- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: North Korea Changes Constitution, Will Launch Nuclear Strike if Kim Jong Un Is Killed or I
Posted on 5/11/26 at 6:01 am to wdhalgren
Posted on 5/11/26 at 6:01 am to wdhalgren
quote:
You said that Iran doesn't show "any inclination to expand outside their borders or build a military that could." They've alread shown an inclination to expand outside their borders, all over the world.
So, Iran is annexing territory through military conquest. That is what you are saying.
1
Posted on 5/11/26 at 6:02 am to Lord of the Hogs
quote:
Israel will use nukes against anyone if they’re in danger of being defeated. Samson plan.
So will we.
quote:
But yeah, they’re not lunatics, right?
Not at all. We're saying Iran will use them offensively, if only to release/hasten the return of the Mahdi.
I mean, we have kooky, apocalyptic Christian sects in the West. We just don't allow them to have nuclear weapons.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 6:09 am to Penrod
quote:
No, it’s not smart. It’s completely ineffective
Sure its smart. They'll never fire a missile, but having the nukes and a promise to use them if the situation calls for it is the deterrent.
It seems you havent followed this thread very well, thats on you.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 6:25 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They'll never fire a missile, but having the nukes and a promise to use them if the situation calls for it is the deterrent.
It’s a deterrent with or without the stupid constitutional measure. I don’t need to follow a social media thread to know this. The rule of law in North Korea is based solely on fear of the leader. The constitution is meaningless. If Kim wants to frick someone’s wife he fricks her; it doesn’t matter what the constitution says. And the minute Kim dies, there will be a new leader, or leaders, and the law will be whatever they want it to be. No one is going to be reading their constitution.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 6:38 am to Penrod
Biggest concern should be towards his sister. She is the immediate threat in North Korea. She takes over in the line of succession.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 6:51 am to bluedragon
quote:
Biggest concern should be towards his sister. She is the immediate threat in North Korea. She takes over in the line of succession.
Maybe. When a totalitarian leader dies the succession can be unpredictable. That’s the trouble with having all power vested in an individual instead of institutions. It’s what Napoleon would have meant when he allegedly said, “I found the crown of France in the gutter, and I picked it up with the sword.”
Posted on 5/11/26 at 6:57 am to Penrod
quote:
It’s a deterrent with or without the stupid constitutional measure.
Sure.
I dont see your point. I think you need some help interpreting comments.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 7:01 am to DeBoar
quote:
Do you know what a goal is? Moron
I have a 'goal' to frick Sydney Sweeney. Doesn't mean it will happen. The Norks would likely blow up their own country trying to 'nuke' anyone. As others have said they are using the perception to try and use Saber-rattling as a threat. They have had documented failure after failure with their advanced weapons 'testing'. You are the moron thinking NK can deliver a nuke anywhere near North America.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 7:07 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I dont see your point. I think you need some help interpreting comments.
I think you need help seeing my point. Here it is:
I think the constitutional measure is stupid and pointless. It does not increase the chances that North Korea would use nukes to retaliate if Kim were to be killed or kidnapped by the United States, for example.
If the US killed Kim in a sudden strike next week the remaining leadership would consult their own self-interests, not the constitution, in order to determine what to do next. This is obvious.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 7:09 am to Penrod
quote:
I think the constitutional measure is stupid and pointless.
We all do. However I understand their motives for doing it.
Again, you take my post as support, its simply based on understanding.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 7:12 am to Penrod
Apparently she has total authority over internal matters and she is ruthless.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 7:21 am to bluedragon
quote:
Apparently she has total authority over internal matters and she is ruthless.
Well, someone will get control in the event Kim leaves the stage, and that person will be ruthless. If Kim is taken out by a foreign power, and she establishes control, will she launch a nuke because the constitution says to?
Posted on 5/11/26 at 7:49 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Our biggest enemies are within, and thats where our destruction will come. While you and the other seals are clapping during Trumps global regime change theater.
Socialists running NY, constant spying on citizens, no justice for the J6 victims, further in debt, inflation is killing our wealth, bloated governments everywhere, chemical and pharmaceutical companies being protected, and on and on, but we're good at blowing up shite in other countries.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 7:57 am to habz007
quote:So what if some zealot inside the NK government wanted to start some crap and killed Kim? You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube if they figure out after a launch that it was an inside job?
Will Launch Nuclear Strike if Kim Jong Un Is Killed
Would be a bold move… we dare you
Posted on 5/11/26 at 8:38 am to Brosef Stalin
And saved millions of lives in doing so. Kept the Soviets out of Japan. Think of Iwo Jima on a national scale.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 9:24 am to lake chuck fan
still amazes me this hole survived the fall of the USSR.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 9:39 am to Penrod
She would have launched by now.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 9:41 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Strangely, Iran having Nukes would probably cause them and the USA to become less adversarial and develop closer relations.
"Strange" is the correct description of your thought process.
Posted on 5/11/26 at 9:53 am to UtahCajun
quote:
So, Iran is annexing territory through military conquest. That is what you are saying.
Hezbollah already controls parts of Lebanon, particularly Shia dominated areas in the south which they use to attack Israel. Up until this conflict interrupted their Iranian support, the Lebanese government was afraid to oppose them. That's an invasion and a de facto annexation. Iran has as many as 40 other militia in the middle eastern countries, infiltrating the governments and recruiting more fighters. Up until recently, Hamas controlled the Gaza strip. Iranian-backed militia conrol parts of Iraq, and are waging war on Iran's behalf from there. The Houthis control much of northern Yemen, including the capital, and are threatening to attack shipping in the Red Sea from Yemen territory. Iran has now laid claim to control and regulate all traffic passing through international waters in the strait of Hormuz, and thus the entire Persian Gulf. That's been a longstanding goal, way before this past year.
That's not a defensive posture; it's an offensive and expansionary posture
This post was edited on 5/11/26 at 10:07 am
Posted on 5/11/26 at 11:19 am to i am dan
quote:Israel does not officially confess to even have nuclear weapons, though they obviously have them. They have never signed a non-proliferation treaty and Dimona is not subject to international safeguards or inspections. Because of their nuclear ambiguity they have no reason to codify their parameters of using them. The ‘Samson’ option is not some big international secret or conspiracy theory.
That in their constitution?
As for NK, Kim Jong Un is a known quantity and erratic announcements probably shouldn’t be seen as some imminent threat. Though they withdrew, they actually were signatories of a NPT.
However, the preemptive assassination of a nation’s leaders, military leaders (along with scientists) and many of their family members based on the assumption that they might be trying to develop weapons is a radical change in U.S. policy, whether you agree with it or not. If India or Pakistan made the same statement there would probably not be the same amount of supposed outrage….or maybe there would be. Crazy times illicit crazy statements.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News