Best Korea fires mortars at Worst Korea - Developing Story - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Anteep2;26267770]really dude, dont want[/QUOTE] If you're not willing to learn about the subject you're talking about, stop fucking talking about it.

I wonder what China would do if NK was completely raped over by USA and SK.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;26267961]I wonder what China would do if NK was completely raped over by USA and SK.[/QUOTE] absolutely nothing.

[QUOTE=Zeus;26267591]Um I hate to break it to the anti americans in this thread but NK would be annihilated quite easily without the use of nuclear weapons. I'm not going to go off through a checklist of each technical advantage the SK+USA alliance has over NK but I'm sure you can get it a picture that it wouldn't end well for NK at all.[/QUOTE] Wars are not about technical advantage. [QUOTE=R3mix;26267693] North Korea is fucked the moment they even try something.[/QUOTE] While SK is ALREADY fucked.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26267693]Read the below. Also, the US Missile Defense System is NOT only from the Cold War. There's places in Europe where we have stationed defense, in Colorado, and in MANY other places in the world and IN Our own country, and SURROUNDING our borders in the water with the Navy and Everything. IF Anyone even TRIED to shoot a Missile at us, it'd be STUPID of them. Indeed. China will never lend its support to NK considering the fact of the trade it has with the US, and the amount of fucking profit it makes. North Korea is fucked the moment they even try something.[/QUOTE] Even if NK uses Nukes, I doubt US would use them. NK is so small that conventional bombing would do the same job as a nuke to their infrastructure and with out the extra fallout. And I doubt Obama wants to go down in history as the second president to ever use nuclear weapons in a war.

[QUOTE=gudman;26268003]Wars are not about technical advantage.[/QUOTE] [img]http://media.metronews.ca/images/0a/b7/1b39f4414748a24fe12b39e0ae0d.jpeg[/img]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26268016]Even if NK uses Nukes, I doubt US would use them. NK is so small that conventional bombing would do the same job as a nuke to their infrastructure and with out the extra fallout. And I doubt Obama wants to go down in history as the second president to ever use nuclear weapons in a war.[/QUOTE] It's not what the Government wants. It's what the [b]people[/b] want. The people supported the war in Iraq once upon a time. The people now support the withdrawal from iraq. ( Talking Majority here, not including minority ) I find it hard to believe that if NK tried to nuke us, the people would say oh lets just forgive them and bomb the shit out of them with conventional bombing. Pretty sure they'd want to nuke the shit out of them. But, that's just my opinion. [QUOTE=gudman;26268003]Wars are not about technical advantage. While SK is ALREADY fucked.[/QUOTE] "All's fair in love and war." Technical Advantage only makes wars shorter for whoever has it. SK Isn't fucked, NK is.

[QUOTE=Ryder1337;26267954]If you're not willing to learn about the subject you're talking about, stop fucking talking about it.[/QUOTE] you dont even know what subject you're talking about

[QUOTE=Anteep2;26268089]you dont even know what subject you're talking about[/QUOTE] It doesn't seem you know what forum you're on, 4chan is about two blocks down and take the second left onto getthefuckout street.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26268071]It's not what the Government wants. It's what the [b]people[/b] want. The people supported the war in Iraq once upon a time. The people now support the withdrawal from iraq. ( Talking Majority here, not including minority ) I find it hard to believe that if NK tried to nuke us, the people would say oh lets just forgive them and bomb the shit out of them with conventional bombing. Pretty sure they'd want to nuke the shit out of them. But, that's just my opinion. [/QUOTE] Well it's a good damn thing the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. Did you know that it only takes roughly 10-12 nuclear detonations to cause a nuclear winter? And both there are literally tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on the planet? Just 10 and the whole planet is dead. I wonder what just ONE could do. Let alone more. [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Anteep2;26268089]you dont even know what subject you're talking about[/QUOTE] :frog:

[QUOTE=Anteep2;26268089]you dont even know what subject you're talking about[/QUOTE] Scorpious sums up my reaction to this post with the frog. But guys, why are you going so far into detail in your speculation of a NK vs SK war? It's not going to happen, it's been said many times in this thread, much more severe attacks have been carried out by the North in past years.

[QUOTE=Ryder1337;26268315]Scorpious sums up my reaction to this post with the frog. But guys, why are you going so far into detail in your speculation of a NK vs SK war? It's not going to happen, it's been said many times in this thread, much more severe attacks have been carried out by the North in past years.[/QUOTE] We can still theorize "what if" if a war does occur.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26268234]Well it's a good damn thing the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. Did you know that it only takes roughly 10-12 nuclear detonations to cause a nuclear winter? And both there are literally tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on the planet? Just 10 and the whole planet is dead. I wonder what just ONE could do. Let alone more. [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] :frog:[/QUOTE] [img]http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear1.jpg[/img] [img]http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear2.jpg[/img] [img]http://cache-02.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear3.jpg[/img] ( And just so you know, The USA and Russia are being reduced by the START Treaty once it's signed to 1550. )

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26268234]Well it's a good damn thing the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. Did you know that it only takes roughly 10-12 nuclear detonations to cause a nuclear winter? And both there are literally tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on the planet? Just 10 and the whole planet is dead. I wonder what just ONE could do. Let alone more. [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] :frog:[/QUOTE]That sounds like a load of arse, source? Did it say what yield these warheads would need to be?

