If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   South Korea deploys warships to track North Korean missiles if launched, possibly by following the trail of debris floating in the ocean   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 210
    More: Followup, South Koreans, North Koreans, Security Council resolutions, B-52, U.N. Security Council, missiles, declare war, United States  
•       •       •

3549 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2013 at 1:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-05 04:05:40 PM

DeathCipris: Treygreen13: DeathCipris: The comment about the US military addresses a larger value, which is I believe we don't need as large of a military as we have. Why should it be the sole responsibility of the US to play world police?

It shouldn't be, really. But at the same time the U.S. is *already in* South Korea in large numbers, and we have a strong interest in making sure that our 28,500 troops stationed there aren't incinerated in a nuclear or conventional blast. Not to mention the South Korean civilians.

I agree that the whole world isn't our responsibility.

Yea, we have had a presence in the region...well since the Korean war and this situation has more dynamics to it than the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Treaty for mutual protection, confirmed nuclear weapons, crazy brainwashed citizens, etc.
I hope the dumb twat in NK just backs down and this doesn't escalate any further. I just don't want to see my family members and friends shot in another country because of this asswipe. I will admit, I have a personal stake in the situation...I guess maybe I took it to heart.


I can't speak for everyone here, but I think most of us (even the fark yeah murikah crowd) have a personal interest in it. My best friend is currently in the Army stationed in Kuwait, but you know that if things went really bad really fast he'd be one of the guys shipping off for North Korea. I don't want him over there, I'd rather him hang out in Kuwait where nobody is trying to kill him.
 
2013-04-05 04:09:03 PM

pdrake: both sides lose


[www.hindustantimes.com image 650x1071]


This graphic was already discussed (about how it's misleading) in the last thread (before that thread completely devolved into an argument over the definition of "decimate").
 
2013-04-05 04:11:45 PM
We should answer their strongly-worded threats with a strongly-worded letter.
 
2013-04-05 04:11:51 PM

pdrake: both sides lose


Quality has a quantity of its own. With our unmatched air superiority, their soldiers, tanks, and artillery are sitting ducks. The A-10s alone will haunt the nightmares of the survivors for the rest of their lives. (See also: the highway of death circa 1991).
 
2013-04-05 04:12:13 PM

The Bestest: pdrake: both sides lose


[www.hindustantimes.com image 650x1071]

This graphic was already discussed (about how it's misleading) in the last thread (before that thread completely devolved into an argument over the definition of "decimate").


And this is why we have to have at least 2 Norks threads a day. We can't simply keep one thread from devolving, so we double down and start multiple so that people who can't wade through the Nazis of grammar, word choice and poorly chosen sources can chat about it.
 
2013-04-05 04:12:58 PM

CygnusDarius: I know NK has a shiat-based economy and no real standing army (or at least a fully equipped/fed/motivated one), but, what if they have spent all their resources, and I mean all of them, to the development of decent nukes? I know it's a far stretch, but if I have experience in one thing, is that when people like Un are in full bravado, it's because they're nuts, or that they have something that can be potentially dangerous.


The difficulty isn't in acquiring enough resources to build a nuclear weapon, the difficulty is in knowing how to build the weapon and having a sufficient industrial capacity to do so. This is something that you can't rush with money. The academic journey towards a nuclear bomb started in 1898 with the Curies, and it wasn't for another 40 or so years that someone dreamed up the idea of an atomic bomb. It took another 15-20 years to build the first prototypes, and then decades more of research to build the truly terrifying modern bombs that can literally wipe out a city.

On top of this, a nuclear bomb would significantly hampered in destructive power without a suitable delivery system. For maximum damage, the bomb should be detonated some distance above the target. North Korea lacks the scientific and industrial ability to build reliable missiles capable of such a feat, and there's no way in hell they get to fly planes over other countries at this point. Their only feasible option would be that of a covert nuke detonated offshore or at ground-level in a city.

Two things: first, it's extremely unlikely that they could pull this off. For it to help them at all, they'd have to do it TWICE, because there's no point to exploding one city. They would need at least two nukes, so they can detonate one to show it's possible, and then use the other one as leverage. This is the exact same reason we dropped TWO bombs on Japan, because one doesn't cut it.

