NickBallard
member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 83
What's all this political debate about North Korea wanting to test their new missile? I hear politicians saying that we should go onto their own soil and blow up their missile. Others say not to do anything until the missile is fired, then blow it up. Should we really worry about this? I think that North Korea knows that if they tried anything we could squash them like a fly. How would we feel if another country wanted to fly over are land and blow up our missiles? Or if they blew up our missiles that we were testing? Like let's say some other country blew up the missiles that we launch when testing at White Sands Missile Range? Why do we get mad at them for things we do? We test and have missiles that are much further ranging than theirs? It's just like the Cold War again, both sides honestly believe that their military buildup is out of self-defense and that the other's is out of aggression. The U.S. claimed they sent in CIA assassins to various countries for the greater good, at the same time the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they thought it was for the greater good. If we blow up the missile if it launches at us, fine. But if we blow it up because they're test firing it, wouldn't they see it in the same way as we would if another country attacked Pearl Harbor, Ft Bliss, or just blew up some missiles that we were testing? We blew up the Bikini Islands with a hydrogen bomb, wasn't that worse than anything North Korea has tried? How many times have we been attacked on our own soil vs. what North Korea has? How many times has the U.S. invaded another country compared to what North Korea has? Aren't the chances of the U.S. invading North Korea on their own soil more likely than them invading us on our own soil? We've tried to overthrow many more governments than they have, so if we were to put ourselves in their shoes, wouldn't they be afraid for their own lives? The U.S. has already invaded their airspace (what would we do if military planes invaded our own airspace). We made an agreement earlier with them that if they held off on some of this, we'd offer them protection, but we haven't solidified it. So what's wrong with a country wanting to have reasonable force self-defense available (since we wouldn't solidify)? Just like these people passing anti-gun laws. I'm not saying that anything we've done is wrong, I'm just not quite getting why we freak out when other countries test weapons for defense (who couldn't hurt us if they wanted to), but it's quite all right for us to. We have so many weapons that can strike anywhere in the world. It seems like the U.S. has used more weapons to kill innocent bystanders than others have. Do we want to create new enemies by blowing up test missile launches that aren't headed towards the U.S.?