*DAMN R6 Forum

Recently my eyes have been opened up to a new possibility. In class we were discussing North Korea and the danger it poses. We all concurred that N. Korea would not nuke the US, however an article came up about N. Korea's nuclear capabilities. US intelligence has reason to suspect Pakistan has given N.K. nuclear technology and N.K. could potentially have nuke capabilities very soon. If this occurs and the US intervenes in Korea we could then have China pissed at us too 1) because they don't want us so close to their country and 2) N.K. is also communist. If China gets pissed at us, other countries, mostly those in the middle east, might jump on the bandwagon and then we could have a whole crisis on our hands. N.K. might cause a domino effect, which makes me a whole lot more wary of the situation. Just wondering what you all think about this.

I would not be suprised that Pakistan gave them tech, but I think it was China. First off China gave their nuke tech to Pakistan. I dont think we will interven in Korea at the cost of hundreds of thousands of South Korean Lives. Keep in mind, Soul is in artillery range from DPRK units near Panmunjong and Kaesong.

You can thank the commies for all this civil unrest in foreign countries. Not to mention hotheaded dictators who are jealous of our prosperity.

I agree with you cookie. Yes, this could well be the start of WW3. What baffles me is why the military would blindly follow a corrupt dictator. They have the weapons...they have the power. Overthrow the bastard. Same goes for Iraq. We shouldn't have to get involved. If we'd only throw our support behind the people of these countries that want these psyho bastards out, wars wouldn't have to be fought by us.

Right now I'm sure N.K.'s pretty close to having nuclear material. But remember they're a poor country. They want to flex their puny muscles so people will fear what they have. Its all for control.

     You know... I seem to recall hearing about Korea and a "domino effect" sometime before. Now, when was that? Oh, yeah, I remember. It was the last time we decided to have Koreans and Americans kill each other... and nothing ever did come of the domino effect, did it?

     Just saying, maybe it's time to study the lessons of history a little more closely?

I just don't see why it has become a common assumption that the minute a new country gets nukes that the US will automatically intervene. I'm very much against the proliferation of nukes, but who can blame a poor country like North Korea for trying to grab all the power it possibly can?

I'll continue this post later I just got called away.

     The interesting thing about nukes is, they're very much a lunatic's weapon. There's nothing (or almost nothing) to fear from a sane leader/aristocracy/congress/what-have-you who posesses nuclear weapons, because they realize that to use those weapons would surely result in their own, almost instantaneous, deaths. It's the insane or unbalanced leaders who we fear; the ones who are plenty willing to die if it means taking out a couple of enemy cities. Unfortunately, there are a number of those around, and due in no small part to America's blatant stupidity, most of those insane leaders have grudges against America.

     Intervening in the internal affairs of those insane leaders when they are getting nuclear weapons is still a bad idea, but one that can be reasonably argued in favor of. Intervening in everyone's affairs when they're about to get nukes is just (for lack of a better word) selfish, not to mention stupidly shortsighted, in that it just creates new grudges against America.

EDIT: Fixed a typo.

Uuuuuh. Hate to tell yah guys, but China AND the US are BOTH against Korea getting the nukes... There's no chance of getting China pissed as China also would like them to disarm...

Ben

  Doesn't mean we they didn't give them the amr's. We've made that mistake as well, giving arm's to some one who in the near futer used them against us. It's very ironic I think.

I don't think China is even half as unstable as many people would think, I agree with Ben, there's no chance that China would get pissed if the UN intervened in N. Korea.
I don't think that Pakistan would be stupid enough to sell nuclear plans to a country like N. Korea, the leader of Pakistan is not, in my eyes, that wicked..

It's quite possible that Iraq and N.K. have been sharing information. Of course it would make sense if China were providing N.K. the information. Im sure theyd rather have N.K. do their dirty work so China can move forward with its economic plans.

China hates us about as much as Saddam and Bin Laden. They just aren't as stupid as those two jerkoffs.

Iraq and N. Korea having any contact at all is in my opinion highly unlikely.

I thought you people might know things, but alas you do not...

North Korea already has 2 Nuclear Bombs and could use them whenever they wanted to. However, they lack the rocketry to hit the mainland U.S., but it is expected that they will develop that technology by 2015.

