Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on January 07, 2005, 01:59:00 pm
-
They're obviously not buying into the US's "We want a peaceful resolution" bull**** and have learned that when Bush starts talking about your country, the US Armed Forces are probably already moving towards your ****.
http://news4colorado.com/nationworld/topstories_story_005101655.html
-
When North Koreans evacuate to underground facilities, they should make sure that they take the portraits, plaster busts and bronze statues of Kim and his parents so that they can “protect” them in a special room, the guidelines say.
I love North Korea.
-
Ugh.
-
I have to agree that Bush could very well go after them, but personally, I think he's more likely to go after Iran.
-
Woohoo! Another war! *does the worldwide domination boogy*
-
Iraq is going to look like a glorified sandbox if this is gonna happen...
-
Nucular. It's pronounced Nucular...
-
Kyunghyang did not clarify where it acquired the document classified as “top secret.”
...why am I feeling doubtful about this whole thing?
-
Because you didn't consider that naming the source would get their informant killed?
And from the looks of it, the US Army Reserves are being prepared for active duty. So I'd say Iran is pretty much ****ed.
-
Uhm, no.
Iran would make Iraq look like a day at the beach. North Korea would make Iraq look like a day at the beach, while sipping expensive wine in the presence of the Swedish bikini team, who have decided to sunbathe sans clothing.
The US military is overstretches as it is. Without a full blown draft, and probably even with one, no one's getting invaded unless its like, Haiti or something, and a half-dozen recruits can do the job.
-
I seriously doubt there will be another war without a draft.
-
Like I said - they're preparing for a draft.
-
Well then...if things really suck now...they are going to really really suck later.
The US, as powerful as it is, would be utterly insane to try and start a new conflict. Iraq is far too volatile...if they move on and divert resources elsewhere then the place is going to fall apart. Its going to take years to get out of Iraq. The optimist in me ways saying that the next four years would see Bush split his time between Iraq and the homeland.
-
The pessimist in my says they'll pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan to destabilize the region and tie up UN, NATO and Arab forces while they butt**** Iran.
-
Nobodys going to get invaded. Especially not north korea.
And if there is a draft troops will be sent to Iraq, not Iran or NK. Very simple reason for this, starts with o ends with l.
-
Iran has oil, though...they're probably just waiting till they can complete converting the USS Nimitz into an oil tanker.
-
i live in the UK, the T.A. here is desperatly drafting in reserves here at the moment and we've rushed ahead our new aircraft carrier production.....jus a coincidence? or...?
-
didn't Iran just sign a very, very lucrative oil deal with China? Something like $70 billion over x years?
With that sort of investment, you can be damn sure that China would protect it any way it can. They have enough political/economic influence to *****-slap the US should they try to invade, which as I said won't happen cause at least 200,000 or so NEW troops would be needed to invade and occupy Iran, probably more.
Originally posted by dan87uk
i live in the UK, the T.A. here is desperatly drafting in reserves here at the moment and we've rushed ahead our new aircraft carrier production.....jus a coincidence? or...?
TA being...?
Even in the highly, highly unlikely chance that the US doe try to start some ****, I very much doubt that the UK would be on board for it. Now of course you know your own politics better than I do, but even Blair wouldn't sign on for another war, especially given that public sentiment for the existing war, and general displeasure (or at least thats the way I see it) with Blair's role as the empire's lackey.
-
The UK wouldn't go for it, and the US would not go to war. You'd get so much flak, Congress would go bonkers, you'd never get it through./
-
with a Republican majority? oh yeah, they'de be real adverserial...right.
Bush could pretty much ask for a 100-meter tall gold statue to Fred Flinstone that doubles as a nuclear silo and congress would give it to him.
-
From what I'm seeing, even most Republicans would not be willing to commit the political suicide that voting for a second war would constitute.
-
TA Being?
TA stands for territorial Army lol sorry bout tht, as for blair u never know, he is confusing sometimes, i think it depends what mood he's in hahaha
-
Last time I checked we had ordered new Destroyers for the RN but... forgot to order the weapons systems. :nervous:
So christ knows what they'll do with carriers.
Anyway, the UK doesn't have the manpower to take any serious part in an invasion of NK.
-
hehe, like the WAH-64s you forgot to train pilots for.
-
Or the good old Eurofighter.
Or the still-delayed Clansman radio system.
Or the Challenger tank air-filters that failed in desert tests.
OR the boots that melted in hot weather.
