Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Liberator on September 12, 2004, 02:50:50 am
-
Linkage (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132129,00.html)
Pray it's not nuclear, although at their stage I guess the correct term would be Atomic. There haven't been any EM spikes or seismic events from what I've been able to gather so maybe it wasn't.
-
holy crap.
This aint good, even if its not a nuke.
-
Holy **** I really hope that they didn't test nuclear weaponry
-
1) Fox News isn't Mo compatible.
2) If this was a nuke, then why aren't geiger counters in S-Korea spiking?
-
Oh, BTW:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3648794.stm
-
even if it is a nuke, there's not much anyone can about it. Unless the US can somehow get China on board for an invasion....
-
ah yes, history repeating itself..
-
should I point out that it has recently come to light that South Korea is also developing a nuclear weapons program. Now hands up how many people believe that this is with support or at least an implicit nod from Washington?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14633-2004Sep11?language=printer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3647278.stm
-
Rictor, SK said that the experiments they were doing were in the area of energy production not weapons development. That's good enough for me as they don't have a history of lying about stuff like that.
-
Arms race; The winner gets to make lots of his rivals glow green.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
1) Fox News isn't Mo compatible.
2) If this was a nuke, then why aren't geiger counters in S-Korea spiking?
..................................
Oh, BTW:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3648794.stm
you know that says exactly the same thing as the fox news site does
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Rictor, SK said that the experiments they were doing were in the area of energy production not weapons development. That's good enough for me as they don't have a history of lying about stuff like that.
it gives *cough* some people an excuse to *****, so it'd probly be a good idea to oppose it, though given there nabourhood I can't blame them.
-
I can see it now...
Bush: THEY HAVE WMDs!
CIA report guy: Eh... Sir, no they don't.
Bush: TTHEY HAVE WMDs, GAWDDAMNIT! PREPARE INVASION TROOPS!
Powel: George... There is no evidence!
Bush: Did we need evidence to invade Iraq!? No!
Powel: BWUHAHAHA! INVADE THOSE COMMIE BASTARDZ! THEY ARER THE AXIZ OF EVIL!!!!111oneone
CIA report guy: ... Yeah, ok. Whatever d00ds. I'm gonna take a nap.
Australia: WTF!?
French guy #1: PREPARE TO FIRE ZE MISSILES!
French guy #2: But I'm le tired...
French guy #1: Ok, take a nap, THEN FIRE ZE MISSILES!
NATO: SANCT|0NZ RUL3!
Holland: D00d, want a drag?
Australia: Still goes 'WTF!?'
***
Eh... ok, never mind me :p
-
I'm sorry, don't you think thats a bit naive? You have China with nukes, NK developing them, and you're telling me that South Korea is developing nuclear programs for energy use? They're between a rock and a hard place, and both for their own safety and because it suits Uncle Sam to have a friendly regional nucealr power, it only makes sense.
It might be that NK has had a greater necessity to lie, since they are the enemy, or that they got caught more often, but I simply don't trust ANY (well, almost any) government to be truthful.
-
[q]Holland: D00d, want a drag?[/q]
It'd be hillarious to see that at the UN ...
-
CIA report guy: I don't have any proof
(five minutes later)
CIA report guy: oh hey, look they tested one
(india/pakistan style, this was aimed at how craptacular our 'intelligence' is)
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I can see it now...
Bush: THEY HAVE WMDs!
CIA report guy: Eh... Sir, no they don't.
Bush: TTHEY HAVE WMDs, GAWDDAMNIT! PREPARE INVASION TROOPS!
Powel: George... There is no evidence!
Bush: Did we need evidence to invade Iraq!? No!
...
http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/002789.html#002789
-
[q](india/pakistan style, this was aimed at how craptacular our 'intelligence' is)[/q]
Intelligence is not the issue, political influence is.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you know that says exactly the same thing as the fox news site does
Yeah, except the BBC article just says:
"There was an explosion. We're not sure what it was, but it's not thought to be nuclear"
And the FOX article says:
"There was an explosion. They say it's not nuclear, but ever since South Korea admitted to researching nukes, North Korea has said they're going to build thousands of them and lay waste to the Earth before expanding their Commie empire and infecting the radioactive world with their anti-Rupert bull****. DEATH TO THE PINKOS!!!"
-
eh, no actualy there prety much identical, there both just copys of an AP item.
