businessinsider.com
How do you all feel about the fact that America is actually going to strike North Korea? It's a complete shitshow that'll end fucking awfully for everyone.
Say your prayers, as there is going to be no future for us left. Memes aside, being involved in a nuclear war is not good for us at all, unless you're a suicidal person with nothing to live for.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
reuters.com
medium.com
marxists.org
qz.com
businessinsider.com
twitter.com
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
If Tokyo doesn't become a crater for this I'll shoot up a movie theater
It took two World Wars just to get rid Monarchies doing exact same bullshit, and it will take no less than two to get rid of liberal democracies.
Well it was nice shit posting with you all.
IT'S NOT HAPPENING.
this isn't Holla Forums, stop hyping up bullshit. the USA is just making wild threats because they can't do anything about DPRK's nukes. KJU says the nukes guarantee PEACE.
How can you say that with certainty? Who the fuck cares about what KJU thinks whenever he doesn't have nearly the intensive amount of intelligence as the US has on them.
We're basically fucked, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. I admire you're hope, but I think it's illplaced. I need to see proof that there isn't going to be an attempt at attacking NK.
The same way I can say anything with certainty. Nothing is 100% certain, but many things are 99.9% certain. There has not been a single use of nukes since WWII due to the threat of MAD, there is no reason for this to change now.
KJU gives a first-hand perspective on the struggle against the USA in Korea, he is intimately familiar with the conflict and has the full resources of the DPRK at his disposal to conduct his analysis. Since he is a communist, he is far more trustworthy than fucking Business Insider or the CIA. Moreover, the USA has been notoriously frustrated in its efforts to gather intel on the DPRK, and has largely failed due to their strict policies.
hoW cAn yOU sAY THAt wItH CeRTaINTy???
Empires in their twilight are MORE dangerous, not less, you dolt.
You do realize that the US has tried and failed to stomp down on communist leaders in the past? There has been more than 300 assassination attempts on Fidel Castro's life. What makes you believe that the US wouldn't try to nuke NK?
Who the fuck cares if it's Business Insider telling us that this is going to be a possibility. I would love for you to be right, but I must test you in order to be sure of myself. I would absolutely love to make a fool of myself if it means that we wouldn't destroy NK.
My faith however is strained, there is no reason for us to believe that the US wouldn't strike NK. It's power and influence is waning at the very moment, it's leader is a complete jackass and both political parties and the majority of the people who live within the US would support an attack on NK.
reuters.com
I believe that the US would want to attack NK more than it would ever want to Attack Iran or Venezuela. Neither of those two countries would garner enough support for a full on war because we're tired of waging war in the middle east and nobody in America really gives that much of a shit about Venezuela. This leaves solely NK as a viable target, as it is something that is popular enough for both democrats and republicans to get behind, and it would let the US keep it's hold over the East for just a bit longer if it's successful in it's goals.
Weird, there weren't any nuke attempts on Cuba. The rest of your post is just garbage, admit you are freaking out over the less-probable outcome. When a year passes and there is no war on the DPRK, I want you to spin in a circle three times and chant "The ☭TANKIE☭s were right!"
How does this pass for analysis?
Cuba doesn't have access to any nuclear weapons, nor the means to launch them. The DPRK does, thus the US wants to get rid of the DPRK.
It's really that simple, and they don't give a flying fuck about the lives of NK, SK, Japanese or Chinese civilians that might get caught in the crossfire.
The nukes make attack LESS, not more likely. They are DETERRENT. You are claiming that the USA's foreign policy is wildly irrational, which goes against all Marxist analysis.
Yet the new ICBMs can hit USA cities.
Moreover, China has explicitly stated that it would intervene on behalf of the DPRK if the USA attacked first, adding more deterrence. China has ICBM nukes and hypersonic missiles, as well as a massive standing army.
Listen here, fucktard. If you paid any sort of attention to world events instead of huffing your own asshole, you'd see that USA's international position is in jeopardy, and a joke.
medium.com
USA failed to elect a warhawk that would interfere in Syria. They are failing to drum up support to invade Iran, Venezuela, Russia and China. And now countries are warming up to the Yuan. If USA doesn't reassert itself, its hegemony is in serious jeopardy.
The USA/NATO empire is at its highest point in all of history. There are some reasons to believe we are at "peak NATO," but this idea that the USA is some kind of crumbling empire that will start launching nukes left and right has ZERO contemporary or historical evidence to support it. More likely, you are confusing the DOMESTIC decay of the USA for decay in its empire, which is a mistake you wouldn't make if you read Lenin.
marxists.org
READ IT. Or take off that flag you charlatan.
And? Other pentagon studies say that the F-35 is the greatest shit ever.
Again, you have completely failed as a Marxist because you are asserting that the USA is going to start wildly firing off nukes and inviting nuclear apocalypse on its own cities, and there is NO contemporary or historical precedent for such behavior. This also doesn't match to the rational class interest that is assumed in Marxist analysis. You are making up truisms ("Empires in their twilight are MORE dangerous, not less, you dolt.") with zero evidence or analysis. Shut the fuck up. When a year passes and I am proved right, admit you were wrong and mend your ways.
Same could be said about many “conflict changing” weaponry, “Chemical weapons are a detterent guys”. In addition the “nothing ever happens” narrative is just as erroneous as the “everything is crumbling” narrative, it’s based on unquestionable foundations which can’t be put into question.
Your prediction of no war is based on MAD holding up.
MAD isn’t just having nuclear weapons, it Essentially hinges on cost vs benefit.
