North Korea detonates nuke!

15357 said:
When I first heard this news, everything was disorganized. Someone told me that Seoul got nuked, while others told me that the North was attacking. I even got text message SMS alerts that the North had crossed the border. :frown: bleh.
Click to expand...

Some NK soldiers did cross into the DMZ a little while before the bomb went off. SK soldiers shot at them and they retreated though.. a bit tense
 
QFT

dr.evil_one_miliion_dollars.jpg
 
The President of Asia has condemned this test as provocative and invalid.

1155254556645fj0.jpg
 
Nukes cause too much death and destruction for anyone to want to start a war with them due to fear of reciprication. Except a psycho. Uh-oh...
 
I don't get it. Does he want to make sure his regime lasts? If so using nukes is going to do just the opposite. As soon as he fires one at a country he will be off the map.
He's crazy!
 
Asus said:
I don't get it. Does he want to make sure his regime lasts? If so using nukes is going to do just the opposite. As soon as he fires one at a country he will be off the map.
He's crazy!
Click to expand...
I think he's just saying 'Hey, look ... I've got nukes, so stay the **** away, OK?' (in the general direction of america)

If Saddam had nukes, do you think America would have even considered removing him from power? Would they ****... Dubya would be having dinner at his house and shaking his blood-stained hand.

If I had a country, i'd want nukes too. If you ain't got nukes, it's just an open invitation for Dubya to walk in and start stealing oil.
 
Sam-2k said:
I have an image of numbers tied to table and forced to watch the nuke be tested as Kim Jong Il sits in a big chair laughing and stroking a cat. This is before numbers escapes and saves the world though. Double-oh seven? How about one five oh three seven!
Click to expand...
Genius :)

As for the serious news, thems bad.
 
15357 said:
Very.
Click to expand...
Very what?

Kim Jong is an absolute madman. He actually has weapons of mass destruction, and what is America doing about him? Are they invading, and removing these WMDs? No, they're imposing sanctions. Oooooh no, not the scary sanctions!

America invaded Iraq on the mere hunch that saddam had nukes. Well, that's what they tell people. In reality, they knew he didnt. It would be absolute madness to even try invade a country with nuclear capability - the last line of defence is to launch everything you've got. All they wanted was to put their puppets in power - and they've succeeded - wether people like it or not. Same deal with Afghanistan. If it's got oil, America wants it. Who cares about nukes? America sure as hell doesnt.
 
Check the movie Dr.Strangelove
or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
 
I think he's just saying 'Hey, look ... I've got nukes, so stay the **** away, OK?' (in the general direction of america)

If Saddam had nukes, do you think America would have even considered removing him from power? Would they ****... Dubya would be having dinner at his house and shaking his blood-stained hand.

If I had a country, i'd want nukes too. If you ain't got nukes, it's just an open invitation for Dubya to walk in and start stealing oil.
Click to expand...

You'd want nuclear weapons to make the same mistake everyones been making. If you don't use Nuclear Weapons, nethire will they. Then you can fight them without that danger.
 
No oil in NK, fool. They have enough of an army and arsenal to fight back, too.
Click to expand...

Fight back, yes. But win? With numbers on our team as an Engineer, they WONT EVER ... capture a single flag.
 
North Korea needs to take a chill pill and start buying food and trading with the capitalist nations. Their country is dying, and it appears kim jong wants to go down with it.
 
Pyongyang is the coolest word ever. I still remember playing the Korean campaign in Empire Earth 2 and laughing at that city. So funny.
But
Nuke+(Anything not USA)=MOTHER******* SNAKES!
 
Oh **** the sanctions. All they're doing is aggravate the North more and more.

Military action, god damnit.
 
Numbers would you be willing to risk a nuclear war with your neighbour by taking military action?
 
They've no method of delivery of a nuke that would affect us. Their nuclear bombs are too big for howitzers or even missiles, and their bomber/fighters suck. We have a extremely better Air Force, and with US support, and with us supporting the US, we would rather be unstoppable. We have the 4th greatest army on the planet, in terms of numbers and tech, and the US has the best military in the world.

