# Nuclear War



## Lewdog (Apr 3, 2013)

I just saw on CNN that North Korea has given the green light to launch a nuclear warhead at a U.S. territory.  Is this the beginning of the end of the world or do you think North Korea will lose all it's allies and be stopped before they can do anything?  After the fear of nuclear clouds coming from Japan's nuclear reactor melt down, everyone should know by now that you can't contain the area of effect from a nuclear weapon.  Our world may never be the same.


----------



## PiP (Apr 3, 2013)

Pales the trivia of life into insignificance.


----------



## DPVP (Apr 3, 2013)

New dictator in North Korea
New leader of South Korea

unless the North Koreans have something that works better then anything they have tested before they cant hit anything outside the immediate vicinity. so no their not going to nuke the United States, or even Guam. 
now would it be bloody if we went. yes, yes it would be to the region. their are 25 million people in the Soul metro area. Soul will be flattened by North Korean artillery and their will massive civilian loss of life.

then after that air power will cripple the North Koreans as our and the South Korean military do what they where made to do, kill people and break stuff. 

meanwhile the Chinese will monitor the situation closely if not go in to North Korea themselves to set up a buffer zone. 


that's just my guess.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 3, 2013)

Actual military specialist have estimated that the latest rocket that North Korea tested, is strong enough to reach Guam and possibly Hawaii.  The U.S. is moving more missile defense systems to South Korea and Guam at this moment.


----------



## DPVP (Apr 3, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Actual military specialist have estimated that the latest rocket that North Korea tested, is strong enough to reach Guam and possibly Hawaii.  The U.S. is moving more missile defense systems to South Korea and Guam at this moment.


in theory they can put a nuke on those Unha or Taepodong-2 rockets, however only one test was stressful with both systems. this requires two things, one that the missile work 1/4 on a inertia guided rocket ( not addressing it having liquid fuel) two that they have designed a nuclear weapon small enough to be put on a missile delivery system. the military Taepodong-2 ( 0/1 on tests) has a 1100 lbs payload at long range it is estimated. their also does not seem to be any re entry technology. 

it could reach if it worked, but its unlikely to be anything other then conventional.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 3, 2013)

DPVP said:


> in theory they can put a nuke on those Unha or Taepodong-2 rockets, however only one test was stressful with both systems. this requires two things, one that the missile work 1/4 on a inertia guided rocket ( not addressing it having liquid fuel) two that they have designed a nuclear weapon small enough to be put on a missile delivery system. the military Taepodong-2 ( 0/1 on tests) has a 1100 lbs payload at long range it is estimated. their also does not seem to be any re entry technology.
> 
> it could reach if it worked, but its unlikely to be anything other then conventional.



Conventional, un-convential, theoretical, hypothetical, or whatever, when a country starts threatening to launch missiles with nuclear warheads on it, things are serious.  Imagine if they launched it and things went wrong and it landed on Japan, Hong-kong, or somewhere in China?  Do you have any idea how many people it would kill?


----------



## DPVP (Apr 3, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Conventional, un-convential, theoretical, hypothetical, or whatever, when a country starts threatening to launch missiles with nuclear warheads on it, things are serious.  Imagine if they launched it and things went wrong and it landed on Japan, Hong-kong, or somewhere in China?  Do you have any idea how many people it would kill?


well lets try to extrapolate it, based on it hitting a dense city
i know of a report form 2009 using a 12.5 kiloton weapon on Manhattan was 260,000 dead
many of those cities in the region are more densely packed then Manhattan. however the largest bomb the North Koreans have tested had a claimed yield of 10 Kilotons in the 2013 test. granted their is also the issue of miniaturization to fit on a rocket delivery system.  this gives the North Korean rocket nuke a much lower yield then the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons  166,000 and 80,000 ( high side) deaths respectably. 
so for my fair guess, a quarter of a million is a defined possibility, with higher and lower possible depending on circumstance. impressive but nothing compared to the death toll we would see in Soul.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 3, 2013)

You would have to also include post touchdown deaths from just radiation poison.  So the amount of deaths would also depend how inland the rocket landed verses somewhere like the island of Japan where the jet stream would take the nuclear cloud out to the ocean.