Or windows for warships
Or ...... well, you get the idea.
-
[q]hehe, like the WAH-64s you forgot to train pilots for.[/q]
Hey hey, at least we have some. :p
-
yeah the eurofighter is a joke at the moment, there apparently doing a mk II already, but the wepons suck on it, the destroyers and carriers are seriously low in numbers our tanks are quality now though but our soldiers usually dont have good enough weapons neither particularly when there given 1 clip of ammo for a machine gun that will use it all up in 10 seconds
-
Dont forget the guns the trigger falls off.
BTW it was India that signed an lng agreement with Iran worth 40 billion.
-
ah yes i forgot about that, also they get jammed by sand and other such things
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I love North Korea.
yep, so do I.
In fact, I "love" it so much I want it to sink into the sea (along with some other nations I "love" very much)
@Gank: China too signed a deal with Iran.
-
well it looks like someone in Iran knows what theyre doing
-
There is no way Bush will launch another succesful war (EDIT: I'm not saying Iraq was succesful, it was just the opposite). Just because Congress is republican, doesn't mean they're suicidal. Launching another war at this stage will be suicidal.
-
Bush has yet to launch a successful war...
-
Touche'
-
I wasn't saying he's ever launched a succesful war, I was saying that if he launches this one, it wouldn't be succesful.
I phrased my statement wrong, sorry.
The post above has been edited :)
-
If only the US could lose a war without huge repurcussions for the rest of the world. It might bring them down to Earth.
I'm not really bashing the US, but I'm getting the feeling that the current man (I still have my doubts about the 'man' part) in office doesn't realize that the US is far, far, FAR from invincible. The war in Iraq alone is overstretching them. As UT already said, another war will be suicidal (and not only to the US I might add).
Yes, America is the most powerfull nation on Earth. Period. But an even bigger superiority complex is the last thing we need right now.
-
if NK starts anything, there lible to just get themselves nuked.
-
And what d'you think they'll do with their own weapons? :lol:
Edit: Allow me clarify what I mean. Your statement implies the concept of full spectrum dominance by the US military is real. I'm afraid to say it's not: Iraq has proven this, even the war itself has proven it - it's a pipe dream of some Pentagon generals hungering for the good old days when war was won by numbers alone.
-
I refuse to go fight.
-
N Korea wages war on long hair (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4157121.stm)
State radio programmes such as "Dressing in accordance with our people's emotion and taste" link clothes and appearance with the wearer's "ideological and mental state".
Tidy attire "is important in repelling the enemies' manoeuvres to infiltrate corrupt capitalist ideas and lifestyle and establishing the socialist lifestyle of the military-first era," the radio says.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/4156197.stm
Parallel - too scary?
-
:rolleyes:
Did they ban them from wearing (fake) burberry too?
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
@Gank: China too signed a deal with Iran.
So they did, worth over 100 billion with more on the way.
Originally posted by Bobboau
if NK starts anything, there lible to just get themselves nuked.
No they're not.
-
[color=66ff00]Gotta agree with Gank here Bob, the stigma surrounding nukes has never gone away, irrespective of the technological progress that has been made in 'clean nukes'.
If america where to nuke NK they'd make themselves a target of China who would simply take it as an excuse to 'situate' a few nukes on american soil pretty sharpish.
Then we're all shafted. Except for Australia. WTF mates?
[/color]
-
Originally posted by vyper
Your statement implies the concept of full spectrum dominance by the US military is real.
nukes are the weapon of last recorse, saying that we'd be forced to use our trump card at the cost of whatever remaining credibility we have left against what is basicly a third world country is not a statement of dominence.
-
maeg: that depends on your definitions of "nuke". Low yield bunker busters designed specifically with NK in mind are being delevoped, in contravention of the Non Proliferation Treaty I might add. The fact that these are to be usable nukes, and AFAIK the dirtiest ones yet (biologically speaking) is not really doing alot of reassure me at the moment
But like I said, the chance of the US starting a war with NK, especially given the South's attitudes, is negligible.
-
The US would not use nukes unless the enemy used them first. And even at that, they'd take caution and only nuke one or two "strategic" areas (not like you could get very strategic with nukes).
And I agree with Rictor: the chance of war with any other country is almost nil.
