Blow up NK?

[Hezekiah]

Just curious if anyone thinks we'll be blowing up North Korea any time soon. Or is it all just bluster from both sides?

Wondering whether it's time to start digging my EMP-proof bomb shelter....

[Gage]

I dont know but something is about to go down. I dont know to what extent but something is coming. My cousin is in the military and they are moving out to an area to get assembled. He couldnt give me much detail but did admit it involved NK.

[Hezekiah]

I dont know but something is about to go down. I dont know to what extent but something is coming. My cousin is in the military and they are moving out to an area to get assembled. He couldnt give me much detail but did admit it involved NK.

Which branch of the military?

[Benjamin_LK]

North Korea is a proxy for China and the threat from China is that they blow us up if we attack North Korea.

[Gage]

I dont know but something is about to go down. I dont know to what extent but something is coming. My cousin is in the military and they are moving out to an area to get assembled. He couldnt give me much detail but did admit it involved NK.

Which branch of the military?

Army- Apache pilot

[brianj]

Kim Il Sung believed that war with the US was inevitable. He knew that he couldn't win so he wanted to make it hurt as much as possible. This has probably also been believed by his successors.

Kim Jong Un most likely wants the ability to deploy a high altitude nuke over the US to cripple us, and I sincerely hope our ABM systems can intercept and destroy such a launch.

Lil' Kim has been coddled way too much by our last President. He thinks that if he makes enough bluster and threats he will get his way. Now he is acting like a child whose parents finally decided to draw a line in the sand. All we can do now is pray that he backs down, because if we back down to a clear and present threat from North Korea he will only be further emboldened.

[gkearney]

Here are the scenarios that I can see in the sort term.

1. North Korea launches a ICBM, without a warhead. The U.S./South Korea/Japan shoot it down.
2. North Korea launches a ICBM, with a warhead The U.S./South Korea/Japan shoot it down with nuclear materials falling into either A. the Sea of Japan or B. into North Korea itself.
3. South Korea, with the support of the United States and Japan arranges the assassination of Kim Jong Un likely at some large public gathering when they know he will be there. The North Korean government, deprived of a strong central leader for the first time ever, devolves into a bloody civil war as various faction vie for control. Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans stream across the borders into China and South Korea. South Korea fearing that the un governed North Korean military might use it artillery or nuclear weapons move to neutralize those assets and occupy the county.
4. North Korea attempts to launch a ICBM with a warhead. There is a accidental dentition of the warhead upon launch. North Korea in effect nukes itself.

[Matchmaker]

If the powers that be wanted KJU gone, he would be six feet under by now. Apparently they are keeping him alive and in power for a greater purpose.

[skmo]

Putin Orders 1,500 Russians to Move Away From N. Korean Border

[Hezekiah]

Putin Orders 1,500 Russians to Move Away From N. Korean Border

Ominous foreshadowing or is he sending them out for Mongolian Beef?

[djinwa]

Perfectly rational for North Korea to get nukes, as we don't mess with countries with that have them.

Ironic that we only attack countries that are not a threat, such as Iraq. We had to claim they had WMDs to justify our meddling. That is, of course, after we gave them WMDs to use against Iran. As the CIA said, of course they have WMDs, we have the receipts!

We could save a lot of lives and trillions of dollars if more countries had nukes.

[Hezekiah]

Perfectly rational for North Korea to get nukes, as we don't mess with countries with that have them.

Ironic that we only attack countries that are not a threat, such as Iraq. We had to claim they had WMDs to justify our meddling. That is, of course, after we gave them WMDs to use against Iran. As the CIA said, of course they have WMDs, we have the receipts!

We could save a lot of lives and trillions of dollars if more countries had nukes.

Anyone ever wonder why Mexico doesn't have nuclear weapons? They certainly have the ability, but they also don't have the desire.

Probably because they are the 52nd state (after Puerto Rico). That is, of course, until we build that Wall. Then they will have to perfect their catapult building skillz.

tacopult.jpg (9.38 KiB) Viewed 945 times

[Silver]

Perfectly rational for North Korea to get nukes, as we don't mess with countries with that have them.

Ironic that we only attack countries that are not a threat, such as Iraq. We had to claim they had WMDs to justify our meddling. That is, of course, after we gave them WMDs to use against Iran. As the CIA said, of course they have WMDs, we have the receipts!

We could save a lot of lives and trillions of dollars if more countries had nukes.

Anyone ever wonder why Mexico doesn't have nuclear weapons? They certainly have the ability, but they also don't have the desire.

Probably because they are the 52nd state (after Puerto Rico). That is, of course, until we build that Wall. Then they will have to perfect their catapult building skillz.
tacopult.jpg

Canada apparently repudiated the possession of weapons of mass destruction in 1984. If you look at a map, a North Korean missile would have fewer miles to travel hitting a Canadian target than a US (ignoring Alaska).

However, NK is not threatening to attack Canada. Kim's only threats are against those threatening his regime. There's got to be a lesson in there somewhere.

[gkearney]

I always get amused at countries such as Canada, Australia and South Africa which claim to not have any nuclear weapons. While technically true I suppose what is also true is that such countries have the means of producing and deploying such weapons in a very, very short time. They likely have all of the components to assemble such in storage and need only to bring them together.

I know that in the case of South Africa that they dismantled a number of nuclear bombs some years ago but the research centre which built them to start with is still functioning (I have been there.) and is under very tight security. It was about the only place in South Africa where I had to produce multiple and duplicate forms of identity and was escorted by armed security officers the whole time I was on their campus so clearly the South African have retained the ability to assemble nuclear weapons should they choose to do so. The same would seem to be the case for Australia and Canada with their vast and secretive military research and testing centres.

So it strike me a bit disingenuous to stand on some sort of nuclear moral high ground and claim no such capacity while all the time knowing you could assemble and deploy such in likely under a week's time.

[Hezekiah]

Three concepts to consider: Ability, Opportunity and Intent.

In order to be found not guilty of assault or murder after self-defense, you must persuade judge and jury that: (1) The person you shot had the power to kill you (ability). (2) The person was close enough to kill you (opportunity). And (3) The person wanted to kill, rape, or rob you (intent).

http://ccwvslaw.org/item/1412

Given the above criteria for claiming self defense, which country could claim they fought in self defense? North Korea or the United States of America?

[Durzan]

Three concepts to consider: Ability, Opportunity and Intent.

In order to be found not guilty of assault or murder after self-defense, you must persuade judge and jury that: (1) The person you shot had the power to kill you (ability). (2) The person was close enough to kill you (opportunity). And (3) The person wanted to kill, rape, or rob you (intent).

http://ccwvslaw.org/item/1412

Given the above criteria for claiming self defense, which country could claim they fought in self defense? North Korea or the United States of America?

The correct answer is both the US and NK can claim self-defense.

For the US:

Ability: Yes. NK can for sure hit South Korea (a Major Ally whom we have covenanted to defend), Guam (A major US Military Base), and Japan (Another major ally whom we have covenanted to defend) at a moments notice with either ballistic missiles or Artillery. NK can for sure attack the US and its allies.
Opportunity: Yes. North Korea can for sure hit Seoul or Guam at any moment.
Intent: Absolutely. They continually bluster that they want to blow us up and drive us out of the region. The consistently act hostile towards us and other nations, and they keep testing nuclear weapons and missiles against the protesting of their neighbors and peers in the international continuity.

North Korea can also claim self defense:

Ability: The US has fighter jets capable of flying over North Korea, Balistic Missles that can level entire cities, and of course... Naval Squadrons and soldiers stationed in both Korea and Japan.
Opportunity: Yes. The US can mobilize and attack NK easily.
Intent: Yes. The US has constantly staged war drills in South Korea. To their regime, this looks like an act of hostility and clearly demonstrates our supposed intent to invade them.

The real question is... who acts first. Whoever fires first will get proverbially lynched by the UN... as a first strike is VERY hard to justify as self-defense.

[brianj]

The real question is... who acts first. Whoever fires first will get proverbially lynched by the UN... as a first strike is VERY hard to justify as self-defense.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you here. It doesn't matter who fires first; there is such a strong anti-American sentiment in the UN that we will get blamed. If North Korea were to nuke us and all we did was drop one MOAB we would get the blame for both strikes.

[Hezekiah]

The real question is... who acts first. Whoever fires first will get proverbially lynched by the UN... as a first strike is VERY hard to justify as self-defense.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you here. It doesn't matter who fires first; there is such a strong anti-American sentiment in the UN that we will get blamed. If North Korea were to nuke us and all we did was drop one MOAB we would get the blame for both strikes.

I guess maybe we should hope their aim sucks and they nuke the UN instead.

[skmo]

Given the above criteria for claiming self defense, which country could claim they fought in self defense? North Korea or the United States of America?

As one of my Ricks College profs would say, the answer is ... Yes!

N. Korea has already violated international agreements it signed. Were the U.S. to launch an attack, we could point to the nuclear tests and the ballistic missiles they have launched as proof they violated international agreement and needed to be attacked.

I am not advocating this. Quite the contrary, but I know the military history of our country has shown that we are quick to grab any justification we can. If there isn't one, we'll claim there was and stick with that story in the face of any contradictory evidence.

North Korea can already attack claiming the U.S. is starving their country and causing suffering among their civilians. Never mind that lil kim has enough to grow chubby and smug on, but it cannot be denied the people of NK are suffering.

Regardless, I'm going to agree with brianj:

It doesn't matter who fires first; there is such a strong anti-American sentiment in the UN that we will get blamed. If North Korea were to nuke us and all we did was drop one MOAB we would get the blame for both strikes.

