View Full Version : North Korea Possible War?
Disturbed
09-Mar-09, 17:42
North Korea put its troops on alert and cut the last hotline to Seoul yesterday, as the United States and South Korean militaries began joint manoeuvres.
The Communist regime warned that even the slightest provocation could trigger war, and said that would include any attempt to interfere with its impending launch of a satellite into orbit.
The North also indicated it was pushing ahead with plans to fire a communications satellite into space, a provocative launch neighboring governments believe could be a cover for a missile test.
Shooting our satellite for peaceful purposes will precisely mean a war," North Korea's military said. Any interception attempt would draw "a just, retaliatory strike", it said.
"The danger of a military conflict is further increasing than ever before on the Korean Peninsula because of the sabre rattling which involves armed forces huge enough to fight a war," the North's news agency warned as Pyongyang put its armed forces on stand-by for combat.
The warning came as U.S. and South Korean troops kicked off their annual war games across the South, exercises the North has condemned as preparation for an invasion. Pyongyang last week threatened South Korean passenger planes flying near its airspace during the drills.
Read The Rest of these two Articles to find out more about this unfolding Story.
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Nations-on-a--knifeedge.5054135.jp
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29588251/
Debate on this topic!
What are your thoughts on this? Any questions?
Disturbed
09-Mar-09, 17:50
Yeah why would they be so deffenive over just a satellite and go to war over a satellite
The Gremlins
09-Mar-09, 18:16
Okay, let's have a heart to heart.
In about two to three weeks, there will be promotions placed on some other forums and communities that bring in a whole new breed of people.
We wanted to make sure the Pandemic people were here first so that, frankly, they didn't get slaughtered when the others come (should they respond to the promos).
What we're looking at is a target audience of a bit over 1 million people in communities we have some very strong ties to historically. We probably will not get all that many responses and new members, but we might. It's hard to say how this kind of thing is going to go.
Regardless of how many we actually get though, with a target pool that deep, we're going to make a few hits.
These communities are not made up of nice people. They are good people, but they are not nice people. There is a difference.
Their expectations of a post are substantially higher than I think many here are used to.
If you are going to post a thread for discussion, have some content to it.
Describe the situation in detail. Link to at least one but preferably more than one source on the topic. Make it a credible source. The Drudge Report is not a credible source. The ELF web site is not a credible source. BBC is a credible source. NPR is a credible source. Any legitimate news wire is a credible source.
Just because it appears on Google or Yahoo news pages doesn't mean it is credible. Find out where they got it.
Wikipedia is not a credible source. Cope.
Once you have a good source and you can describe the situation, make your post.
Then include your thoughts on the issue and some statements as to why you gave a damn enough to post about it in the first place.
"Purple tastes yummy. Discuss."
This is not a thread. This is an invitation to a gang-bang and you're offering to be the party favor.
"Is this thread informative, funny, or worthy of discussion? Did I add my opinion in a clear and understandable way that has impact and adds something to it?"
If yes, post. If no, don't.
"Did my reply add to the topic and contribute something? Did I perhaps make someone think a little bit more about the thing being discussed? If I can't do that, am I at least hilarious to make up for it?"
If yes, reply. If no, don't.
If your opening post to a thread is smaller than the largest signature on this board (unless it's an especially concise and pithy yet still profound comment), you're going to get railed with a barbed dildo.
While this is fun for us to watch, it's not so much fun to clean up. Think of The Gremlins!
PS: I recommend taking the idea of this thread and remaking it with some effort and thought. It's a great thread idea, and would be a great conversation - if there were actually anything present to discuss.
I have a quick question to that The Gremlins. If we wish to post "Something, discuss" is it okay to do so in the Interesting and Random Crap thread, since then we won't be making a whole new thread for it? Just checking for future reference.
The Gremlins
09-Mar-09, 22:39
A much better revision of the first post.
Now add your thoughts to it.
Something about this article got your imagination going. What was it? Do you have a solution? Perhaps you have an opinion on it. Do you have a question?
