malo2 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Today (4th of july), korea tested 4 longrange nuclear missles. So now, all world powers are worried again and are trying to get korea to negotiate again. This has been going on for so long, why is the UN going so easy on iran and korea? why cant the do something about? Is it going to be like ww2 again? Where the league of nations did almost nothing about Hitler exept a little slap on the wrist? Havent we already learned our lesson back then? some news: -some missle shield has just been set up in US, which is a bunch of radars on the west coast, has a 20% sucess rate per missle. -the missle tested missle count is now 7 and on top of all that, oil: The contract closed at $75.19 a barrel Wednesday, a record for a front-month contract, driven there by a combination of concern about North Korea's missile tests, Iran's delay in responding to a western effort to persuade it to end uranium enrichment and Israel's attack on Gaza City. Lastfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionheart_0 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 What are you gonna do about a country that has nukes? "Lets send troops over to neautralize them" says the UN, then as that happens, the other country just fires of nukes and everyones dead. As i see it, UN has no power anymore. Its in the hands of the world leaders and their choices. Sig by IkuraiYour Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Who said UN isn't doing anything about it? :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsdragon Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 The UN only really has power when the UN decides to go to war. The amount of the UN's countries with their armies is just a threat to get countries to do what they want. Korea has realized this and will wait for the UN to go to war with them, or something along those lines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 So you're saying ONLY the US can have nucler missles? Then if I rule a country I would make war against America and "neutralize" thier missles. "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandaman115 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 You really wouldn't think people would talk about such mature things on a RS forum. Idk why I think this. O.O Not that that's bad... [Admin Edit: No naming names in a negative light] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malo2 Posted July 5, 2006 Author Share Posted July 5, 2006 What are you gonna do about a country that has nukes? "Lets send troops over to neautralize them" says the UN, then as that happens, the other country just fires of nukes and everyones dead. As i see it, UN has no power anymore. Its in the hands of the world leaders and their choices.wouldnt countries obviously be aware of eachothers actions? So you're saying ONLY the US can have nucler missles? Then if I rule a country I would make war against America and "neutralize" thier missles. US isnt the only country with nukes, and all theese nukes for all theese countries came during the coldwar, nobody had any choice then. But now, nobodys making nukes anymore, nobody is planning on going to war, so tell me, what exactly would korea do with nuclear weaponry? Lastfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsdragon Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 US isnt the only country with nukes, and all theese nukes for all theese countries came during the coldwar, nobody had any choice then. But now, nobodys making nukes anymore, nobody is planning on going to war, so tell me, what exactly would korea do with nuclear weaponry? Just in case, you never know when you might need something until you realize that you don't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diminished2b Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 We in the U.S. have around 11,000 fully in-tact nuclear war heads. \ :shame: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yonman14 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 I hope I don't come across as a stuck up American, but lok at this logically people. It is quite clear the North Korea and Iran have the intentions of belligerently using thier Nukes. I don't think America PLANS on using their most powerful weaponry unless another country FORCES them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mmortalone Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 What are you gonna do about a country that has nukes? "Lets send troops over to neautralize them" says the UN, then as that happens, the other country just fires of nukes and everyones dead. As i see it, UN has no power anymore. Its in the hands of the world leaders and their choices.wouldnt countries obviously be aware of eachothers actions? So you're saying ONLY the US can have nucler missles? Then if I rule a country I would make war against America and "neutralize" thier missles. US isnt the only country with nukes, and all theese nukes for all theese countries came during the coldwar, nobody had any choice then. But now, nobodys making nukes anymore, nobody is planning on going to war, so tell me, what exactly would korea do with nuclear weaponry? so we're going to nuke countries with nukes so we can disarm their nukes? sounds pretty counter-productive to me.... :roll: besides, the US isnt the only country with nukes, Russia has some, iran claims to have the technology, and now north korea says they have it. im not saying that they do, just saying that they say claim to have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 What are you gonna do about a country that has nukes? "Lets send troops over to neautralize them" says the UN, then as that happens, the other country just fires of nukes and everyones dead. As i see it, UN has no power anymore. Its in the hands of the world leaders and their choices. It isn't that simple. Ever heard of the "Double Over-kill" rule? For every nuke they fire, we fire two. One to take out their's, and one to hit them. Whoever has the most nukes to repeat the process obviously wins. :P Kim Jong Il is just an attention-[bleep]. If he were actually thinking logically, which he isn't, he'd realize China could easily cut their ties and North Korea would not be in good shape. North Korean people are already starving to death, they can't afford to be jerk-off's...Rather, their leader can't. The people don't really have a say in that. I'm only concerned about a war with North Korea...We can't afford it, is all. Is it a trillion dollar's spent in Iraq yet? I'm honestly curious. It's gotta' be getting close if nothing else. But if push comes to shove, I'm sure America and our allies will have no problem dishing out some butt-kick. What other choice would we have? Kim Jong Il is just getting too...Mouthy. :wink: The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 So you're saying ONLY the US can have nucler missles? Then if I rule a country I would make war against America and "neutralize" thier missles. The US is currently in the process of getting rid of their nukes... you can't do it all at once though - it's a process because you can't just