Second, assume they have an early nuclear weapon, they have claimed they have conducted successful nuclear tests, but outside monitoring agencies estimate the total yield at something like 8-9 Kilotons of TNT (for comparison, the first US test at Trinity had a yield of 20Kt, which is 60-year old technology by our standards). The Trinity test was essentially conducted at ground level, and it made a crater 10 feet deep and about 1000 feet wide. An NK bomb would be about half as powerful- pressure effects would cause damage significantly past the crater, for sure, but in the grand scheme of things, it would not be a terribly destructive event. You could conceivably take out something like downtown Manhattan  but you're not going to destroy New York.
 
2013-04-05 04:13:32 PM
impatiently - in all seriousness: My brother is in the Army Reserves after several years of active duty. By some stroke of luck, he was not deployed to either of our active conflicts while he was active duty. He was also at Fort Hood, less than a block away from where the mass shooting happened. I am tired of worrying about him.

  I can't cope by making fun of un's appearance - i cope by knowing there are sane people in the world and that he appears to be fundamentally weak. I've begun to wish him the sleepless nights of worried wives.
  Also have someone potentially in harm's way - it's funny how many of us "do" (cook, nuture, create, earn) with what is a constant wary eye.

  I have the eye/hand coordination of a two year old so, soccer, not so much
 
2013-04-05 04:14:55 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: We should answer their strongly-worded threats with a strongly-worded letter.


I think we're speaking in code now, aren't we?
 
2013-04-05 04:16:24 PM
another Nork thread?
man, I'm running out of material here
gimme a minute
 
2013-04-05 04:17:12 PM

Treygreen13: BigNumber12: God... that sort of talk makes my heart race.

Could you translate it for us? I don't get it.


I only really have a little more than a layperson's understanding of such things, plus what he explains in the article. What appears to be a large number of supersonic, swing-wing, strategic bombers flying together to Guam, asking for mid-air refueling along the way, and inquiring about the weather on the other side of the planet. Just... a remarkable mental image, the things we're capable of now. Unimaginable to someone 150 years ago. I love this shiat.
 
2013-04-05 04:17:36 PM

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: DeathCipris: Never thought I would say this, but I think I actually learned something here in a Fark comment thread today.

Thanks Treygreen13 and ImpatientlyUnsympathetic

/srsly, no sarcasm

*HIGHFIVE*

In all seriousness: My brother is in the Army Reserves after several years of active duty. By some stroke of luck, he was not deployed to either of our active conflicts while he was active duty. He was also at Fort Hood, less than a block away from where the mass shooting happened. I am tired of worrying about him. He has a baby on the way and a 1 year old. I'd much rather settle everything down and not go to war while he or anyone else I know is in the military, but I think we're slowly losing hope that Un is going to settle down.

I cope by making fun of Kim Jong-Un's appearance. I like add nasty arse faux dessert foods to his name and intentionally overlook the fact that he could start something that my brother and our military could be called in to resolve.

Also, I read all these threads to get reassurance that KJU is not capable of reaching Seattle with a missile. I like when people insist it could never happen. Its like all of you are pretending to be my husband and telling me, "no, no of course that can't happen!" The other day, while we were playing soccer together, my husband assured me that he considers his parents' home a very defensible location should Red Dawn actually happen. And he said he'd take care of retrieving the dogs from our place so that we can rendez vous at his parents in the event that he's at school and I'm at work when Armageddon happens.

/bet everyone just sighed with relief not to be married to me.
//I do laundry, cook, bake and make money, I swear I am a catch.
///I play soccer with him so he can tell me how we'll survive zombie apocalypse and other imaginary disasters.


Haha, sometimes I like to make up pretend zombie apocalypse scenarios too.
 
2013-04-05 04:18:47 PM
regardless of the accuracy of the graphic, the NK military leaders will still consider their troops cannon fodder.
 
2013-04-05 04:20:18 PM

parasol: impatiently - in all seriousness: My brother is in the Army Reserves after several years of active duty. By some stroke of luck, he was not deployed to either of our active conflicts while he was active duty. He was also at Fort Hood, less than a block away from where the mass shooting happened. I am tired of worrying about him.

  I can't cope by making fun of un's appearance - i cope by knowing there are sane people in the world and that he appears to be fundamentally weak. I've begun to wish him the sleepless nights of worried wives.
  Also have someone potentially in harm's way - it's funny how many of us "do" (cook, nuture, create, earn) with what is a constant wary eye.

