|
|
| DaveMan_CI |
  Posted 15th Oct 2006 10:58am |
L4Y Member
Post 369 / 419
 |
So korea has nukes... could be a bit risky eh?
What ya think about the whole thing? |
|
|
| goober |
Posted 15th Oct 2006 2:14pm |  |
L4Y Member
Post 3916 / 265
 |
Korea has always had nukes, theyre just trying to get the US on their toes now... |
For anyone reading this in 2019 or later: The RF community is alive on the Community Discord
[Faction Files] |
|
|
| vibes |
Posted 15th Oct 2006 6:12pm |
L4Y Member
Post 81 / 552
 |
its one think to have nuke capability but its a whole other thing to have them on missiles that can actually be guided and they probably don't have those...............maybe they have some kick a** catapults made from bamboo shoots tho. |
| http://gadgets.freebiejeebies.co.uk/156057 |
|
|
| DaveMan_CI |
Posted 15th Oct 2006 7:03pm |
L4Y Member
Post 370 / 419
|
| Quoting vibes | | its one think to have nuke capability but its a whole other thing to have them on missiles that can actually be guided and they probably don't have those...............maybe they have some kick a** catapults made from bamboo shoots tho. |
It seems people dont understand that korea has been armed to the teeth for years... they have a large army and alot of tech. Missles aint no problem for korea they have missles they can fire off round the world already... so adding nuke technology to their arsnel seems pretty freaky.
They arent some bamboo spear nation...
"North Korea is one of the few nations that can engage in a total war with the United States. The US war planners recognize this fact. For example, on March 7, 2000, Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, the US commander in Korea at the time, testified at a US congressional hearing that "North Korea is the country most likely to involve the United States in a large-scale war.""
"North Korea, which can and is willing to face up to the sole military superpower of the world, cannot be called a weak nation. Nevertheless, Western press and analysts distort the truth and depict North Korea as an "impoverished" nation, starving and on the brink of imminent collapse"
"nuclear weapons that could menace — and hit — not only the North's neighbors but enemies like the U.S. thousands of kilometers (miles) away."
http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm
also heres a wiki page showing that korea does have the long ranged nuke carrying missles u were thinking of  They used it to launch their space satalite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-1
Its brother the Taepodong-2 is under development now and might be getting designed to hold the nuke warhead... hope not :S |
| DAveMAn_CI |
Modified Oct 15th, 07:41pm by DaveMan_CI |
|
| goober |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 12:08am | |
L4Y Member
Post 3918 / 265
|
RIght, i had totally forgot about that. I hope he is alright...
He was deployed to south Korea though right? I hope...  |
For anyone reading this in 2019 or later: The RF community is alive on the Community Discord
[Faction Files] |
|
|
| Molodiets |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 5:25am |
L4Y Member
Post 1179 / 2687
 |
Now that north Korea has the bomb it's not really more dangerous for him to be in south korea than to be in the US, australia or canada.
Actually it's safer. They're not likely to nuke their neighbors, are they. |
|
|
| goober |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 11:20am | |
L4Y Member
Post 3923 / 265
|
true, But i do believe that Canada, and Austrailia are a bit safer than the US is... they have no reason to nuke Austrailia, and if they were to nuke canada, the US would have to step in to defend their huge border. Think about it, if Korea controls the Canada/US border, theres no way the US can hold a border than long... |
For anyone reading this in 2019 or later: The RF community is alive on the Community Discord
[Faction Files] |
|
|
| elliooo |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 11:23am |
L4Y Member
Post 497 / 548
 |
I think it's fairly disgusting that the West of the world think it's okay for them to have nukes, but as soon as someone else gets them they get all up in arms.
Hypocrites. |
|
|
Garner  |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 11:40am | |
Post 2537 / 4125
 |
The difference is that the 'West of the World' as you put it will invade any country with ground troops/conventional means.
North Korea is more likely to just nuke their opponent at the first sign of aggression. |
"Science is this extraordinary transnational, transcultural, trans-everything language which is the only way to discover Truth and its regrettable that billions are still stuck in the Middle Ages believing the crap propagated by Popes and priests..."
- Peter Atkins |
|
|
| DaveMan_CI |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 11:45am |
L4Y Member
Post 371 / 419
|
| Quoting Garner | The difference is that the 'West of the World' as you put it will invade any country with ground troops/conventional means.