-
vyper, I was comenting on how we didn't know ether of them had a nuclear program at all untill they tested a few
-
Ahhh, the vitures of objective journalism...
-
CNN says it wasn't a nuke also. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/09/12/nkorea.blast/index.html)
-
In all honesty, I'd say the BBC report was slightly less bias towards the "they're testing nukes or just being bad bad commies" idea.
-
I think people on HLP disagree with things or bash the US just for the sake of doing it.
Cause everything that happens ends up somehow bashing the US.
-
Where has the US bashing been?
-
There is alot of US bashing, but who cares...
Anyway, this is not good... :(
-
well there is lot speculation what happened there but there is Huge mushroom cloud over that place (4km) IF it was Nuclear plant accident then it was really bad
-
For the love of God, just because it's a mushroom cloud doesn't mean it was a nuclear explosion.
-
I didn't say that
-
Yeah, you did, then you editted the post to change the implication.
-
an0n, welcome to the realm of discussions with DW/HIG/silver dracon (the spelling error was in his original name). The guy will edit faster then you post, refuse all logic, say he owns half a country, and simply ignore any anything that doesn't agree with his own points.
Now, where did the US bashing begin? The Fox news thingy? Well, that was Murdoch bashing, I'd've given a CNN link to confirm a story from "The Sun"(UK Murdoch newspaper) any time.
-
People seem to confuse 'US bashing' with 'Bush administration bashing' quite often as of late...
-
Originally posted by an0n
Yeah, you did, then you editted the post to change the implication.
i only edited if to IF:p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
People seem to confuse 'US bashing' with 'Bush administration bashing' quite often as of late...
That's cause Bush is the USA and anyone who says different is a Stinky Communist Muslim Terrorist who hates the USA and God!!!11111
-
Originally posted by Tiara
People seem to confuse 'US bashing' with 'Bush administration bashing' quite often as of late...
no u do not understand bush=usa you cant criticize anyone from anywhere without critizing everything everywhere you stupid liberal pinko communist european arab terrorist :mad: bush is the best and kerry would surrender to terrists everything is perfect here shut your hole 9/11 never forget
-
Now that is a weird coincidence :D
-
Did Liberator change his nick?
-
I seriously hope that was some utterly failed attempt at sarcasm :p
-
:lol: IF the Bush admin get in again this time then what can I say? ;)
-
Originally posted by Janos
no u do not understand bush=usa you cant criticize anyone from anywhere without critizing everything everywhere you stupid liberal pinko communist european arab terrorist :mad: bush is the best and kerry would surrender to terrists everything is perfect here shut your hole 9/11 never forget
Got water?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I think people on HLP disagree with things or bash the US just for the sake of doing it.
Cause everything that happens ends up somehow bashing the US.
There really hasn't been any U.S. bashing in this thread that I've seen. Except maybe a little from Rictor, but that could only be considered bashing if your really sensitive about it or something.
-
Originally posted by Darkage
Got water?
water is terrorist
-
Go see a doctor dude.
-
Actually the problem is that someone percieves offense (even when none is intended), and gets defensive. And then it's into the black hole of criticism that is an internet political debate.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Actually the problem is that someone percieves offense (even when none is intended), and gets defensive. And then it's into the black hole of criticism that is an internet political debate.
Everyone goes offensive (even when none is even needed, FFS) which automatically makes the other guy to want to gain intiative, so he goes offensive as well, as does everyone else. Power of anonymity, stupid arrogant nationalism, complete incapability to change your point of view and smileys really bring out the good sides in human nature.
INTERNET
In other news, more on-topic, nothing has been found that would prove or unprove the DPRK accident. Tinfoils are overheating all around the world, it's really comical. Best of:
- it was actually an US airstrike on NK nuclear facility
- China trying to force NK or USA to attack the other guy so the [chinese] could attack Japan. Or Russia!
- everyone knows it's a nuke test but don't dare to publicize the data [:wtf:]
- LIBERAL MEDIA :rolleyes:
- Bush is trying to force NK to war [another pretty :wtf:]
- NK just threw some old munitions together and made a blast which resembled a nuke blast, just to get attention. This could actually be not so far out as the other suggestions.
- generic "industrial accident"
- it really was a forest fire. You know, the type of forest fire which leaves craters. Ho hum.
