Zadak
Aspirant
As Zadak once said...
I'm sooooooooooo bored
Posts: 828
|
Post by Zadak on Aug 11, 2006 17:54:01 GMT -5
but they shouldn't pull people out of cars and shoot children
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Aug 11, 2006 19:15:16 GMT -5
Alright... Do you have any sources that say that is widespread?
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Aug 11, 2006 19:49:37 GMT -5
They don't do that. Only a few psychos in each war...
|
|
Zadak
Aspirant
As Zadak once said...
I'm sooooooooooo bored
Posts: 828
|
Post by Zadak on Aug 11, 2006 20:00:48 GMT -5
They don't do that. Only a few psychos in each war... most true
|
|
|
Post by Alter-Ego on Aug 12, 2006 16:24:51 GMT -5
I was meaning that North Koreans will kill lots of civilians. I mean, they can (well, probably) deliver chemical weapons with artillery and Seoul is in the range of artillery. And I don't think they have many problems with killing civilians. An ICBM remember is only the carrier of the said "silo". It can theorotically carry anything. A country with nukes is no worry. A country with the power to launch nukes is a worry. You don't need ICBM's to use nukes. 15 Kiloton bomb* would fit in a car's trunk. 1 Megaton bomb would fit in a van. 15 Megaton bomb or even bigger bomb would fit in a truck. The maximum blast effect wouldn't be achieved if the bomb is detonated on ground level but it still would be devastating and kill thousands of people. *Little Boy that destroyed Hiroshima was 15 Kiloton.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Aug 12, 2006 16:26:45 GMT -5
So how would the North Koreans use it? They won't use it on South Korea, possibly Japan. Nth Korea has no major aircraft that can actually lift their nuclear bomb. It'll just be blown out of the sky. The need ICBMs to actually transport the bomb to another country.
|
|
|
Post by Leviticus on Aug 12, 2006 16:36:07 GMT -5
So how would the North Koreans use it? They just want to have the biggest stick on the block. So they can swing it around and feel like they are tough. If they ever use it though... shoot it down, and then invade for a regime change.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Aug 12, 2006 17:11:28 GMT -5
The point is that Kim won't probably use it. He's using the nuke as a weapon so he can threaten other countries. Invading that country will take years and thousands of troops. Also it'll bring back memories of the Korean War. And American's will probably be pissed off, the pacifists I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Leviticus on Aug 12, 2006 17:17:48 GMT -5
Invading that country will take years and thousands of troops. Also it'll bring back memories of the Korean War. And American's will probably be pissed off, the pacifists I mean. If he shoots off a nuclear tipped missile, I think most of the world will be backing an invasion of that country. If the pacifists still think the military option is still unacceptable, then let them rant. They have that luxury due to men at arms fighting and dying for that very right.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Aug 12, 2006 18:05:19 GMT -5
Sounds like you're not a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Leviticus on Aug 12, 2006 18:48:05 GMT -5
Sounds like you're not a Democrat. Nope. I'm more of a moderate conservative.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Aug 12, 2006 19:12:25 GMT -5
civilians would not be killed if the troops were trained properly unlike some of the americans in Iraq Don't spout out BS about things you don't understand. Go through hell three or four times, someone's bound to get up in the head. Simple psychology. And the people doing most of the mass killings are the Shia militias, not the American soldiers. And Lynx, the democrats at one point were the more war-mongering party in America.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 12, 2006 20:03:03 GMT -5
If Kim uses a nuclear weapon, I support the changing of South Korea's status as a peninsula to an island. As in, turning North Korea into a radioactive piece of nothingness. Simple M.A.D. theory that has kept the world out of major wars and stopped the use of nuclear weapons for over 50 years. If we respond conventionally that shows other nations that have nuclear capability that a nuclear attack won't be responded to with other nuclear weapons, increasing the likelihood of their use by many times over.