-
that's why I said "if NK starts anything"
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Then we're all shafted. Except for Australia. WTF mates?[/color]
you seem to foget the australia also supported the war(s)
also if NK does have nukes and got invaded they would proably be inclined to use them against the invaders
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]If america where to nuke NK they'd make themselves a target of China who would simply take it as an excuse to 'situate' a few nukes on american soil pretty sharpish.
[/color]
True, but take into account that China does not have the amount of nukes needed to bring down the US, while the opposite certainly is true. Something the Student-crushing-commies certainly are aware off.
-
so what's the point of a war with north korea, exactly? i mean i know they've got nuclear weapons and all, but so do the u.s. how come no one else gets to make war on the u.s.? is that like kinda unfair or what?
and what's with 'clean' nukes, what's the point of them, isn't the point of weapons to make as much destruction as possible so as to scare the other bastard ****less?
-
No the point of effective weapons is to kill the other bastard as effectively as possible and then take his usable resources intact.
-
but that depends on the point of the war, doesnt it? what does north korea have that the u.s. wants, apart from the ability to kill half the population at once?
-
the point of a war with Noth Korea is that North Korea wants to be called Korea, and unfortunately we are quite fond of the people in South Korea.
aliances. ideoligy. nationalism. ego.
and anyone can make war on us for what ever reason they want to, hell no reason at all, but it seems no one seems to think they can win against us.
-
all prospective politicians should serve a mandatory period in the frontline of whatever available war/skirmish/somewhere there's fighting there is before serving their term of office.
it probably wouldn't deter them from making war, but at least they're not unknowingly getting other people killed.
-
what you think they don't know already?
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
True, but take into account that China does not have the amount of nukes needed to bring down the US, .
True, but they need hit only to Strategic targets, and those targets are important to USA
-
I don't think they have the arsinal to hit enough targets to take out our retaliatory capasity fast enough to prevent us from removeing there half of the planet.
-
Originally posted by oohal:
you seem to foget the australia also supported the war(s)
also if NK does have nukes and got invaded they would proably be inclined to use them against the invaders
[color=66ff00]It was a joke in referece to 'the end of the world' flash ani.[/color]
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80:
True, but take into account that China does not have the amount of nukes needed to bring down the US, while the opposite certainly is true. Something the Student-crushing-commies certainly are aware off.
[color=66ff00]No doubt but you're assuming that they'd only nuke america if they thought they'd be able to take out the entire country. There's nothing like telling your people that you've just leveled 12 or so of your enemy's largest cities to boost morale on your side and kill morale on the enemy's.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I don't think they have the arsinal to hit enough targets to take out our retaliatory capasity fast enough to prevent us from removeing there half of the planet.
[color=66ff00]You don't seem to understand, they alone do not have the capacity but once america launches it's all over, any country with nukes that is in proximity to america's targets will most likely launch.
India and Pakistan not to mention the Russians? That's a lot of nukes.
[/color]
-
India and Pakistan don't have a delivery system.
Russia, maybe but we've been on prety good relations with them lately. I doubt they'd atack us if we counter-atacked China
and I'm not advicateing any of this, just stateing what seems likely if certan events happen.
if North Korea invades the south, we will get involved, our military is spread thin so we are sort of backed into a corner, Bush is at the top.
oh no, no posability Nukes will be used :doubt:
-
Russia and China will most likely have their ICBMs wired up to a system that automatically retaliates if a launch is detected in a hostile country (as will the US).
As an aside, North Korea will have little or no interest in actually invading the South; because the South has been exposed to the world for the last few centuries. If the 2 were unified, the flood of stories, opinions, news etc would destroy the propaganda efforts of the Northern government; hell, even China is considered open compared to NK.
-
edit: oops, wrong button.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the point of a war with Noth Korea is that North Korea wants to be called Korea, and unfortunately we are quite fond of the people in South Korea.
aliances. ideoligy. nationalism. ego..
So is that why there are protests throughout the South calling for American withdraw? Or maybe the US is so fond of the South that Clinton very nearly started a war, without I might add the support of the South Korean government, which would have left Seoul as a smoking crater in the ground considering all the artillery that the North has directed that way.
I don't buy it that the US presence in the DMZ and South Korea is altruistic.
Originally posted by icespeed
all prospective politicians should serve a mandatory period in the frontline of whatever available war/skirmish/somewhere there's fighting there is before serving their term of office.
That statement speaks volumes, though not I imagine the way you intended it. The assumption is of course that the US is, and always will be, engaged in a war of some kind. Which is basically just proving what some of us have been saying all along.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So is that why there are protests throughout the South calling for American withdraw?