-
I'd say it's either a US missile strike or one of the NK guards got a little drunk and dropped his cigarette onto the 'Celebration Munitions' cart.
-
I'd love to know what sort of air strike anyone could throw out there that leaves a 2-mile-wide pock mark. I can see a conventional weapons dump, certainly, if it was arranged to all blow up simultaneously. That's how the kiloton rating came into being in the first place. But since the concensus is that it wasn't a nuclear detonation, it places the blame for the explosion on the North Korean government, either deliberate or accidental, or on natural disaster. Remember that big train explosion a while back? It could be similar. The area isn't prone to vulcanism as far as I'm aware (good posibility for a large explosion in a mountain range, after all) but then it is also possible. And the wild chance that it was an asteroidal impact or something.
-
I think I overdid it a bit a the party... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Janos
- NK just threw some old munitions together and made a blast which resembled a nuke blast, just to get attention. This could actually be not so far out as the other suggestions.
I'd go with that one actually. NK have a habit of doing really outragous things in order to get publicity. Remember when they did that missile test and decided to fire the damn thing through Japanese airspace for no good reason?
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I'd love to know what sort of air strike anyone could throw out there that leaves a 2-mile-wide pock mark. I can see a conventional weapons dump, certainly, if it was arranged to all blow up simultaneously. That's how the kiloton rating came into being in the first place. But since the concensus is that it wasn't a nuclear detonation, it places the blame for the explosion on the North Korean government, either deliberate or accidental, or on natural disaster. Remember that big train explosion a while back? It could be similar. The area isn't prone to vulcanism as far as I'm aware (good posibility for a large explosion in a mountain range, after all) but then it is also possible. And the wild chance that it was an asteroidal impact or something.
How big is a MOAB blast?
I'd go for the complete ****up option, myself. Probably lax safety at a fuel /arms dump or something similar.
-
From what I've heard, a MOAB at best would only be half the size of that mushroom cloud.
However, such a "mushroom cloud" could be caused by many types of non-nuclear events ranging from forest fires (with correct atmospheric conditions) to pipelines exploding.
It's almost certainly not nuclear since a nuclear explosion always sets off a characteristic spike that the seismologists all over the world can easily identify. So unless there's someone who can cover up every single seismologist in the free world, we'd know by now that it's nuclear (well, a clean explosion anyways).
Even if it was nuclear, there's really no method other than diplomacy to deal with N. Korea. Afterall, they have enough artillery pointed at Seoul to reduce it to dust in an hour. So unless you propose simultaneously nuking N. Korea to glass in 5 minutes...
-
All you need to do to destroy North Korea is take out....err....Kim Sung Il, is it? And leave evidence suggesting it was one of his cadre.
Instant civil war.
-
Actually the only thing seismically characteristic about a nuclear explosion is the magnitude of the shockwave, and then it's more often a measure of an underground test than a surface one. And even with the North Korean regime being what it is, I can't see them being stupid enough to conduct a surface test. The civilian contamination would be far to great, even for them. The reason we'd know by now that it was not nuclear would be that we have not detected increases in radiation at the blast site or in the smoke plume, which incidentally is how the US discovered that the Soviet Union had nukes as well. The South Koreans did pick up two seperate explosions within about 2 hours of each other using seismic equipment, so they knew that and when it happened, just not why.
A MOAB produces an explosion maybe several hundred meters (at most 1km) in diameter, nothing close to the reported 2 miles. Remember that the size of the blast is logrithmically related to the force of the explosion once you're in that range. The only thing that can create a blast that big is a single concentrated explosion on the order of a thousand tons of explosives or the nuclear (or environmental) equivalent, which could not have been caried on a plane. Dropping multiple bombs wouldn't work either, as the timing would have to be impossibly precise to not make it painfully evident as to what happened.
-
There was something resembling a spike in seismographic charts, but no one I know has any idea if it's an anomaly or not, because, well, no one has a clue about anything anywhere.
edit: Oh they destroyed a mountain, nothing more, move along.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3650702.stm
North Korea has given its first explanation for the huge blast last week which prompted speculation that it had carried out a nuclear test.
The country's foreign minister, Paek Nam-sun, said the blast was in fact the deliberate demolition of a mountain as part of a huge, hydro-electric project.
His remarks came in response to a call for information by the visiting UK Foreign Office minister, Bill Rammell.
