There's a long list of the failures of UN.

 

is there one of its sucess too?

 

 

 

so what exactly is this topic about now. it began: korea tested some nukes.. what it didnt. the missiles were tests not even harmful ( unless you fish in the middle of te ocean and it hits your head)

 

this might as well become a discussion about communism

is there one of its sucess too?

 

 

 

Probably is. Good luck on finding it tho. I got no reason to do it, I'm fine with the fact UN has failed miserably at many places. Genocide with at least 800,000 dead at Rwanda in 1994 is one good example.

 

 

 

so what exactly is this topic about now. it began: korea tested some nukes.. what it didnt. the missiles were tests not even harmful ( unless you fish in the middle of te ocean and it hits your head)

 

this might as well become a discussion about communism

 

 

 

Korea most likely doesn't even have nukes yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they are building them or planning to build at the moment, tho. These missiles they tested won't be a real threat for US as they could barely travel to Alaska, but imagine Japan or South Korea. It sure is a threat for them.

 

 

 

A discussion about communism wouldn't be a too bad thing. Good thing it's almost totally been harvested and there's only a handful of commy countries left :P

Last I checked, those missiles didn't actually fulfil their objectives. Their vaunted Taepodong-2 missile failed 35-40 seconds into the flight. Some senior officials are likely on queue for disciplinary action over this.

 

 

 

Beyond that, I can see nothing more out of it than North Korea rattling its sabres trying to make itself look like a threat rather than the economic sinkhole that it actually is.

 

 

 

Also, consider that the JSDF has recently been licensed to produce ABMs. The moment Pyongyang decides to fire off a few warheads that don't end up as duds, they will most likely be shot down.

 

 

 

Was just flipping through some channels a little while ago and I heard an interesting fact on cnn about our missile defense system.

 

 

 

So far during the testing the systems been only 50% effective. I'll try to look on the website for some more information.

ouch. so if nk sends about 10 missles, the rest of 5 would be enought to demolish most of any country if hit at the right spots.

 

 

 

Five nuclear warheads would not be enough to demolish two or three cities, much less an entire country. Granted, if you loaded a container ship full of radioactive material and hit that with a nuke, you might get fallout that goes further than thirty miles...

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.

Not really, Italy had surrendered long ago, and Germany had also surrendered by this point. Japan had no real chance of taking over the world, US just wanted to end the war quickly.

Was just flipping through some channels a little while ago and I heard an interesting fact on cnn about our missile defense system.

 

 

 

So far during the testing the systems been only 50% effective. I'll try to look on the website for some more information.

ouch. so if nk sends about 10 missles, the rest of 5 would be enought to demolish most of any country if hit at the right spots.

 

 

 

Five nuclear warheads would not be enough to demolish two or three cities, much less an entire country. Granted, if you loaded a container ship full of radioactive material and hit that with a nuke, you might get fallout that goes further than thirty miles...

are you kidding, do you relize how powerfull nikes are. The first two nukes every launched were able to destroy 2 citys, today nukes are many times more powerful.

 

 

 

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.

Not really, Italy had surrendered long ago, and Germany had also surrendered by this point. Japan had no real chance of taking over the world, US just wanted to end the war quickly.

 

yep, thats how it was.

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.

Not really, Italy had surrendered long ago, and Germany had also surrendered by this point. Japan had no real chance of taking over the world, US just wanted to end the war quickly.

 

yep, thats how it was.

 

 

 

We wanted it to end before the Soviets had a chance at either invading Japan or making a seperate peace agreement with them.

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.

Not really, Italy had surrendered long ago, and Germany had also surrendered by this point. Japan had no real chance of taking over the world, US just wanted to end the war quickly.

 

yep, thats how it was.

 

 

 

We wanted it to end before the Soviets had a chance at either invading Japan or making a seperate peace agreement with them.

thats the second reason, there are two.

USA has like 10k, Russia had around 15k, France has 300, Korea and Iran are making their own now.

The Uk have a few hidden away as well lol. Nuke subs and underground, you get what I mean.

 

There's a long list of the failures of UN.

 

is there one of its sucess too?

 

At a stretch I would be saying the part they played in the Cuban Missile Crisis. But that was, what, 50 something years ago?

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.

 

 

 

And let's not forget that we were at war with Japan for about 4 years in between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima.

Truth be told, I'm far more concerned about Iran getting Nukes than I am about North Korea.

 

 

 

See, the real problem isn't a new cold-war type conflict coming up. The thread in modern times is that one of these governments passes on nukes to terrorists, who could use them with devestating effect from within a country.

 

 

 

Imagine 9/11. Now imagine it in 10 different cities, X10 casualties in each, all at the same time.

 

 

 

This is a worst-case scenario, and it's improbable that it would ever be pulled off successfully. But the threat is still there.

 

 

 

As for the U.N.... They pass resolutions, but lack any way of enforcing them. Especially with China and Russia as permanent vetos on the Security Council, getting things done is a tad difficult.

 

 

 

For those who actually know U.S. history, it's like the Aritcles of Confederation. Good ideas, but they can't always be enforced.

 

 

 

Imagine 9/11. Now imagine it in 10 different cities, X10 casualties in each, all at the same time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

there would be a hell of a lot more people dieing than that, depending on the city and size of the warhead, it could be at least a million in each city.

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.

 

 

 

And let's not forget that we were at war with Japan for about 4 years in between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima.

thats what were talking about.

 

 

 

Oh and btw, its being claimed that the happenings in iran and korea are now driving oil prices up.

 

 

 

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.

I was under the impression that the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan to reduce US casualties, seeing how the Japanese would have most likely fought to the death.

like i said, thats one of the reasons, they also did it to impress the soviets, which lead to the cold war much faster.

are you kidding, do you relize how powerfull nikes are. The first two nukes every launched were able to destroy 2 citys, today nukes are many times more powerful.