Because a US troop carrier ran over 2 South Korean schoolgirls.
-
Aside from that plus the rapes...
-
The running over of the two girls may have been a rallying point, but do you honestly believe that a single incident could spark protests if the outrage and resentment wasn't there already? Try to think of this from their perspective. Would you want a bunch of bored, drunk 19 year old running around your country acting like ****ing lawless cowboys and generally wreaking havok? Look at Okinawa, and you see what's likely to happen in South Korea in a few years.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The running over of the two girls may have been a rallying point, but do you honestly believe that a single incident could spark protests if the outrage and resentment wasn't there already? Try to think of this from their perspective. Look at Okinawa, and you see what's likely to happen in South Korea in a few years.
I don't know - maybe? Single events can spark general sentiment sometimes, y'know. But that's what caused the protests, regardless of whether it was the spark or the sole reason.
Originally posted by Rictor
Would you want a bunch of bored, drunk 19 year old running around your country acting like ****ing lawless cowboys and generally wreaking havok?
Er.... you're describing the entire ned demographic, here
:D
-
Actually aldo protests against the US presence in korea have been taking place since the 80s, long before the 2 girls were killed. The incident just brought it to western attention.
-
Well, I couldn't find any demographic surveys of the level of SK opposition to the Us presence, so that story was all I had to go by.
-
I do seem to recal something about a large pro-us demonstration there not to long ago.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2810275.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2680065.stm (see bottom)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2743215.stm
There's not anything there that actually quantatively compares the size/frequency of pro/anti-US demonstrations, however.
-
"That statement speaks volumes, though not I imagine the way you intended it. The assumption is of course that the US is, and always will be, engaged in a war of some kind. Which is basically just proving what some of us have been saying all along."
- Rictor-
doesn't have to be the u.s.'s war. any allies' war will do as well. the main point was that a) politicians wouldn't just be thinking about the politics and what they get out of a war fought by someone else and b) the stupider ones would probably be eliminated.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00] There's nothing like telling your people that you've just leveled 12 or so of your enemy's largest cities to boost morale on your side and kill morale on the enemy's.
[/color]
pretty useless when the other side bombs your entire nation back to the stone-age...
The US loses it's 12 biggest cities in your example... China simply ceases to exist. Who 'won'?
seriously, no one is going use nukes in all likelyhood. It's just too dangerous. They are a detterence, not a practical weapon, when dealing with another country that has them too. That's why the US (and others too of course) have been looking at ways to make 'clean' nukes and small nukes...
As for North Korea: just hope that despicable regime dies out without taking the peninsula down in war.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
pretty useless when the other side bombs your entire nation back to the stone-age...
The US loses it's 12 biggest cities in your example... China simply ceases to exist. Who 'won'?
No-one; I think the odds are that the long term damage to infrastructure, ecnomy and health would destroy the country anyways (and the neighbours... due to the fallout).
NB: apparently China has 20 ICBMs capable of hitting the US (in 2002), Pentagon estimates have predicted 75-100 in 15 years time. Reportedly, China is upgrading its ICBMs with multiple warheads or decoys to preserve its strategic deterrent should the US anti-missile missile system actually work at some point in the distant future.
NB2: and yep, let's hope we have a peoples revolution or similar against the NK government... that situation is highly volatile with respect to outside actions, but I don't think there is any doubt it is one of the most repressive and downright evil regimes in the world.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The US loses it's 12 biggest cities in your example... China simply ceases to exist. Who 'won'?
Europe. :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
No-one; I think the odds are that the long term damage to infrastructure, ecnomy and health would destroy the country anyways (and the neighbours... due to the fallout).
The fallout kinda depends on whether you are mainly engaging "hard" targets, such as missile silos and other underground targets, railroad network and bunkers, or "soft" targets, like most civilian targets and most of other infrastructure.
Against "hard" targets (my milijargon is propably completely way off), ground detonations are the key. This basically means that nuke(s) are blasted in he ground level, creating a huge crater and also raising up huge amounts of now-radioactive dust, which then quickly falls back into ground, causing the fallout! (how ingenious!) In case of total nuclear exchange program, enemies' nuclear silo areas would be in horrible condition. And by horrible I mean "devoid of life for several years".
