[QUOTE=zombojoe;22078747]If there was one place in the world that should be nuked. It has to be North Korea, too bad it will affect South Korea.[/QUOTE]
Nukes aren't to be used against other countries, they are just placebo effect and for dickwaving. At the point where nukes are launched we will all be fucked, no matter what. Even if entire countries managed to survive the fallout, having reduced the world population with at least one third would fuck up everything, and I mean [B]everything[/B].
[QUOTE=zombojoe;22078747]If there was one place in the world that should be nuked. It has to be North Korea, too bad it will affect South Korea.[/QUOTE]
You're an idiot.
"lets nuke people, oh wait it's gonna fuck up an undeserving country in the process, fine with me."
Life is good when you can just launch nukes at people you don't admire yea?
Thats exactly why I said if "there was one place it the world that should be nuked."
As soon a nuke goes off, our planet's fragile ecosystem goes down the shitter.
[QUOTE=capslock;22078854]Nukes aren't to be used against other countries, they are just placebo effect and for dickwaving. At the point where nukes are launched we will all be fucked, no matter what. Even if entire countries managed to survive the fallout, having reduced the world population with at least one third would fuck up everything, and I mean [B]everything[/B].[/QUOTE]
All you need fo a nuke is to destroy the government of that country, and it will pretty much be like fallout 3. It doesn't really need to kill everyone
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22077961]The KPA doesn't have [i]that[/i] faulty of logistics and equipment.[/QUOTE]
[i]But what if they did?[/i]
[QUOTE=capslock;22078854]Nukes aren't to be used against other countries, [B]they are just placebo effect[/B] and for dickwaving. At the point where nukes are launched we will all be fucked, no matter what. Even if entire countries managed to survive the fallout, having reduced the world population with at least one third would fuck up everything, and I mean everything.[/QUOTE]
Explain that statement.
I think he's implying that nukes only work because we think they work. For NK, they might have Nukes but they are probably low tech non-missile ones that only work half the time. He's forgetting that a nuke is still a giant explosion regardless of where it goes off.
[QUOTE=Identity;22077436]I doubt the North even has functioning artillery. They're shells are probably plastic ones used for counter-IED training. This probably isn't the case, but how funny would it be for them to fire off plastic shells? Once they hit, confetti and flag that says "BANG!" comes out.[/QUOTE]
:colbert: Go and sit in the corner.
Seoul would be flattened.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;22077476]I'm going to be pissed if I end up fighting in the Second Korean War.[/QUOTE]
Hold yer horses, the first Korean War hasn't ended yet.
But it doesn't matter anyway. There won't be any fighting.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;22078930]All you need fo a nuke is to destroy the government of that country, and it will pretty much be like fallout 3. It doesn't really need to kill everyone[/QUOTE]
Everyone who says nuke it, is an out right fucking retard
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction"]Mutually Assured Destruction.[/URL]
[QUOTE]
[B]Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a [COLOR=#0645ad]doctrine[/COLOR] of military [/B][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/wiki/Strategy"][COLOR=#0645ad][B]strategy[/B][/COLOR][/URL][B] and [/B][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/wiki/National_security"][COLOR=#0645ad][B]national security policy[/B][/COLOR][/URL][B] in which a full-scale use of [/B][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/wiki/Nuclear_weapons"][COLOR=#0645ad][B]nuclear weapons[/B][/COLOR][/URL][B] by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#cite_note-0"][COLOR=#0645ad][1][/COLOR][/URL] It is based on the theory of [/B][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/wiki/Deterrence_theory"][COLOR=#0645ad][B]deterrence[/B][/COLOR][/URL][B] according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons[/B]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bravehat;22080908]Everyone who says nuke it, is an out right fucking retard
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction"]Mutually Assured Destruction.[/URL][/QUOTE]
A term which was coined to describe the situation between the US and USSR when they both had ICBMs. North koreas delivery systems aren't all that advanced, and their nuclear capability is questionable at best.
Nonetheless, claiming that nuking innocent civilians is good is still pretty moronic.
M.A.D still applies to every nation with nuclear arms.
If south korea has them and NK fires one off, then the south will return the favour.
[QUOTE=bravehat;22080988]M.A.D still applies to every nation with nuclear arms.
If south korea has them and NK fires one off, then the south will return the favour.[/QUOTE]
It usually refers to things on a global scale. Also, I doubt the south has developed nuclear weapons when i wasn't looking.