Whatever it is that made you decide you wanted to hear other people's thoughts on the matter is also something you're thinking about. Express it.
Something about this article made you curious and want to talk about it - so talk about it in your own words with your own viewpoints.
When you do, others will respond in kind.
I have a quick question to that The Gremlins. If we wish to post "Something, discuss" is it okay to do so in the Interesting and Random Crap thread, since then we won't be making a whole new thread for it? Just checking for future reference.
Well, the whole "Topic, discuss" thing is the core issue. It's a matter of the nature of the post.
"This post is here to take space" versus "This post was worth writing and is worth you reading it. I have thought and an opinion, or questions and seek insight, and here is what I have come to accomplish/learn/share/find out."
When someone is asking about something, they usually want to talk about it. If you want to talk about it - say something.
It's not like suddenly seeing "Oranges, discuss" will make someone talk about oranges. If they had thoughts on oranges that they wanted to share, they would have shared them already. If you want to hear people's thoughts on oranges, explain why and explain your own thoughts.
If it's worth posting, make it worth reading and responding to. Otherwise, why post it?
A much better revision of the first post.
Now add your thoughts to it.
Something about this article got your imagination going. What was it? Do you have a solution? Perhaps you have an opinion on it. Do you have a question?
Whatever it is that made you decide you wanted to hear other people's thoughts on the matter is also something you're thinking about. Express it.
Something about this article made you curious and want to talk about it - so talk about it in your own words with your own viewpoints.
When you do, others will respond in kind.
Well, the whole "Topic, discuss" thing is the core issue. It's a matter of the nature of the post.
"This post is here to take space" versus "This post was worth writing and is worth you reading it. I have thought and an opinion, or questions and seek insight, and here is what I have come to accomplish/learn/share/find out."
When someone is asking about something, they usually want to talk about it. If you want to talk about it - say something.
It's not like suddenly seeing "Oranges, discuss" will make someone talk about oranges. If they had thoughts on oranges that they wanted to share, they would have shared them already. If you want to hear people's thoughts on oranges, explain why and explain your own thoughts.
If it's worth posting, make it worth reading and responding to. Otherwise, why post it?
I completely understand, I was just making sure. Thanks for the further details.
The Gremlins
09-Mar-09, 22:50
I also just broke a bunch of crap, and it seems to have started in this thread with one of the commands I was working with.
If you guys see anything screwy let me know.
I also just broke a bunch of crap, and it seems to have started in this thread with one of the commands I was working with.
If you guys see anything screwy let me know.
For some reason when I quoted you quoting me It didn't show it in my post. It showed what you said, but it didn't show my quote inside of it. But I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing you're looking for.
The Gremlins
09-Mar-09, 22:57
For some reason when I quoted you quoting me It didn't show it in my post. It showed what you said, but it didn't show my quote inside of it. But I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing you're looking for.
Yeah, that's what I was looking for. I got it fixed now - if it all seems in order to you now.
Does it?
Yeah, that's what I was looking for. I got it fixed now - if it all seems in order to you now.
Does it?
As far as I can tell it's all good. Other than my quote still doesn't show up in your quote, but that might be the way the forum works, I'm not sure.
The Gremlins
09-Mar-09, 23:09
For some reason when I quoted you quoting me It didn't show it in my post. It showed what you said, but it didn't show my quote inside of it. But I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing you're looking for.
Test
FakeEdit: Yeah, that's how it works.
Thanks, Crash.
War with the NK? Funny. There military sucks to the level of a third-world African country. Hell there still useing T-34s. SK would wipe the floor with them if they tried to throw there power around.
Disturbed
10-Mar-09, 20:27
War with the NK? Funny. There military sucks to the level of a third-world African country. Hell there still useing T-34s. SK would wipe the floor with them if they tried to throw there power around.
but what if they didn't use a ground or air attack how about this
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0803/korea_missile_0328.jpg
Nuclear Missiles.
but what if they didn't use a ground or air attack how about this
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0803/korea_missile_0328.jpg
Nuclear Missiles.
They haven't weaponized there nukes yet. Plus they only have short ranged ICBMs. If they were that stupid to unleash atomic arms, we could turn there backyard into a radioactive playground.
Disturbed
12-Mar-09, 15:34
They haven't weaponized there nukes yet. Plus they only have short ranged ICBMs. If they were that stupid to unleash atomic arms, we could turn there backyard into a radioactive playground.
There just getting Obama all hyped up on other stuff, besides the American economy.
Chunky Monkey
12-Mar-09, 17:43
They haven't weaponized there nukes yet. Plus they only have short ranged ICBMs. If they were that stupid to unleash atomic arms, we could turn there backyard into a radioactive playground.
From what I know, they cant hit anything farther away than japan, and not even all of that. Japan is our bestest buddies since WW2 ended so if NK messes with anyone in thier range except china well kick thier ass.
From what I know, they cant hit anything farther away than japan, and not even all of that. Japan is our bestest buddies since WW2 ended so if NK messes with anyone in thier range except china well kick thier ass.
Exactly.
From what I know, they cant hit anything farther away than japan, and not even all of that.
That's the missile's airborn range. Is it possible to fire the missile from someplace other than North Korea at North Korea's discretion?
We have nuclear submarines, destroyers, battleships, and so on.
The range of a missile just means that's how far it can fly - not where it has to be launched from.
With that in mind, does it change any of the perceptions you guys have?
AiRsTrIkE
14-Mar-09, 10:52
That's the missile's airborn range. Is it possible to fire the missile from someplace other than North Korea at North Korea's discretion?
We have nuclear submarines, destroyers, battleships, and so on.
The range of a missile just means that's how far it can fly - not where it has to be launched from.
With that in mind, does it change any of the perceptions you guys have?
Yes. Now I'm sure we're screwed.
That's the missile's airborn range. Is it possible to fire the missile from someplace other than North Korea at North Korea's discretion?
We have nuclear submarines, destroyers, battleships, and so on.
The range of a missile just means that's how far it can fly - not where it has to be launched from.
With that in mind, does it change any of the perceptions you guys have?
Not really. Were do you suppose North Korea can launch those rockets, other than there own land? They dont have any SLBMs, or the right sub to launch them. And no other country is gonna let the NK station nukes in there backyard. Maybe Iran would, but thats a long shot.
Not really. Were do you suppose North Korea can launch those rockets, other than there own land? They dont have any SLBMs, or the right sub to launch them. And no other country is gonna let the NK station nukes in there backyard. Maybe Iran would, but thats a long shot.
Are you under the impression that because the warhead is on a missile traditionally that this is where it has to be?
Are you under the impression that they can't craft a boat that is disguised as a cruise liner, a tourist boat, a fishing boat, or a cargo boat and launch a missile from it?
Are you under the impression that it has to be on a missile at all? A nuclear weapon is the warhead on top of a missile - not the missile itself. It's like any other warhead. It can be taken off of the top of the missile. In fact, it is placed on the missile because that's where someone wants it, not because that's where it has to be.
Are you under the impression that a nation has to give permission for another nation to put anything in their nation?
These are nuclear weapons. They're not gigantic, towering structures that we can see from miles away. The warhead itself is smaller than a person in most cases, and they can be made to be even smaller.
They can be placed on anything. They can be detonated without a missile to carry it. All someone would have to do is get it where they want it by whatever means they choose.
We choose to put most of our nuclear weapons on missiles. "Most" being the key word. Even all of our nukes are not attached to missiles.
What is there that will stop a nation - not just North Korea, but any nation - from bringing a nuclear weapon to near our coast on a boat disguised as a cargo ship?
What would stop a nation from bringing a nuclear missile into the United States itself and driving it in the back of a UHaul (as if it would take a vehicle that big to begin with) to whatever part of the country they wanted?
No one has to "let" North Korea do anything. It's not that hard and it happens all the time. We see drugs, cars, boats, people, and various other items all the time that got into our country that aren't supposed to be here. We're better about it than most countries too.
You seem to be asserting that a nation has to tell someone what they're doing, and that the nuclear device must be attached to a large, clearly marked missile and that it's something everyone can see and recognize - and that it can't be moved or sneaked into an area.
This is not the case.
This is not the case at all.
Death Ray Commander
14-Mar-09, 14:18
What is there that will stop a nation - not just North Korea, but any nation - from bringing a nuclear weapon to near our coast on a boat disguised as a cargo ship?
http://www.vaihtopelit.net/catalog/images/PS2_mercenaries.jpg
Chunky Monkey
14-Mar-09, 14:29
Are you under the impression that because the warhead is on a missile traditionally that this is where it has to be?
Are you under the impression that they can't craft a boat that is disguised as a cruise liner, a tourist boat, a fishing boat, or a cargo boat and launch a missile from it?
Are you under the impression that it has to be on a missile at all? A nuclear weapon is the warhead on top of a missile - not the missile itself. It's like any other warhead. It can be taken off of the top of the missile. In fact, it is placed on the missile because that's where someone wants it, not because that's where it has to be.
Are you under the impression that a nation has to give permission for another nation to put anything in their nation?
These are nuclear weapons. They're not gigantic, towering structures that we can see from miles away. The warhead itself is smaller than a person in most cases, and they can be made to be even smaller.
They can be placed on anything. They can be detonated without a missile to carry it. All someone would have to do is get it where they want it by whatever means they choose.
We choose to put most of our nuclear weapons on missiles. "Most" being the key word. Even all of our nukes are not attached to missiles.
What is there that will stop a nation - not just North Korea, but any nation - from bringing a nuclear weapon to near our coast on a boat disguised as a cargo ship?
What would stop a nation from bringing a nuclear missile into the United States itself and driving it in the back of a UHaul (as if it would take a vehicle that big to begin with) to whatever part of the country they wanted?
No one has to "let" North Korea do anything. It's not that hard and it happens all the time. We see drugs, cars, boats, people, and various other items all the time that got into our country that aren't supposed to be here. We're better about it than most countries too.
You seem to be asserting that a nation has to tell someone what they're doing, and that the nuclear device must be attached to a large, clearly marked missile and that it's something everyone can see and recognize - and that it can't be moved or sneaked into an area.
This is not the case.
This is not the case at all.
But it would be black and white, I think wed notice.
You folks seem to be missing a very important point here.
NK isn't the one we need to worry about. NK is just a puppet country who's strings are being pulled by Russia. Russia is a communist entity as is China.
If NK was the only entity that we needed to worry about then all would be well. But do we really want to piss off China and Russia? They have the big toys that go boom too you know.
AiRsTrIkE
27-Mar-09, 12:51
What is there that will stop a nation - not just North Korea, but any nation - from bringing a nuclear weapon to near our coast on a boat disguised as a cargo ship?
Trade and Travel Embargos, at least in the case of North Korea. In the case of other countries or terrorist cells, it would be considerably more complicated. Granted, the WMD has little chance of actually leaving the port, a large-scale detonation at a large port like the Port of Los Angeles would be arguably more catastrophic than if that weapon had been detonated in an urban centre. The loss of our most important port would mean losses in terms of billions of dollars, not to mention other countries losses, consumer good sortages, ect. In short, it would be a mess.
http://www.vaihtopelit.net/catalog/images/PS2_mercenaries.jpg
You win. You just...win.
You are officially a god. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XCtZmhWXLM)
http://www.vaihtopelit.net/catalog/images/PS2_mercenaries.jpg
I'll be honest. Every time I hear more news about this whole North Korea thing - whether it be testing nuclear devices, the US being ready to react, or just photos of the Friendship Bridge or Pyongyang - I always get a bit nostalgic for the good ol' days.
It's not bad at all that I like the recent turn of events with North Korea because it brings on happy memories of a video game, is it?
Turd Ferguson
02-Jun-09, 09:25
North Korea in my opinion would not be stupid enough to attack anyone, especially the US, with nuclear arms. They might get one or two detonated, but then their whole country will be glowing for the next 10,000 years.
The Gremlins
02-Jun-09, 10:50
North Korea in my opinion would not be stupid enough to attack anyone, especially the US, with nuclear arms. They might get one or two detonated, but then their whole country will be glowing for the next 10,000 years.
There's some argument as to whether or not the North Korean government would mind that or not.
Disturbed
17-Jun-09, 22:58
North Korea in my opinion would not be stupid enough to attack anyone, especially the US, with nuclear arms. They might get one or two detonated, but then their whole country will be glowing for the next 10,000 years.
Then that would piss China off cause part of their country would be glowing too and so China launches 10 of their missiles and sneaks in 5 in the large cities... think about that! Nuclear winter as we know it, hey even Russia might get involved since there so close to NK's boarders too. Nuclear Weapons arn't the thing to just toss around you know. Not Cold war... cold world.
Speyspider's Mom
06-Aug-09, 20:35
That's the missile's airborn range. Is it possible to fire the missile from someplace other than North Korea at North Korea's discretion?
We have nuclear submarines, destroyers, battleships, and so on.
The range of a missile just means that's how far it can fly - not where it has to be launched from.
With that in mind, does it change any of the perceptions you guys have?
http://mundobesteirol.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/fuuuuuu.jpg
I say we shoot it down with futuristic lazors.
If North Korea tries to attack anyone, they'll be fucked. not even China is on their side any more, so they'd just get raped from all angles, and Kim Jong Il can go cry in his noodles.
MerX Back 91
06-Feb-10, 11:43
I consider terrorsits more of a threat than NK. They just have some shiny new toys that they want everyone to be jealous of. Not saying they wouldn't use their big shiny things that go boom, they just know there would be no more North Korea if they do.Think about it. What would China, Russia, South Korea, The US, and like almost every other military force do to them if tthey even TRIED to fuck with nukes. They might dent a country's wallet and take out 0.00042% of a population, but they would be gone. 100% gone.
Even...say they have nukes on boats bound all over the world. If they detonate in ports, we have air mail waiting for them. We'd have half of our damn army in North Korea within a week. China probably wouldn't like them fucking with their ports either. Russia would invade just for the hell of it. We are allies with South Korea... Just no.
They would have their asses handed to them within a year. A country's military prowess is always limited by population. They only have so many. They would be fucked by superpowers.
If NK launched nukes our way, here's the scenario.
NK Nukes Launch, NORAD detects and shoots them down.
US and SK butt fuck NK into a pile of rubble with MOABs and airstrikes, then take it over and the US gives the land to SK, done.
If NK launched nukes our way, here's the scenario.
NK Nukes Launch, NORAD detects and shoots them down.
US and SK butt fuck NK into a pile of rubble with MOABs and airstrikes, then take it over and the US gives the land to SK, done.
Really?
And China is just going to sit there and knit doilies while all this ass kicking is going on?
FYI...China would be a bad nation to piss off.
Jesse the Great Tsar
10-Feb-10, 17:31
You folks seem to be missing a very important point here.
NK isn't the one we need to worry about. NK is just a puppet country who's strings are being pulled by Russia. Russia is a communist entity as is China.
If NK was the only entity that we needed to worry about then all would be well. But do we really want to piss off China and Russia? They have the big toys that go boom too you know.
We still living in the Cold War? Russia is not communist.
Really?
And China is just going to sit there and knit doilies while all this ass kicking is going on?
FYI...China would be a bad nation to piss off.
China has no use or bother for North Korea. They don't need to be involved with a piss-ant shitty communist country when they're trying to soften their world image.
We still living in the Cold War? Russia is not communist.
Yeah, I musta been drunk when I posted that. I was meaning China.
Yeah, Russia is your friendly Democracy now!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.