----------



## DPVP (Apr 3, 2013)

post touchdown deaths are included, and are the majority. that study i cited had only 62,000 deaths from the blast itself, the rest where from fallout. we are not dealing with some of the larger Russian and American nuclear weapons hear, as i pointed out the blast will not even be as spectacular as the ones used against Japan.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 3, 2013)

So do you think, if they are a real threat or not, that neighboring countries are going to take a pro-active approach to this and go into North Korea before they actually launch a missile?


----------



## Sirena (Apr 3, 2013)

two comments: one - I hope this is your April fools joke 
                        two -  didn't either Nostredamus or Cayce predict that someone with a star ( on a flag or significance ) would begin WW3 and that they had a hidden miscle inside some mountain? He said, no one knew, because this was inside some mountain or whatever. I saw this program like ages ago. Ah well, if the end is nye I can at least say I've been published, I'm about to publish a book and my film is playing on PBS  ;PPPPP I'll die happy. Hahahaha


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 3, 2013)

Sirena said:


> two comments: one - I hope this is your April fools joke
> two -  didn't either Nostredamus or Cayce predict that someone with a star ( on a flag or significance ) would begin WW3 and that they had a hidden miscle inside some mountain? He said, no one knew, because this was inside some mountain or whatever. I saw this program like ages ago. Ah well, if the end is nye I can at least say I've been published, I'm about to publish a book and my film is playing on PBS  ;PPPPP I'll die happy. Hahahaha



Congrats!  No this isn't a joke, it was on CNN a couple hours ago.


----------



## Travers (Apr 3, 2013)

Well that's pretty damn scary and no doubt.

I can't imagine being so selfish as to think you have the right to affect (end or ruin forever) hundreds of thousands of lives like that.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 3, 2013)

If you watch documentaries about North Korea that hasn't been censored by their government, you'll be amazed how brainwashed their citizens are.  If you want to, check the series done by VICE.COM - Search results for 'North Korea' , it's absolutely amazing.  They have people that are starving, yet they continue to spend money on buildings and places just to make it seem like they have a great country.  There have even been reports of cannibalism because families are starving.


----------



## DPVP (Apr 3, 2013)

calculated risk and game theory time

well hear we come into the issue of them being liquid fuel rockets. you cant just launch them like getting a one night stand out of your apartment the next morning, they have to be on the pad, and loaded witch takes time. this process can take hours to days, and makes them viable form orbit. now we have no idea the current state of their facilities are, the NSA is not telling and Google is not that good



my thought though is this. even if they are on the pad and fueled up with nuclear weapons it makes no sense to hit them ( US and South Korea). 
*one* you know exactly where it is, that's pre requsit number one for destroying it if you have to latter if shooting starts
*two* doing so would start/ restart a shooting war
*three* the ground war would kill a lot more people then that rocket.
*four* begin the aggressor will complicate the matter more with China. 

Moscow and Beijing are a different question. i don't see a reason for the Kremlin to hit them openly. Beijing sees North Korea as a buffer between itself and the US, i could only see them getting involved to create a buffer zone controlled by their own military, and that would be after the shooting started.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 3, 2013)

The question then becomes, if the U.S. or other countries starts seeing missiles moved into place, not knowing for sure if they are nuclear warheads or not, do they send cruise missiles or bombers to take them out before they are launched, or do they risk waiting until they are in the air and shoot them down with Patriot missiles?


----------



## Sirena (Apr 3, 2013)

lol you're too smart for me


----------



## DPVP (Apr 3, 2013)

if it was me making the call, just watch them. 
a nuclear device is nice firework, but the real show and blood letting will be at the border. 

that said i would have my own ( probably tactical) nuclear weapons ready.


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 3, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> If you watch documentaries about North Korea that hasn't been censored by their government, you'll be amazed how brainwashed their citizens are.  If you want to, check the series done by VICE.COM - Search results for 'North Korea' , it's absolutely amazing.  They have people that are starving, yet they continue to spend money on buildings and places just to make it seem like they have a great country.  There have even been reports of cannibalism because families are starving.



