North Korea's gas chambers and death camps
 

How do you all feel about this?

Let me guess, who are we to say what good or bad for other people right? Families enjoy inhaling deadly chemicals in glass chambers while other interns watch.

Perhaps we shouldn't do anything because the UN hasn't authorized it. The UN - the greatest despicable people out there.

-Rudey

Rudey, will you please post a link to an article about this?

More reason to turn Pyongyang into a self-illuminating parking lot.

Enquiring minds wanna know... post the info!

Rudey, you should know that unless the security council authorized something, the UN can't do anything. None of the Security Council Perm 5 has even fanthom of attacking N. Korea. Why people might ask?

(1) It will be inevitable that N. Korea will lose in the end, however, they have the capability to destroy seoul and there goes 11 million inhabitants.
(2) Nobody really know what kind of WMD they actually have. They kicked out inspectors last year and nobody has monitored them since.
(3) N. East Asia will be destabilized by the war. They also have, reportedly, the ability to attack Tokyo. Put in a few chemical warheads and you have up to a million death.

BTW, nuking any country should never ever be even considered for conventional warfare. The environmental damages alone will caused the S. Korean economy to collapse. also, think of the damages that the nuke would cause to the surrounding nations. The Chinese would not be very happy, neither would the Japanese.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...a+gas+chambers

Take your pick.

And Arya,
there are other methods of attacking a nuclear capable country. It seems the world is scared. They're scared before the weapons are done even which is worse.

Clinton devised a plan for surgical strikes across North Korea and didn't have the balls to follow through. The same thing is happening with Bush now.

Attacks against nuclear capable countries have occured in the past and if the military is capable, the risk is acceptable given the gains.

-Rudey

When it comes to dealing with genocidal regimes, the UN is useless. Not a little bit useless, but completely and totaly useless. And worthless.

As far as your points go, the only one that I agree with is that an attack on N. Korea would probably provoke an attack on S. Korea. Otherwise, it would be immoral to not remove the North Korean regime.

Also, a war on that peninsula would only destabilize the region while the war was being prosecuted. The conclusion of such a war would leave the region far more stable than it is today.

How about China and S. Korea finance the war and the US will conduct it? It's time that we got our damn troops out of there and lowered taxes.

-Rudey

I thought that you were commenting on a specific news article.

Today Yad Vashem submitted a letter to the UN asking them to intervene to stop the genocide.

-Rudey

ROTFLMAO!!!

The UN stop genocide? That will happen when Bill Gates applies for food stamps.

Maybe they'll send some peacekeepers with orders not to fire unles Kofi clears them personally?

Yeah.... like Rawanda......

Actually they might even take part in the murders. They've been known to do that when they wear those cute hats and then pretend videos documenting their actions don't exist until they appear in the press.

-Rudey

Make a list of countries that it would be immoral by your standards to leave their ruling regimes in place. Should keep us busy.

Invading N. Korea is a damn sight different than kicking the shit out of IRaq.

Iraq ia dream come true because you can fight a war of manouver in a fricking desert.

N. Korea is likely to see some harder fighting and more casualties.

What is your suggestion in taking out the N. Korean regime without Seoul being wiped out of the map? I'm sure if you can figure that out, you might have a position ready in the Pentagon.

And no, nuking them is not an option. If you want to nuke them, then why even bother taking out the regime because of human rights issues?

Unlike Iraq, which is mostly desert until you get north of Baghdad, the Korean peninsula north of the 38th parallel is very mountainous - and the DANKs (Dumb Assed North Koreans... especially those die-hard brainwashed commie party faithful) know very well to squirrel away much of their military infrastructure in caves and mountains.

If we ever went to war with the DANKs, it sure as hell ain't gonna be an enemy we could fight with one hand tied behind our back. Koreans are well known for being tenacious fighters on both sides of the 38th parallel. And I wouldn't be surprised if Comrade Dear Leader Kim has a nuke or two saved up for a last stand just to stir up a hornet's nest.

When there is war, human rights do not apply to all.

-Rudey

I thought the pentagon was working on smaller scale nuclears capable of providing damage without destroying neighboring areas. Aren't there other weapons that have the high kill rate without lingering damage?

-Rudey

Actually from what I understand they were working on two different types of "nukes" for specialized uses..... the first is a "nuke" bunker buster, capable of digging damn far down under a hard surface and directing the blast shockwave at the suspected bunker (there was talk of it being deployed or tested in Afghanistan or against some of the more eloborate Iraqi bunkers)..... the second was something along the lines of what you thought, a smaller nuke that is as "clean" as possible so as to eliminate as many of the after-affects as possible; these "tactical" nukes have been around since the 80's and its just a matter of refining the technology and deploymeny method. With a tactical nuke you want it to be an airburst directly above the enemy troops or material, so that they recieve the full blast effects, as well as the intitial and lethal radiation dossage (short half-life). The lingering radiation is actually as result of remaining particulate matter that has been irradiated by other "slow" or long half-life radiation (i can't remember as a nuke puts out more than one radioactive particle), so the more crap you kick-up in the blast the more radiation will be left, no matter how clean the initial blast.

While most of this is Cold War era technology for planning a defense against the masses of the Warsaw Pact, it can be easily adapted for use in the Korean Pennisula, well because they use the same tactics for the most part.

My suggestion is a full blown blocade, as we build up forces. Offer N. Korean officials amnesty so that a war can be avoided. I believe that this would work because the current American administration has the credibility to pull this off.

Most human rights groups believe that inaction will result in over a million deaths this year in N. Korea.

And yes, nuclear weapons is an option. As a matter of fact, it is part of US military doctrine.