North Korea had said nothing about the incident until now.
-
They demoed a mountain for a dam? Don't mountains usually play a significant role in supporting dam on one side or the other? I mean you've got to have a large geological structure in place next to the river to make building the dam anywhere near cheap enough to warrant construction.
-
depends on what kind of mountain, and where it is. for example, if it is where the actual water is planned to be, you blow it to pieces
-
Maybe it was an FAE test . . . those'd probably produce mushroom clouds.
The whole thing about NK not getting nukes is a bunch of bull anyway. Any country hoarding thousands of nukes and other WMDs has no business telling any other country what they can and cannot build.
-
and a country with no military has no bussiness telling us what we can and cannot do.
-
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
Maybe it was an FAE test . . . those'd probably produce mushroom clouds.
The whole thing about NK not getting nukes is a bunch of bull anyway. Any country hoarding thousands of nukes and other WMDs has no business telling any other country what they can and cannot build.
Yes they can. NPT.
Originally posted by Bobboau
and a country with no military has no bussiness telling us what we can and cannot do.
:lol:
-
and a country with no military has no bussiness telling us what we can and cannot do.
Considering that Canada may have more oil than Saudi Arabia and that consequently you may dependent upon our exports in the near future, I'd say that we can.
-
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
Considering that Canada may have more oil than Saudi Arabia and that consequently you may dependent upon our exports in the near future, I'd say that we can.
With no military? INVASION TIME!! LIBERATE CANADA!! FREE THEIR OI...PEOPLE!
*cough*
Er, i bet they're actually carving the Glorious Leaders face into a mountain with shoddy dynamiting.
-
[q]and a country with no military has no bussiness telling us what we can and cannot do.[/q]
Nice little American boy, well trained... *pats bob on the head patronizingly*
-
N Korea allows blast site visit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3650702.stm)
"A British diplomat is to be allowed to visit the site of a huge explosion in North Korea that raised fears of a nuclear test, a British minister says.
The UK's Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell requested acccess to the site during a visit to North Korea. "
-
I put forth as much defence and used as much thought as he did.
-
I put forth as much defence and used as much thought as he did.
Really? I don't think so. This whole bit about the US saying "oh, you can't have a nuclear weapons program or a WMD program because you're a bad man" is a joke. What kind of moral authority does a country have in saying that when they're the one ones to have used such weapons on civilian populations (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) not to meantion other WMDs on other populations (Agent Orange in Vietman (which wasn't designed to kill people, but is still poisoning people daily), or their own soldiers with DU bullets or whatever and yet they still hold the largest stockpile of any such weapons?
America has thousands of nukes, probably tons of chemical and biological weapons (which btw they sold to Mr. Saddam) and yet they're saying "no, such weapons are bad. You shouldn't have them". It's a case of a american holding a gun, and saying the other people shouldn't have one.
If America thinks WMDs are bad then they should get rid of their own damn stockpile first. The only purpose nukes serve is some armageddon-defence in saying "if we go down, we're taking them with us" mentality, which is quite pointless because if the whole of the US was destroyed the Earth's environment would probably be irreprably damaged anyway. Only god knows why the US has tons of biological/chemical agents, it sure as hell isn't to find anti-dotes because you don't need a warehouse full of anthrax or whatever to learn how to stop it.
And some people may say "well the US having nukes is safe because we won't fire them" is a load of baloney too, because beside the fact you're the only country to have actually used them, there are no guarentees that some President that gets into power isn't a in-the-closet crackpot with some hidden agenda of world apocalypse. I mean the current administration invaded a sovereign country out of some religious / economy-boosting / oil-grabbing desire, whose to say what else is possible.
The only way to have a safer world is to have no one with nuclear weapons. If people don't want 'rogue states' building nuclear weapons, then fine. After the US, and France, and UK and Israel and Russia, India, Pakistan get rid of their all of their nukes then they can start telling other people to not develop them.
-
You can't seriously be that naive to believe all that can you?
-
ooh, the naivité of that post is so pretty
-
If you're asking if I'm naive enough to believe that the US or any other country will destroy their remaining nuclear weapons, then the answer is of course not. It will likely never happen.
Instead the US will spend billions of dollars building anti-missile defences to defend against ICBM strikes when any nuclear attack on the US will probably be smuggled in by terrorists on boats or some other means. Just like they spend billions of dollars on WMD which they will likely never use (except perhaps as military aid to brutal dictatorships).