My brother's friend did a stint in Korea working with air defense over the summer-he said that just across the border in certain places (like the split meeting room) there's tall buildings, but they don't use them for anything. They're just for show.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Apr 3, 2013)

Ok. Things are getting somewhat tense.


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 3, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> The question then becomes, if the U.S. or other countries starts seeing missiles moved into place, not knowing for sure if they are nuclear warheads or not, do they send cruise missiles or bombers to take them out before they are launched, or do they risk waiting until they are in the air and shoot them down with Patriot missiles?



Well it may be comforting to know that Aegis equipped Cruisers should be able to take out a missile from NK at 100+ miles above the sea-100+ miles! This was proven when the _USS_ _Lake Erie _successfully took out one of our satellites that was completely broken. This was done with a Standard Missile SM-3, and it actually hit the satellite at ~133 nautical miles.

And of course you're right that if we wanted/needed to, we could probably launch a cruise missile strike. Heck, I should think that one of our _Ohio_ class ballistic missile subs with a full load of (conventional) cruise missiles would work wonders on NK strategic facilities. I believe one of these was involved in Lybia-when you saw the headline saying something like "112 cruise missiles launched at Lybia, it could all have been a single one of these Ohios. 

Which makes me think-the ground war could theoretically not be as bad as one would think. I know it certainly could be very bloody indeed, however with a combo of special operations, air and naval strikes (for example from said subs) at strategic locations (fuel and weapons/ammo storage, transport routes, perhaps barracks and bases themselves) all very quickly before the real fighting...things would start out pretty badly for the Kimmy Un's.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 4, 2013)

Also, even China has been condemning the actions that North Korea have taken.  I think China wants to keep the UN happy with _them_.  Since China is the only major strategic supporter of North Korea I don't think that this will start WW3.

Now if the US and China went to war, yeah, that probably would end badly.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 4, 2013)

The sky's not falling yet. China doesn't want any kind of conflict -- that would be horrible for their economy, which isn't as good as some people think. From what I understand, they've even cut back on aid to North Korea, and although it sounds counterproductive, North Korea needs help -- and this is their ass-backwards way to go about it. Working with us would be taken as a sign of Kim Jong-un's weakness and he needs the support of his generals to stay in power -- and I think that's what this is mostly about. (Of course, I don't think anyone really knows for sure what goes on backstage there.) Unfortunately, for the blackmail to work, the Norks need to continually ramp up the threats and rhetoric. Sure, we have to take reasonable precautions -- especially since we're dealing with someone who's a few bricks shy of a load. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. I'm no expert, that's for sure, but I think it helps to look at the politics behind all of this instead of just focusing on weapons etc. and worrying about nuclear Armageddon. Meanwhile -- life goes on.


----------



## Nickleby (Apr 4, 2013)

First, while NK does have a bomb of sorts, it's much too big to put on a missile.

Second, Kim is a new leader in a precarious position. He's rattling his saber so people will take him seriously, that's all.

Third, it's the media's job to to keep you scared out of your wits. Stay calm. Carry on.


----------



## Pluralized (Apr 4, 2013)

David Cameron has come out stating that his belief is that the UK needs to keep their "Nuclear Deterrent" due to the threats posed by NK and Iran. 

There is a vested interest by world leaders, especially those who profit from the production of defense hardware (i.e., bombs, planes, etc), to continue pounding their chests. It is all designed to feed the military-industrial complex, and ultimately, the banks. You should be afraid, but not of North Korea. Be afraid of allowing worry and fear to rob you of the remaining time you get to enjoy on the earth.

But I come to this site to learn about writing and hang out with writers, not to talk about this kind of BS.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Apr 4, 2013)

It matters not whether the rocket lands and successfully explodes, the retaliation will already be on its way. If China allow N.Korea to carry out their threats, then they will reap the reward; wind-born radioactivity carried on an east wind will pass over Beijing - Not something I think China would be happy with; a NNE wind would carry the fallout to Shanghai. I can't imagine any western country will continue to trade with China under such circumstances, and without customers, China will crash. I think realpolitik will carry the day. The problem with N Korea's puppet leader is that we can never be sure who is pulling the strings.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Apr 4, 2013)

Angelwing said:


> Which makes me think-the ground war could theoretically not be as bad as one would think. I know it certainly could be very bloody indeed, however with a combo of special operations, air and naval strikes (for example from said subs) at strategic locations (fuel and weapons/ammo storage, transport routes, perhaps barracks and bases themselves) all very quickly before the real fighting...things would start out pretty badly for the Kimmy Un's.



Ground war in Korea would make Iraq & Afghanistan look like a Sunday picnic in the park - Any government contemplating a ground war in Korea has clearly not learned the lessons of history - Oops! They went to Afghanistan...


----------



## Bilston Blue (Apr 4, 2013)

I find it all very alarming. How far will that strange, moderately overweight, ridiculously coiffured man go to appear to be the invincible leader his people want?

Much of the rhetoric is bluster and chest beating, no doubt. Photos of a recent round of military manoeuvres included an amphibious assault on beach positions which were proven to be carried out with a single hovercraft which had been photo-shopped to appear as if there were several of the vehicles. The film of thousands of soldiers parading for their great leader would suggest an army full of old men. Also, the North Korean army, according to reports in the West, has a vast reserve of men who work in the construction sector, and who would have been called up for military duty at the first sign of conflict; but they're all busy waddling up ladders with hods of bricks on their shoulders and leering at very attractive North Korean women.

Then you have this photograph, which, as part of the recent collection of propaganda shots and videos, was released for his own people and the rest of the world to be impressed and frightened by the sophistication of their military arsenal. It makes one wonder whether he's all the ticket, really, which is the problem the world currently has. There's a real chance the guy's nothing more than a fruit loop who wants to write his name in history and sit alongside Adolf and Joseph, and, I suppose some might say, George W. and even Harry S., though that would be their opinion and not necessarily mine.


The red button might be simply to select a topping for his pizza, or to switch from jazz to bossa nova beat on the synthesizer. Whatever it is, it's not capable of putting a nuclear warhead anywhere with any degree of accuracy.  

As every day brings a more menacing, threatening statement from Uncle Kim, it appears that it will all come to a head some time soon. My money's on a small skirmish or very limited war (see the South Ossetian conflict of 2008, which lasted five days), or perhaps a couple of missiles fired at one of the South Korean islands in the border sea.

It all makes me yearn for old Dougie MacArthur, whose idea it was during the Korean war in the early 1950s, to bomb the Korean peninsula so hard it simply sunk into the ocean. Makes you think, it's not always the bad guys who're a good head short of a decent ale.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 4, 2013)

Bilston Blue said:


> or to switch from jazz to bossa nova beat on the synthesizer.



Ha ha ha!


----------



## movieman (Apr 4, 2013)

Nickleby said:


> Second, Kim is a new leader in a precarious position. He's rattling his saber so people will take him seriously, that's all.



Bingo. This is all about Korean domestic politics; authoritarian leaders need enemies to scare the people into supporting them.

The idea that they would actually launch a nuke at America and be reduced to a big pile of bouncing rubble in return is just silly.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 4, 2013)

Yahoo says North Korea has moved a missile into launch position along its east coast.

SKorea: North Korea moved missile to east coast


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 4, 2013)

Bloggsworth said:


> Ground war in Korea would make Iraq & Afghanistan look like a Sunday picnic in the park - Any government contemplating a ground war in Korea has clearly not learned the lessons of history - Oops! They went to Afghanistan...



In Afghanistan we weren't and aren't actually fighting a national army. Methinks ^^^ is like comparing the Nazis invading the Isles  and the Black and Tans fighting the IRA. Perhaps not the best example but still. With the NK army, if you were to hit an ammo storage facility, it'd have an effect. They couldn't throw those bullets at anyone. Take out a battery of their artillery, and they can't throw those shells at civilians or military.


----------



## moderan (Apr 4, 2013)

The sky is falling.


----------



## IanMGSmith (Apr 4, 2013)

Our PM affirms the need for "Trident" as a nuclear deterrent. One problem with that notion is, it relies on the other side fearing anihilation. 

As far as I'm aware, terrorists and suicide twits don't care what happens to anyone else, as long as they get their 27 virgins, and the ugly little boy in N Korea might forget "his" people's wish to live, in the heat of battle, playing war-games in his nuke-proof bunker.