|
|
|
Post by Leviticus on Aug 12, 2006 22:39:23 GMT -5
If Kim uses a nuclear weapon, I support the changing of South Korea's status as a peninsula to an island. As in, turning North Korea into a radioactive piece of nothingness. Simple M.A.D. theory that has kept the world out of major wars and stopped the use of nuclear weapons for over 50 years. If we respond conventionally that shows other nations that have nuclear capability that a nuclear attack won't be responded to with other nuclear weapons, increasing the likelihood of their use by many times over. Wouldn't that be a tad hypocritical if one were to nuke a country because they used nukes? If so, then would said country also be deserving of a nuclear strike? See, that's the problem. It can escalate into armageddon. Also, after a nuclear strike, N. Korea would not be the only country affected. The radiation would spread to the surrounding countrys as well. That's why I would recommend a multi- lateral multi-national military force to first bomb with conventional weapons (like some nice 2000 pound bunker busters sent special delivery) then invade for regime change. edit for wrong choice of word.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Aug 13, 2006 0:00:56 GMT -5
I don't think it would escalate, but the global outrage would be immense, and it'd be morally wrong.
But nobody would complain, and nobody would defend NK. We've got hundreds of thousands of nukes... in comparison, France has 16, Israel a few hundred.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 13, 2006 0:26:37 GMT -5
Wouldn't that be a tad hypocritical if one were to nuke a country because they used nukes? Nay. It is long established that a no-first-strike policy (de facto or official) is near-required to be a responsible nuclear power. Those who strike first are supposed to be obilterated to show that striking first with nukes is NOT tolerated. Explained above. Not if countries use the long standing de facto rule for nuclear weapon use. True. Measures should be put in place to ensure the radiation stays fairly well within the target nation. The places that can't be hit by nukes because they are too close to the border can be dealt with by conventional weaponry. That proves only that nations will not enforce MAD and leads to more nuclear usage. The point of a nuclear deterrent is to stop nations from using nukes (and starting major wars) as they know it will be responded to with overwhelming nuclear return fire. It isn't that it logically matters whether a nation is destroyed conventionally or by use of nuclear weapons, but nukes have that added "zing" to them that makes them weapons to fear. As an added plus, the nuclear response is cheaper (takes one nuke to destroy a city, takes hundreds-thousands of conventional bombs) and safer (no need to get ships close to fire missiles or fly planes over to drop bombs when a nice ICBM can hit from across the world) for the nations involved in the international response.
|
|
|
Post by Alter-Ego on Aug 13, 2006 8:39:08 GMT -5
So how would the North Koreans use it? They won't use it on South Korea, possibly Japan. Nth Korea has no major aircraft that can actually lift their nuclear bomb. It'll just be blown out of the sky. The need ICBMs to actually transport the bomb to another country. People have smuggled bigger things than a little nuke. North Koreans have kidnapped people from Japan, why couldn't they smuggle a nuke? If Kim uses a nuclear weapon, I support the changing of South Korea's status as a peninsula to an island. As in, turning North Korea into a radioactive piece of nothingness. Simple M.A.D. theory that has kept the world out of major wars and stopped the use of nuclear weapons for over 50 years. If we respond conventionally that shows other nations that have nuclear capability that a nuclear attack won't be responded to with other nuclear weapons, increasing the likelihood of their use by many times over. And what about all the millions of innocent civilians?
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 13, 2006 12:51:36 GMT -5
And what about all the millions of innocent civilians? Sometimes people have to die when you are saving the world from its own destruction. IMO: 23 million dead > 6,500 million dead If you encourage the use of nuclear weapons by not following up on the promises of M.A.D (which kept the Soviet Union and United States from destroying the world despite a 40 year Cold War that turned hot many times [Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan]) then you rid yourself of all expectations that nations will be responsible with nuclear weaponry.
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 13, 2006 16:34:48 GMT -5
Better yet, just nuke Pyongyang...