destroy nukes without side affects. Don't post about what you don't know about... no one is saying the US should have nukes. It's the same reason Russia is disarming as well...it just takes time. Our fear isn't just that North Korea and Iran have nukes - but they are developing them as we are disarming ourselves. That's scary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Iran has stated they're just doing it for power or whatever. I'm sure they are, and if they happen to develope a nuke or two in the process, whoopdie doo. Can anyone actually imagine a nuke hitting a country that is an allie of America? Does anyone see this actually happening? They have defense systems set up specifically so it NEVER happens. How many times has a nuke ever been dropped on a country in HISTORY? Twice, I think? My history isn't the greatest, but I believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only two places to ever have a nuke dropped on them...Both via America. Japan attacked a Harbor, so we destroyed two of their cities...:lol: Hopefully these other countries remember that - If they were to nuke us or one of our allies, their entire country would have people running around with melted flesh and glowing green river's. :lol: In all seriousness though...I think the UN and all that just worry way too much. They talk like these countries even MAKING a nuke means they plan on dropping it on America, and if they launch one, it's the end of the world. I watched CNN most of today and they said that defense systems in Alaska were already up, running and armed when N. Korea launched the first missle. Stop worrying. :P The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Japan attacked a Harbor, so we destroyed two of their cities...:lol: Japan was on the opposing side of a world war where they were trying to reach global domination with Germany and Italy. And they were succeeding very well. That's why we dropped the nuclear bomb. Not just because of them attacking our harbor - we were trying to prevent a global take over by an evil Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xvillexvalox Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 UN will do something once they stop watching the worldcup. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apinagez Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 we were trying to prevent a global take over by an evil Empire. Jeez, what a cliche. ^The most disturbing signature on Tip.it^Last.fm|HELLY KAYLA!|Oh the mehagurtz!|#Siencemakers"they care less about their spelling mistakes then I." - Lionheart"apinagez... let me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Japan attacked a Harbor, so we destroyed two of their cities...:lol: Japan was on the opposing side of a world war where they were trying to reach global domination with Germany and Italy. And they were succeeding very well. That's why we dropped the nuclear bomb. Not just because of them attacking our harbor - we were trying to prevent a global take over by an evil Empire. It matter's not. America wasn't participating in the war until we were attacked (as far as I've ever been told?), so we attacked back via nukes. It was a bit excessive, really. :P The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Japan attacked a Harbor, so we destroyed two of their cities...:lol: Japan was on the opposing side of a world war where they were trying to reach global domination with Germany and Italy. And they were succeeding very well. That's why we dropped the nuclear bomb. Not just because of them attacking our harbor - we were trying to prevent a global take over by an evil Empire. It matter's not. America wasn't participating in the war until we were attacked (as far as I've ever been told?), so we attacked back via nukes. It was a bit excessive, really. :P That's incorrect. We dropped the two atom bombs almost 4 years later, well after we had already entered the war and attacked back. The nukes weren't used to attack back for Pearl Harbor, they were used as a last resort because we didn't know if we could beat the Japanese. Get your facts right next time, instead of posting "what you heard." The nukes were not merely "retaliation" for Pearl Harbor. Jeez, what a cliche. I did that on purpose, because it's one of the only times it's actually true. We were fighting Japan (an empire) that was evil and trying to take over the world. Nifty little rhetorical device to get my point across. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apinagez Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 They were not evil. They were different. ^The most disturbing signature on Tip.it^Last.fm|HELLY KAYLA!|Oh the mehagurtz!|#Siencemakers"they care less about their spelling mistakes then I." - Lionheart"apinagez... let me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Japan attacked a Harbor, so we destroyed two of their cities...:lol: Japan was on the opposing side of a world war where they were trying to reach global domination with Germany and Italy. And they were succeeding very well. That's why we dropped the nuclear bomb. Not just because of them attacking our harbor - we were trying to prevent a global take over by an evil Empire. It matter's not. America wasn't participating in the war until we were attacked (as far as I've ever been told?), so we attacked back via nukes. It was a bit excessive, really. :P hmm... seems you are quite lacking regarding your own history in the world wars? The US pretty much level most of the Japanese cities during WWII, though they use the more conventional methods before the Bombs came into play. I think that the US had some sanctions against Japan before Perl Harbour denying them some vital resources for their war efforts, though if that's what provoked them into attacking I do really know. And the US was island hopping in the pacific for quite a few years before they nuke Japan. Now for the actual subject matter... The UN is just like a Forum for the world governments and only has as much power as its member states are willing to give it, and its pretty much usless unless the security council comes to an agreement, which is not very often against issues like these when everyone has their own interest to look after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LP Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 you guys do realise.. that todays nukes are WAY more powerfull that Hiroshima/Nagasaki by 50x i beleive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionheart_0 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 That is because what was used were atom bombs, not nuclear bombs... there is a diffrence. Plus there are also hydrogen bombs now wich are diffrent, but from what i heard (never really reaserched) is way worse. Sig by IkuraiYour Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LP Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 i cant wait til someone makes a dark matter gun... then well all die from a nanometer sized ball of dark matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Apinagez, see? I lost 2 IQ points here alone. :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts