North Korea ends non-agression pact, blowing up any South Korean propganda loudspeakers - Polidicks

This is what I said.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;22184305]I'm not seeing why everybody's hating on Eudoxia, he's speaking pretty logically. Even if you disagree with him, it's not like he's outright insulting everybody and spouting stupid stuff with no backup to it.[/QUOTE] No. No he's not. Nothing he is saying is logical. It's ill-informed, ignorant, childish nonsense.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;22184305]I'm not seeing why everybody's hating on Eudoxia, he's speaking pretty logically. Even if you disagree with him, it's not like he's outright insulting everybody and spouting stupid stuff with no backup to it.[/QUOTE] Do you have bad eyesight or something.

"Oh hey, lets use a Eudoxia's idea and use nukes! Wow, I don't realise why we've been wasting our time using soldiers to fight wars! How foolish of us! We should have trusted a 14 year old on facepunch."

And you guys say Eudoxia is the one trolling.

The Excrement is on a course for the Oscillator

Anti-trolling is good fun.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;22184045]Jesus Christ. That's it, last straw. I'm out.[/QUOTE] Okay, lemme say what they're trying to say. I'm your friend so you might listen to me. Let's pretend, for all intents and purposes, that the world is a giant videogame. Now we got all the countries that do all the fighting and such and all that. Now the US invents the nuke, which wipes out a city in seconds and has only a 20(?) percent chance of being intercepted. Previously, taking a city, much less killing inhabitants, would take thousands of troops and a crap load of time and effort. In this light, it looks like a good weapon. Now let's factor in other players. They see this weapon that does the impossible for very little effort. They will probably call this weapon cheap, and hate you and title you a 'noob'. This is not good at all, considering we rely so much on other countries for trade and profit. We can't risk losing all our friends for a quick shortcut. Why do you think most long-time players avoid the 'cheap' guns?

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;22184267]-Sigh- Nuclear weapons are banned by international treaty. Although the Cold War is over, nuclear weapons are still diplomatically sensitive and are purely meant to register nation strength rather than to be used as weapons. If the US uses a bomb, China and Russia will believe the US has abandoned all it's principles and restart it's nuclear stockpiling, as the US has become a real threat once more. The same would happen vise versa. Korea would become another Proxy war and a second cold war would begin. It doesn't matter how 'clean' these weapons are - they're still nukes. Illegal to use in armed conflict. They also poison the water supply, poison the land, and poison the water tables no matter how 'clean' they are, condemning thousands of children to deformity and illness. While throwing men and machines into wars is horrible - they're still employed volunteers paid to fight. Wars are an occupational hazard. They can also be controlled, called back, and be used to lessen collateral damage. Nukes are far worse economically, politically and environmentally than any conventional war.[/QUOTE] I know about the treaties. I know any nation randomly throwing nukes at some other nation, unclean or clean, or civilian or military actions, is doing something terribly wrong because of all the broken treaties and such. What I'm saying is: You have a small country run by a nutcase who seems to be doing his best to turn this into an international conflict. In an idealized world, you get everyone to the UN, and vote for the most efficient solution, then A MIRACLE OCCURS and you get them all to approve the use of a clean nuke, and a group of engineers to determine how clean you could make it. Then, after informing pretty much every nation of the capacity of the nuke, it's vectors and launch date, you inform North Korea of it's potential. THe UN gives them a deadline, basically a "Take a chill pill and stop this or we're going to nuke you". If they don't stop, a clean nuke is dropped on some military facility away from cities. Then, if they don't give up after half the army is destroyed, you semd the ordinary troops. I don't think nuclear weapons should be treated as "Oh fuck them, let's just nuke this city and break all treaties", but I also don't think they are some sort of evil Doomsday Device and in some situations may come in handy. tl;dr nuking a country without international approval is bad so it's not going to happen any time soon, and international approval of nuclar weapons is probably never going to happen so for now we're still going to use common troops and whatever superweapon the future gives us while trying to reduce the costs in resources and human lives.

In an idealized world of course, and we live in the exact opposite manifestation of one.

Yes. I should stop simplifying reality to hypothetical scenarios.

Yup, ain't in grand.

Good, now you understand what we were saying all along.

fffffffffffuck. will this affect the US?

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;22184531]I know about the treaties. I know any nation randomly throwing nukes at some other nation, unclean or clean, or civilian or military actions, is doing something terribly wrong because of all the broken treaties and such.[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of 'broken treaties', it's social attitudes to nukes as well. [QUOTE=Eudoxia;22184531]What I'm saying is: You have a small country run by a nutcase who seems to be doing his best to turn this into an international conflict. In an idealized world, you get everyone to the UN, and vote for the most efficient solution, then A MIRACLE OCCURS and you get them all to approve the use of a clean nuke[/QUOTE] This isn't an idealized world. People hate and fear nukes. The reason you're being called a troll is because you're trying to argue that nukes should even be considered - at all. Or that using them is a good thing/practical thing. It's not, it's far from that. [QUOTE=Eudoxia;22184531]a group of engineers to determine how clean you could make it.[/QUOTE] You can't. A 'safe' or 'clean' nuke doesn't truly exist. There will always be damage to the countries water tables or renewable stock supply. [QUOTE=Eudoxia;22184531]Then, after informing pretty much every nation of the capacity of the nuke, it's vectors and launch date, you inform North Korea of it's potential. THe UN gives them a deadline, basically a "Take a chill pill and stop this or we're going to nuke you". If they don't stop, a clean nuke is dropped on some military facility away from cities. Then, if they don't give up after half the army is destroyed, you semd the ordinary troops.[/QUOTE] Ok. Lets say they go to the UN, and, by some God-blessed MIRACLE all the nations agree. They threaten to nuke all NK's nuclear facilities. What do NK do? Oh, odd, they move all their military hardware into cities and highly populated cities and towns. This isn't the 17th century where goods take months to move by ship. The only recourse is to send in troops anyway - wasting valuable time for an inevitable action by NK. Unless, of course, they 'don't' do that. Sure. That'll happen. You need to stop thinking in 'idealisms' and 'ifs', this is reality, and you need to think of lateral solutions and outcomes. [B]This kind of thinking is not bad at all, you merely presented it very poorly by being aggressive and reactionary to everyone, bad mouthing them for bashing your 'perfectly sane' idea - which isn't sane at all. [/B]

NK's military equipment is so outdated

He didn't read the article on the "clean bombs" which are a load of shit.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;22183026][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design#Clean_bombs[/url] Clean bombs. What's so bad about that?[/QUOTE] Before you sourced that, you might wanted to have read the whole thing: [QUOTE]As such, high-yield clean bombs [B]were a public relations exercise[/B]. The actual deployed weapons were the dirty version, which maximized yield for the same size device.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but that throws yet another wrench into your "Clean Bomb solves everything" fantasy.

What the fuck is with people suggesting nukes. They are horrible, horrible weapons, especially the ones we have now. A nuclear bomb if used, will decimate a massive area, with major civilian casualties. Plus, the fallout and radiation will render the area useless for centuries. It's a totally destructive weapon that will do more harm than good, and has the potential to completely annihilate the human race. It'd be better if we didn't use them as anything other than deterrent. Any argument for the use is useless, they are not a viable option at all. The best way to take over North Korea, if it was to come to that point is two options. Total and all-out war, General Sherman style, where we just destroy everything through North Korea as we push through it, slowly. It would destroy parts of the country, and there would be many years of rebuilding, but it would take the country back in a relatively short amount of time. Or, we could just move through it slowly, along the border and slowly enclose on the center.

[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;22185092]What the fuck is with people suggesting nukes. They are horrible, horrible weapons, especially the ones we have now. A nuclear bomb if used, will decimate a massive area, with major civilian casualties. Plus, the fallout and radiation will render the area useless for centuries. It's a totally destructive weapon that will do more harm than good, and has the potential to completely annihilate the human race. It'd be better if we didn't use them as anything other than deterrent. Any argument for the use is useless, they are not a viable option at all. The best way to take over North Korea, if it was to come to that point is two options. Total and all-out war, General Sherman style, where we just destroy everything through North Korea as we push through it, slowly. It would destroy parts of the country, and there would be many years of rebuilding, but it would take the country back in a relatively short amount of time. Or, we could just move through it slowly, along the border and slowly enclose on the center.[/QUOTE] Because people are ignorant and stupid.

[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;22185058]Before you sourced that, you might wanted to have read the whole thing: I'm sorry but that throws yet another wrench into your "Clean Bomb solves everything" fantasy.[/QUOTE] The name is just a contradiction. No bomb is clean.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;22183950]Nuclear. Bombs. Are. Banned. From. Use. By. 265. Nations. Because. Sending. Armed. Troops. Is. Less. Diplomatically. Sensitive. If. You. Can't. Figure. Out. Why. You. Are. An. Idiot. Or. A. Very. Good. Troll.[/QUOTE] There aren't even 265 countries in the world. There are 195.

I really hope we can see a non-nuclear ending to this. I really, really, do. Nukes aren't used to take out your enemy, they're used to kill the civilians and hope your enemy surrenders

[QUOTE=The mouse;22181705]Shit has hit the Fan. If China sides with NK this could be like Fallout 3[/QUOTE] you are dumb. there is only the simple way to tell you this because you are so dumb.

Why the hell would they use nukes? If North Korea fires one, the entire world will suddenly be at NK's gates

North Korea thinks they can take on the world. Maybe they should read up on what happened to Japan and Germany when they tried it.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;22185150]There aren't even 265 countries in the world. There are 195.[/QUOTE] :objection: "While it would appear to be a rather simple matter to determine how many countries there are in the world, it is in fact quite complex. This is due not only to the ever-shifting political landscape, but also because the term ‘countries’ is somewhat fluid and open to interpretation. there is no firm answer, but 193 is commonly accepted, and somewhere between 193 and 250 seems rather certain." Eh, tossing a random figure I heard out there. I'm just as much right as you are

[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22185138]The name is just a contradiction. No bomb is clean.[/QUOTE] Well, that's quite obvious. As highlighted they were made up for PR reasons.

[img]http://antiwarlit.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/calvin-war-games.jpg[/img] To true....

[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22184669]fffffffffffuck. will this affect the US?[/QUOTE] We have some troops in South Korea so I suppose a little bit. If the shit goes down, that is.