Also...this wouldn't be the start of WW3 because I don't think anyone, including China, would intervene on the side of the North Koreans...it would be U.N. action (much like it was in 1950) pounding the hell out of the North Koreans.

As for the Nuclear arms technology from Pakistan to North Korea...that is highly doubtful. The North Koreans were on the verge of making their first bomb when they signed an agreement with the U.S., South Korea, and Japan (which they just violated and are blaming us...) in 1994. If my memory serves, Pakistan and India tested their Nuclear capabilities in the mid/late 1990's, making that timetable almost impossible.

Added in: It is countries like North Korea which make the National Missile Defense (NMD) a good idea. It is a system that works and it would protect us from rogue nuclear threats such as North Korea...thank God Bush got elected because no Democrat would have ever pushed for such a program.

I think China will go on the DPRK's side if we decide to invade, wich probablly wont happen in the first place. The DPRK is a chinese vassal state, and nothing more. Then again the DPRK will not be invaded and this is why

1) They already have nukes
2) War will come to the cost of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans. As I said earlier Soul is in artillery range from DPRK units at Kaesong and yadda yadda.
4)Although this could very well be another Gulf War, the DPRK has what, the fourth largest army in the world? Its soul purpose it seems like, it to invade the South. We may just stealth bomb them to death, or it could be well a repeat of the 1950-1953 Korean War. DPRK pilots are well trained, and well maintained, and have a decent air force armed with MiG-29s and whatnot. The Iraqi airforce of the early 90s was rather dated and not that good.

Nah, you got it wrong on the China thing. China wont help out the North Koreans in time of war because of their own economy. We (and the U.N.) would threaten them with numerous levels of punishment, including removal from the U.N. Security Council, hardcore Economic Sanctions (yes this would affect them seeing as they are integrated with Western Economic markets), and military action.

But the main reason that it will likely not go to war is because we will withdraw our aid from the UN stockpile that goes to North Korea and wew ill starve them into submission.

As for Military...we could beat them into submission easily...

Let's see...

At least 7 Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups could be deployed (U.S.S. Kitty Hawk is a quick action strike Carrier based out of Japan) to launch Missiles and Airstrikes.

Continous 24 hour Airstrikes from the Carriers, Japan, and Guam

The miles and miles of landmines set up on the 38th parallel would cause a difficult time for the North Koreans to invade the South.

I'm beginning to think this entire country is paranoid.  This isn't the Cold War anymore. . .terrorist and rogue states no longer present a threat of M.A.D.

It's more like T.A.D. --  Their Assured Destruction.

If North Korea were ever to launch a nuclear missile at the United States, yeah it would be horrible, and yeah lots of innocent people would die.  But shortly thereafter, their entire country would be vaporized.  If a leader were ever that crazy, it would be a shame, but its not like the US would be crippled.  Shocked and hurt yes, but in a purely technical sense, we can withstand the loss of one or two major cities.

I find it funny that we had such an outcry at September 11th.  It was terrible and the loss of life atrocious.  But other than disrupting our national overconfidence, it didn't really kill that many people.  Please don't jump all over me for insensitivity, but when we talk casually about launching full-scale wars. . .our outrage over the deaths of 3000 seems very hippocritical.

I would wonder how many people, non-combatants included, US forces have killed since September 11th.  And consider briefly how many would die in a war.  So explain to me why WE are the paranoid ones?  The US can and does do whatever the hell it wants. . .it seems to me that having crazy people get upset at you is a consequence we've just got to learn to deal with.  Or, we could stop doing whatever the hell we want.

You can't rule out the possibility though. China's always been itching to have a piece of us. If saddam can test chemical weapons on his own people then the chinese government can deal with the sanctions in order to give us hell.

Py, no they haven't. When they caught our spy plane, that was excuse enough to start a war, but they didn't. They just looked at hte plane. If they wanted they could have provoked us into an attack by not returning our pilots... But they didn't. They don't want a piece of us.

I agree completely Assasin. South Korea would help too...

Loudnotes, I also agree with you, but am not very proud to admit it. Pearl Harbor had even less losses and it was as big of a deal. Any attack on or around America that kills Americans will be a huge deal. If not the media will make it one.

Ben

Today I picked up the paper and it was Talking about how North Korea Pulled out of the Nuke treaty. Then I see in they same place on the page its Saying Alaska Could Be The first target of attack.