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 4, 2013)

IanMGSmith said:


> Our PM affirms the need for "Trident" as a nuclear deterrent. One problem with that notion is, it relies on the other side fearing anihilation.
> 
> As far as I'm aware, terrorists and suicide twits don't care what happens to anyone else, as long as they get their 27 virgins, and the ugly little boy in N Korea might forget "his" people's wish to live, in the heat of battle, playing war-games in his nuke-proof bunker.



Which is why, IF things got real/we knew things were getting real, we'd need to rely on results instead of relying on them fearing results. As in, if need be, we wouldn't waste breath saying we'd hurt them-we'd actually do it. And no I don't mean in a nuclear or otherwise indiscriminate manner.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 4, 2013)

I sometimes have been accused as a conspiracy type or someone that looks too far into things, but I think this is a ploy by North Korea to make the U.S. look bad and have everyone turn against us.  If North Korea fires their missile, and the U.S. retaliates as if, it was a nuclear warhead, and later the world finds out it wasn't a nuclear warhead, the U.S. is going to look like a bully who should have known better, despite North Korea's threats.

This could cause retaliation from countries like China and Russia against the U.S.


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 4, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> I sometimes have been accused as a conspiracy type or someone that looks too far into things, but I think this is a ploy by North Korea to make the U.S. look bad and have everyone turn against us.  If North Korea fires their missile, and the U.S. retaliates as if, it was a nuclear warhead, and later the world finds out it wasn't a nuclear warhead, the U.S. is going to look like a bully who should have known better, despite North Korea's threats.
> 
> This could cause retaliation from countries like China and Russia against the U.S.



Hmm, could be. Although I'd at least HOPE that the rest of the world would realize "oh, they've been threatening to launch a missile with a nuke. Oh, they launched a missile, no wonder they thought it was a nuke." But still, I suppose it'd be possible to eventually convince enough people that WE fired first.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 4, 2013)

Angelwing said:


> Hmm, could be. Although I'd at least HOPE that the rest of the world would realize "oh, they've been threatening to launch a missile with a nuke. Oh, they launched a missile, no wonder they thought it was a nuke." But still, I suppose it'd be possible to eventually convince enough people that WE fired first.



I think most countries would argue that the U.S. should have the intelligence to know if it was an armed nuclear warhead or not, before killing thousands of North Koreans.  When you talk about China and Russia who are already neutral or anti-American, it won't take much to convince them.  Putin can't stand the U.S.


----------



## movieman (Apr 4, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> I sometimes have been accused as a conspiracy type or someone that looks too far into things, but I think this is a ploy by North Korea to make the U.S. look bad and have everyone turn against us.  If North Korea fires their missile, and the U.S. retaliates as if, it was a nuclear warhead, and later the world finds out it wasn't a nuclear warhead, the U.S. is going to look like a bully who should have known better, despite North Korea's threats.



No-one in their right mind is going to launch a nuclear retaliation against a single missile attack without finding out whether it's a nuke first. If the US military can't shoot it down, it's going to land somewhere regardless of what they do (quite possibly not in America, given the past history of Korean rockets), so there's no downside to waiting to find out what it really is first.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 4, 2013)

movieman said:


> No-one in their right mind is going to launch a nuclear retaliation against a single missile attack without finding out whether it's a nuke first. If the US military can't shoot it down, it's going to land somewhere regardless of what they do (quite possibly not in America, given the past history of Korean rockets), so there's no downside to waiting to find out what it really is first.




A single missile isn't a single missile when it is a nuclear weapon.  If the U.S. is able to shoot it down before it reaches it's target, will the nuclear warhead still explode?  Or will it fall into the ocean where we wouldn't know for quite sometime if it was nuclear or not?  I think this is a problem that leads back to the past and the idea to act pro-actively or retro-actively.  JFK was within minutes of launching nuclear weapons at Cuba over the Bay of Pigs.  It's almost happened once, what's the chances it could almost happen again, or worse yet, it does happen.


----------



## movieman (Apr 4, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> A single missile isn't a single missile when it is a nuclear weapon.



Of course it is. Either it's going to be shot down or it's going to land somewhere and maybe explode. Once it's launched, nothing other than shooting it down or fooling its guidance system somehow is going to make any difference.

