65 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

well it seems that either NK have put a few million tons of dynamite in a coal-mine, or they've made a bomb and triggered it.

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/6032857.stm

so, this is kinda typic. i really wonder what NK wants to win with this though, they've spent their trumph-card now, there will most likely be more sanctions on them again, and if they try to blow more nukes up to get candy, someone is gonna bomb them... they are pretty much in the downward spiral now

[Allied General]

where all gonna die otherwise there will be a asian arms race to develop the bomb especially from south korea and japan

[duke_Qa]

i intend not to die because of some crazy NK dude. but he seems to intend to die and get his name written into the historybooks as one crazy idiot.

[Cossack]

I dont see why the US thinks this is so dangerous. NK has at most 6-8 nukes, while the US has about 10 000. I dont hink Kim Jong il is stupid enough the launch a nuke at the US and have his country vaporized.

[Allied General]

still its all the sense of what will NK achieve next, currently only like 8 or 9 nations have nukes at the moments, if NK has joined the list it messes up George Bush's plans on removing the "Axis of Evil"

It destablises the middle east and the nuclear umbrella that usa provides seems less assurable when your neighbour has them so nearby.

Also you don't think he is stupid enough to launch a nuke, its like saying someone wouldn't be stupid enough to crash a plane into the WTC or starve his own people or kidnap japanese personnel or wage essentially a civl war for a few years ....

Rationale of NK is zilch at the moment.

Edited by Allied General, 09 October 2006 - 01:33 PM.

[chemical ali]

I dont see why the US thinks this is so dangerous. NK has at most 6-8 nukes, while the US has about 10 000. I dont hink Kim Jong il is stupid enough the launch a nuke at the US and have his country vaporized.

Something they said in the Sum of all Fears, 10,000 nuclear devices and when one goes missing. I was speaking to Spence last night about this, damn I wish I had put money down as he said they wouldn't test one and I said they would so I win!

Certinally made the Japanese and South Koreans piss their pants and that the Chinese have moved a small number of 200,000 combat troops over to the North Korean border.

[duke_Qa]

as far as i'm concerned about china, they have yelled at NK aswell, and i would like a source for that 200 000 troops moved into NK, or else you're just warmongering.

edit:
bush says stuff

basically another condemnation.

Edited by duke_Qa, 09 October 2006 - 03:33 PM.

[Cossack]

I was speaking to Spence last night about this, damn I wish I had put money down as he said they wouldn't test one and I said they would so I win!

I didn't think they were going to test it either. I thought Kim Jong Il was all bark and no bite, but I guess he followed through on this one.

P.S. I was reading an article about saddam husseins trial, and I just realized where I reckognized the name Chemical Ali, he's saddams cousin who was responsible for the chemical attacks against the kurds.....I wonder why you picked that name?

[MSpencer]

I dont see why the US thinks this is so dangerous. NK has at most 6-8 nukes, while the US has about 10 000. I dont hink Kim Jong il is stupid enough the launch a nuke at the US and have his country vaporized.

It would only take six nukes to kill everyone in Japan's major population centers. Six nukes could also obliterate San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle, millions of dead there too.
And the US has about 5,000 active nukes. It would only take ten to obliterate North Korea, but then again, crazy dictators don't tend to care about the consequences of doing something rash and foolish, so instead of sitting back like a bunch of idiots and NOT worrying about it, I think we should be worrying a whole hell of a lot. With your attitude, everyone and their grandmother would have a nuclear bomb and the world would have been destroyed a very long time ago.
There's a line between equal rights and idiocy with regards to international policy.

[Allied General]

to put it bluntly its the scale of destruction that nuclear weapons create and the fallout from such a situation.

also whats the phase about evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

Edited by Allied General, 09 October 2006 - 08:42 PM.

[Cossack]

I believe in the complete destruction of all nuclear bombs, not just NK's, not just Irans (though they dont actually have any....yet), but everybody's. Everyone including both NK and the US claim they have nuclear bombs as a detterent, but there would be no need for a detterent if the United Nations actually did something productive on dissarming nuclear bombs. The nuclear non-proliferatiion treaty really hasn't done anything yet considering there a still enough nukes in the world to destroy ouselves many times over.

[Allied General]

so whats to stop a nation from all out invasion then?

u can't simply erase nuclear weapons cos the exist now

its like saying we forget we ever made firearms.

even if they did disarm they would be enough nuclear scientists and enough material for any group to gain nuclear launch capability.

Edited by Allied General, 12 October 2006 - 03:28 PM.

[Cossack]

Armies are what stop a nation from all out invasion. We stopped the Germans in WWI without nuclear arms, and we could have done it in WWII as well. And peronally, I dont think forgetting we ever made firearms would be such a bad thing...