North Korea is more likely to just nuke their opponent at the first sign of aggression. |
Yeah, Korea is more likey to have a coast to coast war rather than a face to face assault. |
|
|
| renegademaster |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 2:00pm |
L4Y Member
Post 552 / 569
 |
Here two more things for you ladies/gents to think about:
1) the environmental impact
2) testing of more nukes
1) fact; the earth is slowly dieing due to too much carban dioxide and earth is OVER popullated with humans. So how does nature fix this problem? food for thought.
2) how dare Korea justify testing nukes against the planet that is already dieing? dont they watch BBC1 talking about ice caps melting? maybe someone should buy them a television! my personnel opinion on this topic is NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO HURT THE EARTH ANYMORE THEN WE ALREADY ARE, ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS JUST A F..... EGO TRIP.
I think Korea are acting very childish and if more nukes are tested they should be punished.  |
| L4Y Member Since 25th Mar 2005 1:08pm |
|
|
| elliooo |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 2:10pm |
L4Y Member
Post 499 / 548
|
One thing that's interesting about that is, Korea's test was nothing near what other countries have done.
They've had about the smallest test ever, Russia have done tests that are amazingly bigger than korea's, same with the US and many other countries. So you can't really say they're hurting the world, when others have done a whole lot more damage in the past. |
|
|
| cyrus5 |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 2:25pm |
[CP] Director
L4Y Member
Post 228 / 241
 |
Their test failed, or they only wanted a small device, it was decades before we could launch a nuke on a missile, trinity, tall boy and fat man were huge devices.
The issue of war with them is simple to close, The US cannot wage war on Korea. FULL STOP. Or even Iran for that matter, the fact is that even with technology hugely more advanced than you have now its a simple war of attrition, there are far too many people in those countries that are 120% behind their cause. The allies could never mobilise enough troops to combat them. They wouldnt want to either, mass ground based wars on the scale required would just end up in huge casualty counts. Its why we nuked Japan, full scale invasion was futile, we had to get into their heads and force their hand with a show of overwhelming force. What would have been interesting is if they never surrendered. How many nukes would we have been prepared to drop... international politics is all about bluffing. 
In response to peoples points above:
1. Well we dont put people in north korea since we are not at war with them. If we did put people there, they wouldnt like it.
2. Australia is not safe, they hosted some of our (the UK') nuclear tests and missile silos (now decomissioned i believe), but either way most of it looks like an atomic wasteland, all that would be different is that I could go down under and enjoy some fireworks with my ice cold lager.. |
Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato
I think it would be a good idea. - Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilisation.
cyrus5.co.uk! |
Modified Oct 16th, 02:29pm by cyrus5 |
|
| Ugly Donkey |
Posted 16th Oct 2006 8:59pm |
L4Y Member
Post 647 / 843
 |
| Quoting goober | | true, But i do believe that Canada, and Austrailia are a bit safer than the US is... they have no reason to nuke Austrailia, and if they were to nuke canada, the US would have to step in to defend their huge border. Think about it, if Korea controls the Canada/US border, theres no way the US can hold a border than long... |
nuking canada wouldnt necessarily place north korean troops in North America, it will just scare the living CENSORED out of every allied country and then we would have the infimous ww3 of nothing but nukes..basically north korea wont launch the nukes unless they have all the communist nations backing them, their country is too small.. all it would rake is for them to launch one nuke and the allied nations will have about 20 being launched back at korea in no time.. basically destroying all hope of korea ever controlling anything |
| Your Fugly and the Ugly Donkey Knows it |
|
|
| cyrus5 |
Posted 17th Oct 2006 11:32am |
[CP] Director
L4Y Member
Post 229 / 241
|
Wanna play thermonuclear war?! Get DEFCON Today 
----
If Korea attacked Canada with even one missile, Korea would be shat on from a great height by many many countries (via defensive pacts). Probably before they could get a commie trooper anywhere near the american continent.
And if they did declare war, on anyone, I doubt they would get much support from even their neighbours, I'm pretty convinced that China wouldnt stand for such an act of agression. Unless Canada severly pissed them off.
[Southpark Voice]
Its aboot... Its aboot Dignity... Its aboot Respect... If you do not cease your nuclear ambitions immediately we will be forced to use Bryan Adams...
 |
Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato
I think it would be a good idea. - Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilisation.
cyrus5.co.uk! |
Modified Oct 17th, 11:36am by cyrus5 |
|
Page 1
Multiple Page Topic : 1 2 |
    |
|
|
|