  I have the eye/hand coordination of a two year old so, soccer, not so much


My husband is amazingly fit and can chase a soccer ball much farther than I can kick it, so a lack of coordination is not such a problem.

At least I keep my worrying at bed time to a minimum.... I'm a night owl and he's a morning person, he's tired enough by bedtime that I can't really bend his ear then. I wait to tell him about all the Duplo I ordered my niece when he's good and tired...
 
2013-04-05 04:27:26 PM

pdrake: both sides lose


[www.hindustantimes.com image 650x1071]


A cool graphic, but... severely misleading, as has already been mentioned. When one tank can hit another from well outside of its range, and the other would probably struggle even to penetrate the opposing's armor, you can't really compare the two in terms of numbers. Look at Gulf War 1... their tanks frequently couldn't even see what it was that was killing them. Our biggest headache was Friendly Fire.

And that doesn't even begin to address cross-column interaction. We could have no tanks, and theirs would still be sitting ducks if they tried to move around with aircraft on the prowl.

They money we pump into advancing our military tech... it means a lot when the adversary is basically frozen in time.

Also - while they run the same drills for decades on end, we've been learning hard lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we've been adapting.
 
2013-04-05 04:41:44 PM

pdrake: both sides lose


The US managed a 1000:1 tank kill ratio in Desert Storm. That conflict is clearly not comparable, (the coalition outnumbered the Iraqis significantly), but consider something like the Six Days War between Israel and all their neighbors. Israel sustained something like 1000 deaths and caused something like 20,000.

The North Korean military doesn't even begin to approach a 20 or 30 to 1 force disparity. Their troops are woefully undersupplied, uneducated, and untrained. (For example, North Korea only has enough aviation fuel to give it's pilots a "handful" of flight hours every year, simply because they are too poor to afford adequate aviation fuel.) Taking these factors, along with others, you can estimate the *effective* force that North Korea is able to field is somewhere in the ballpark of 25-30% of their stated numerical strength.

The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula:
http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dos si er/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-milita ry-balance-on-the-kore/
 
2013-04-05 04:43:14 PM

Fubini: pdrake: both sides lose

The US managed a 1000:1 tank kill ratio in Desert Storm. That conflict is clearly not comparable, (the coalition outnumbered the Iraqis significantly), but consider something like the Six Days War between Israel and all their neighbors. Israel sustained something like 1000 deaths and caused something like 20,000.

The North Korean military doesn't even begin to approach a 20 or 30 to 1 force disparity. Their troops are woefully undersupplied, uneducated, and untrained. (For example, North Korea only has enough aviation fuel to give it's pilots a "handful" of flight hours every year, simply because they are too poor to afford adequate aviation fuel.) Taking these factors, along with others, you can estimate the *effective* force that North Korea is able to field is somewhere in the ballpark of 25-30% of their stated numerical strength.

The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula:
http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dos si er/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-milita ry-balance-on-the-kore/


Oh yeah, just wait until they convert their jets to run on woodgas.
 
2013-04-05 04:50:48 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Fubini: pdrake: both sides lose

The US managed a 1000:1 tank kill ratio in Desert Storm. That conflict is clearly not comparable, (the coalition outnumbered the Iraqis significantly), but consider something like the Six Days War between Israel and all their neighbors. Israel sustained something like 1000 deaths and caused something like 20,000.

The North Korean military doesn't even begin to approach a 20 or 30 to 1 force disparity. Their troops are woefully undersupplied, uneducated, and untrained. (For example, North Korea only has enough aviation fuel to give it's pilots a "handful" of flight hours every year, simply because they are too poor to afford adequate aviation fuel.) Taking these factors, along with others, you can estimate the *effective* force that North Korea is able to field is somewhere in the ballpark of 25-30% of their stated numerical strength.

The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula:
http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dos si er/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-milita ry-balance-on-the-kore/

Oh yeah, just wait until they convert their jets to run on woodgas.


Heh, it says in there somewhere that the NK infantry units have their own livestock and gardens in order to supplement their food supplies, so you might not be that far off.
 
2013-04-05 04:54:15 PM

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: stir22: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

yep.  if war does happen, they will fight to the death.  thousands of US troops will die.  I have relatives and a very close friend within 8 miles of the DMZ.

the lord god: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

Oh grow up or go outside and let the adults handle this.

pretty easy to be tough on they keyboard, 'eh?  i wonder what your rhetoric would be if you were in harms way.

