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.

(Yonhap News (Korea))   South Korea: You know what we need? Nukes. Hey US, can you give us nukes?   (english.yonhapnews.co.kr) divider line 64
    More: Interesting, South Korean, tactical nuclear weapon, Chung, North Koreans, Koreas  
•       •       •

5590 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2013 at 10:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-10 10:56:01 AM  
Yeah, I'm thinking we don't need a Seoul missile crisis right now.
 
2013-04-10 10:57:13 AM  
This, this is a horrible idea.
 
2013-04-10 10:57:30 AM  
Nukes for some, small American flags for everybody!
 
2013-04-10 10:57:51 AM  
www.prometeogallery.com
 
2013-04-10 10:58:22 AM  
I don't think MAD is the ideal go-to strategy for dealing with the threat of nuclear war, even if it has worked with the US/USSR and Pakistan/India.
 
2013-04-10 10:58:43 AM  
A visiting South Korean political heavyweight claimed Monday his country should go nuclear to send a political message, especially to China.

Wait what?  Someone needs to brief him on North Korea.  Apparently he's unaware of its existence.
 
2013-04-10 10:59:06 AM  
The best way to de-nulearize the Korean Peninsula is to give them nukes? Does not compute.
 
2013-04-10 10:59:32 AM  
China would be thrilled.

Notgonnahappen
 
2013-04-10 11:00:01 AM  
CAGE MATCH!!!

No Rules, No Limits, No Mercy!!


/and apparently, no brains.
 
2013-04-10 11:00:39 AM  
We will deploy power armor units instead.
 
2013-04-10 11:00:56 AM  
Yeah, because the sh*t isn't real right now. Then China sends updated missles and better nukes to N. Korea. Russia gets involved and supplies them with their shiat, making it possible for N. Korea to nuke Chicago, NY, Washington D.C.
For what? So a bunch of companies like Samsung, Kia and other big money makers can continue to make profits, while North Americans pay the bill..
F*ck South Korea. Take care of your own problems. Stop dragging everyone else into your into your countries squabbles. Got a problem with Un. Take it up with him personally, or haven't you got the back bone to do it.

----And they're are NOT a member of NATO. Why the f*ck should the rest of us get involved in a civil war?
 
2013-04-10 11:01:04 AM  
Yikes!  This is a scary idea.
 
2013-04-10 11:01:32 AM  
Why don't they just use their endless supply of zergs?
 
2013-04-10 11:02:08 AM  

cgraves67: I don't think MAD is the ideal go-to strategy for dealing with the threat of nuclear war, even if it has worked with the US/USSR and Pakistan/India.


As far as I know, no two nuclear powers have ever gone to outright war. Proxies yeah, but nothing huge. I say arm everybody. Evidence suggests that it's the solution less likely to cause war.
 
2013-04-10 11:02:15 AM  
They should buy some from Best Korea.
 
2013-04-10 11:03:22 AM  
Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
 
2013-04-10 11:04:06 AM  
Why the hell not? It's too goddamn late for flowers & diplomacy.
DICKS OUT & WAVING, EVERYONE!
 
2013-04-10 11:04:14 AM  
www.wearysloth.com

Hey. You know what? fark this. This is bullshiat, man. I want a nuke.   Come on, man, you got a bunch of two motherfarking nukes, man. Somebody give me a nuke. Come on, Russian. You got a big farking nuke.  Come on, man. Give me a nuke.
 
2013-04-10 11:05:21 AM  

indarwinsshadow: Yeah, because the sh*t isn't real right now. Then China sends updated missles and better nukes to N. Korea. Russia gets involved and supplies them with their shiat, making it possible for N. Korea to nuke Chicago, NY, Washington D.C.
For what? So a bunch of companies like Samsung, Kia and other big money makers can continue to make profits, while North Americans pay the bill..
F*ck South Korea. Take care of your own problems. Stop dragging everyone else into your into your countries squabbles. Got a problem with Un. Take it up with him personally, or haven't you got the back bone to do it.

----And they're are NOT a member of NATO. Why the f*ck should the rest of us get involved in a civil war?


We'd get involved because we have tens of thousands of troops stationed as a tripwire in case of a North Korean attack. Americans couldn't care less that millions of South Koreans may die in the first hours of an attack, but they'll be screaming for intervention when North Korea rolls over a couple thousand Americans on their way south.
 
