: 40000

    Radiation: 75000

    Later years: Thousands

    It's the deaths in the later years I find so very disturbing. People that wheren't even born at the time of the war die later because of this. People have died in the years between 1950 and 1990! because of the bombs.

    The casualties also include 2000 Japanese Americans and 11 american prisoners.

  • seabass2003seabass2003 Member Posts: 4,144
    I wouldn't get nervous. If one country uses their nukes we use ours then everybody else uses theirs and the human race is done. Then we don't have anything to worry about.

    In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.

  • honzolohonzolo Member Posts: 321

     All you people complaining about war and nukes and all of that are the same people trying to GANK me with your level 60's on World of Warcraft... You're not about peace and harmony! You don't fool me!

    Hehe.

     H.

  • VercadesVercades Member Posts: 1,065

    Originally posted by Necran



    YEARS ago, when america was freaking out about the vague possibility Sadam Hussain had WMD's, North Korea announced to the world they were building nukes, America was cool with it then, maybe the leader of North Korea said something that pissed off Dubya, and now they are a "threat".

    Am i the only one that thinks it's a bit messed up America claims no other country can be trusted with nukes, when they're the only country to drop nukes on cities full of innocent people?

    Chances are other countries don't like America threatening the rest of the planet with their 2000+ nukes, having one or two might not be a bad way to say back off.

    And yes America does have that many nukes, for awhile there with russia it became a battle over who could destroy everything on the planet the most times.

    Dubya cut their little money scheme and, now they're mad, he also doesn't give them what they want in negotiations some kinda cross translation thing whereas, the translator says things our president wants to know but, is more in their interest.  Clinton kept paying up all sorts of nations sure it pleased them but, at the cost of our own security.  Which isn't the best thing to do when you're about to leave office..
  • FilipinoFuryFilipinoFury Member Posts: 1,056

    What I don't understand is does'nt the USA have over 10,000 strategic warheads but then we get all mad and worried when another country has dozen or so. Anybody want to explain this to me. I didnt read every post so somebody might of already pointed this out.


    On Time? On Target? Never Quit?

  • lardmouthlardmouth Member Posts: 701

    Originally posted by methane47

    Well That is just a supposition isn't it? We dont know if there would have been more lives lost. All we DO know is that hundreds of thousands of HUMAN lives were lost because of the a-bombs dropped on japan.. And that was for the retaliation of the attack on a naval base.

    Quoted from here "The casualty list includes 2,335 servicemen and 68 civilians killed, with 1,178 wounded. Included are 1,104 men aboard the Battleship USS Arizona killed after a 1,760-pound air bomb penetrated into the forward magazine causing catastrophic explosions."  thats the casualty list from pearl harbor.... Please take a special note to civilians killed. 68 tops....

    It wasn't JUST an attack on a Naval Base, it was an ACT OF WAR.  A specific targeting of the US that left no option but to go to war.  US casualties due to Japan's leaving us no option but to enter militarily...418,500 (of which I'm not sure how many were drafted). How many had the Japanese already killed?  Let's just say there's debate as to which was more brutal, Nazi German or Japan.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

    Comparing that with Just the bombs alone.... firstly ... they dont even know the exact numbers... secondly.. civilian deaths outweight military deaths. And those two bombs weren't even the first time US and allies specifically attacked civilians, with bombings. Look I know it's a war... But the a-bomb tactic seems to me like a disregard for human life. Soldiers are supposed to die in war.. yeah i know that. But America traded the 68 civilian american deaths for the A-bomb.. and We dont even know How many that affected... and CONTINUED to affect for MANy many years... So when you guys start saying that Japanese deserved their fate... i just loose more respect for you. Becoming less and less human.

    Again, how many civilains deaths due to Japan?  If you haven't read it already, look at the link above.  It was time to end the War.  Sorry that the Japanese didn't get their invasion to fight against.  But, the allies were pretty damn sick of the lives lost in the war already.  

    List of casualties broken down by coutries, civilian, military, alliance

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

    I'm praying that you DON'T think those people in the world trade center deserved to die.

    Huh?  I don't think japanese civilians deserved to die either.  But, you seem to believe that casualties would have been lower during a conventional invasion of japan....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties_for_Downfall

    An invasion would have consisted of Ariel Bombardment/Naval Bombardment with dumb ordinance (sorry, no smart bombs back then) of military assest and troops amongst civilians and civilian population centers.  Then there would have been the actual boots on the ground invasion force.   Fighting on the streets house to house.  They would have faced civilians out of uniform trained to be part of the defensive force. 

    I maintain that the use of the Atomic bomb spared the allies and Japan many more lives lost.


  • hotdoggiehotdoggie Member Posts: 12
    all i know is that both north korea and iran having nukes is not beneficial to any country. if the problem with these countries are not dealt with we may face problems later on in the future.
  • MuraisMurais Member UncommonPosts: 1,118
        Let's go back to the old days, and settle all our political, and war agendas with a club, or an axe.


     
          Nobody should have instant "I win" buttons.


Sign In or Register to comment.