Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nevertheless this doesn't change the fact that building 'Empires' like the British (and others) have done in the past is something that no longer exists, the world has 'shrunk' an awful lot since the 1800s and it has most definately changed.
That is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. You really think Britain, Russia, France, the US, China, are 'benign' countries with no inclination to invade others? What about all the countries they, you know, have invaded?
NK does absolutely awful things to its own people and has also been responsible for some terrorist atrocities, but it has a very limited record of invading other countries in comparison to most of the official nuclear powers.
Don't be so naive, ANY of the worlds nuclear powers has the ability to reduce this world into armageddon at the press of a button, do you not understand how that has changed things? I'm sure the French could invade Switzerland if they so desired, but like I said we can be thankful that all the nuclear powers (so far) are pretty benign countries that have no desire to start World War III or else we are all buggered.
Don't be so naive, ANY of the worlds nuclear powers has the ability to reduce this world into armageddon at the press of a button, do you not understand how that has changed things? I'm sure the French could invade Switzerland if they so desired, but like I said we can be thankful that all the nuclear powers (so far) are pretty benign countries that have no desire to start World War III or else we are all buggered.
And NK could also flatten Seoul at the shake of a hat if it wanted to. One reason it chooses not to is presumably self preservation – which is also, we can suppose, a key motivation for the world's major powers not to start wars with each other (and though I'm vehemently opposed to nuclear weapons, it probably must be said that they've played some role in stopping major wars).
What they certainly haven't stopped is big powers reigning death and destruction on the people of much weaker states:
2001–present: US-lead occupation of Afghanistan. Untold dead, precious little achieved.
2003: US/UK invasion of Iraq. Tens out thousands die, country spends years in state of lawlessness.
2008: Russian invasion of Georgia, part of the former's ongoing program of meddling in its 'near abroad'.
2011: France plays a leading role in bombing out the Libyan regime; the country enters a state of chaos.
2014: Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine (and annexation of Crimea).
2015–present: Russian bombing of Syria, frequently hitting civilian infrastructure such as hospitals.
2015-present: Saudi-lead bombing of Yemen, causing famine and 'the worst cholera outbreak in history'.
(KSA is not a nuclear state afawk, but it is a major regional power and a tight ally of several world powers.)
China is certainly not innocent either – we have to look further back for an example of major aggression beyond its borders, but its treatment of its own people is far from benign, especially if you happen to live in Xinjiang)
Come on – do you really want to fly in the face of all logic?
And NK could also flatten Seoul at the shake of a hat if it wanted to. One reason it chooses not to is presumably self preservation – which is also, we can suppose, a key motivation for the world's major powers not to start wars with each other (and though I'm vehemently opposed to nuclear weapons, it probably must be said that they've played some role in stopping major wars).
What they certainly haven't stopped is big powers reigning death and destruction on the people of much weaker states:
2001–present: US-lead occupation of Afghanistan. Untold dead, precious little achieved.
2003: US/UK invasion of Iraq. Tens out thousands die, country spends years in state of lawlessness.
2008: Russian invasion of Georgia, part of the former's ongoing program of meddling in its 'near abroad'.
2011: France plays a leading role in bombing out the Libyan regime; the country enters a state of chaos.
2014: Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine (and annexation of Crimea).
2015–present: Russian bombing of Syria, frequently hitting civilian infrastructure such as hospitals.
2015-present: Saudi-lead bombing of Yemen, causing famine and 'the worst cholera outbreak in history'.
(KSA is not a nuclear state afawk, but it is a major regional power and a tight ally of several world powers.)
China is certainly not innocent either – we have to look further back for an example of major aggression beyond its borders, but its treatment of its own people is far from benign, especially if you happen to live in Xinjiang)
Come on – do you really want to fly in the face of all logic?
North Korea may well be the first nuclear power that I wouldn't call 'benign', if that's the case we are all in trouble!
Evidence? What that North Korea is f*cked up!? How about you give evidence to the contrary?
I never said that NK was not ****ed up. You said that "the superpowers (those with nuclear warhead capabilities) are all pretty 'benign' countries". I commented that they have all committed far more acts of military aggression than NK. Do you deny this?
I never said that NK was not ****ed up. You said that "the superpowers (those with nuclear warhead capabilities) are all pretty 'benign' countries". I commented that they have all committed far more acts of military aggression than NK. Do you deny this?
If the US wanted to it could simply use its nuclear might to invade Mexico or Canada, none of the nuclear powers are 'unreasonable' enough or perhaps 'stupid' enough to use nuclear force for invasion but just perhaps the same couldn't have been said about the Nazis or Imperial Japan if they had the capabilities in the 1940's, I suggest that North Korea may become the exception to the rule and that is the point I am trying to make.
If the US wanted to it could simply use its nuclear might to invade Mexico or Canada, none of the nuclear powers are 'unreasonable' enough or perhaps 'stupid' enough to use nuclear force for invasion but just perhaps the same couldn't have been said about the Nazis or Imperial Japan if they had the capabilities in the 1940's, I suggest that North Korea may become the exception to the rule and that is the point I am trying to make.
So just in case anybody's not following you –*you want to agree with me that NK currently has a minimal record of military aggression in comparison to most nuclear states?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