[QUOTE=bravehat;22080988]M.A.D still applies to every nation with nuclear arms.
If south korea has them and NK fires one off, then the south will return the favour.[/QUOTE]
But South Korea has no nuclear weapons.
No, but America can launch it's own supply of Nuclear weaponry shortly after them and have them impacting within an hour. If NK went Nuclear, the response would be more than anything they could ever muster.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;22077929]Sometimes... I really want people to go back to a history class.
The Korean War hasn't even ended. Only a ceasefire.. .What do you fuckers not get about a ceasefire!
:doh:[/QUOTE]
I think you're just being picky. You knew exactly what he meant.
Hahaha.
[QUOTE=Athelus;22081011]It usually refers to things on a global scale. Also, I doubt the south has developed nuclear weapons when i wasn't looking.[/QUOTE]
America and South Korea are like frat bros, occasional disputes, never actually serious and they just make up with a beer or two, but will defend each other quite seriously.
[QUOTE=David29;22080807]Hold yer horses, the first Korean War hasn't ended yet.
[/QUOTE]
Yea it did. I don't know what year you're living in but it's been over for at least 50 years. Just because both countries are still technically at war doesn't mean the war is still being fought.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;22095026]Yea it did. I don't know what year you're living in but it's been over for at least 50 years. Just because both countries are still technically at war doesn't mean the war is still being fought.[/QUOTE]
Also doesn't mean the war ended, which it didn't.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;22081105]No, but America can launch it's own supply of Nuclear weaponry shortly after them and have them impacting within an hour. If NK went Nuclear, the response would be more than anything they could ever muster.[/QUOTE]
America would only launch nukes if absolutely necessary. They're not that stupid.
[QUOTE=Omali;22095031]Also doesn't mean the war ended, which it didn't.[/QUOTE]
Yea it did. When was the last battle? Now the most that happens are little skirmishes and shit. The conflict ended in 1953.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;22095180]Yea it did. When was the last battle? Now the most that happens are little skirmishes and shit. The conflict ended in 1953.[/QUOTE]
Try again. The North and the South signed a ceasefire in 1953 and both sides have yet to sign a peace treaty. They are both technically still at war with each other.
Saying the Korean War ended in 1953 with a ceasefire is like saying the December 24, 1914 Christmas Ceasefire ended World War I.
[QUOTE=Hobbesy;22095717]Try again. The North and the South signed a ceasefire in 1953 and both sides have yet to sign a peace treaty. They are both technically still at war with each other.
Saying the Korean War ended in 1953 with a ceasefire is like saying the December 24, 1914 Christmas Ceasefire ended World War I.[/QUOTE]
For one, the christmas ceasefire wasn't even an official ceasefire, soldiers just refused to attack each other for a day. Number two, hostilities(beyond skirmishes) have ended for 50 years. Even though they are technically at war for all intents and purposes they are not. It's like saying the fucking Khalkhyn Gol conflict didn't happen because neither side was technically at war with each other. You have to look at it from a logical standpoint. You can't say "The Korean War has been going on for 60 years" because it hasn't, it went on for 3 years, it ended in a truce.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;22077476]I'm going to be pissed if I end up fighting in the Second Korean War.[/QUOTE]
First one never officially ended.
If we start fighting, it'd just be a continuation of the Korean War.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;22096699]First one never officially ended.
If we start fighting, it'd just be a continuation of the Korean War.[/QUOTE]
Korean War, Round 2.
[QUOTE=bravehat;22080908]Everyone who says nuke it, is an out right fucking retard
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction"]Mutually Assured Destruction.[/URL][/QUOTE]
North Korea has working nukes? Pfft. Even if they do, MAD is not ensured.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;22097387]North Korea has working nukes? Pfft. Even if they do, MAD is not ensured.[/QUOTE]
Exactly- i'd imagine even a basic missile defence system would stop any nukes North Korea has.
Someone really needs to kick the shit out of north korea. Would probably be doing the people of that country a fucking favour too.
[editline]03:38PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;22097387]North Korea has working nukes? Pfft. Even if they do, MAD is not ensured.[/QUOTE]
NK has nukes, but they're made out of tin cans and paper clips, so are a bit fucking shit. I doubt we'd need nukes to take out NK, though, although it might make the job easier.
The entire world should just stop trying to prove North Korea did it, stop all of the elitist hate towards eachother, and go gang rape North Korea.
On the other hand the US could do that alone, but I figure if every country moves in it just proves a point that we actually work together.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