So long as you know it's the only missile they have, what benefit is there to retaliating immediately rather than waiting twenty minutes? The place it lands is still either going to get nuked or not, whatever you do.

This is nothing like the Cuban missile crisis, where the US was against an equally powerful opponent with hundreds or thousands of missiles ready to launch. If JFK didn't launch, the Soviet missiles could have destroyed most of his before they could launch. The Koreans would be lucky to even hit LA if they aimed at it, and have no chance of destroying a hardened silo other than by blind luck; even if they did, there are hundreds more ready to launch back.


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 4, 2013)

movieman said:


> No-one in their right mind is going to launch a nuclear retaliation against a single missile attack without finding out whether it's a nuke first. If the US military can't shoot it down, it's going to land somewhere regardless of what they do (quite possibly not in America, given the past history of Korean rockets), so there's no downside to waiting to find out what it really is first.





Lewdog said:


> A single missile isn't a single missile when it is a nuclear weapon.  *If the U.S. is able to shoot it down before it reaches it's target, will the nuclear warhead still explode?*  Or will it fall into the ocean where we wouldn't know for quite sometime if it was nuclear or not?  I think this is a problem that leads back to the past and the idea to act pro-actively or retro-actively.  JFK was within minutes of launching nuclear weapons at Cuba over the Bay of Pigs.  It's almost happened once, what's the chances it could almost happen again, or worse yet, it does happen.



Both the Patriot and RIM-161 SM-3 missile(s) have a primary purpose of taking out enemy ballistic missiles, so I'd assume that it wouldn't still explode. Also, naval salvage may be able to recover it in the ocean.


----------



## DPVP (Apr 4, 2013)

First of, ICBM whould beep the wrong nuke to respond to a koren nuke with. Those are multi delivery weapons meaning they release more then one nuclear device aka multiple mushrooms. Second it whould tip of everyone else's sitilite sensors sending the Russians and Chinese with their ICBM into a frenzy. 
A nuclear tipped tomahawk, B61 or B81 whould be the proper weapon to use against North Korea and it whould be impossible for you to produce "millions of casualties" as another suggested.


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 4, 2013)

DPVP said:


> First of, ICBM whould beep the wrong nuke to respond to a koren nuke with. Those are multi delivery weapons meaning they release more then one nuclear device aka multiple mushrooms. Second it whould tip of everyone else's sitilite sensors sending the Russians and Chinese with their ICBM into a frenzy.
> A nuclear tipped tomahawk, B61 or B81 whould be the proper weapon to use against North Korea and it whould be impossible for you to produce "millions of casualties" as another suggested.



Good point-the Minuteman, for example, has 10 sub-munition nuclear warheads. Not sure about the Trident-I wanna say it has 3 sub-munition nukes. 

I'm not sure a nuclear tipped anything would be good. Assuming a war started, wouldn't an end goal for us/the good guys to minimize civilian casualties so you can help them after the smoke clears? I mean like feeding them. I understand there's a difference b/w tactical nukes like nuke tipped cruise missiles and ICBMs, but still.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 4, 2013)

Angelwing said:


> Good point-the Minuteman, for example, has 10 sub-munition nuclear warheads. Not sure about the Trident-I wanna say it has 3 sub-munition nukes.
> 
> I'm not sure a nuclear tipped anything would be good. Assuming a war started, wouldn't an end goal for us/the good guys to minimize civilian casualties so you can help them after the smoke clears? I mean like feeding them. I understand there's a difference b/w tactical nukes like nuke tipped cruise missiles and ICBMs, but still.



That's the sad part, most of the buildings that would end up getting destroyed are sitting empty.  They are just big sink holes of money that the citizens can't afford to live in and the government only built out of vanity.


----------



## Angelwing (Apr 4, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> That's the sad part, most of the buildings that would end up getting destroyed are sitting empty.  They are just big sink holes of money that the citizens can't afford to live in and the government only built out of vanity.



Yeah, it really is. Sad sad place it is.  