If we act soon, before he gets prepared, we end this war, finally. After 56 years, we get to destroy our hated enemy.
 
Suppose you and/or the US take action (which is unlikely for the US because they have their hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan), and NK would surrender. What would be the next step?
 
Please elaborate. In your opinion, should there be any NK survivors, and if so, what would you do with them?
 
D:

Of COURSE! The only guy we're against is the NK military as well as Kim Jong-Il. We start rebuilding and cleaning up North Korea, and help those poor northerners out.

And take their remaining nukes. :p
 
This will sound strange, but I'm glad to hear that your hatred is towards their views and actions, not their existence in itself.
 
Generally a hate towards a country is not always towards its people but rather the leaders and figureheads personal ideals and access resources. The population of a country are just innocent bystanders who are discriminated against just becasue of what the countries leader thinks and does.

I mean, take Nazi germany for instance. Because of Hilter, some people consider the whole German population to be like him, when in actual fact they arn't. Even back in 1945 only an extremely small percentage of the German populatoin agreed with Hitlers views... and yeah...

I'll stop talking now before I embarass myself.
 
It's sort of weird to have someone who acts as though he were straight out of a wartime fiction novel in our midst.
 
I just read the newspapers:

Front page: "NORTH KOREA TESTS NUKE, EMERGENCY ALERTNESS"

"A Disastor created by our liberal 'sunshine policy' advocates"

Second page: "How to minimize injuries from radiological weapons" and a detailed drawing of what to do.


And I just went outside, and people are like: "I'm leaving.... D:" and "I should have paid more attention back in the military." and "My uncle got called back to the frontlines, and he was off duty!"

D: D: D:

Those poor guys at the frontlines must be shaken up and tense alot by now...
 
15357 said:
Oh **** the sanctions. All they're doing is aggravate the North more and more.

Military action, god damnit.
Click to expand...

Tr0n posted this in a thread over in politics, but I think its worth repeating here.

Red Alert: North Korea -- Is There a Military Solution?
Summary

Whatever the political realities may seem to dictate after a North Korean nuclear test, an overt military strike -- even one limited to cruise missiles -- is not in the cards. The consequences of even the most restrained attack could be devastating.

Analysis

The reported detonation of a nuclear device by North Korea on Oct. 9 raises the question of potential military action against North Korea. The rationale for such a strike would be simple. North Korea, given its rhetoric, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Therefore, an attack to deny them the facilities with which to convert their device into a weapon and deploy it is essential. If such an attack were to take place, it is assumed, the United States would play the dominant or even sole role.

This scenario assumes that North Korea is as aggressive as its rhetoric.

But what about North Korea's well-armed neighbors -- Russia, China, South Korea, Japan? Would they not be willing to assume the major burden of an attack against North Korea? Is the United States really willing to go it alone, even while engaged in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Leaving these obvious political questions aside for the moment, let's reverse the issue by posing it in military terms: What would a U.S. strike against North Korea look like?

The USS Kitty Hawk is currently sitting in port at Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan. The USS Enterprise is operating in the Arabian Sea, while the Nimitz and the Stennis are conducting exercises off the coast of California. All are an ocean away, and none is less than a week's transit from the region. Nevertheless, naval cruise missiles are readily available, as are long-range strikes by B-2A Spirit stealth bombers and B-52H Stratofortresses and B-1B Lancers currently supporting NATO operations in Afghanistan out of Diego Garcia. A more robust strike package would take longer to deploy.

When U.S. military planners have nightmares, they have nightmares about war with North Korea. Even the idea of limited strikes against the isolated nation is fraught with potential escalations. The problem is the mission. A limited attack against nuclear facilities might destabilize North Korea or lead North Korea to the conclusion that the United States would intend regime change.

Regime preservation is the entire point of its nuclear capability. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that Kim Jong-Il and his advisors -- or other factions --might construe even the most limited military strikes against targets directly related to missile development or a nuclear program as an act threatening the regime, and therefore one that necessitates a fierce response. Regime survival could very easily entail a full, unlimited reprisal by the Korean People's Army (KPA) to any military strike whatsoever on North Korean soil.

North Korea has some 10,000 fortified artillery pieces trained on Seoul. It is essential to understand that South Korea's capital city, a major population center and the industrial heartland of South Korea, is within range of conventional artillery. The United States has been moving its forces out of range of these guns, but the South Koreans cannot move their capital.

Add to this the fact that North Korea has more than 100 No-Dong missiles that can reach deep into South Korea, as well as to Japan, and we can see that the possibility for retaliation is very real. Although the No-Dong has not always been the most reliable weapon, just the possibility of dozens of strikes against U.S. forces in Korea and other cities in Korea and Japan presents a daunting scenario.

North Korea has cultivated a reputation for unpredictability. Although it has been fairly conservative in its actions compared to its rhetoric, the fact is that no one can predict North Korea's response to strikes against its nuclear facilities. And with Seoul at risk -- a city of 20 million people -- the ability to take risks is limited.

The United States must assume, for the sake of planning, that U.S. airstrikes would be followed by massed artillery fire on Seoul. Now, massed artillery is itself not immune to countermeasures. But North Korea's artillery lies deep inside caves and fortifications all along the western section of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). An air campaign against these guns would take a long time, during which enormous damage would be done to Seoul and the South Korean economy -- perhaps on the order of several hundred thousand high-explosive rounds per hour. Even using tactical nuclear weapons against this artillery would pose serious threats to Seoul. The radiation from even low-yield weapons could force the evacuation of the city.

The option of moving north into the North Korean defensive belt is an option, but an enormously costly one. North Korea has a huge army and, on the defensive, it can be formidable. Fifty years of concerted military fortification would make Hezbollah's preparations in southern Lebanon look like child's play. Moving U.S. and South Korean armor into this defensive belt could break it, but only with substantial casualties and without the certainty of success. A massive stalemate along the DMZ, if it developed, would work in favor of the larger, defensive force.

Moreover, the North Koreans would have the option of moving south. Now, in U.S. thinking, this is the ideal scenario. The North Korean force on the move, outside of its fortifications, would be vulnerable to U.S. and South Korean airstrikes and superior ground maneuver and fire capabilities. In most war games, the defeat of North Korea requires the KPA to move south, exposing itself to counterstrikes.

However, the same war-gaming has also supposed at least 30 days for the activation and mobilization of U.S. forces for a counterattack. U.S. and South Korean forces would maintain an elastic defense against the North; as in the first war, forces would be rushed into the region, stabilizing the front, and then a counterattack would develop, breaking the North Korean army and allowing a move north.

There are three problems with this strategy. The first is that the elastic strategy would inevitably lead to the fall of Seoul and, if the 1950 model were a guide, a much deeper withdrawal along the Korean Peninsula. Second, the ability of the U.S. Army to deploy substantial forces to Korea within a 30-day window is highly dubious. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom both required much longer periods of time.

Finally, the U.S. Army is already fighting two major ground wars and is stretched to the breaking point. The rotation schedule is now so tight that units are already spending more time in Iraq than they are home between rotations. The idea that the U.S. Army has a multidivisional force available for deployment in South Korea would require a national mobilization not seen since the last Korean War.

It comes down to this: If the United States strikes at North Korea's nuclear capabilities, it does so placing a bet. And that bet is that North Korea will not respond. That might be true, but if it is not true, it poses a battlefield problem to which neither South Korea nor the United States will be able to respond. In one scenario, the North Koreans bombard Seoul and the United States makes a doomed attempt at shutting down the massive artillery barrage. By the time the guns are silenced -- even in the best-case scenarios -- Seoul will be a mess. In another scenario, the North Korean army executes an offensive of even minimal competence, which costs South Korea its capital and industrial heartland. The third is a guerrilla onslaught from the elite of the North Korean Army, deployed by mini-subs and tunnels under the DMZ. The guerrillas pour into the south and wreak havoc on U.S. military installations.