So, what is to be done if Fatty Swiss Cake Rolls does something beyond talk with his mouth full?


respond.  with the full force, might and fury of the armed forces.
 
2013-04-05 04:56:03 PM

stir22: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: stir22: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

yep.  if war does happen, they will fight to the death.  thousands of US troops will die.  I have relatives and a very close friend within 8 miles of the DMZ.

the lord god: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

Oh grow up or go outside and let the adults handle this.

pretty easy to be tough on they keyboard, 'eh?  i wonder what your rhetoric would be if you were in harms way.

So, what is to be done if Fatty Swiss Cake Rolls does something beyond talk with his mouth full?

respond.  with the full force, might and fury of the armed forces.


Well, not the full force. Quite a bit of it is hanging out in the desert. But a good amount of force.
 
2013-04-05 05:05:21 PM

Treygreen13: stir22: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: stir22: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

yep.  if war does happen, they will fight to the death.  thousands of US troops will die.  I have relatives and a very close friend within 8 miles of the DMZ.

the lord god: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

Oh grow up or go outside and let the adults handle this.

pretty easy to be tough on they keyboard, 'eh?  i wonder what your rhetoric would be if you were in harms way.

So, what is to be done if Fatty Swiss Cake Rolls does something beyond talk with his mouth full?

respond.  with the full force, might and fury of the armed forces.

Well, not the full force. Quite a bit of it is hanging out in the desert. But a good amount of force.


I come here for this. Seriously. The "rawr, we have big military" talk helps me feel more comfortable.
 
2013-04-05 05:07:35 PM

DeathCipris: Seemed to work well for us up until the early 1900's...


In 1900, a modern fleet trying to transit from their Atlantic ports to Korea took months.

Today, that seem fleet, in the same amount of time, could land on Mars.
 
2013-04-05 05:09:02 PM

BigNumber12: pdrake: both sides lose


[www.hindustantimes.com image 650x1071]

A cool graphic, but... severely misleading, as has already been mentioned. When one tank can hit another from well outside of its range, and the other would probably struggle even to penetrate the opposing's armor, you can't really compare the two in terms of numbers. Look at Gulf War 1... their tanks frequently couldn't even see what it was that was killing them. Our biggest headache was Friendly Fire.

And that doesn't even begin to address cross-column interaction. We could have no tanks, and theirs would still be sitting ducks if they tried to move around with aircraft on the prowl.

They money we pump into advancing our military tech... it means a lot when the adversary is basically frozen in time.

Also - while they run the same drills for decades on end, we've been learning hard lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we've been adapting.


that all makes sense. thank you for the well put response.

i still hope it doesn't come to an armed conflict.
 
2013-04-05 05:21:07 PM

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: I come here for this. Seriously. The "rawr, we have big military" talk helps me feel more comfortable.


If "rawr we have big military" talk is the kind of thing you want, minus all the rah-rah... look at our Navy and Air Force. They spend billions and billions every year and for good reason - nothing North Korea has is going to save them from the kind of hurtin' the Navy can do. People talk about how badass our troops are, but the really terrifying stuff is the stuff you don't ever see or hear until it is far, far too late.

The thing that terrifies me the most about the Army (should they decide they want me dead) isn't a team of soldiers they'd send after me. It's that some guy wearing a headset in a building 1000 miles away finding me with a satellite and then making the tough decision of whether he wants to turn me into 500 pieces or a trillion pieces.
 
2013-04-05 05:25:35 PM
So, I guess what you all are saying is that I picked the wrong time to finally go see my wife's native South Korea?   Our flight lands on the afternoon of the 10th...

:(
 
2013-04-05 05:32:29 PM

Lost Thought 00: Infernalist: This whole 'April 10th' thing has me a bit concerned.

They have a scheduled missile test during that time frame. US and allies will track the missile trajectories, but will only intervene if it poses a threat to anything other than whales. Just like every other one of their missile tests


Im kinda thinking this time we (and SK) are positioning to intercept it. I think we should too...just pluck it out of the sky, call Un up and say "hey, that was fun, good test, got any more?"


THoey: So, I guess what you all are saying is that I picked the wrong time to finally go see my wife's native South Korea?   Our flight lands on the afternoon of the 10th...

:(


Stay far enough south and you will be ok. A visit to Seoul might not be advisable.
 