I'm also not naive enough to believe that _imposing_ democracy on a country will actually lead to a democratic society, or that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with anti-terrorism or the well-being of the Iraqi people.
-
I don't think he's the naive one.
-
*reads posts and CNN*
...Meh...
*goes back to rendering and listening to tunes*
-
Just become isolationists... please? Except for TV shows of course, keep 'em coming....
-
The only reason I would advocate keeping a few nuclear warheads around would be in case we ever need to blow up a comet or asteroid, which must happen sooner or later.
-
you've been watching too much TV Ford. And besides, if it came to that, they could be produced easily enough, and using newer, safer technologies.
Akalabeth::
:yes: :yes:
-
All I'm saying is that the odds dictate that sooner or later, probably sooner, a large object is going to cross our path, and that a large nuclear warhead might provide the means for preventing a cataclysm. It's not fantasy, only a matter of time.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
All I'm saying is that the odds dictate that sooner or later, probably sooner, a large object is going to cross our path, and that a large nuclear warhead might provide the means for preventing a cataclysm. It's not fantasy, only a matter of time.
'cept nuclear weapons are almost completely useless against large asteroids / comets IIRC. I think they calculated that to destroy a 'planetkiller' type asteroid, they'd need a gargantuan nuclear missile capable of killing the world itself.
-
I trust the BBC, not Fox. Fox is loaded with right wing BS.
'cept nuclear weapons are almost completely useless against large asteroids / comets IIRC. I think they calculated that to destroy a 'planetkiller' type asteroid, they'd need a gargantuan nuclear missile capable of killing the world itself.
They don't need to destroy it, they just need to change its course.
-
Well it wouldn't necessarily have to destroy it, only give it a nudge. And I'm pretty sure that some of the largest ones we've built, (the ones so huge that we never dared to test them), would provide enough force to divert most objects.
-
Much of the destructive capabilities of a nuclear warhead come from their interaction with an atmosphere. Specifically the heat and the shockwave (I believe).
In space, there is no atmosphere. So any nuclear weapons are going to be far less effective. I recently saw a show on either CBC or PBS saying that nukes would be mostly a waste of time. And instead some scientists had come up with some other whacky ideas like lasers and just strapping engines onto the asteroid to move it somewhere else.
-
given the situation, I'd rather have a huge stockpile of nukes to throw at it (while some committy tried to come up with alternitives) than no nukes.
shoot a few at it, let them get imbedded into it, then set them off, I'm sure that'd provide enough conduction and thow chunks off hard enough to do _some_ good. and the sooner the better.
-
The trouble with that is the fact that none of our nuclear launch vehicles can even make orbit, much less break it and intercept some chunk of rock a couple of AU's distant (as any successful interception would have to be). The downside with ICBM's is that they are by definition balistic, and will return to the same altitude from which it was launched eventually. It'd take more time to build suitable launch vehicles than to reconstruct the nukes.
-
Guys, we totally need Bruce Willis in on this. He's a tough miner guy, just look at him; a manly man. Grrrrr. He'll fly up there with a wacky cast of fellow miners and drill the asteroid. And then sacrifice himself for the good of mankind (and some pretty-boy who's porkin' his daughter). Thats how badass he is.
Asteroids?
Pffft, they don't stand a chance.
-
actualy wasn't he an oil well driller?
-
He can be both! That guy's a badass mother****er, he can be anything he wants. Besides, they're equally macho jobs.
In fact, all he has to do is stomp his foot down on the ground, and oil comes out. Drilling machines? We don't need no stinkin' drilling machines, we got Willis.
-
why couldn't he also be a lumberjack?
let us leave no natural resouce un-plundered
-
Actually I think one of the more important problems with any asteroid collisions is seeing the things in time. I think there was one rock a while ago that passed between Earth + the moon and wasn't seen until it was moving away from us.
As for Bruce Willis, if he kept yapping his gab any longer the whole of the Earth woulda been toast so it's thankful that he wasn't given more lines. Most self-sacrifice types should just push the button instead of giving some victory speech to themselves or the asteroid.
-
My impression was that the composition & density of many asteroids is such that even the use of a nuclear weapon wouldn't be guarenteed to divert it.
-
doing nothing is guarenteed not to.
unless your one of the 'faithful'