The assumption is that when nuclear weapons are taken into consideration the cost always outweighs the benefit. If you had read the article the USA have been focusing a lot of time and money in creating tactical nukes and nuclear delivery methods which create a net benefit. Their methods Include taking out NK’s ability to carry out a nucléar retaliation. This essentially puts MAD out of the picture.
You need to actually know what the fuck you are talking about before you open your mouth.
Who has ever said this??? There is zero evidence for such a claim, while there is ample historical evidence for nuclear deterrence.
No, you are putting them into question and failing miserably because I have history and rational analysis on my side. Nuclear war with the DPRK is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE, which in normal discussion is the same as saying it WON'T HAPPEN.
This is more baseless NATO propaganda. NATO spends billions of dollars on useless "defense systems" like Iron Dome that are a total dud in practice. They purely serve as security theater and corrupt business favors. The USA knows that if they attacked the DPRK, at least one USA city would get nuked and a full-blown war would open up with China. They 100% can't afford that.
I said it is possibly at its peak, but it is not in a rapid state of wild/violent decay, you can't refute that.
Yes, read theory. You are a fucking brainlet.
The USA and its puppets spent billions on a covert war against Syria and failed, that is an intervention. The USA has failed in interventions in the past, notably in KOREA!
These are positive developments that hint at a possible beginning decline as I said. However, if the NATO empire is now declining, it has barely begun, and its beginning can only be marked to the past year or so. It is ridiculous to portray the present situation of NATO as an impending Samson Option.
Again, STFU brainlet. Take off that flag, you are a disgrace to Lenin and Stalin, and even Kim Il Sung.
...
Syria was invaded, that's an intervention. There's even thousands of US soldiers in Syria RIGHT NOW. You are a shitposter, kill yourself.
I did a bit more research and the writer of the Business Insider article likes to write up about NK getting struck down by the US a lot. I am still worried, but I now think it's a bit improbable for the US to actually do it. I won't be surprised if it happened, but I'm no longer panicked.
Sorry about that.
OK you infantile failures. I have archived this thread and posted it in the DPRK general:
We'll see who was right in a few months.
Glad you did some critical thinking, please make a habit of it. Do you have any links or screencaps to share with us that show the author is an alarmist shill?
businessinsider.com
The site itself is all in with the Russia-gate shit, but the author has been writing about NK quite a bit this week.
The argument “ because it hasnt happened yet it won’t ever happen” is the lazy. For someone who claims in previous posts to truly acknowledge material condition you sure as hell discredit evolutions in military and foreign policy very quickly when they dont support your points.
On the topic of Saddam Huessien’s chemical weapons.
m8 do you even terrorism?
You haven't described any new developments that would cause the USA to invite nuclear warfare upon itself.
That's not analysis, that's just PR. Many countries with CW have been invaded in the past, you are just grasping at straws.
If the us found a way to disable north Korea’s ability to strike back they would attack first. The article highlights how the us military is considering tactical nukes as an option to disable north Korea’s ability to strike back.
You assume that a us first strike would not target north Korea’s nuclear launch sites and that China would automatically back North Korea in a war.Thus Leading to the us being obliterated.
even though China has said this in the past, you could say “that’s just PR”.
If you're going to quote Thatcher, we can just start quoting random schizophrenics to prove our points can't we?
The article is lying. It's just an imperialist temper tantrum. If they could do it, they'd ALREADY BE DOING IT.
You are an infantile moron.
MAD doesnt really apply when your opponent has a dozen warheads at most and questionable delivery systems.
US probably wont do anything unless kim strikes first though. Not worth the political backlash.
Whats going to be really interesting is how we approach nuclear non-proliferation in the future. With iran we would probably go for it if not just for the fact that they don't have a south korea held hostage.
Of course it fucking would. The problem comes from the few million korean conscripts with thousands of artillery pieces killing whatever they can until they run out of ammunition, food, and fuel or get mopped up three weeks later by US and SOKO ground forces.
If we could avoid THAT we would first strike in a heartbeat.
The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is STILL a non-interventionist, who backed off from Syria, and North Korea. Das rite, the real reason US is not at war is because our sad little tangerine.
yes it does, the DPRK could easily wipe out a few million Burgers at least. Again, there is also China and the ensuing war/tradewar to deal with.
stop this meme, it's DPRK and ROK.
Yeah, with bullets. Just like US always preferred to deal with its problems. Where is this "US is totally a pacifist state!" bullshit maymay comes from?
It is literally impossible for the USA to wage war against China. The entire US Navy fleet would be instantly sunk by hypersonic missiles, and then there'd be no way for the imperialists to invade. The only option would be truce and an ensuing proxy/trade war, or MAD.
No they couldnt. Maybe a few million south koreans but they wouldnt be able to get a missle to us soil.
But anyway thats still not what MAD means. MAD is the theory that when you and your opponent both have enough nuclear weapons to wipe eachother out multiple times over you wont go to war because of it.
Wrong, just not a dumb interventionist
I have never seen anyone unironically make that argument.
America could destroy china's ability to make war in about 30 minutes
Yes they would, there is no magic missile shield. The ICBMs would hit Burger cities and military positions, period the end.
Millions instantly dead certainly qualifies, especially to pampered and whiny Burgers.
And vice versa, you are a fucking idiot.
USA and its elite declining peacefully is not in the card, m9.
Refute what I said, you fucking retard.
We can shoot missles down. Weve been able to do it pretty well since the 70's
I dont think so
"There exists a possible counter" is not an argument, Armchair General.
user…
Look at the pussies in this thread
fuck off NATO shill. go read up on the spectacular failure of Iron Dome if you believe that shit.