Im like Yeah Right Sure it would just be a waste Of Time and a nuke. We Have Less people In are whole state then the town of Seatle. Alaskas Person psm is under 1/2 a person ever sq mile. I wana here what other people think on where will be first hit if this whole stupid thin happens

They wouldn't hit. If they did (which they wouldn't) it'd be LA and New York.

Also, I wanted to respond to Assassin earlier but forgot. That Korea blaming us for ruining the treaty is funny as hell. We find out they're making them nukes so we stop making them oil. They say "Hey! You stopped sending us oil, we can make nukes!" They'll make their people believe it with censorship I s'pose.

As for Ben saying that China has and will side with the US:
sure, they do so for the moment because China isn't exactly in the best position to resist US will at the moment but yes, we all know China is itching to get a piece of us. If and when China becomes capable (which is very likely) they're not going to want to side with us anymore...

As for Assassins comment on the Pakistan- N. Korea agreements:
recently, before the whole issue was introduced to the media and such it was reported that the wife of the N. Korean "president" or whatever visited Pakistans nuclear facilites with several other officials. Shortly after the encounter N. Korea began to reinitiate its program. Suspicious? Yes. I never said N.K. didn't have any of the tech before, but the fact that one day they have hardly anything concrete in the nuke field and the next they have the technology makes things highly questionable in my eyes. you also might find this article interesting  http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/world/20021124-0.html (http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/world/20021124-0.html)  :)          

just a note??i am posting this in jaguar, and it seems to be turning my commas in question marks

had to post on this because of sin's thing on NMD systems. i dont want to get too off-topic, but i dont see how this is a good idea. by installing these systems (putting missles in space?) we are showing the world that we support the usage of nuclear weapons and consider war with them to be reasonable. we are also showing the world that we don't need diplomacy??after all, who needs diplomacy when you have outer-space missles? maybe the reason a democrat would have never supported such a foolish waste (how much did this monstrosity of a system cost again sin?) of taxpayer money. maybe the democrats would rather be part of the solution to all this stupid weaponry rather than contributing to the problem like the Bush administration chooses to.

anyway, back to what i was saying earlier? who can blame north korea for trying to do what they can to get power? the leaders are under intense pressure to alleviate the poverty and hunger the nation's citizens face every day, and if i was in their position i would do what i could to try to scare the world's bully into respecting the authority of my country.

it just seems outrageous when i look at the flippant nature with which you people can talk about very serious issues that affect thousands of people. (ex: sin "ut the main reason that it will likely not go to war is because we will withdraw our aid from the UN stockpile that goes to North Korea and wew ill starve them into submission.") I'm not saying that this isn't completely true, but don't you think its??wrong? For one, its wrong to intentionally cause the starvation of innocent people to achieve an end to our own selfish means. Also, doesn't it say something to you that North Korea and countless other countries depend on aid from the US? And before you can think "its not our fault their stupid commie asses cant feed themselves," did you ever stop to consider that the fact that they cant feed themselves probably results from one of our government's own policies? And before anyone accuses me of hating America or something equally ignorant, realize that I do not hate anyone -- I only say this because I don't discrimate based on where people happen to have been born. I don't think that purely on the basis that we were born into lives of relative privilege that we deserve the right to dominate other people in order to keep the outrageous wealth that America has.

Cook, what's with everyone saying China wants a piece of us? This North Korea thing is a reason, but they've had HUNDREDS of reasons. The spy plain over China just last year, that was a pretty good damned reason. The war on Iraq, they coulda stepped up with Germany... But they didn't. That's another reason. They don't WANT a war with us.

Ben

Cookie, hate to break it to you, but look at the name of the website... www.indiaexpress.com

It is well documented that India and Pakistan hate each others guts, so that appears nothing more to me than propaganda.

Tasty: Puhlease. You are so worried about taxpayer money now and your social welfare programs. God forbid that North Korea, or any other rogue nation with nuclear arms and sufficient rocketry hit the city of Los Angeles with a Nuclear weapon. The ENTIRE U.S. Economy would collapse with that one vicious blow and at least 4 million people would die.

Also, don't start arguing NMD with me since you have demonstrated that you do not know what it is. NMD is a system of where you fire a Ballistic missile (Non-Explosive warhead) at an incoming Ballistic missile (Nuclear warhead). It is land/sea based and guided by a series of radar and satellite arrays.