2013-04-05 05:48:06 PM

Treygreen13: echomike23: SurelyShirley: Treygreen13: They're not "protecting" anything. They don't have anything anybody wants.

I'm going to disagree with you there.

[i49.tinypic.com image 203x301]

[generickorean.files.wordpress.com image 450x255]

But you can get non-crazy Korean chicks in South Korea!



That would depend on one's definition of crazy.
To me, an ex-army sonyeo, who quite possibly knows a bit about self-defense and -reliance, has some survival skills, and, being a Nork, can cope with a fairly basic lifestyle, is less crazy than one from the south, whose life revolves around $5k handbags, yet another plastic surgery and the latest Hyundai.
 
2013-04-05 06:01:40 PM

THoey: So, I guess what you all are saying is that I picked the wrong time to finally go see my wife's native South Korea?   Our flight lands on the afternoon of the 10th...

:(


You're in luck. I hear they're forecasting bright sunshine!
 
2013-04-05 06:06:04 PM

echomike23: SurelyShirley: Treygreen13: They're not "protecting" anything. They don't have anything anybody wants.

I'm going to disagree with you there.

[i49.tinypic.com image 203x301]

[generickorean.files.wordpress.com image 450x255]


Sorry - just not seeing it. Looks plain and sickly to me.
 
2013-04-05 06:21:24 PM
The Brits should have just said: We won't need any help. We'll just use the tunnel.
 
2013-04-05 06:21:36 PM

THoey: So, I guess what you all are saying is that I picked the wrong time to finally go see my wife's native South Korea?   Our flight lands on the afternoon of the 10th...

:(


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-05 06:22:35 PM

echomike23: THoey: So, I guess what you all are saying is that I picked the wrong time to finally go see my wife's native South Korea?   Our flight lands on the afternoon of the 10th...

:(

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


in all seriousness, be careful.  you should be ok.
 
2013-04-05 06:24:58 PM
Best Korea has 70 subs??
 
2013-04-05 06:27:18 PM

Forced Perspective: Infernalist: This whole 'April 10th' thing has me a bit concerned.

We're still, legally, in a state of war with North Korea.  They have now threatened our interests.  Why aren't we launching bombing raids now to completely decapitate their command and control?  The lesson of the past decade is that nation-building is hard, but we don't have to do that; bombing their infrastructure (lol) and going home should be more than enough.  Hell, we can even offer sweet buyout packages for North Korean nuclear "scientists."


You'd make a good village idiot. Do you live in a village? If not, would you be willing to relocate? I hear there's good bits of string, wood, dead budgerigars, sparrows, pieces of moss, and dead voles in it.
 
2013-04-05 06:30:03 PM

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: Do we need a redhead thread for you? A Lululemon see-through yoga pants thread?



Yes please and maybe throw in a hot military women of the world while we're at it.
 
2013-04-05 06:36:47 PM
I'm not real sure what's going on with Nutcase Jr over there, but I can't but help notice that he got all stirred up around the same time we started winding down our current war.

It's almost like he wants to be next in line.

China backed N. Korea during the Korean war -- after they helped start the thing in the first place. However, in the decades since, China has developed a thriving international economy that depends heavily on manufacturing goods for other nations. One of it's major customers is the US.

It's not good business to back another war against the US when we're providing them billions in revenue. Plus, there is no longer a Soviet Union, which had supported China as China was supporting the N. Koreans. Russia now has assorted mutually beneficial pacts with the US.

I'm actually a bit surprised that the N.K. military hasn't staged a coup and exterminated 'Dear Leader' as has happened in a lot of other nations previously under dictatorship. I'm sure some of the military leaders there know exactly what's going to happen if they provoke a major war and it aint gonna be real nice for them.

Plus there's the bad taste the 'police action' of Vietnam left in many of the mouths of US citizens. I doubt if they'd be tolerant of such a politically micromanaged and held back war again.

I suspect the US has already dusted off the nukes it has hidden away and there was that banished, forbidden, internationally rejected Neutron Bomb that the military had developed but never got to use.

When detonated, it doesn't level everything for miles. It just kills everything with a spinal cord and leaves the infrastructure standing. It was supposed to be more humane for rescuers to arrive on clear roads, with functional water lines and power plants.

Everyone else figured it was to facilitate the easy takeover by an invading force -- which would not have to plow through millions of tons of rubble.