On the bright side theoretically, and maybe just looking through rose colored glasses, if something really started, after the shooting stopped, maybe those buildings could actually be employed. Maybe they could eventually feed themselves in a decent fashion. Perhaps they could have a productive "reconstruction" period on the peninsula.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 5, 2013)

Like my mom used to say, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts then we could have a party.

And what do you think would happen if the North Koreans trained whales to deliver nuclear devices to the west coast of the U.S.?? That's a frightening scenario.


----------



## moderan (Apr 5, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Like my mom used to say, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts then we could have a party.
> 
> And what do you think would happen if the North Koreans trained whales to deliver nuclear devices to the west coast of the U.S.?? That's a frightening scenario.


[ot]Porpoiseless activity[/ot]


----------



## JosephB (Apr 5, 2013)

If they made a movie about it, that proves it's not too far fetched. That means it's really something to worry about.


----------



## moderan (Apr 5, 2013)

Right. And if you read it on the internet, it must be true.
I saw some pundits trying to advance similar theories to the OP. The situation is much more complex than that, as has been noted repeatedly upthread.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 5, 2013)

Of course -- and if you don't consider the politics and motivations, it just becomes, "I know more about weapons than you do."


----------



## moderan (Apr 5, 2013)

Sam's probably turned it all into a novel by now. I haven't seen him for a day or so.

I'm sure the Chinese are more than willing to let N Korea fire off weapons, and to have the entire peninsula glow in the dark or to be rapidly depopulated.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 5, 2013)

He'd better not steal my warmed-over sea mammal concept.


----------



## moderan (Apr 5, 2013)

[ot]I heard he was planning sharks with laser beams.[/ot]


----------



## Whisper (Apr 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> The question then becomes, if the U.S. or other countries starts seeing missiles moved into place, not knowing for sure if they are nuclear warheads or not, do they send cruise missiles or bombers to take them out before they are launched, or do they risk waiting until they are in the air and shoot them down with Patriot missiles?



U.S. Intelligence agencies are now reporting that North Korea has two missiles on a launch truck poised on NK's east coast. Most analysts believe this is what prompted the United States to deploy anti-missile batteries to Guam a year ahead of schedule. 

This being said, I doubt NK is stupid enough to attack anyone with nuclear weapons. They've done loud posturing before. It's usually a way for a new leader to get the backing of the military and people behind him. It's mostly just talk. That being said, most analysts believe NK leaders have no choice now, but to stage some sort of attack to back up their belicose or be considered a bark and no bite government. Basically, he's backed himself into a corner. They believe it will be something small.

Of course, all this goes out the window if Un's a crazy man, which if history is any judge about Monarchies, he might be.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 5, 2013)

moderan said:


> I heard he was planning sharks with laser beams.



Damn, that could work. Just as plausible as a dolphin killing the president. How'd the dolphin do it -- sneak into a theater or a book depository? Was there another dolphin on the grassy knoll? Someone mentioned earlier that pigs were involved in the failed attempt to invade  Cuba -- I guess they're pretty smart too.


----------



## Whisper (Apr 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> I sometimes have been accused as a conspiracy type or someone that looks too far into things, but I think this is a ploy by North Korea to make the U.S. look bad and have everyone turn against us. If North Korea fires their missile, and the U.S. retaliates as if, it was a nuclear warhead, and later the world finds out it wasn't a nuclear warhead, the U.S. is going to look like a bully who should have known better, despite North Korea's threats.
> 
> This could cause retaliation from countries like China and Russia against the U.S.



The U.S. would try to shoot it down, first. If it was shot down, then we would not launch a nuclear counter strike, but a conventional strike. If we didn't shoot it down and it hit, we would know fairly quickly if it was a nuke. The U.S. would not launch a nuclear counter strike until they were sure. This isn't the Soviet Union where we need to launch our missiles in case we are wiped out. There is time for a breather, first.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 5, 2013)

I find it quite funny that:

A:  One person would complain about someone hijacking and derailing their thread would do the same thing to said person.