It is not showing the world that we approve of any Nuclear weapons...where the hell do you get that? It is installed to protect against a limited number (wouldn't prtect us if Russia fired, but would if North Korea did) of missiles that could be launched at us.

Sure, starving them into submission might be "wrong" in your eyes, but that is the easiest way to bend them to our (and in this case, the world's) will without having to drive their government into extinction.

While your intentions are good Tasty, you are blind to the real world...

Casper: Alaska and Hawaii would get hit first because

A) They are closer
B) They are locations of strategic items such as radars, bomber fields, etc.
C) It temporarily paralyzes our forces until Naval units are deployed from San Diego

As you can see, it has nothing to do with population, but everything to do with Military strategy...the same reason why the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Loudnotes: Any attack on American soil is an outrage, and should be...that is why we react the way we do. We view our country as Fortress America and any successful hit on us demands a response.

Frankly Assassin, if nuclear weapons were to be used, a draft would be enstated. Thus, even if they would blow up the military, millions and millions of reinforcements would be right behind them. An even bigger and more overwhelming force would follow up a hit on American troops. Thus, they would just feed the fire if they did that.

And although hitting LA and NY would be agains thte civilian population, and we would be able to strike back sooner, they who launched the nukes should be prepared for a counter attack before it happens. They are wiping quite a big percentage of our reinforcements when they hit us. Yes, America would be pissed and unite like before, but they would if any state was hit. In summary, If they hit the population where the majority of men are (LA and NY) they would choke the reinforcements and already should have prepared to wipe out our counter attack...

Just a thought.

Ben

The art of war you lack Ben...

Any LAUNCH[/u] of a Nuclear weapon (we can see and know exactly when the silo doors open up and the rocket is ignited) would bring a Nuclear retaliation...not troops. We would make North Korea glow for centuries. There would be no way in hell they would prepare for that...they would be killed.

Also, you are wrong on the reinforcement getting wiped out issue because the populations of L.A. and New York are a small fraction of the total population of the US.

Anyway, this is all the more need to get the NMD installed because it would effectively wipe out any potential threat from North Korea.

China is in a unique situation, the DPRK is a vassal of them. DPRK is to China, as Central America is to the United States. I do not think that the security council would vote China out if the defended the DPRK. First off Russia would just plain veto it, (china is our butt buddy.) North Korea is a decrepit little country, but as I said earlier Kim Jong Il is a little rich kid at heart. He just might be nuts enough to launch an attack. Yet overall I think the DPRK is doing this to get attention. Bush said they were in the Axis of Evil, they start making nukes to send the message, "FUCK YOU!" Sin, how many battle groups dow we have in there, 6? I think you mean we have the sixth Carrier Group in that area, god knows they have been in the Taiwan straights for what seems like eons.

True, I haven't been in one.
I know that, which is why I said a launch would never happen in my original post. But if I didn, don't you think KNOWING they would kill their whole country, they'd go for the largest population. You're right, they wouldn't fear naval counterattacks, which is why you said bomb hawaii and alaska. They would fear death. And while launching the nuke and knowing they would die, they would go for the most casualities possible... New York and LA have the most people in them. Frankly, they'd never nuke us, but if they did, they'd hit for casualties in my opinion.
I know it's just a fraction, but its the biggest combination that 2 hits could make.

Ben

Remember again that N.K. doesn't have the rocketry power to fire missles onto the mainland. They could possibly hit alaska or hawaii but that's a very small possibility. Besides, N.K. hits the button and all of U.S. allies hit the button. 3-5 nukes coming at us. 50 nukes coming at them.

Assassin, I then ask you if we're justified in feeling that way.  It's ok to have that mentality, but not if we disregard it completely for other countries.  It's hypocritical and immoral to be outraged over attacks on your country at the same time you're causing worser ones on other people's soil.

And, btw, the entire economy would not collapse if 4 million people died.  There would be great initial shock, but afterwards the country and its economy would move on, because there would be no other option.  It's not like losing LA would take out the infrastructure of our nation.  Again, don't call me insensitive to the loss of life. . .I'm merely looking at things in practical terms.