I figure one or two of them just has to be squirreled away.

Kind of like the banned poison gasses several other hostile nations were caught resurrecting. I believe the Kurds were one of the unfortunate peoples to actually get to experience them since their banning in WW1.
 
2013-04-05 06:41:23 PM

Stargazr10: Best Korea has 70 subs??


Yes.  Mostly small costal diesel/electric mini-subs, but they have used them to deliver commandos to the south, and to sink SK navy ships.  While they are primitive, they are also very hard to find if they camp out in shallow water, and they can be armed with fairly powerful torpedos.  They are not a threat to the US mainland, but they are the naval equivalant of an insurgent cell.

I would say that there is a reasonably high chance they will be involved in the next "incident."
 
2013-04-05 06:45:08 PM

Stargazr10: Best Korea has 70 subs??


They are really just boats that sank, but Dear Leader assures us that when he gives the attack order, they will join the glorious cause.

Also, I've been thinking about that Best Korea nuclear attack plan map that got leaked the other day, showing a plan to hit San Diego, Austin, TX, and DC.   Is it possible it was just a map of where to get take out from?
 
2013-04-05 06:47:46 PM
I think I have finally figured out why we're all constantly talking about this and posting about it in every thread.

Two Reasons really.

Reason One is what I will call "Where Were You Syndrome". Whether we admit or not, whether we consciously know it or not, we all want to know the second something like this happens, so we can have our "Where Were You?" moment frozen in our heads forever. Several events (JFK, The Day The Music Died, 9/11, etc.) always carry the question "Where were you when it happened/when you found out). We all want to be able to have that discussion whether we know it or not, its one of those odd human behaviors. We all want to be able to say "I knew it was coming, here's where I was when it finally happened, etc."

Reason Two: Its very surreal to be talking about a Nuclear War in 2013 for EVERYBODY no matter when you were born.

If you lived through the Cold War, its surreal to have this black cloud hanging over the world again. Granted, its not to the extent it was during the Cold War, but its still an odd feeling that not only are we talking about a Nuclear War, but every day it seems like it might actually happen. Everybody has always said you have to be crazy to want to start a war with Nukes and it seems like Un may just be crazy enough to hit the button.

As for the people like me (I'm 21) who didn't grow up in the Cold War, and only learned about it in textbooks, its equally surreal that we're talking about being on the brink of a Nuclear War, no matter how valid Un's threats are. People my age have had to deal with Terrorism growing up but we've never had Nukes aimed at us with someone hovering their hand over the Big Red Button. Now I'm not saying that Un is going to launch or even that they could even make it to the United States, but the fact that he is  threateningto launch Nukes is just so mind blowing that I can't help but be curious, if not a little anxious about what could happen.

Earlier in this thread I said "Don't wake me up unless war were declared." And honestly that's how I feel right now. We've talked this topic into the ground about how and when and where it could happen, now it just feels like we're anxiously waiting to see if it actually will happen. Its like everyone that's paying attention to what's going on, along with BoB and the rest of the Government and Military, is sitting on pins and needles waiting for someone to move first.
 
2013-04-05 07:08:20 PM

Professor Farksworth: Earlier in this thread I said "Don't wake me up unless war were declared." And honestly that's how I feel right now. We've talked this topic into the ground about how and when and where it could happen, now it just feels like we're anxiously waiting to see if it actually will happen. Its like everyone that's paying attention to what's going on, along with BoB and the rest of the Government and Military, is sitting on pins and needles waiting for someone to move first.


I have that same feeling.  I do not believe there is justification for a war.  Unless the DPRK actually goes full retard and nukes/bombards a population center, this is just buisness as usual.  You could argue the morality of leaving Kim Jong Ect in power, but I am not eager to get into another "just war."

The issue for me, is that I am processing out of the military soon.  If we are going to war, I feel that I should go.  I would never be able to forgive myself for sitting on the sidelines through the conclusion of the Korean war.  That said, I went to Iraq, I have done my part, and I am eager to get on with my life.  Un needs to shiat or get off the pot.
 
2013-04-05 07:31:16 PM
Obviously, if the prediction is April 10th,  the attack has already been deployed. The container ship with the nuke is probably East of Guam by now. Nice knowing you, Los Angeles!
 