2013-04-10 11:05:48 AM  
Well, we do need some hard currency. And they do have Hyundai's. I think a few billion in cash (US, of course) with some Genesis' thrown in, and we got a deal.
 
2013-04-10 11:06:38 AM  
Insipid stupidity in this.
The US will use its nukes in a friendly reply to any Nork overtures.
The Sorks know this.
 
2013-04-10 11:07:24 AM  

indarwinsshadow: ----And they're are NOT a member of NATO. Why the f*ck should the rest of us get involved in a civil war?


upload.wikimedia.org
I always thought that one of the prerequisites of being a member of the NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION was being located somewhat near the Atlantic Ocean?
 
2013-04-10 11:07:39 AM  
OK, but there MUST be a Silo Magazine cap of no more than ten nuclear missiles.
 
2013-04-10 11:08:45 AM  
I dare say Obama's administration has handled this very well so far.  Leaving the door wide open for North Korea to eat it's words and for keeping stability in China and South Korea. And I'm a ... republican... ish.
Giving South Korea nukes will disrupt everything.  It will turn an entire region who was ambivalent into a region of paranoia.
Hey, if SK gets nuked, well... we'll just nuke em right back.  But there is no need for us to hand over our Nukes, which we continually mothball.  The ones we have left, must be kept safe and in our own hands.
 
2013-04-10 11:09:06 AM  
I like this idea.

MAD was a useful policy.
Kept the crazies in check.
 
2013-04-10 11:09:09 AM  
Nona and Tyree agree
 
2013-04-10 11:10:26 AM  

TanSau: I like this idea.

MAD was a useful policy.
Kept the crazies in check.


Pakistan (has nukes) just fired a long range missile today which is pissing off their neighbor India (also has nukes).
 
2013-04-10 11:11:06 AM  

cgraves67: I don't think MAD is the ideal go-to strategy for dealing with the threat of nuclear war, even if it has worked with the US/USSR and Pakistan/India.


It worked between the US and the USSR because of the distance involved. There was really no scenario where either side could wipe out the other before it could retaliate. It won't work for nations sharing a border.
 
2013-04-10 11:11:17 AM  

cgraves67: I don't think MAD is the ideal go-to strategy for dealing with the threat of nuclear war, even if it has worked with the US/USSR and Pakistan/India.

 
2013-04-10 11:11:34 AM  
How many mangoes do they have?
 
2013-04-10 11:12:16 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: cgraves67: I don't think MAD is the ideal go-to strategy for dealing with the threat of nuclear war, even if it has worked with the US/USSR and Pakistan/India.

As far as I know, no two nuclear powers have ever gone to outright war. Proxies yeah, but nothing huge. I say arm everybody. Evidence suggests that it's the solution less likely to cause war.


Just because the nations that have had nuclear weapons have been responsible with them doesn't mean that more unstable countries will follow the same lead. While I agree that the presence of nuclear weapons have tempered responses between India/Pakistan, those are still balanced conflicts. Do you really think nukes would stay under wraps in the Middle East or Africa.

Or worse - smaller nations have weaker security and are easier to manipulate. Do you want Al Qaeda or Sri Lankan rebels to get ahold of one? I believe the old saying is that there is little to fear from a nation that wants MANY nuclear weapons, but much to fear from a nation that just wants one.
 
2013-04-10 11:13:30 AM  
Trying again....

cgraves67: I don't think MAD is the ideal go-to strategy for dealing with the threat of nuclear war, even if it has worked with the US/USSR and Pakistan/India.


i1168.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-10 11:15:13 AM  
We should just send the special forces to go steal all the atoms out of NK's atom bombs while they aren't looking.
 
2013-04-10 11:16:10 AM  
i37.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-10 11:16:25 AM  
We have to stop the spread of communism...

Right?
 
2013-04-10 11:16:50 AM  
Everyone slow down. Is there actually any intel suggesting that the North Koreans are preparing for war? Surely there would be satellite photos of troop movements, factory activity, equipment deployments, etc.

Other than that missile they moved to the eastern side of the country, I'm not aware of them doing anything meaningful in the "going to war" department.
 