Yes you're right loud but I think Assassin was viewing it like this. You saw how the world trade center attack destabilized our economy. You saw how that attack that killed 3,000+ was good cause for us to go into Afghanistan and wreak havoc. If a nuke were to be fired at a city knocking out 4 million, wouldn't you think a lot of people would flee? Go into hiding? Think of the economy then. Mass hysteria/panic. Besides, think of the effects of nuclear fallout. Half of the U.S. would be practically uninhabitable.

Whoa. . .overreacting a bit aren't we?

Fallout would be a problem in California, but probably not much farther east than Nevada.  Nukes aren't that powerful, and the ones Korea has certainly won't be for some time.  And if the country had a strong leader whom people trusted, initial panic could be calmed.

Sometimes, less is more.  The WTC attack presented a shadowy enemy that it was hard to do anything about.  If people saw the retaliation to N Korea, it would do a lot to restore confidence.

Ben, like I said, China does want to maim us, but the fact that we are bigger and stronger at the moment would make attack unwise. I never said that China would step up immediately, however i DID say it is likely that in the future they could. They want to take a stand against the US, and what better situation than this? Yeah, the spy plane thing last year was big, but not quite big ENOUGH to spark a nuke war. Plus you forget, it was China that raided Los Alamos under the Clinton Administration, so perhaps both sides look at that as payback  ;)

Assassin:
I noticed the source as well, I just choss that article because it gets the point across concisely. If you'd prefer the longer NY times version that says the exact same thing, you may find it  at this site http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?4463 (http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?4463). It affirms the exact same thing, that N.K. and pakistan have nuclear ties.

And tasty, about your "who could blame them" comment:
there are better ways they could have solved their problems, diplomacy being the best option. How I see it is that Kim Jong is probably seeing what is happening to Iraq in their absence of nuclear bombs, and perhaps he feels his country is vulnerable. Perhaps the situation is just reflective of the turmoil their government is facing. In any case, stirring up the whole world and exposing yourself to possible attack is NOT the way to solve things, and I think they are completely to blame.

cookie: i totally agree

assasin: no, i am not going to argue with you about any specific military weapons/tactics because no, i really don't know many specifics about them, while you obviously do. but as far as spending, i think its pretty outrageous that those in favor of social programs are branded as "irresponsible spenders" and whatnot. these programs make up only a small percentage of the entire US budget. where does the other 60-70% go? the military, of course. for bush to spend almost a trillion dollars on new weaponry that will in all likelihood never be used is suddenly NOT irresponsible spending, yet spending a tiny fraction of that on a social program that will actually help people is?

sorry if i was unclear in my post last night, i had just come home from a party :). and what i was trying to say last night about approving of nukes or whatever, i just meant that such purchases just contribute to the arms race. i believe that part of US policy should be trying to disarm the world, rather than gear up for a war against hostile sectors of it.

     Well, hypothetically, if an insane leader were to decide to commit national suicide and lobbed (assuming they have the ability, yadda yadda) several, let's say four, nuclear missiles at America, and none of those missiles were intercepted and all hit their targets--it would be entirely possible to virtually knock out America's economy, consumer panic or no consumer panic. There are only three "important" cities in California: LA, San Francisco, and San Diego. In reality, one nuke each wouldn't be enough to vaporize those big cities or anything, but if their points of impact were carefully chosen, they could do significant damage to the production capacities of those cities. California is responsible for a disproportionate percentage of the USA's economic output. If California were crippled, even if the mass of consumers did not panic and take to the hills (which, credulous sheep that they are, they would), America's economy would be dealt a powerful blow. The other missile's logical target, from an economic-attack point of view, would be New York. The financial capital of America.

     ::shrug:: I'm just pointing out that it's silly to say with such confidence that a nuclear attack would "only" cause a loss of life.

There's no chance that N. K. would have any ICBM's yet, or as someone said earlier, not until 2015? Why are you concentrating so much on the effect of a nuke from them, it's not going to happen, more likely they would try to nuke Japan or S. Korea. From what I've heard, the fact that N. Korea would have nukes already is really not confirmed.
I don't think the RPC would have any interest in trying to help N. Korea, they are bonding closer to the western world all the time. They may have undealt business with the US but they wouldn't be stupid enough to actually stand against the US which would probably mean a big nuclear holocaust (what would China gain from that?).

I suppose you're right in that instance, but to suggest that the US would be brought to its knees is folly.  The biggest danger I could see is that we would be vulnerable to another nation or nations taking advantage of the weakness.  

