North Korea Conducts Nuclear Test

[RichieMcD]

I don't see what America has to be worried about, it has a WMD defense system capable of taking out any ICBM launched by North Korea before it even crosses half the pacific.

 

 

 

 

Not true. That technology was never proven to work and Obama put a stop to it because Russia didn't like us having it.

 

 

 

Wait wait, since when is America being pushed around by Russia? :|

 

 

 

Although I like the vast majority of Obama's defense policies, due to the general view of America with many countries possesing Nukes nowadays, I think it would be in their best interest to keep the defense system and test it on a dud ICBM.

 

 

 

MmmmCannibal, I'm not entirely sure and could be completely wrong on this, but I think the radioactive fallout of modern Nukes is minimal compared to say, the WW2 nukes, but even so, better blown up off-shore than having it hit a major city.

[jemathonical]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

[mmmcannibalism]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

actually, quite a few countries do have nuclear weapons; the reason we dont want NK having nukes is they are a highly unstable militaristic country.

 

 

 

MmmmCannibal, I'm not entirely sure and could be completely wrong on this, but I think the radioactive fallout of modern Nukes is minimal compared to say, the WW2 nukes, but even so, better blown up off-shore than having it hit a major city.

 

 

 

Im thinking in terms of a non exploded warhead; although the blast may be efficient, if it doesnt detonate and falls into the ocean near a fishing ground there could be some severe radiation leak problems.

[Dizzle229]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

[Bloodstain]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

[Robert_de_Sable]

I love how you all say that Kim is stupid. Do you really believe that a stupid man could rise to a position of that power? That said, I despise him, so don't start on me with your "Robert supports police states" BS.

 

OT: This is one hell of a scary situation. A lot of people clearly don't realize this: North Korea has EVERYONE in their country on the reserve list for the army. EVERYONE. They have the right idea. In the event of a war, they'd be nearly impossible to take down...

[hohto]

We sorta live in between the US and other scary-communist countries like Russia and NK. I wouldn't be surprised if a rogue missile dropped from the sky and exploded an entire Canadian town :thumbdown:

 

 

 

Russia's as communist as my left toe nail.

 

 

 

North Korea's Daepodong2 (writing might vary depending on translittering) missiles are able to hit up to 4-4.5k kilometres. With those it can carry only up to 500kg worth of explosions, which is definitely not enough for NK's primitive nuclear weapons. I infact regard reading that NK doesn't have any proper missiles to carry nuclear weapons, they'd have to be dropped from planes or exploded with other methods. In other words, NK's nukes are a threat to their neightbours, but USA (yet alone Canada...) won't be even theoretical targets for at least few decades unless NK gets some more advanced missiles and nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

We won't let them develope nukes. If they start, then bad things will happen to North Korea.

 

 

 

I wouldn't expect a military action against them, my reasons are listed below. I also highly doubt you can just stop them: their economy is running by other things and all the aid blocks affect to the wrong place. When you decide to stop giving food or oil aid, it's the people who suffer and not the leaders.

 

* First of all, NK has an army that has the people for cannon fodder. Over 1 million active military personnel and over 7 million in reserve is something you don't just wipe off. They may be armed really badly, but still lethally enough to cause massive damages to a foreign army. Not to mention how brainwashed the people are: the military most likely wouldn't break up as easily as Iraq's army did.

 

* They have loads of cannons and missiles aimed to Seoul and Tokyo. If USA started a war, that would mean the death of millions of (south)koreans and japanese. Not to mention the economical damage done after destroying two huge economical centres of Asia.

 

* China still plays a major role in NK's policy, even though didn't (at least publicly) accept this newest test. A fullout war right behind their boarders wouldn't exactly be the thing they'd want, especially due the fact that they'd probably get dragged into rebuilding of Korea after the war.

 

* If the war happened and the South wins, it would mean the biggest social catastrophy ever. A country like NK is so badly behind any standards in living conditions, social benefits, infrastructure and industry that uniting the koreas would cost an enormous amount of money. DDR wasn't as badly blocked (people from DDR had a lot more knowledge about the "other reality" than northkoreans), they had a lot better infrastructure, education and industry, yet it cost a lot to unify the Germans. If NK and SK were to unified after the war, rebuilding Europe after WW2 would look like a minor task.