That is how a U.S. strike -- and its outcome -- might look. Now, what about the Chinese and Russians? They are, of course, not likely to support such a U.S. attack (and could even supply North Korea in an extended war). Add in the fact that South Korea would not be willing to risk destroying Seoul and you arrive at a situation where even a U.S. nuclear strike against nuclear and non-nuclear targets would pose an unacceptable threat to South Korea.

There are two advantages the United States has. The first is time. There is a huge difference between a nuclear device and a deployable nuclear weapon. The latter has to be shaped into a small, rugged package able to be launched on a missile or dropped from a plane. Causing atomic fission is not the same as having a weapon.

The second advantage is distance. The United States is safe and far away from North Korea. Four other powers -- Russia, China, South Korea and Japan -- have much more to fear from North Korea than the United States does. The United States will always act unilaterally if it feels that it has no other way to protect its national interest. As it is, however, U.S. national interest is not at stake.

South Korea faces nothing less than national destruction in an all-out war. South Korea knows this and it will vigorously oppose any overt military action. Nor does China profit from a destabilized North Korea and a heavy-handed U.S. military move in its backyard. Nevertheless, if North Korea is a threat, it is first a threat to its immediate neighbors, one or more of whom can deal with North Korea.

In the end, North Korea wants regime survival. In the end, allowing the North Koran regime to survive is something that has been acceptable for over half a century. When you play out the options, the acquisition of a nuclear device -- especially one neither robust nor deployable -- does not, by itself, compel the United States to act, nor does it give the United States a militarily satisfactory option. The most important issue is the transfer of North Korean nuclear technology to other countries and groups. That is something the six-party talk participants have an equal interest in and might have the leverage to prevent.

Every situation does not have a satisfactory military solution. This seems to be one of them.
Click to expand...

So yeah, military action is a great idea if you feel like losing your capital city (which will be an economic disaster for decades to come). Not to mention the kind of casualties that will entail.
 
gick said:
Tr0n posted this in a thread over in politics, but I think its worth repeating here.



So yeah, military action is a great idea if you feel like losing your capital city (which will be an economic disaster for decades to come). Not to mention the kind of casualties that will entail.
Click to expand...

If we concentrate at first on the complete destruction of their artillery, we can be able to minimize the damage done to us, and if we take out Kim jong-il, the snake loses its head.

The thing is, if the US attacks, we have to attack, wether we like it or not. That comes agreed with the current occupation.
 
15357 said:
I just read the newspapers:

Front page: "NORTH KOREA TESTS NUKE, EMERGENCY ALERTNESS"

"A Disastor created by our liberal 'sunshine policy' advocates"

Second page: "How to minimize injuries from radiological weapons" and a detailed drawing of what to do.


And I just went outside, and people are like: "I'm leaving.... D:" and "I should have paid more attention back in the military." and "My uncle got called back to the frontlines, and he was off duty!"

D: D: D:

Those poor guys at the frontlines must be shaken up and tense alot by now...
Click to expand...

Why are you guys over there treating this like an attack is imminent?

I mean....buff up security maybe, but I'm picturing you guys running around like chickens with your heads cut off looking through telescopes at the DMZ.
 
gick said:
So yeah, military action is a great idea if you feel like losing your capital city (which will be an economic disaster for decades to come). Not to mention the kind of casualties that will entail.
Click to expand...

Haha! On the point of taking out capitals... I'm sure that taking out Australia's capital would have no affect on the economy... I mean... What does Canberra do anyway? :LOL:
 
Sort of. It does contain most of the federal government of Australia. But then again it's not a very centralised place as such.

Anyway. Numbers. How safe would you consider yourself right now at this very moment? Just curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hectic Glenn
Valve and Perfect World Announce 'Steam China'
Replies
0
Views
20K
Hectic Glenn
Hectic Glenn
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
12K
Barnz
B
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Back
Top