N. Korea - "War at any moment"

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Gelfin
You misunderstand me. I don't deny that there is such a thing as a nuclear weapon which is modified to produce a higher yield of neutrons relative to its destructive force, but the reality of this weapon does not jibe with the fanciful popular notion of a bomb that turns people into "shadows on the wall" and cause practically no material destruction.

The weapon still causes substantial destruction. That destruction is only "small" compared to a full-scale standard atomic blast. And the people who are outside the direct blast radius will not be neatly vaporized. They will die at varying rates, and with varying degrees of horribleness, depending on their distance from ground zero, due to intense radiation exposure.

This is not, as people want to believe, a weapon whose effects can be covered up with a nice coat of paint.

To be honest, I've never been sure why killing thousands of people and leaving their infrastructure largely intact is considered more civilized than killing thousands of people the old-fashioned way.

My dad calls it the capitalist bomb.

You're right, though, people do get the impression that it's a neat little nuke-lite, but it's still a tactical nuke that has at least a kiloton of explosive power, plus the "shadows" thing is a bit fanciful (I was using it sarcastically), as the majority of deaths would take place over several weeks or months from radiation poisoning.

When it comes down to it, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

 

[Gelfin]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
(...) it's still a tactical nuke that has at least a kiloton of explosive power (...)

And just for reference, the Massive Ordinance Air Burst (MOAB) bombs we recently deployed in Iraq, the largest conventional explosives we've ever produced, contain 18,000 pounds of tritonal explosive. A pound of tritonal is equivalent to 1.18 pounds of TNT, making the effective yield of a MOAB a mere 0.01062 kilotons, and this is a bomb the military expected to literally register on the richter scale.

I just wanted to mention, because at the same time people associate nuclear weapons with total destruction, I don't think most people can really appreciate just how enormously powerful even the smallest nuclear blast would be.

 

[Vlade]

Re: Axis of Evil

Originally posted by mcrain
Anyone else but me remember George W. calling N. Korea a member of an axis of evil?

Along with Iraq, Al Queida, and my favorite West Niles disease.

 

[bokdol]

"Flake said North Korea's claim would strengthen the hand of any U.S. officials who believe the North has no intention of giving up the nuclear card, and that a change of government in Pyongyang is the only way to resolve the crisis "

this was in netscapes cnn article. please note the last bolded statement. and how did we change the government in iraq?

 

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by bokdol
"Flake said North Korea's claim would strengthen the hand of any U.S. officials who believe the North has no intention of giving up the nuclear card, and that a change of government in Pyongyang is the only way to resolve the crisis "

this was in netscapes cnn article. please note the last bolded statement. and how did we change the government in iraq?

Yep, but Iraq didn't have nukes and either it hid it's other WMD really well or didn't have any. Oh and had had sanctions for a decade. North Korea has WMD pretty much for certain as well as nukes soon if not now. It also spends a third of it's GDP on it's armed forces. Yeah, the Americans could beat them easy but you'd probably kill most of the people on the Korean peninsula in the process (if you were lucky and that was as far as war spread). Given the state of Korea's missile technology I'd give going to Alaska a miss for a while...

 

[bokdol]

my point was more that if we dont like you we attack you and change you... in simplified terms.

 

[mcrain]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
You are wrong. Seoul is not the target. Japan is. They're still pissed off at Japan for WW2. That's why they're testing Missiles aimed at the Sea of JAPAN. The target is Tokyo.

That's why China wants North Korea to settle down. Because if North Korea has nukes, Japan will want to have them too.

You know, I read this, and I see someone who honestly believes that he "knows" what they want, he believes that is the only possible thing that they could want, and everyone else is wrong. I don't mind strong opinions, but what freaks me out is that he plans on going into the Naval Intelligence business.

Look, you've got to understand that if you are going to go into that line of work, you have to be able to predict the unexpected. Sure, logically, the target might be Japan, but maybe it isn't. If it isn't, and you assume it is, then you will be unprepared for dealing with whatever they choose to do later.

I point this out not to be mean, or as any sort of flaming, but as constructive criticism of your analysis of the Korea situation. I believe that your choice of professions will require more analytical and open minded analysis.

I'm sure that you will receive training when you go into the intel biz, and I hope they beat that "I'm right" and "that is the only possible thing they could want" attitude out of you, because if they don't, then my english professor's explanation of the word "oxymoron" being defined as "military intelligence" makes a lot more sense.

 

[sparkleytone]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm sure the North Koreans will note that, after Iraq destroyed most of their missiles, the US attacked anyway.

"fool me once, shame on you..."

yeah, because most isn't all

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
yeah, because most isn't all

You missed the point.

And they would have destroyed them all had we not invaded and gotten the inspectors kicked out.

 

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You missed the point.

And they would have destroyed them all had we not invaded and gotten the inspectors kicked out.

I have to partially disagree. I doubt they'd have done much without an army on their borders. Quite why they particularly needed disarming is another matter. If they had nukes I guess the US wouldn't have been so bold though...

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
I have to partially disagree. I doubt they'd have done much without an army on their borders.

If Bush would have stopped there, I'd have applauded him for resolving the situation with the mere threat of force. Clearly though, disarmament was never the aim of the Bush administration, and it was upsetting them that the UN and inspections were working, thus the push to war.

Quite why they particularly needed disarming is another matter.

I have to say, I've never felt as threatened by Iraq as I do by Ashcroft. For all intents and purposes, Iraq couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone threaten Middle Eastern stability or the USA.

If they had nukes I guess the US wouldn't have been so bold though...

This is what worries me. Perhaps with a nuclear nation Bush would be even MORE bold, as in bold enough to launch a preemptive nuclear attack to disable their weapons.

 

[Backtothemac]

Do you really think that one statement would give them the justification at war? Even the invasion with Iraq? They were throwing out this crap even before the war with iraq started.