Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BalefireX
I could reference nuclearfiles.org, which states:
"MAD reflects the idea that one's population could best be protected by leaving it vulnerable so long as the other side faced comparable vulnerabilities. In short: Whoever shoots first, dies second."
It is a matter of interpretation, no need to be condescending about one's status or age - I certainly won't insult you because you feel differently about what is basically an issue of semantics.
I don't think that you actually disagree with my point that it would be foolish to attempt to overthrow a government with nuclear weapons; instead you appear to be focusing on my word choice... typical internet debate technique.
|
This is not semantics your application is incorrect. North Korea CANNOT destroy the US on the other hand; we could wipe North Korea off the map in a few hours.
I am not being condescending; you're just out of your depth.
I don't think it would be foolish if you knew where the weapons were located.
This is all really moot. North Korea has no energy. If we continue to cut them off and wait, they will continue to fall apart. What most people don’t realize is that more North Koreans will die from that policy vice war.