11 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

I'm surprised that Kim Jong Un's personal barber hasn't been fed to the dogs yet.

Well looking at his coupe,maybe he has.

21 minutes ago, Seik said:

I find NK to be particularly fascinating as it is probably the sole country in the world which is entirely self-reliant. When they build something, especially of this magnitude, it is 100% made of the sweat and blood of their own people, which is quite impressive.

Not to mention, if there is one country in the world which has interest in being armed, it is this one. There are too many sharks in the water, and they'd better have big guns if they don't want to be razed to the ground and replaced by a giant shopping mall.
I sincerely believe the narrative their leaders built about the west rings closer to the truth than ours about them.

Also one of two countries not owned by the IMF.

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

Bit stupid of him to show the World his weapons , that would be the first thing to be targeted by a by an enemy missile, should a war break out , satellites are probably watching and and seeing where he puts it 

no, this is a deterrent, if anything,

you would want to convince everyone that its a bad idea to use force against them. another card he has in his hand is that south korea capital is within artillery range

9 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

he said the US attacked countries that did not have nukes. 

They are cowardly. 

With millions of containers crossing the seas every year, who needs a missile delivery system? 

 

A suitcase bomb, a smartphone and an app are all you really need.  Carefully pre-located, even years in advance.

 

3 hours ago, Seik said:

I find NK to be particularly fascinating as it is probably the sole country in the world which is entirely self-reliant. When they build something, especially of this magnitude, it is 100% made of the sweat and blood of their own people, which is quite impressive.

Not to mention, if there is one country in the world which has interest in being armed, it is this one. There are too many sharks in the water, and they'd better have big guns if they don't want to be razed to the ground and replaced by a giant shopping mall.
I sincerely believe the narrative their leaders built about the west rings closer to the truth than ours about them.

They are not fully self-reliant. Actually the regime could not survive without China's support. A unified democratic Korea would not be in China's best interest.

Having said that, I acknowledge that Kim's familly has always been able to smartly navigate between conflicting interests, I.e. between Russia and China.

Edited October 11, 20205 yr by candide

11 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

Bit stupid of him to show the World his weapons , that would be the first thing to be targeted by a by an enemy missile, should a war break out , satellites are probably watching and and seeing where he puts it 

 

Considering the USA (and the world) were a bit surprised to learn about some of NK's nuclear related advancements, relying on accurate intelligence to be available is a choice.

10 hours ago, Seik said:

I find NK to be particularly fascinating as it is probably the sole country in the world which is entirely self-reliant. When they build something, especially of this magnitude, it is 100% made of the sweat and blood of their own people, which is quite impressive.

Not to mention, if there is one country in the world which has interest in being armed, it is this one. There are too many sharks in the water, and they'd better have big guns if they don't want to be razed to the ground and replaced by a giant shopping mall.
I sincerely believe the narrative their leaders built about the west rings closer to the truth than ours about them.

 

NK is not even close to being 'entirely self-reliant'. And even the level of 'self-reliance' that can be attributed comes with consequences as to population's welfare.

8 hours ago, impulse said:

With millions of containers crossing the seas every year, who needs a missile delivery system? 

 

A suitcase bomb, a smartphone and an app are all you really need.  Carefully pre-located, even years in advance.

 

 

Not quite that easy to sneak in. Definitely not easy to covertly and safely maintain in place for long periods of time. And unless really well hidden/camouflaged, will (probably, eventually) show up on satellite scans. A smartphone activation system would risk malfunction and/or blockage by the other side.

 

More movie stuff than reality.

The destruction of Libya very clearly demonstrated that unless you can strike back you are a sitting duck for color revolutions or invasion. I'd hardly call Nth Korea a model dictatorship, but you can hardly blame old Kim for taking out an insurance policy.

On 10/11/2020 at 3:11 PM, ThailandRyan said:

When has the USA ever attacked a nation using a Nuclear weapon that did not have the bomb, or were not already attacking allies, or endangering it's own citizens by the actions they were taking.  Most of the US incursions were motivated by Actions the other countries and rebels had started.  Tell me if I have it wrong. Nuclear disarmament has been a goal for many years and the last time a nuclear weapon was ever used was the two dropped on Japan, and it was a messy way to end a war, that the US did not start.  Just so I include it as well, OIL has not been the reason for an incursion, economic stability has been a key proponent.

Around 2004 a US buddy wanted to go to Iran, so applied for visa. He asked me to check on progress during process, so I dropped by Iranian embassy as a favor for him. Gracious folks at embassy, as are most Iranians I've known. I really had to bite my tongue. I so wanted to tell them "If I were you I'd be working on that atomic bomb as fast as possible. USA doesn't F with those who have the bomb."

BTW it's not about US attacking with nuke weapons, more like "would US attack other nation who has nukes?"

On 10/11/2020 at 11:15 AM, impulse said:

With millions of containers crossing the seas every year, who needs a missile delivery system? 

 

A suitcase bomb, a smartphone and an app are all you really need.  Carefully pre-located, even years in advance.

 

Awwww does this mean the bromance is over?how sad lol on a more serious side a container bomb pre placed is a night mare possibly or what’s to stop Kim from selling them a very bad situation and sad for the regular n Korean people I doubt the missiles are operational btw 

Does Kim suffer from penis envy or what ?

On 10/11/2020 at 9:53 PM, Morch said:

Not quite that easy to sneak in. Definitely not easy to covertly and safely maintain in place for long periods of time. And unless really well hidden/camouflaged, will (probably, eventually) show up on satellite scans. A smartphone activation system would risk malfunction and/or blockage by the other side.

 

More movie stuff than reality.

 

Between loading the components into a few dozen containers over a year, or plopping one on top of an ICBM that actually goes where you point it, which do ya figure is easier?

 

If you could find them on satellite scans, you'd figure they'd have found the nuke they lost in Savannah Georgia in 1958.  62 years on, and it's still missing.

 

More to the point, we're spending $$$ trillions getting ready to fight the last war.  Like when they spent all that money on battleships and the Maginot Line in the '30's.  WWIII is going to look a lot different.

 

 

Edited October 14, 20205 yr by impulse

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Between loading the components into a few dozen containers over a year, or plopping one on top of an ICBM that actually goes where you point it, which do ya figure is easier?

 

If you could find them on satellite scans, you'd figure they'd have found the nuke they lost in Savannah Georgia in 1958.  62 years on, and it's still missing.

 

More to the point, we're spending $$$ trillions getting ready to fight the last war.  Like when they spent all that money on battleships and the Maginot Line in the '30's.  WWIII is going to look a lot different.

 

 

 

Quite obviously, most nations with nuclear capability opt for the missile delivery option. It is by far more reliable, and harder to counter. Building such a thing, as you describe, over months and years is bound to eventually be detected or to face some malfunction. Missiles are rather accurate these days, and with a nuclear warhead, that's not a super strong requirement anyhow.

 

Your 1958 example doesn't relate to the 'container scenario'. The missing bomb is, presumably, buried under a few meters of underwater silt. Your containers would be quite out in the open. And if you think North Korean operatives could put it all together, maintain and disguise it for years and on US soil, I will say you've seem one movie too many.

 

More to the point this topic is about NK - not so much about how the USA plans for WWIII. You want to go off tangent on this, that's alright.