 

* USA has not enough troops to even challenge NK. They could cause a lot of damages, but occupying the country would be just far too much. It's really unlikely that they'd get a lot of allies either: basically NK is a threat to countries like SK and Japan, which of course want to avoid war at all cost, and for European countries NK is not an exact threat. For countries like France or Germany the NK offers nothing worth the risk of huge economical (rebuilding Koreas and Japan, Asian economy falling into deep chrisis, "normal" costs of war, etc) and social (antiwar movements after few thousands of dead soldiers) pressure. Not to mention that because of China, the UN mandate could be forgotten immediately.

 

* NK is designed for war. They don't have many good places for doing the landing, so that would cause massive losses for the enemy. The whole country is basically boobytrapped with defence shelders everywhere. The number of cannons, missiles and infantry wipe off the possibility of having same kind of air strike strategy as was used in Kosovo or Iraq for example.

 

* There's currently 3 armies that could realisticly think of taking over NK. Others could cause them massive damages, but not invade them. These armies are Russia, China and USA and none of them have basically no real interest to invade NK. The cost would be enormous and the benefits minimal: there would be a lot more pro's than cons. NK doesn't exactly have anything that would justify the millions of deaths: they don't have natural resources or strategical meaning.

 

* The spreading of WMD's would most likely speed up if a full scale war started: how could USA for example stop Iran if they were busy with NK? By sending a battalion and two planes? Not to mention the leaking of information with people fleeing the country: NK has really minimal nuclear capabilities when it comes to resources, the only things they could now imagine selling or leaking would be either 1-2 ready nuclear weapons (not too likely) or information. Because of the lack of resources, bombing NK's labs could stop them making few nukes more (I read an estimation of being able to build ~10 bombs) but that's it. I'd rather keep the nuclear scientists in a totally closed society that can't build too many of those bombs than let them flee into countries with better missile technology and better natural resources. In NK they can make few bombs without the ability to strike far away with them but in some other countries they could build a lot more of those and have the ability to strike into larger range.

 

 

 

I love how you all say that Kim is stupid. Do you really believe that a stupid man could rise to a position of that power?

 

 

 

That depends on many different things. He could aswell just be the marionette of the military junta or something like that. After Kim senior's death the already brainwashed nation could be kept in a leash with Kim Jr: it was a lot easier to keep the people bowing to the "son of god" than to some general.

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

When more countries own them, the chances that they will be used are higher. They shouldn't become an everyday "defensive" mechanism that could be build by everyone: that would eventually lead into a true nuclear holocaust. Not to mention that when one country gets them, it boosts the will for the others to get them, either by buying aid from that country or to protect yourself from their bombs. This has been seen in the history: Pakistan launched their program to protect against India, most nations have gotten the nuclear abilitiy due espionage and so on.

[Robert_de_Sable]

I'm kinda getting scared now, north koreans are crazy [bleep]. But I live in canada, so I'm prolly safe?

 

We sorta live in between the US and other scary-communist countries like Russia and NK. I wouldn't be surprised if a rogue missile dropped from the sky and exploded an entire Canadian town :thumbdown:

 

:|

 

You're kidding... right?

[mmmcannibalism]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

Not necessary, their is no way for the USA to use a nuclear weapon against anyone for their own gain. North Korea on the other hand could possibly go to war with SK or Japan and I dont see them as the reserve use of nuclear force type.

[Dizzle229]

Exactly. Though I don't like the whole Idea of nuclear weapons, they have prevented war. Countries like US, UK, even Russia to some extent are all competent when it comes to them.

 

 

 

NK on the other hand, is not. Kim is completely insane, he's only in power because he inherited it.

[fastortoise]

I'm kinda getting scared now, north koreans are crazy [bleep]. But I live in canada, so I'm prolly safe?

 

We sorta live in between the US and other scary-communist countries like Russia and NK. I wouldn't be surprised if a rogue missile dropped from the sky and exploded an entire Canadian town :thumbdown:

 

:|

 

You're kidding... right?

 

Kidding about how Russia and NK are/were communist countries, that they were scary, that nukes can fall from the sky or that Canada is positioned between the US and those countries?

 

Because I was kidding about them being scary.. I can punch nukes back to their country with my first so I don't see any threat here.

[RichieMcD]

I love how you all say that Kim is stupid. Do you really believe that a stupid man could rise to a position of that power? That said, I despise him, so don't start on me with your "Robert supports police states" BS.

