N. Korean general says Pyongyang has nuke-tipped ICBMs on standby
194 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;39849733]can they either shit or get off the pot already? i'm excited for some shit to go down, really, but NK is all talk... it kinda pisses me off, it's like a giant cocktease[/QUOTE]
You really don't want a war, do you? Millions will die, if nukes are used, then the environment suffers(not only radiation, but the dust kicked up causes global cooling). I'd rather them back down, but things are escalating so rapidly, that we may hit the cliff and a new war starts.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;39849733]can they either shit or get off the pot already? i'm excited for some shit to go down, really, but NK is all talk... it kinda pisses me off, it's like a giant cocktease[/QUOTE]
You're a terrible person
Go suck an egg
[QUOTE=zombini;39849803]You really [B]do[/B] want a war, do you?[/QUOTE]
yes, i do.
quite honestly i'd rather everything be in a state of war/chaos than be on bieber alert.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;39849844]yes, i do.[/QUOTE]
"Anyone, who truly wants to go to war, has truly never been there before!"
-Larry Reeves
yeah well that asshole never met me
[editline]8th March 2013[/editline]
this is exactly what the world needs
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Terrible posting record, again trivializing mass death of civilians" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;39849863]yeah well that asshole never met me[/QUOTE]
Death and suffering to thousands of innocents is so fun, innit?
[QUOTE=Vmonkey;39849670]matter of fact is, if NK launches nukes at SK, they are not going to hit the ground. The AA in SK is more than sufficient[/QUOTE]
Shooting down a missile isn't necessarily going to destroy the warhead - if it falls to ground it could still detonate, unless I'm very mistaken
And if they did hit the warhead mid-flight, surely the fact that it's exploding at high altitude would mean more widely dispersed fallout?
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39850114]Shooting down a missile isn't necessarily going to destroy the warhead - if it falls to ground it could still detonate, unless I'm very mistaken
And if they did hit the warhead mid-flight, surely the fact that it's exploding at high altitude would mean more widely dispersed fallout?[/QUOTE]
the higher the altitude, the less fallout typically
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39850114]Shooting down a missile isn't necessarily going to destroy the warhead - if it falls to ground it could still detonate, unless I'm very mistaken
And if they did hit the warhead mid-flight, surely the fact that it's exploding at high altitude would mean more widely dispersed fallout?[/QUOTE]
If it gets disrupted in any major way to the actual device, then it will either be of severely reduced yield, or not detonate properly at all and be a fizzle.
If you get through the casing of any nuke and disrupt the internal components enough, then it wouldn't detonate, Causing premature detonation with a hit from a HE missile would disrupt the implosion shape enough to prevent it from going off either at all, or properly.
When the implosion charges detonate, all of them detonate at the same time, attempting to get a nearly perfect sphere of super-dense nuclear material around an initiator core of some neutron emitter. Being off by even a little bit can cause a fizzle. That's why it took 5 years of intense research to produce the first nukes, a huge amount of it was figuring out a way for implosion, considering that the gun-type is horrifically inefficient, and uses U-235, which is better suited for P-239 production. Only reason the gun-type existed was because the implosion method was potentially unreliable, so they needed a fallback for the war.
P-239 is the only reason we have bombs small enough to fit in an artillery shell, critical mass is only a few kg, rather than 50-100kg for U-235.
Even gun-type weapons are susceptible to physical damage, collapse the "Barrel" by a little bit, and the uranium "bullet" would miss, or not hit the target properly. I think the bigger issue is showering the area with uranium or plutonium dust because both(?) are flammable, and will burn in air if hot enough or exploded into dust. Contrary to what many think, a nuclear missile is easy to stop, especially if detected early and tracked well.
How i know this shit? I spend my free time reading about it. First got into the idea of how such devices of terror and destruction work by reading a book called "The Gadget". I forget who authored it, but i suggest it to everyone on here, it's a damn good read.
Even without nukes North Koreas military/ground forces can't still course a lot of destruction on SK.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39850114]Shooting down a missile isn't necessarily going to destroy the warhead - if it falls to ground it could still detonate, unless I'm very mistaken
And if they did hit the warhead mid-flight, surely the fact that it's exploding at high altitude would mean more widely dispersed fallout?[/QUOTE]
Depending on what shoots it down, i can only speak on behalf of US's Patriot system, only thing that will happen will be some debris falling
[QUOTE=Solomon;39842817]What you people fail to understand is that even though Best Korea will lose, thousands, if not millions of people will die. Their nukes may be short range, but say they bomb Seoul with no warning and for some reason the missile doesn't get shot down by Murica's missile defenses there in South Korea. That's around 10 million dead.
What if we invade and they detonate nuclear devices in populated areas where US forces are?
Now we're at almost 12 million military and civilian casualties.
That's 12 million men, women and children. Snuffed out. Gone. Ash.
Don't act like it's no big deal when North Korea threatens things like this, because it is a big deal and you should be worried about it.[/QUOTE]
It was estimated that the bomb NK tested was between 6-8 kilotons. This is a picture of what that size nuke would do to Seoul.
[url]http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?lat=37.566536&lng=126.97796900000003&zm=12&kt=7[/url]
Don't we have non nuclear munitions that are bigger than that?
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;39851110]It was estimated that the bomb NK tested was between 6-8 kilotons. This is a picture of what that size nuke would do to Seoul.
[url]http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?lat=37.566536&lng=126.97796900000003&zm=12&kt=7[/url][/QUOTE]
If these statistics are true, I can sleep a lot easier tonight. There is no way that would even eliminate even a majority of DC. Sure it may cause some deaths, but it is on a way more manageable level, such as less than 1000. As grim as it may seem, 1000 possible deaths are better than 100,000 deaths.