2013-04-10 11:17:25 AM  
I agree that placing nukes (whether ours kept under our control, or ours placed under SK control, or simply given to SK) would send a political message to NK and China, I can't help but think that now might not be the best time to send that particular message. I'm also unsure if that's the kind of message we should be sending at all. Of course, I'm no expert on the politics of the region, but I remember my grandpa saying something about not pouring gasoline on a fire and that sentiment seems applicable here.
 
2013-04-10 11:20:45 AM  

Marine1: Everyone slow down. Is there actually any intel suggesting that the North Koreans are preparing for war? Surely there would be satellite photos of troop movements, factory activity, equipment deployments, etc.

Other than that missile they moved to the eastern side of the country, I'm not aware of them doing anything meaningful in the "going to war" department.


No troop movements last I heard.  They're just being loud and obnoxious while possessing nuclear weapons.
 
2013-04-10 11:22:51 AM  
Stationing land-based nukes on ROK soil is irrelevant.  Roughly half our active nuclear arsenal is deployed to the 14 Ohio-class subs.  Presumably two or three of those are in the general vicinity at any given time.  Any one of those subs has roughly 500-800 Hiroshimas worth of firepower, broken into 80 convenient MIRVs.

Re-stationing some B-52 bombs in the ROK would really just be needless escalation.  We wouldn't actually use them in a real nuking scenario.
 
2013-04-10 11:26:32 AM  

James!: Marine1: Everyone slow down. Is there actually any intel suggesting that the North Koreans are preparing for war? Surely there would be satellite photos of troop movements, factory activity, equipment deployments, etc.

Other than that missile they moved to the eastern side of the country, I'm not aware of them doing anything meaningful in the "going to war" department.

No troop movements last I heard.  They're just being loud and obnoxious while possessing nuclear weapons.


Then it's time to call their bluff. Obama should make this known on a televised address to the nation, as Kennedy did with the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'm sick of hearing about this, and we have done more to prepare for action than the Norks have. Kim has painted himself into a corner by cutting off lines of communication and shutting down that industrial complex. He has very little left to threaten with other than direct military action, and I bet that he (and his top real generals) know that an attack on South Korean, Japanese, or American assets would be a suicide mission. The nuclear weapons aren't mounted to anything. Time to bring him back to the negotiation table and shove him in the proverbial gym locker of international relations, where he belongs.
 
2013-04-10 11:28:42 AM  
Sorry, Worst Korea. You must construct additional pylons.
 
2013-04-10 11:37:11 AM  
www.navy.mil

Transportation system for fast same day delivery. When it absolutely positively has to be there on time.
 
2013-04-10 11:39:34 AM  

Marine1: James!: Marine1: Everyone slow down. Is there actually any intel suggesting that the North Koreans are preparing for war? Surely there would be satellite photos of troop movements, factory activity, equipment deployments, etc.

Other than that missile they moved to the eastern side of the country, I'm not aware of them doing anything meaningful in the "going to war" department.

No troop movements last I heard.  They're just being loud and obnoxious while possessing nuclear weapons.

Then it's time to call their bluff. Obama should make this known on a televised address to the nation, as Kennedy did with the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'm sick of hearing about this, and we have done more to prepare for action than the Norks have. Kim has painted himself into a corner by cutting off lines of communication and shutting down that industrial complex. He has very little left to threaten with other than direct military action, and I bet that he (and his top real generals) know that an attack on South Korean, Japanese, or American assets would be a suicide mission. The nuclear weapons aren't mounted to anything. Time to bring him back to the negotiation table and shove him in the proverbial gym locker of international relations, where he belongs.


We are calling their bluff.  The US has made it clear for decades that if NK steps over the line they'll be smoking rubble before the Great Leader can ascend into Heaven on the wing of angels.  Obama doesn't need to make a Kennedy style announcement because Un and the whole world knows what will happen.

Japan is getting nervous since NK has promised to shoot a missile through their airspace.  They may retaliate.
 
2013-04-10 11:41:06 AM  

hdhale: A visiting South Korean political heavyweight claimed Monday his country should go nuclear to send a political message, especially to China.

Wait what?  Someone needs to brief him on North Korea.  Apparently he's unaware of its existence.