[quote]the killing of two United States Army officers by North Korean soldiers on August 18, 1976, in the Joint Security Area (JSA) located in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) which forms the de facto border between North and South Korea. The killings, credited to Kim Jong-il's power consolidation,[1] and the response three days later (Operation Paul Bunyan) heightened tensions between North and South Korea as well as their respective allies, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and the United States.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident[/url] examples of worse

[QUOTE=R3mix;26268349][img_thumb]http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear1.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear2.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://cache-02.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear3.jpg[/img_thumb] ( And just so you know, we have a lot less now in nuclear weapons. )[/QUOTE] This takes in account the blastwave. Not the fallout. That's what does the most damage.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26268379]This takes in account the blastwave. Not the fallout. That's what does the most damage.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure it says complete destruction radius.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26268418]Pretty sure it says complete destruction radius.[/QUOTE]Yes, that's the blast wave. Fallout doesn't destroy in the same sense i.e. buildings will survive a sprinkling of fallout just fine. If it was "fatal radius" or something similar, then that'd be the case.

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;26268376][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident[/url] examples of worse[/QUOTE] That was a border dispute, not firing on civilians.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26268349][img_thumb]http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear1.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear2.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://cache-02.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear3.jpg[/img_thumb] ( And just so you know, The USA and Russia are being reduced by the START Treaty once it's signed to 1550. )[/QUOTE] I don't think that factors in nuclear fallout. I'm pretty sure we would need much less to fuck over humanity if fallout was factored in

[QUOTE=Smasher 006;26268435]That was a border dispute, not firing on civilians.[/QUOTE] But it was killing of american marines, I didn't mean to say worse I was getting yelled and and had to type that quickly.

Wow, even now, the thread is at the top!

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26268379]This takes in account the blastwave. Not the fallout. That's what does the most damage.[/QUOTE] Nuclear bombs will level an inner city, make the parts about half a kilometre away weak enough to fall down, and further away from that just damages building like any other bomb. The effects can be over exaggerated, especially in this scene. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR_midwZ2f0[/media] You'd get an extremely hot bast wave heading your way, but it wouldn't vaporise them.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26268429]Yes, that's the blast wave. Fallout doesn't destroy in the same sense i.e. buildings will survive a sprinkling of fallout just fine. If it was "fatal radius" or something similar, then that'd be the case.[/QUOTE] 100,000 kilometers square to fall out per nuclear warhead. = 38,610.22 miles squared. There are approximately 57.5 million square miles of land on earth, only 29.2 percent of the earth's surface. [url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_square_miles_of_land_are_on_Earth#ixzz16DlMbQIx[/url]

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;26268503]Wow, even now, the thread is at the top![/QUOTE] Dude, a massive amount of shit's potentially about to go down. Of course it's gonna be on top :v:

[QUOTE=R3mix;26268549]100,000 kilometers square to fall out per nuclear warhead. = 38,610.22 miles squared. There are approximately 57.5 million square miles of land on earth, only 29.2 percent of the earth's surface. [url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_square_miles_of_land_are_on_Earth#ixzz16DlMbQIx[/url][/QUOTE] Don't forget that most of the radiation will be gone from just one within 1000 kilometres anyway.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26268549]100,000 kilometers square to fall out per nuclear warhead. = 38,610.22 miles squared. There are approximately 57.5 million square miles of land on earth, only 29.2 percent of the earth's surface. [url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_square_miles_of_land_are_on_Earth#ixzz16DlMbQIx[/url][/QUOTE]Yyyees, I wasn't questioning that in that post, just your interpretation of the phrase "Total destruction raduis" In any case, you're not taking into account warhead yield, nor wind directions.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26268349][img_thumb]http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear1.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear2.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://cache-02.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/nuclear3.jpg[/img_thumb] ( And just so you know, The USA and Russia are being reduced by the START Treaty once it's signed to 1550. )[/QUOTE] It's not the actual bombs that would kill us all, the atmosphere would ignite if they sent enough.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26268605]Yyyees, I wasn't questioning that in that post, just your interpretation of the phrase "Total destruction raduis" In any case, you're not taking into account warhead yield, nor wind directions.[/QUOTE] Not really, just a scenario if it were launched what would the effects be without all those factors. But yeah, I assume the complete destruction radius doesn't include fall out which is why I posted that :P

[QUOTE=jetboy;26268613]It's not the actual bombs that would kill us all, the atmosphere would ignite if they sent enough.[/QUOTE] How the hell would the atmosphere ignite, loads of bombs have been detonated loads of times beforehand.