Cut off the Fascist head and the body will topple.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Aug 13, 2006 17:06:05 GMT -5
Better yet, just nuke Pyongyang... Cut off the Fascist head and the body will topple. Yeah, just like in Iraq! ... wait...
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 13, 2006 20:41:41 GMT -5
Better yet, just nuke Pyongyang... Cut off the Fascist head and the body will topple. Yeah, just like in Iraq! ... wait... Indeed. "The Head" is supported by plenty of other "heads" waiting to take power thereafter. "One head down!" "Yay, now there are ten heads!" *groan*
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 14, 2006 1:51:00 GMT -5
Better yet, just nuke Pyongyang... Cut off the Fascist head and the body will topple. Yeah, just like in Iraq! ... wait... Vaporizing a city is not like occupying one... Or a country for that matter. Pyongyang, from what I hear, is one of the few places with actual luxuries. The country-side might be a tad willing to help us if they see it wiped out.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 14, 2006 11:27:50 GMT -5
Pyongyang, from what I hear, is one of the few places with actual luxuries. The country-side might be a tad willing to help us if they see it wiped out. On the flipside, they may be a tad more willing to fight us to the death. Think what America would do if a country blew up all of New York City. We went after two countries, one not even involved in the attacks, over TWO, count 'em, TWO buildings. Attacking and vaporizing Pyongyang would be like destroying not only all of New York in America, but destroying all of BosWash, plus all the cities in Southern Calfornia, plus all of the big cities in Florida, plus Detriot, Cleveland, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Seattle, the Twin Cities, Denver, St. Louis, Portland, Las Vegas, and etc, etc, etc. Do you think the countryside of America would then be like, "Whoa, we should help those guys who blew up all our wonderful cities where the majority of everything in this country!" Ummmmmm, no. And we'd have a similar little situation with starving Koreans who are not too happy about us destroying the only good thing about their country.
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 15, 2006 2:24:15 GMT -5
Hm, good point.
|
|
|
Post by Alter-Ego on Aug 15, 2006 13:26:54 GMT -5
And what about all the millions of innocent civilians? Sometimes people have to die when you are saving the world from its own destruction. IMO: 23 million dead > 6,500 million dead If you encourage the use of nuclear weapons by not following up on the promises of M.A.D (which kept the Soviet Union and United States from destroying the world despite a 40 year Cold War that turned hot many times [Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan]) then you rid yourself of all expectations that nations will be responsible with nuclear weaponry. About M.A.D.: I don't think M.A.D. really works. One thing: first strike. Destroying the enemy's nukes and military bases in a surprise attack so that the attacking country will survive the much more weaker retaliation or not suffer from a retaliation at all. ICBMs are quite stealthy so it's possible that the attacked country doesn't notice them until it's too late. Of course some nukes will survive the first strike but in my opinion the attacked government probably surrenders after the first strike. I mean, they have to think how to use the nukes that weren't destroyed. No one who actually thinks about it calmly would destroy the other side's cities in that situation. Especially if the other country would threaten them that they'll destroy their cities if they retaliate. I mean, retaliating would be useless in that point. In my opinion, if there's ever going to be big nuclear war (like Russia vs USA), it will be one big surprise attack of the other side. "As a former president of USA, I speak for all of us when I say that we all, young and old, pledge our loyalty to our new country, USSA, to our new president, comrade Bondarenko and to the great soviet revolution." I made that for fun when I didn't get sleep last night and I had just watched a video of one RA 2 cutscene. I tried to make one for USSR (so no one could say that I'm a US-hater) but it wasn't good. But nobody would complain, and nobody would defend NK. We've got hundreds of thousands of nukes... in comparison, France has 16, Israel a few hundred. "Only" thousands. There's estimated to be 29 000 nukes in the whole world. But USA has 1/3 of them. Or did you mean a unknown terrorist organization what has hundreds of thousands of nukes you belong to? Better yet, just nuke Pyongyang... Cut off the Fascist head and the body will topple. They're communists!
|
|