POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Drydess]

ok so what are you supposed to do if a country fires nukes at you

retaliate with something that's not nukes...? obviously diplomatic or militaristic pressure isn't working on nk, but idk what to do that would he technically legal from the UN

nuclear warfare is what's obviously going to happen, but i'm not 100% sure if the big guys like the USA are allowed to fire a nuke like that if the NK does so; i think some other organization like the UN is keeping them from doing it, or am i wrong?

geneva convention

[Ad Bot]

[HellHound]

annex korea when

[Kearn]

retaliate with something that's not nukes...? obviously diplomatic or militaristic pressure isn't working on nk, but idk what to do that would he technically legal from the UN

ok so the message being sent is that you can nuke our major cities and there will be no nuclear retaliation? what exactly keeps such a regime from nuking another country? why have a nuclear deterrent if you're not going to use it?

[Nonnel]

actually i change my reply. that only applies if it were a big country like russia or china. NK can be invaded successfully, no question.
if NK launches nuclear weapons, the US (and the UN to boot) invades, plus kimmy and the rest of the higher ups get put in prison for war crimes, assuming they don't off themselves.

ok so the message being sent is that you can nuke our major cities and there will be no nuclear retaliation? what exactly keeps such a regime from nuking another country? why have a nuclear deterrent if you're not going to use it?

how do you suggest going about it?

[Drydess]

ok so the message being sent is that you can nuke our major cities and there will be no nuclear retaliation? what exactly keeps such a regime from nuking another country? why have a nuclear deterrent if you're not going to use it?

we do have a nuclear defense system and clear eyes on nk, it's not like we're going to lose fifteen californian cities at once
but yes, that is the message im getting at. why would we just want to kill even more people? an annexation of korea would actually be great in the right manner
personally im actually in support of the destruction of nukes overall

actually i change my reply. that only applies if it were a big country like russia or china. NK can be invaded successfully, no question.
if NK launches nuclear weapons, the US (and the UN to boot) invades, plus kimmy and the rest of the higher ups get put in prison for war crimes, assuming they don't off themselves.
how do you suggest going about it?

ye it's not like there's any mutually assured destruction here, it's just more casualties

[Punished Toxicology]

WHY do all these terror attacks keep happening????

[Master Matthew²]

WHY do all these terror attacks keep happening????

Wtf am I looking at?

[Drydess]

Wtf am I looking at?

you're the dog

[Master Matthew²]

you're the dog

I see no dogs, only leather-furries

[Drydess]

I see no dogs, only leather-furries

shut up you loving bitch

[Nonnel]

the woman looks a little creeped out

[Kearn]

we do have a nuclear defense system and clear eyes on nk, it's not like we're going to lose fifteen californian cities at once

you realize that in the event of a concerted nuclear attack that multiple decoys will be fired to waste the defense system's ammunition and time, right? missile defense systems are not foolproof and the added uncertainty as to which incoming missiles are live warheads further reduces their efficacy

but yes, that is the message im getting at. why would we just want to kill even more people

because those people propped up a militant regime for so long that it not only produced a fully developed nuclear program but developed the necessary infrastructure to successfully conduct a nuclear strike on another world power, and a complete failure to respond in any immediate way only enables this regime to continue to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. this emboldens other regimes with nuclear aspirations and tells them there will be no immediate fatal consequences for their own deployment of nuclear weapons

a conventional invasion of north korea would take months at best. they have 13 million available for military service that can conduct a guerrilla campaign for years while the government goes into hiding.

[Nonnel]

being brainwashed into being jingoist shills doesn't make them not human. what in the world?

[Foxscotch]

nuclear retaliation is a bit forgetin pointless. it won't stop the missiles coming for you, and it won't fix whatever cities get hit
the whole thing's just about retribution, which for a country that has just been attacked with nuclear weapons, is Not Really A Priority. efforts should be focused, in the first place, on prevention and defense

[Timestamp]

geneva convention

those are suspiciously old series agreements you're saying right here and considering how the US fought wars after 1949, examples like vietnam and such, wouldn't that series of agreements be broken...?