Air bursts are pretty different matter, as higher altitude bursts tend to raise much smaller dustclouds, reducing the amount of matter getting their unhealthy dose of XRAY ATOMICS power. Of course, yes, if dozens of cities are nuked in one warm event, the fallout problem, at leas in general vicinity (propably spanning several dozen-several hundred kms from the cities), will be quite severe. Add that to global fallout problems, and yeah, a nice mix we have here gentlemen.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Europe. :p
:nod:
-
If the US was to completely obliterate China, a country of over a billion, the fallout would wipe out life on earth, so for all the posturing its not an option available to the US.
Aldo, I wouldnt count much on a peoples revolution in NK, call it brainwashing or whatever but nk people actually believe its government when it says the US is the cause of all its problems. If you read up on the war its not that hard to understand, many atrocities were commited by US/UN forces, not to mention an average of 110 tonnes of napalm was dropped daily on the country for three years. Seeing how technically the US is still at war with them and has troops massed at its borders as well as embargos and sanctions in place its quite easy for the north korean government to blame its problems on the US, and they're not far wrong either. I'm not saying nk are good or anything, they've done some pretty nasty things but at the end of the day there isnt a hope of its people rising up against it.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Aldo, I wouldnt count much on a peoples revolution in NK, call it brainwashing or whatever but nk people actually believe its government when it says the US is the cause of all its problems. If you read up on the war its not that hard to understand, many atrocities were commited by US/UN forces, not to mention an average of 110 tonnes of napalm was dropped daily on the country for three years. Seeing how technically the US is still at war with them and has troops massed at its borders as well as embargos and sanctions in place its quite easy for the north korean government to blame its problems on the US, and they're not far wrong either. I'm not saying nk are good or anything, they've done some pretty nasty things but at the end of the day there isnt a hope of its people rising up against it.
Well, there's not really any other viable options to hope for, are there?
-
Not really, although nk has said it'd be willing to give up its nuclear program in exchange for something:
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050109/topstories/65489.shtml
Given they already agreed to suspend their program in return for the building of two reactors by the US in the Agreed Framework of 1994 and the US failed to live up to its obligations under this I wouldnt get too exited.
Btw I cant find any information on the number of people opposed to US presence, but if you read up on US involvement in Korea, starting with the Taft-Katsura memorandum of 1905, its military governship of the south 45-48, the actions of its sucessor, the massacres it perpetrated during the war and its support of the ruthless military dictatorships running the place up until the early 90s you might get a rough idea of why some people mightnt be too happy about their presence.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Not really, although nk has said it'd be willing to give up its nuclear program in exchange for something:
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050109/topstories/65489.shtml
Given they already agreed to suspend their program in return for the building of two reactors by the US in the Agreed Framework of 1994 and the US failed to live up to its obligations under this I wouldnt get too exited.
Btw I cant find any information on the number of people opposed to US presence, but if you read up on US involvement in Korea, starting with the Taft-Katsura memorandum of 1905, its military governship of the south 45-48, the actions of its sucessor, the massacres it perpetrated during the war and its support of the ruthless military dictatorships running the place up until the early 90s you might get a rough idea of why some people mightnt be too happy about their presence.
Well, giving up the nuclear programme isn't exactly going to stop the rest of their shanangians, is it? The gulag-ish germ-warfare-test camps and whatnot that have been reported, for example.
-
It's not like they're gonna be coming over the hill tomorrow you know.
-
Originally posted by vyper
It's not like they're gonna be coming over the hill tomorrow you know.
If they were, I'd be the one shouting 'NUKE THEM !!!ononeoneone!'
Or something.
Tis simple really. The NK government are clearly evil bastards who are eager to oppress their own people in many very nasty ways to maintain their power. But if we were to go to war with them, then it'd be both a horrible bloodbath and probably completely **** up a very large portion of the world. i.e. it'd be stoopid.
So the best thing, would be if they sorted it out for themselves.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, giving up the nuclear programme isn't exactly going to stop the rest of their shanangians, is it? The gulag-ish germ-warfare-test camps and whatnot that have been reported, for example.
Like I already pointed out aldo, the reason they get away with this sort of stuff is because the US is sitting on their doorstep making threats at them and acting belligerent and looking like the bad guy. As far as the north koreans are concerned they've got a choice between someone who makes some of his people work in gulags, and somenone who burned down every town and city in the country. If the US was to back off, maybe the north koreans would be able to see that there are other alternatives to them. Btw the US reprotedly used Koreans for the exact same thing as north korea is reportedly doing, http://www.kimsoft.com/1997/us-germx.htm.