 

 

 

What are you on?

 

 

 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wiped out, yes. In the 1940s, they were hardly large cities by today's standards.

 

 

 

There have been NO new nuclear weapons developed in the US since 1991, when production and testing of nuclear weapons was halted, along with the stockpiles of both America and the former Soviet Union being reduced drastically as per the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

 

 

 

The most powerful device ever tested by the US was Castle Bravo, clocking in at 15mt. That was in 1954. The most powerful device ever tested by the Soviet Union was the Tsar Bomba, with a docked yield of 50mt. Only one was ever made. Those two devices were tested during the Cold War - not for actual use, but as one-off shows of strength to dissuade either party from open confrontation.

 

 

 

The most powerful device tested after the 1991 treaty was India's Shakti I, with a yield of 43kt - barely double that of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. If I wanted to level a modern city and obliterate its population, I would use at least two of these, three to be sure.

 

 

 

EDIT: Some figures.

 

 

 

The area of total destruction in Hiroshima was 1 mile wide, with resultant fires around 4.4m. This was from an airburst detonation, which guarantees maximum destruction in the blast radius.

 

 

 

Similar figures for Nagasaki, although there the fires only went 2 miles out.

 

 

 

Total deaths from BOTH bombs chalk up to 220,000, as a liberal estimate. Further injuries exceed this number, doubling the casualty rate at most.

 

 

 

Even at 400,000+, that is hardly the population of a modern city. Hell, Sydney, with an extremely low population density, manages to have more than a few milliion people living in it. Compare this to, say, a city like Mumbai.

I'm not a big Bush fan and i believe his actions in Iraq prove that he cannot be trusted to reliable and fair in international affairs. however i believe that in this situation santions must be put into place to discourage overt nuclear tests, which only provoke tension.

UN = Good philososphy, but

 

 

 

UN = Failure

Truth be told, I'm far more concerned about Iran getting Nukes than I am about North Korea.

 

 

 

I think its a concern that any state has Nuclear warheads. I believe in fairness, and if the US and every other powering state are alowed to have Nukes, why cant N Korea or Iran?

 

 

 

Yea, I know - they are considered a threat against our homeland, but isnt that a little hyprocritical on our part? "Ooooh, we are alowed to have the big toys, but your not - because we fear that your gunna use it against us." But inturn, how do you think Iran and N Korea feel about other powering states having Nukes? Arnt they afraid of their safety too?

 

 

 

Arnt we intitled to fairness and safety under Natural Law, the divine order inwhich the UN and quite possibly every law in the universe stems from?

 

 

 

***ON another note - I dont fear one bit of a Nuclear War... because if there ever was, we'd be all doomed and no state would take that chance.

 

 

 

And I dont even think Nukes are even considered as anyones main attack strategy... Are you kids forgetting EMP's? >>If you want a whole city gone, but keep the people and the buildings still standing - drop EMP's and everything electrical BOOM defective. No matter what it is, cellphones, TV's, radios, Ipods, computers - I think that should be more of a concern than a Nuke, seeing how our society today is soo dependent on technology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT SORRY FOR DOUBLE POST, I was suppose to copy paste into the first one... but I clicked on impulse :(

 

I think its a concern that any state has Nuclear warheads. I believe in fairness, and if the US and every other powering state are alowed to have Nukes, why cant N Korea or Iran?

 

 

 

Yea, I know - they are considered a threat against our homeland, but isnt that a little hyprocritical on our part? "Ooooh, we are alowed to have the big toys, but your not - because we fear that your gunna use it against us." But inturn, how do you think Iran and N Korea feel about other powering states having Nukes? Arnt they afraid of their safety too?

 

 

=D> Exactly what I believe in.

no state would take that chance

 

 

 

No sensible state would take that chance, but North Korea and Iran are both lead by what seems to be mentally un-stable people. What with Iran threatening to wipe Israel from the map and North Korea letting all their people die of starvation, jsut to build a huge military. I think there is reason to be worried about those two countries.

no state would take that chance

 

 

 

No sensible state would take that chance, but North Korea and Iran are both lead by what seems to be mentally un-stable people. What with Iran threatening to wipe Israel from the map and North Korea letting all their people die of starvation, jsut to build a huge military. I think there is reason to be worried about those two countries.

 

 

 

Yea and the US military can invade everyones soveriegnty and have as many Nukes they want, right? I just think this whole sense of equality it completly out of whack.

 

 

 

And for saying that the leaders of Iran and N Korea are un-stable, I can inturn and argue you the same about Bush. What gives him the right to have the biggest gun aiming at every other state? Especially when most of all of them dont even have a stick to defend themselves.

 

 

 

Israel should get whiped off the map. Its not their land.

no state would take that chance

 

 

 

No sensible state would take that chance, but North Korea and Iran are both lead by what seems to be mentally un-stable people. What with Iran threatening to wipe Israel from the map and North Korea letting all their people die of starvation, jsut to build a huge military. I think there is reason to be worried about those two countries.

 

 

 

Yea and the US military can invade everyones soveriegnty and have as many Nukes they want, right? I just think this whole sense of equality it completly out of whack.

 

 

 

And for saying that the leaders of Iran and N Korea are un-stable, I can inturn and argue you the same about Bush. What gives him the right to have the biggest gun aiming at every other state? Especially when most of all of them dont even have a stick to defend themselves.

 

 

 

Israel should get whiped off the map. Its not their land.

 

 

 

might makes right....

 

Israel should get whiped off the map. Its not their land.

 

 

 

The UN says it is.

 

Israel should get whiped off the map. Its not their land.

 

 

 

The UN says it is.

 

 

 

I say its Palestine.