But I think the country would be fairly resilient, assuming the president had the strength to rally the people.  If enough did "take to the hills", then we would have serious problems.

Ben - I think that u should know something about Pearls Harbour ( and may be some of you, being so proud of US milirair and leaders ), and that it is bad excample in one case a good one in an other case.

Bad case:

During the WW2 the whole US population was against that US goes into WAR - but Government wanted it.
IT is also true that the US headquaters knew about the Japanes attac one day before. But they did nothing to prevent it and they did nothing to inform Pearl Harbour - although they easily could have done this.
So they let thousands of US guys die - only to take influece on the feelings of  the US population and to make them being for the US going into WAR.

Good case:

This what I typped before shows really good how US acts. And how far they can go if they want a war!

 -- And now I AM READY to get tought in US history that u learned in US  , and how wrong I am - b/c the US did not know anything and so on ...

And I say you this would be  BS - read more books and not the propaganda stuff in US u get to read in the SCHOOLs.

Heh Holo.

You're right actually, except for one count.  The American public was strongly against fighting the war in EUROPE.  Once Japan attacked, they were gung-ho about shooting everything that moved.  

Frankly, I think war against Hitler was justified and necessary, and that it might have been lost without American troops, so I think that "the US may have allowed Pearl Harbor to manipulate public opinion" can only be a good thing.

Cook, nay. China has the same feelings for us as we have for them more then likely. Do we, at the moment, want to blow them to hell? No. Why would they want to blow us to hell? No reason. You're assuming.

Hologram, 9/11 it is speculated the government knew something beforehand as well... this being said it's the perfect example.

Loud, no offense intend... but somethings your logic can make you a cool-hearted bastard.

Loth, thanks for backing up my point that LA and New York would be the two ideal targets. And as we continue to say, a nuclear attack on these cities would NEVER EVER happen. Well, at least not in the immediate future.

Ben

No offense taken.  But I think it's necessary to talk bluntly, cooly, and unemotionally if you're discussing how many people you shoud kill.

Death shouldn't be taken lightly, and being hot-headed about it doesn't help anyone.  Hopefully from my posts you can see my ultimate point, which is:

War, when viewed in a cool, rational way, is bastardly and horrid.  It is necessary to view it rationally, so as to see that it is wrong.

     The cannons of the armies of Louis XIV were inscribed with the phrase "Ultima ratio regum"--"the last argument of kings." Force of arms should be the final resort, only to be used when absolutely every other alternative has been exhausted. (On a side note, I think that war is a tremendously childish exercise at best, and should never be considered, but apparently I'm an abberation.) In this case, however, war is the first argument of the Presidency. Bush has fabricated a war and convinced the American people that it is justified. IF a foreign power had invaded America, there would be appropriate justification for a war of defense. But a money-grubbing war of aggression is hardly worth supporting, let alone fighting in. Ben, your appeals to emotion and loyalty are admirable, but wholly misguided in the present case. This is a war that a few men started so that they could become richer. To use Dubya's trademarked appeals to emotion, this war is a thing of evil, and it needs to be stopped.

Loud, odd, thats my arguement. Looking at war with emotions I see all the death and destruction, does that not appeal to emotions? Thus, I see war as wrong as well.

Loth, Nay. My intent is guided in any case. I can't believe you two even find hope in stopping the war. There is none, I know that, you two best accept it. Bush is going in there with his men. Period. Exclamation mark. So, as misguided as it is, it's both logical and honest. It's happening now. I face the facts, and the facts are that I have no hope of stopping the war, thus I'll help fight it. I'll save my friends. That's all that matters to me anymore.

Ben

Maybe a better focused effort would be to convince your friends to NOT join the army and fight in the war? that way you could all be safe. As Loth said, this isn't YOUR war, it's somebody else's war. I agree with one of my all-time least favorite people on this one, Ayn Rand: "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." And although she does use the word evil, which I agree with Loth is pretty much an outrageous word to use in any circumstance due to its ambiguous and subjective meaning, I think that the point she makes is very valid. By supporting a war, regardless of your reasons, you are making that war possible. By fighting in the war, the soldiers are making possible both their death and the deaths of others. If everyone chose not to fight, the war would not exist? so why not be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

     Heh. That reminds me of the Hippie-era (I think) phrase, "What if they threw a war and nobody came?"

Tasty. Impossible. Nough said.

Ben