 

OT: This is one hell of a scary situation. A lot of people clearly don't realize this: North Korea has EVERYONE in their country on the reserve list for the army. EVERYONE. They have the right idea. In the event of a war, they'd be nearly impossible to take down...

 

 

 

They do have everyone yes, but how well equipped are they? I they're not well equipped it would still make for hard fought battle but they could focus a lot more planes / artillery on them if they have few defense against it.

[Talset65]

It's media propaganda that makes you fear other countries having nukes. Iran, NK, etc, probably feel the same about us as we do them..

[Nenga]

It's media propaganda that makes you fear other countries having nukes. Iran, NK, etc, probably feel the same about us as we do them..

 

That's that true. We're way more of a threat because we already have them.

 

 

 

I could see why they would want to make them. Whats to stop someone from bombing you if you can't fight back?

[PURESMITHER]

In recent years, the whole world has hated the US and the UK because Tony Blair was licking George Bush's [wagon]. Obama has the capability and the power to change that, maybe?

[Millard]

In recent years, the whole world has hated the US and the UK because Tony Blair was licking George Bush's [wagon]. Obama has the capability and the power to change that, maybe?

 

 

 

But what does that have to do with NK?

[Latinoking]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon!

[1_man_army]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon!

 

 

 

Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing?

[The_Gabe]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon!

 

 

 

Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing?

 

 

 

Germany? Joke. The U.S ofc.

[indy500fan]

The problem with NK having nuclear weapons is Kim Jong Il being bat[cabbage] insane.

 

 

 

I love how you all say that Kim is stupid. Do you really believe that a stupid man could rise to a position of that power?

 

 

 

He didn't rise to power, he was basically handed it by his father.

[hohto]

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

 

Yes, sure... Let's see...

 

* Twice bombed a civilian target. It may be somehow justified (I ain't getting into argue about that here) but the point is, they are the only ones who have used them against another nation and both times against a civilian target.

 

* USA has lost multiple nukes. Some were recovered, some weren't. I can't be bothered to look for more sources now, but these should show you few cases.

 

http://news.smh.com.au/world/us-lost-nu ... -5m9a.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tybee_Bomb

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

 

* We could go on with nuclear accidents such as carrying accidentally (How can that be an accident... seriously) carrying nuclear weapons on planes, crashing planes carrying them and so on.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Yuba_City_B-52_crash

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Unite ... s_incident

 

 

 

The list could go on. Of course russians have had more (at least official) nuclear weapon related accidents, such as few cases where the nukes were almost launched against USA.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

 

 

 

The point is that I'd rather trust a rogue leader with ~10-20 nuclear weapons than Usa or Russia with their stocks being ready to be launched at preaimed targets. Sure, Kim could destroy a lot of people with his a-bombs, but an accidental launch (read the Petrov's article for example) from USA's or Russia's H-bomb missile bases would be something that won't be replaced during few centuries. As long as any countries have any nukes ready, they are a threat. Currently Kim plays a minor threat when you compare it to the big boys: he could (notice conditional form) be insane enough to launch them, but his damage would be really limited and he knows quite well it would be the same as nationwide suicide.

 

 

 

The only way to place safe with nuclear is to start getting rid of them. No matter who has them, as long as they are there, they are a threat: either to you or someone else.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Well, the USA is a firmly established member of the Security Council whereas NK is led by a stark raving lunatic, who I still maintain is not stupid.

 

And the USA is on my side, so...?

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon!

 

 

 

Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing?

[/hide]

 

 

 

The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended.

[dave0293]

[hide=]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon!

 

 

 

Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing?

[/hide]

 

 

 

The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended.

 

Militarily, the atomic bomb played no part in the defeat of Japan...

 

Furthermore, what was the point of Nagasaki?

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Why can America have nuclear weapons but no other can?

 

 

 

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them?

 

 

 

Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them

 

 

 

What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them.

 

 

 

You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon!

 

 

 

Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing?

[/hide]

 

 

 

The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended.

 

Militarily, the atomic bomb played no part in the defeat of Japan...

 

Furthermore, what was the point of Nagasaki?

 

 

 

Both nuclear attacks were used to break the back of Japanese resistance and prevent the need for a mainland invasion. Although America had functionally defeated the Japanese, a mainland invasino would have cost countless lives on both sides along with decimating the Japanese people. While a little sickening and non sequitor, it also helped in that the Soviets and Americans realized such weapons could wipe out the human race.