• North Korea claims to have nuclear suicide bombers
    82 replies, posted
[IMG]http://media1.policymic.com/site/articles/57327/2_photo.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]The North Koreans have added a new element to their standard military pageantry: At a military parade on Saturday, units of soldiers were seen wearing packs, like backwards backpacks, with fallout symbols on them. Apparently, Kim Jong-Un's military wants the world to think that they have, or are close to developing, a tactical nuclear device small enough to fit in a backpack. In fact, in 2011, DailyNK reported that the North Koreans had established a "backpack bomb unit." It's pretty unlikely that the nation possesses the advanced technology to miniaturize their weapons enough for such a device, but it is impossible to be sure. This kernel of a doubt is what North Korea is trying to leverage.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.policymic.com/articles/57327/north-korea-claims-to-have-nuclear-suicide-bombers[/url]
I bet they are crazy enough to use suicide bombers. But I doubt it is nuclear.
Lol, yea right. Even the smallest nukes developed by the US weighed about 50kgs
And what kind of suicide bomb would have the fucking [i]sign for radiation[/i] painted on it?
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;41657973]And what kind of suicide bomb would have the fucking [i]sign for radiation[/i] painted on it?[/QUOTE] For extra subtlety obviously.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;41657973]And what kind of suicide bomb would have the fucking [i]sign for radiation[/i] painted on it?[/QUOTE] Hiding in plain sight. They'll never see it coming.
[QUOTE=download;41657958]Lol, yea right. Even the smallest nukes developed by the US weighed about 50kgs[/QUOTE] Doesn't need to be a "nuke", dirty bombs are deadly too.
oh god what if they just jump out of planes by the hundreds
[QUOTE=laserguided;41657982]Doesn't need to be a "nuke", dirty bombs are deadly too.[/QUOTE] Uh, no they're not. Dirty bombs are weapons of panic. People freak out because they have no clue about radiation. If the contents of a dirty bomb is so dangerous it can kill people in the surrounding area in any reasonable time then there is no way the bomber could handle or be near the stuff. Most dirty bomb attempts have been with mildly radioactive substances. The public hears 'radiation' and freaks out, causing more damage than the bomb itself. It does nothing in the short term and reduces lifetimes by a few years in the very long term.
I think those are NBC suit bags.
[QUOTE=download;41658003]Uh, no they're not. Dirty bombs are weapons of panic. People freak out because they have no clue about radiation. If the contents of a dirty bomb is so dangerous it can kill people in the surrounding area in any reasonable time then there is no way the bomber could handle or be near the stuff. Most dirty bomb attempts have been with mildly radioactive substances. The public hears 'radiation' and freaks out, causing more damage than the bomb itself. It does nothing in the short term and reduces lifetimes by a few years in the very long term.[/QUOTE] I don't care with what most dirty bomb attempts have been done with, this is North Korea, they have access to a nuclear programme.
That would be kind of a worry if A) nukes could be that small and B) nukes worked that way.
Good thing the Japanese never got that idea, Nuclear Kamikaze would be fucking horrifying.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;41658039]That would be kind of a worry if A)nukes could be that small and B)nukes worked that way.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/SADM%28cropped%29.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]The highest-ranking GRU defector Stanislav Lunev claimed that such Russian-made devices do exist and described them in more detail.[6] These devices, "identified as RA-115s (or RA-115-01s for submersible weapons)" weigh from fifty to sixty pounds. They can last for many years if wired to an electric source. In case there is a loss of power, there is a battery backup. If the battery runs low, the weapon has a transmitter that sends a coded message—either by satellite or directly to a GRU post at a Russian embassy or consulate.” According to Lunev, the number of "missing" nuclear devices (as found by General Lebed) "is almost identical to the number of strategic targets upon which those bombs would be used."[6][/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke[/url]
More of North Korea's hollow threats, nothing new to see here folks.
[QUOTE=laserguided;41658047][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/SADM%28cropped%29.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Okay that's cool but it doesn't help the fact than in order to be effective nukes have to be dropped from a good enough height and detonated [I]before[/I] they hit the ground. They don't explode on impact, they do so a few hundred meters before hitting the ground for maximum spread and impact.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;41658052]Dirty bombs aren't nukes.[/QUOTE] You said nukes. Make up your mind you crazy. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;41658039]That would be kind of a worry if A) nukes could be that small and B) nukes worked that way.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=laserguided;41658061]You said nukes. Make up your mind you crazy.[/QUOTE] You gave no description of the thing at first and just went on about how dirty bombs are still dangerous.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;41658071]You gave no description of the thing at first and just went on about how dirty bombs are still dangerous.[/QUOTE] You said nukes couldn't be that small, you also said nukes couldn't be blown up.
I think Kim's been playing too much Red Alert.
Wow, it's like I'm playing Red Alert 2 damnit jimesu
[QUOTE=download;41657958]Lol, yea right. Even the smallest nukes developed by the US weighed about 50kgs[/QUOTE] 50kgs put in a backpack is not much at all, and that was back then. Sure, I's probably very hard to make a nuke small enough to fit in a school-type of backpack, but in a hikers backpack, I can't see why they couldn't make that possible.
[QUOTE=Alec W;41657984]oh god what if they just jump out of planes by the hundreds[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060817114031/cnc/images/1/11/Paratroopers_1972.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=jomt1234;41658145]50kgs put in a backpack is not much at all, and that was back then. Sure, I's probably very hard to make a nuke small enough to fit in a school-type of backpack, but in a hikers backpack, I can't see why they couldn't make that possible.[/QUOTE] Yeah but nukes that size are usually pretty pathetic in size in terms of destructive ability, certainly not as threatening as an actual missile or bomb. Mostly it'll just spread radiation everywhere.
Are we going to have another North-korea news-month?
I bet it's a [sp]dummy[/sp]Nuke backpack.
[QUOTE=laserguided;41657982]Doesn't need to be a "nuke", dirty bombs are deadly too.[/QUOTE] Unless a dirty bomb mass-distributes copies of The Room on detonation, then it's mainly a method of spreading terror rather than sheer death-on-wheels. [editline]31st July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;41658078]You said nukes couldn't be that small, you also said nukes couldn't be blown up.[/QUOTE] No, He said that nukes need to be airburst in order to be effective. Which they fucking DO. Detonating a nuke at ground level strapped to one bloke would be laughably ineffective compared to how effective an ICBM would be in comparison.
these aren't suicide bombers, the whole article is guess work based off one picture. its sensational BOLLOCKS
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;41658052]Okay that's cool but it doesn't help the fact than in order to be effective nukes have to be dropped from a good enough height and detonated [I]before[/I] they hit the ground. They don't explode on impact, they do so a few hundred meters before hitting the ground for maximum spread and impact.[/QUOTE] Not true. If a target is ground-burst or air-burst depends on a number of factors. Not to mention ground-bursts create a significant amount of fallout.
Someone invite RAYHALO for his thoughts on the subject
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.