B:  That there is all this frivolous talk about using animals in the military when in fact it has nothing to do with this thread, but it has indeed been done before.  Bats were trained to carry napalm by the U.S. government in hopes they would nest in Japanese buildings and catch them on fire.  Instead they returned to the U.S. buildings they were being trained at and burnt it down.  A cat was implanted with a listening device in hopes it could be dropped off near a Russian building and get intelligence, but instead was let outside for testing and got hit by a car within minutes.  Dolphins have indeed been trained and used by the U.S. government for clearing mind fields.  Lastly a pigeon saved American lives in WWI by carrying a message about their location and was awarded a medal.  There is even a medal given out in the UK for animals during wars.

Dickin Medal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

C:  That something like war would be made into a joke, when the loss of even one life is not a joke, let alone thousands or millions.


----------



## moderan (Apr 5, 2013)

.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 5, 2013)

"B" is good information though. And did you know that Mr. Ed was really a Soviet spy?


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 5, 2013)

moderan said:


> [ot]I have seldom seen such an elaborate system for self-justification. If there's a mod about, "A" in the above has to to with the contents of a private message. I propose that that passage and this be removed, and thank you.[/ot]



You said I was taking your thread off topic in the thread, not in private messages.  I did not disclose private messages to the public boards.


----------



## Whisper (Apr 5, 2013)

moderan said:


> [ot]I have seldom seen such an elaborate system for self-justification. If there's a mod about, "A" in the above has to to with the contents of a private message. I propose that that passage and this be removed, and thank you.[/ot]



I must have missed something.
Shurg.
*goes back to waiting for the next nuclear message


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 5, 2013)

Whisper said:


> I must have missed something.
> Shurg.
> *goes back to waiting for the next nuclear message



Security pundits are saying that North Korea and Un must do some kind of attack at this point or no one will respect Un in his own military, let alone the countries of the world.


----------



## Travers (Apr 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Security pundits are saying that North Korea and Un must do some kind of attack at this point or no one will respect Un in his own military, let alone the countries of the world.


This might be a silly question, I'm not really up to scratch with NK or Un, but what exactly is the goal he expects to achieve by attacking? World domination? Is he and his military so deluded?


----------



## Whisper (Apr 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Security pundits are saying that North Korea and Un must do some kind of attack at this point or no one will respect Un in his own military, let alone the countries of the world.



Yeah. I would agree. I had a chance to study North Korea when I was in Navy Intelligence and they are a different breed.

Here's the next step.

North Korea asks embassies to consider moving diplomats out


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 5, 2013)

Travers said:


> This might be a silly question, I'm not really up to scratch with NK or Un, but what exactly is the goal he expects to achieve by attacking? World domination? Is he and his military so deluded?



No he is saying that his country deserves the same rights as any other country in the world, which means he doesn't understand why the UN is ok with the United States, Russia, or any other country being allowed to have nuclear weapons or nuclear power plants, but he can't.  He believes his country is being unfairly punished because of this and the sanctions being forced on his country for them not following this biased rules.


----------



## Whisper (Apr 5, 2013)

Travers said:


> This might be a silly question, I'm not really up to scratch with NK or Un, but what exactly is the goal he expects to achieve by attacking? World domination? Is he and his military so deluded?



Apparently, you haven't seen the new Red Dawn movie.


It's to gen up support. Unknown to most people, NK leaders rule at the pleasure of the military. So, part of the process of getting military loyality is gaining the loyality of the people. NK leaders have historically done that through stuff like this. The last two leaders have did this as well. However, I'll admit, I don't remember it being taken this far. Un must have been more worried about being overthrown than his father or grandfather.


----------



## Whisper (Apr 5, 2013)

Here's a good article to read on North Korea.The Next Korean War | Foreign Affairs


----------



## moderan (Apr 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> You said I was taking your thread off topic in the thread, not in private messages.  I did not disclose private messages to the public boards.


Paranoia strikes deep. See ya.


----------



## Travers (Apr 5, 2013)

Whisper said:


> Here's a good article to read on North Korea.The Next Korean War | Foreign Affairs



Thanks, interesting read.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 5, 2013)

moderan said:


> Paranoia strikes deep. See ya.




Straight from the Dark Matter thread:



> How is anybody supposed to know that? So on-topic too.



No paranoia, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  

-back to things that really matter, a possible war that can change the world forever.


----------



## squidtender (Apr 5, 2013)

*​this has turned into a debate, and a pit for flaming. Thread closed. *


----------