All this bluffing about bombs reminds me of Xbox live players saying they'll kick my ass in a game they end up sucking at.
Reminds me of this
[img]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/312905_541585939219639_171225534_n.jpg[/img]
Never underestimate an enemy, no matter how small they are if they really want a war they will stop at nothing to start it. Even if costs millions of peoples lifes.
you know, sometimes in history, you get a freaking lunatic in charge, it could happen in NK, so yeah saying "they have to be crazy enough to do it over and over" won't change anything, it might not even be kim jong-un, it could be a crazy general(or several) or something, who knows.
It looks like this means we are going to go through...
[I]Frinal Destructshan.[/I]
But really, this has gone from serious to just plain batshit. Hopefully north korea will get stomped out like an out of control fire.
[QUOTE=NomadicNinja;39851246][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hc9v97yrVc[/media][/QUOTE]
Well that was boring.
[QUOTE=Starsmine;39851343]Reminds me of this
[img]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/312905_541585939219639_171225534_n.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
That is the first political cartoon to make me laugh in a while.
It's times like these where I'm glad the U.S. has spent too much money on its military.
[editline]9th March 2013[/editline]
[url=http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/08/pentagon_yawns_at_north_korea_s_nuclear_threat#.UToVpLPYylo.twitter]Apparently the pentagon doesn't care much about this threat[/url]
[QUOTE=SockFC;39856087]It's times like these where I'm glad the U.S. has spent too much money on its military.
[editline]9th March 2013[/editline]
[url=http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/08/pentagon_yawns_at_north_korea_s_nuclear_threat#.UToVpLPYylo.twitter]Apparently the pentagon doesn't care much about this threat[/url][/QUOTE]
It's funny that the branch that's supposed to defend against missiles is always broken in some way, shit's way too expensive
We already know that if NK tries something they're fucking goners, but at the cost of tons of lives.
[QUOTE=Vmonkey;39860766]It's funny that the branch that's supposed to defend against missiles is always broken in some way, shit's way too expensive[/QUOTE]
Might be expensive, but if North Korea does manage to fire a nuclear missile at Seoul or even Washington DC (Which must be a joke by the way) It'll be worth it. It's only money
It is quite funny to note that everybody is against a war on the basis that innocents will die when innocents are dying anyway, and innocents will CONTINUE to die in the future. What, do we feel better being able to go to bed every night thinking, "we as a developed nation/nations didn't accidentally kill a single civilian in North Korea today! We're such good people!" while deep down we KNOW that our inaction leads to countless more deaths every day.
Sure, we'll probably get MORE innocent people killed in the immediate future by starting a war with N.K. than would otherwise die in the concentration camps and of hunger, exposure and such, but I'd imagine that the vast majority of the population of N.K. probably wouldn't be too opposed to some intervention right now (although it's not as though we can actually ask them for obvious reasons). Like it or not the Kim dynasty IS going to fall eventually. War with N.K. is probably inevitable at this point (it's only a matter of when), and when that time comes innocent people ARE going to die unfortunately. Why not get it over and done with and rip the band-aid off before a few tens or hundreds of thousands of more corpses pile up before the inevitable happens?
And to leave everyone with a quote,
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;39860921]We already know that if NK tries something they're fucking goners, but at the cost of tons of lives.[/QUOTE]
again doubtful, unless they overwhelm SK with swarms of aircraft with ballistic/nuclear missiles, all at once
unless you're talking about NK losing loadsa peoples
[QUOTE=sltungle;39861243]It is quite funny to note that everybody is against a war on the basis that innocents will die when innocents are dying anyway, and innocents will CONTINUE to die in the future. What, do we feel better being able to go to bed every night thinking, "we as a developed nation/nations didn't accidentally kill a single civilian in North Korea today! We're such good people!" while deep down we KNOW that our inaction leads to countless more deaths every day.
Sure, we'll probably get MORE innocent people killed in the immediate future by starting a war with N.K. than would otherwise die in the concentration camps and of hunger, exposure and such, but I'd imagine that the vast majority of the population of N.K. probably wouldn't be too opposed to some intervention right now (although it's not as though we can actually ask them for obvious reasons). Like it or not the Kim dynasty IS going to fall eventually. War with N.K. is probably inevitable at this point (it's only a matter of when), and when that time comes innocent people ARE going to die unfortunately. Why not get it over and done with and rip the band-aid off before a few tens or hundreds of thousands of more corpses pile up before the inevitable happens?
And to leave everyone with a quote,
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."[/QUOTE]
If the NK people are as fanatical as it seems, then in a war, NK would lose most of it's entire population in a war, the same reason that a direct invasion upon japan would've been the deaths of most of the population, due to imperial fanatics.
[QUOTE=zombini;39861982]If the NK people are as fanatical as it seems, then in a war, NK would lose most of it's entire population in a war, the same reason that a direct invasion upon japan would've been the deaths of most of the population, due to imperial fanatics.[/QUOTE]
One the note of the invasion of Japan vs nuking it argument I'm pretty sure some papers surfaced long after WW2 was over which showed that the MAIN reason for nuking Japan was actually to demonstrate the power of the nuclear weapon and to openly show the rest of the world (well, mainly the Soviet Union) that the US wasn't to be messed with. The whole 'more people would have died from an invasion' argument was used as a justification at the time, but apparently wasn't the true reason behind it.
It's not a pretty site, but it's a .edu site which you'd hope would make it valid (scroll down far enough and there's a section on the pros and cons of dropping it and about how Truman wanted the USSR to have as small a roll as necessary in the post war economic and political climate in Asia).
[url]http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/1025/atomic.htm[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.