[chemical ali]

Negative, modern day armies could not stop each other now. Say if the Russians decided to viva la Soviet Union again and pushed westwards into Poland and Germany, NATO couldn't get enough tanks to stop them. We would be forced to utilised tactical battlefield weaponry. America couldn't beat North Korea or China in terms of ground forces they would be massively devestated requiring nuclear forces to strike back.

[Airman]

Actually, we CAN kill them with our ground forces. Also, we can use airstrikes to take them out. See? We are awesome.

[chemical ali]

Actually, we CAN kill them with our ground forces. Also, we can use airstrikes to take them out. See? We are awesome.

No we can't actually unless we managed to withdraw all of our armour from the Middle East within 48 hours and we managed to get enough munitions to last more than a week then NATO woud loose and the Russians would sweep through Germany taking the Rhine bases, reducing our air launch ability as we lost fighter bases. Read Red Storm Rising and then come back when you think you know about strategical studies.

[MSpencer]

Actually, we CAN kill them with our ground forces. Also, we can use airstrikes to take them out. See? We are awesome.

That rather reminds me of the hubris of Adolf Hitler in March of 1945, when he actually believed that "willpower" would stop the Soviet Union dead in their tracks in the outskirts of Berlin. It's ridiculous.
The Russian Federation outnumbers the NATO forces in all areas of material. They have more fighters, they have more bombers, they have better bombers, they have more comparable tanks, they have more readily trainable infantrymen, they have more infantry weapons, they have more IFVs, they have more everything. They have more potential allies, since more countries hate the ridiculously self-righteous western European nations and the crypto-fascist hyper-preemptive-interventionist American empire than like them, and they have more production capacity when you include these potential allies (India and China for example, in addition to the former Soviet republics, Iran, North Korea, and to some extent the eastern European nations which dislike western European superiority complexes). If the Russian Federation were to, tomorrow, begin assembling a coalition to effectively neutralize the nations of Poland, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, the United Kingdom, and the United States, they would receive support from most of the aforementioned nations and the majority of the "democracies" in Eastern Europe. Anglo-French haegemony over the continent would be ended, much to the delight of the Eastern European nations, and the United States would be absolutely powerless to stop them. The combined forces of the former Soviet bloc present the most terrible, credible threat to international security than could ever be assembled by a few Muslims in a cave.
The United States is inferior in terms of active tank forces, proportionately less than that of the Cold War, technological priorities, the shift from mobility warfare and mass, strategic level warfare to a modernised form of "colonial fighting", and command hierarchy, which has turned from an unbending, rigid high command structure into a collection of ad hoc units micromanaged by a general and his staff. The United States has the majority of its forces in the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, two completely unrelated countries, except for the fact that Iraq was slipped into the Axis of Evil, quite similarly to the way the letter "D" replaced the letter "R" next to Mark Foley's name one day on Fox News.
In the event of any major incursion into the European continent at large by a coalition of aggressive forces, the use of tactical nuclear weapons would become as much military necessity as the invasions of Belgium, 1914, 40. As stated by Alfred Graf von Schlieffen, military necessity comes before decency. While none of us like nuclear weapons, especially myself, much as anyone would who knows the true effects of a nuclear weapon, the majority of those versed in military matters realize that such things are absolutely necessary to the effective prosecution of a future conflict. Nuclear weapons are absolutely terrible. They wreak devastation on a scale never before seen by mankind. They murder, incinerate, and slaughter combatants as well as non-combatants, and they can level entire cities beyond any sane military objective. They soil the land, covering it with radiation, and create dispersal patterns which can stunt entire populations and cause terrible mutations. They are expensive, utterly destructive, and murderous, and to ignore them is to completely ignore the needs of the military situation that a country may find themselves in.

[Cossack]

Well, I suppose I'd have to agree with you that Nuclear weapons do prevent any large scale war between super powers.

I think as well, that if Kim Jong Il wasn't so damn stubborn, and if he played the situation properly he could come out the winner of the conflict.

He can pretty much use his nuclear weapons as bargaining chips. He will probably be able to receive a substantial amount of foreign aid and ressources in exchange for him abandoning his nuclear program, and he'll come out looking like the good guy to his people. If he plays this right, he can probably get more out of it than the ressouces he put into his nukes.

Of course, he's to stupid and stubborn to try this, and will probably just continue to build more nukes, while the sancations increase, and his people starve. Meanwhile, the nukes will likely stay stored underground, doing nothing, or being wasted by nuclear tests.

Edited by Cossack, 12 October 2006 - 10:23 PM.

[MSpencer]

I never said that.

[Cossack]

Wasn't that the gist of your post? Ah heck....I probably missed the point...yet again