2013-04-05 07:52:43 PM

DeathCipris: scottydoesntknow: DeathCipris: the lord god: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

Oh grow up or go outside and let the adults handle this.

Or how bout I am the only adult here that seems to know history and realize that this is a tremendously BAD idea.

No you aren't. You would prefer to hide your head in the sand and avoid the real world. He's a crazy dictator threatening countries with nuclear weapons. This isn't Iraq (an unjustified invasion), or the freaking Third Reich (i.e. WORLD WAR II). Nobody is making a move until Un does first.

And honestly the rest of the world is tired of his shiat. Yes some people want him to act, not because they love seeing violence and death, but because he needs to be removed. The whole regime does. He is a threat to international peace.

Now go back to the sandbox.

Wow, way to go insulting me with more kiddie name-calling crap. Real mature there...

Lemme hit you with some knowledge, wars are expensive...very, very expensive. Unless you want to be thrown right back into the economic dark ages that we are finally starting to get out of, I'd avoid another war.
Un is bad, no argument there. Your line "Yes some people want him to act, not because they love seeing violence and death, but because he needs to be removed." is irrational. People wanting to see him move (and be removed) by taking military action, but profess to not love violence and death is asinine. His action will be to spark another war with the US. I was using the Third Reich as an example of a highly brainwashed populace and the sheer will the people had to defend against a foreign invader. If there was an invasion the urban fighting would be absolutely  brutal. The NK people have been trained to fear and hate the US. I don't want thousands of American soldiers coming home in body bags because of this moron. If he is such a damn international threat, then let the Chinese handle him. We need to stay the hell out of this.

And if you want a decent debate, you should avoid name calling. It weakens your position.


The wayy I see it, all my life (I am 37) war with North Korea was pretty much been seen as inevitable. They can't stand on their own and there is too much pride for them to acknowlege their failure as a state. The ONLY way for them to resolve it is to provoke a war so they can be conquered by and reunited with SK. Any other path of action would be culturally intolerable.

I want to get it over with before they develop effective delivery systems for their weapons. All those people in Seoul? I've considered them the walking dead my whole life. Those guys in the DMZ? Everybody has told me my whole life that they are sacrificial lambs. They are there to die, to ensure that there is enough outrage when NK attacks that Congress will be forced to respond.

It's not about whether there will be a war. It's about how long we give them to modernize their military.
 
2013-04-05 08:00:55 PM
I still think this is a means to an end.

Un is trying to convince us to attack them - to destroy their home.

Think about this on the smaller scale. Two gangs are at war for several years. They agree to a temporary treaty but that doesn't last. Now one gang is verbally threatening not only the lives' of the rival gang but also their families, neighborhood stores, and schools. While they haven't followed through - they've announced their intentions.

Why?
 
2013-04-05 08:59:01 PM
Don't have to worry until they gas up their long range rockets. Good practice for the LASER jet.
 
2013-04-05 09:32:52 PM
NK is going to start the war.  They know they will lose and are counting on it.  What does the US do immediately after kicking the butt of any country?  Pour billions of dollars into their pockets.  And they keep lousy track of where that money goes.  In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Un also shells his own major population centers.  Less people to feed plus all he has to do is say that it was the US or SK who did it.  Since nobody will believe that he would deliberately kill his own people like that NK will get a bunch more help from other countries and the SK/US alliance will look bad.  Even after the debris are examined and it is revealed that NK weapons did the damage there will still be a huge amount of people who will believe that it is another cover up conspiracy by the US government.
 
2013-04-05 09:49:56 PM

THoey: So, I guess what you all are saying is that I picked the wrong time to finally go see my wife's native South Korea? Our flight lands on the afternoon of the 10th...


Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs...

i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-05 10:10:10 PM

antron: THoey: So, I guess what you all are saying is that I picked the wrong time to finally go see my wife's native South Korea? Our flight lands on the afternoon of the 10th...

Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs...

[i49.tinypic.com image 500x281]


Heh!
 
2013-04-05 11:03:58 PM

orclover: I think about the only thing they could do worth spit on April 10th is to launch the biggest nuke they have right at japan and have it detonate right offshore from Fukushima.  Just far enough so that it doesn't actually hurt anything but everybodies eyes and ear drums.  Let the radiation settle in with the rest of the radiation and just piss the hell off everybody in Japan.  I think it would be the only way they could "nuke" somebody and not subsequently get invaded.