This is all about North Korea, but the message is for China.  From the South Korean perspective, things look like this:

- Worst Korea would like the Best Koreans to stop being so bellicose and to get rid of their nuclear weapons program
- Going to war is bad
- Worst Korea otherwise has zero influence on Best Korea
- China has lots of influence on Best Korea
- China would prefer there not to be nukes in Worst Korea

Therefore, the thinking is, that if WK were to have some nukes, China will step in and force BK to cool it down and dismantle their nuclear weapons program.  By borrowing the nukes from the US rather than having their own weapons program (which they could easily afford), they can more credibly agree to get rid of them if BK stands down their posture as well.
 
2013-04-10 11:44:24 AM  

James!: Marine1: James!: Marine1: Everyone slow down. Is there actually any intel suggesting that the North Koreans are preparing for war? Surely there would be satellite photos of troop movements, factory activity, equipment deployments, etc.

Other than that missile they moved to the eastern side of the country, I'm not aware of them doing anything meaningful in the "going to war" department.

No troop movements last I heard.  They're just being loud and obnoxious while possessing nuclear weapons.

Then it's time to call their bluff. Obama should make this known on a televised address to the nation, as Kennedy did with the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'm sick of hearing about this, and we have done more to prepare for action than the Norks have. Kim has painted himself into a corner by cutting off lines of communication and shutting down that industrial complex. He has very little left to threaten with other than direct military action, and I bet that he (and his top real generals) know that an attack on South Korean, Japanese, or American assets would be a suicide mission. The nuclear weapons aren't mounted to anything. Time to bring him back to the negotiation table and shove him in the proverbial gym locker of international relations, where he belongs.

We are calling their bluff.  The US has made it clear for decades that if NK steps over the line they'll be smoking rubble before the Great Leader can ascend into Heaven on the wing of angels.  Obama doesn't need to make a Kennedy style announcement because Un and the whole world knows what will happen.

Japan is getting nervous since NK has promised to shoot a missile through their airspace.  They may retaliate.


I don't think Un knows enough that we know. He's riding on this wave of uncertainty that has hit the American public.
 
2013-04-10 11:46:39 AM  

Luminaro: The best way to de-nulearize the Korean Peninsula is to give them nukes? Does not compute.


An armed society is a polite society.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-10 11:50:51 AM  
We did give Germany some nukes.  They had 75 Pershing I missiles with a dual key arrangement where one key was held by an American officer IIRC.
 
2013-04-10 11:55:12 AM  

Marine1: I don't think Un knows enough that we know. He's riding on this wave of uncertainty that has hit the American public.


Then he's an idiot as well as an attention whore and there is no use getting in a dick waving contest with him.  If anything the US should quietly pull China aside and warn them to put their dog back on its leash.
 
2013-04-10 11:56:36 AM  

OptionC: hdhale: A visiting South Korean political heavyweight claimed Monday his country should go nuclear to send a political message, especially to China.

Wait what?  Someone needs to brief him on North Korea.  Apparently he's unaware of its existence.

This is all about North Korea, but the message is for China.  From the South Korean perspective, things look like this:

- Worst Korea would like the Best Koreans to stop being so bellicose and to get rid of their nuclear weapons program
- Going to war is bad
- Worst Korea otherwise has zero influence on Best Korea
- China has lots of influence on Best Korea
- China would prefer there not to be nukes in Worst Korea

Therefore, the thinking is, that if WK were to have some nukes, China will step in and force BK to cool it down and dismantle their nuclear weapons program.  By borrowing the nukes from the US rather than having their own weapons program (which they could easily afford), they can more credibly agree to get rid of them if BK stands down their posture as well.


Exactly, this isn't about MAD or getting the NKs to back down.  It's about scaring the Chinese into pulling the rug out from under NK to keep US nukes out of the region.  I have my doubts and concerns about this strategy, however.  The biggest concern is that this might backfire and cause the Chinese to INCREASE their support, to counter the US buildup.  In a rational world it might work, but dealing with the Chinese is usually anything but rational.
 
2013-04-10 12:00:02 PM  

Lawnchair: Stationing land-based nukes on ROK soil is irrelevant.  Roughly half our active nuclear arsenal is deployed to the 14 Ohio-class subs.  Presumably two or three of those are in the general vicinity at any given time.  Any one of those subs has roughly 500-800 Hiroshimas worth of firepower, broken into 80 convenient MIRVs.

Re-stationing some B-52 bombs in the ROK would really just be needless escalation.  We wouldn't actually use them in a real nuking scenario.


Not to mention the fact that it would also piss off every other nuclear power in range. Bad idea.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report