What he said. If we sent rice and wheat to NK, the UN would accuse us of trying to poison the people there with GMO food stuffs.

[skmo]

I guess maybe we should hope their aim sucks and they nuke the UN instead.

I don't want us to bomb NK. I don't want us to bomb the UN.

HOWEVER...

I'm not in the least opposed to hanging up a "CEASE AND DESIST" and a "VACATE THESE PREMISES" sign on the UN Building doors in NYC. Go someplace you whiny butts are welcome. Quebec comes to mind. Paris, Berlin, Stockholm, (Would that give them Stockholm Syndrome?) or Tehran.

I'd take a cue from Lawrence Welk and say "Adios, Au Revoir, Auf Wiedersehen."

[iWriteStuff]

Three concepts to consider: Ability, Opportunity and Intent.

In order to be found not guilty of assault or murder after self-defense, you must persuade judge and jury that: (1) The person you shot had the power to kill you (ability). (2) The person was close enough to kill you (opportunity). And (3) The person wanted to kill, rape, or rob you (intent).

http://ccwvslaw.org/item/1412

Given the above criteria for claiming self defense, which country could claim they fought in self defense? North Korea or the United States of America?

Well, this is a bit ironic now, isn't it?

“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump said Tuesday in a major address before the U.N. General Assembly. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”

The president insisted that the U.S. is “ready, willing and able” but cautioned that “hopefully this will not be necessary.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/1 ... ech-242876

Sounds like we have Ability, Opportunity and Intent. All we lack is a "good" justification! Hope we don't have any false flags planned at the Pentagon this week....

[James-T-Prout]

Just this morning, I got an email from a young woman
named "C".

She asked me this about North Korea:

"I just got this message from my daughter who lives
in Ogden. (Hill Air Force Base)

One of the ladies at work whose husband works on
base in the air force said something big is going on right now.

The jets have been flying over the area non stop for 2 days.

Lots of people being deployed to various places.

Most the guys have been going to Japan. That's
where (my friend at work) thinks her husband will be deployed to.

Sounds like we're planning some sort of attack on Korea. What do you think?"



I can say only a few things on the topic:

1. From what I've read in prophecy in the scriptures,
North Korea doesn't directly appear. grin
There are other wars that do appear. Particularly a
war with Iran. It is the "Ram and the He Goat Vision"
(See the Appendix of The Last Days Timeline - We know
when that Iran war happens, and the precursors that
start it. It's in the scriptures.)

2. There have been several recently recorded, within the last
7-10 years, extra-curricular visions that do point
to a war with North Korea. David Warwick seems to
be the lead in this area of war with North Korea
turning into WW3 with Russia and China. David has
not written a book yet, but has frequent speaking
engagements and he is on youtube.

3. Visionary Sarah Menet has said nothing on North
Korea in her 2002 book, "There is No Death".
Roger K. Young, author of "As a Thief in the Night"
worked with Sarah Menet to get her book published.

3a Roger K. Young's several vision books do document
that many different people have been shown North
Korea as a trigger.

4. Advanced prepping author Joel Skousen,
has pointed to North Korea as the trigger for WW3
for more than 20 years. (since the late 1990s.) He claims
the elites have been saving North Korea for just such
a trigger for a surprise WW3 attack by Russian and China (SEE BELOW).
https://www.lastdaystimeline.com/joel-skousen



5. There have been several old prophecies concerning
war in the Pacific where the nukes were targeting our
ships, not the Mainland USA. Most of these are recorded
by author Duane Crowther in "Prophecy Key to the Future".
Most of these prophecies were given by Church Stake
Patriarchs that are long dead from the 1960s; given
during the Cold War with the USSR.

6. Recently, today Sept 21,17, Donald Trump announced
to the United Nations panel that North Korea was a threat
and he is putting new tougher sanctions upon them. ALSO
that China is in league and is helping the USA by taking away
banking connections from North Korea. So North Koreans and
their government can no longer use Chinese banks. This shows
China is on-board, at least a little.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump- ... 2017-09-21

7. As for myself, I have seen many build-ups to war during my lifetime.
And it usually looks like this. That the active military
men are sent first. Then, if it's a big engagement, the
reserves are called up next. Usually we start to hear the
War Drums start beating in the press for about 2 months
before a big conflict. Meanwhile the men, machinery, and
supplies are being built up on military bases, close to the
region.

HOWEVER, this time may be a bit different, as the press
is dominated by the 3 Eagle Heads, and they always want war.
It feeds their profits. (See book: The President Makers)
BUT, they don't like Trump. So, they may use the press to
undermine any war activities Trump begins. Very different
than what we have seen in the last 40 years. (Just a hunch)

(See Book: The President Makers - How Billionaires Control U.S. and Foreign Policy)
https://www.lastdaystimeline.com/president-makers/