So you're saying they should aim for Austin?
 
2013-04-05 11:38:09 PM

eatin' fetus: Obviously, if the prediction is April 10th,  the attack has already been deployed. The container ship with the nuke is probably East of Guam by now. Nice knowing you, Los Angeles!


Detonating a bomb in Long Beach harbor would do very little to Los Angeles. Detonating a bomb in downtown Los Angeles would also do very little to Los Angeles, actually. Los Angeles is huge.


Bontesla: I still think this is a means to an end.

Un is trying to convince us to attack them - to destroy their home.

Think about this on the smaller scale. Two gangs are at war for several years. They agree to a temporary treaty but that doesn't last. Now one gang is verbally threatening not only the lives' of the rival gang but also their families, neighborhood stores, and schools. While they haven't followed through - they've announced their intentions.

Why?


It's more like an athlete trying to draw a foul from the opposing team. They want to draw SK or the US into attacking first?


Professor Farksworth: Its very surreal to be talking about a Nuclear War in 2013 for EVERYBODY no matter when you were born.

If you lived through the Cold War, its surreal to have this black cloud hanging over the world again. Granted, its not to the extent it was during the Cold War, but its still an odd feeling that not only are we talking about a Nuclear War, but every day it seems like it might actually happen. Everybody has always said you have to be crazy to want to start a war with Nukes and it seems like Un may just be crazy enough to hit the button.

As for the people like me (I'm 21) who didn't grow up in the Cold War, and only learned about it in textbooks, its equally surreal that we're talking about being on the brink of a Nuclear War, no matter how valid Un's threats are. People my age have had to deal with Terrorism growing up but we've never had Nukes aimed at us with someone hovering their hand over the Big Red Button.


"Not to the extent" doesn't even describe it. All we face is the possibility of North Korea striking once if they're lucky, and not even within the United States lower 48. With the Soviets, we faced thousands of nuclear missiles and mutual annihilation.

If North Korea strikes with a nuclear weapon anywhere outside their borders, we will not respond in kind. Why? We don't need to. We had Mutually Assured Destruction with the Soviets because we could not mount a credible conventional counter-attack against a Soviet first-strike. With North Korea we can.

 
2013-04-06 12:09:37 AM

miss diminutive: Treygreen13: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 484x184]
I SAID THROW DOWN, BOY!

You gonna do something, or just stand there and bleed?


www.halfempty.com
I ain't got time to bleed.
 
2013-04-06 12:10:21 AM

StopLurkListen: eatin' fetus: Obviously, if the prediction is April 10th,  the attack has already been deployed. The container ship with the nuke is probably East of Guam by now. Nice knowing you, Los Angeles!

Detonating a bomb in Long Beach harbor would do very little to Los Angeles. Detonating a bomb in downtown Los Angeles would also do very little to Los Angeles, actually. Los Angeles is huge.


Bontesla: I still think this is a means to an end.

Un is trying to convince us to attack them - to destroy their home.

Think about this on the smaller scale. Two gangs are at war for several years. They agree to a temporary treaty but that doesn't last. Now one gang is verbally threatening not only the lives' of the rival gang but also their families, neighborhood stores, and schools. While they haven't followed through - they've announced their intentions.

Why?

It's more like an athlete trying to draw a foul from the opposing team. They want to draw SK or the US into attacking first?


Professor Farksworth: Its very surreal to be talking about a Nuclear War in 2013 for EVERYBODY no matter when you were born.

If you lived through the Cold War, its surreal to have this black cloud hanging over the world again. Granted, its not to the extent it was during the Cold War, but its still an odd feeling that not only are we talking about a Nuclear War, but every day it seems like it might actually happen. Everybody has always said you have to be crazy to want to start a war with Nukes and it seems like Un may just be crazy enough to hit the button.

As for the people like me (I'm 21) who didn't grow up in the Cold War, and only learned about it in textbooks, its equally surreal that we're talking about being on the brink of a Nuclear War, no matter how valid Un's threats are. People my age have had to deal with Terrorism growing up but we've never had Nukes aimed at us with someone hovering their hand over the Big Red Button.

"Not to the extent" doesn't even describe it. All we face is t ...


Nukes for nukes.  It's the only way to reasonably keep the use of them from being used against us.  Nobody can survive a nuclear strike from us.  The whole point of winning a war is to enjoy being alive afterwards.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report