Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: deep_eyes on February 10, 2005, 01:39:35 am
-
> BREAKING NEWS North Korea says it will not participate in six-party nuclear talks and claims for first time it has nuclear weapons. Details soon.
CNN Reported this just now on the site, nothing up yet, expect something soon....
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.talks/index.html
BBC, Al Jezera whatever links a plus.
-
what the?
North Korea + Nuklear weapons?
This isnt going to end very well :wtf:
-
Here's the corresponding BBC story, make of it what you want
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4252481.stm
-
They've most likely had a nuclear weapon for already some time; NK does this all the time, first they tell everyone to **** off, then wait for some-one to make some sort of compromise (economical aid, for example). It's not like they're going to start firing nukes into Japan or south any day soon :doubt:
-
but the issue now is, they bluffed. whos gonna call it (or not) and what will be the reprecusions.
-
Also, Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/09/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html
-
who next?.. a couple of bogans somewhere in regional tasmania make a nuke outta spare parts from a rusty commodore? :p
-
Simple solution.
Say to North Korea, Iran etc. "Give up your nuclear technology or we will give you a demonstration of a Hydrogen Bomb on your land. That is all"
-
North Korea reply "You obviously don't know what MAD is. Bring it *****es."
-
Simply reply - unless they attack you why give a flying ****?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Also, Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/09/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html
Oh and btw - that article discusses Iran's nuclear enrichment program that so far no one has proved is for weapons use.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Simple solution.
Say to North Korea, Iran etc. "Give up your nuclear technology or we will give you a demonstration of a Hydrogen Bomb on your land. That is all"
or they could just be invited to a study trip to nevada.
-
Doesn't surprise me in the least.
Thing is, North Korea isn't exactly the most aggressive country around. I'm far more worried about America's current "nukyerler" development programme than I am about the DPRK's possible small number of (most likely basic atomic) warheads. Same goes for Iran.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Simple solution.
Say to North Korea, Iran etc. "Give up your nuclear technology or we will give you a demonstration of a Hydrogen Bomb on your land. That is all"
You do of course realise that China might have something to say about that, what with NK being right on their border and all. :rolleyes:
-
Breaking news? old news.
-
NK is such an attention whore.
They've been doing this since 1990s. Of course they should be completely insane to use any nuclear weapons, since their neighbours (China would propably be "quite" pissed off at them too) would demolish them in 30 minutes.
-
Originally posted by BD
North Korea reply "You obviously don't know what MAD is. Bring it *****es."
lol
NK has a chance to obliterate US in the same way SU had? They haven't even had a provable nuclear test yet, and I doubt building 5000 ICBMs is quite at the reach of their industry in any foreseeable future.
One lost US city + some lost NK cities != MAD
-
It's enough to kill tens of millions of people, and I doubt that even the Americans are going to risk that. Besides, another Korean War ould be devastating to most of the world. China and America would be going up against each other, which would do huge damage to world economies, and probably suck in Russia as well. The risks are too great for either side to contemplate (I hope)...
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
It's enough to kill tens of millions of people, and I doubt that even the Americans are going to risk that. Besides, another Korean War ould be devastating to most of the world. China and America would be going up against each other, which would do huge damage to world economies, and probably suck in Russia as well. The risks are too great for either side to contemplate (I hope)...
I call bull****. What reason would China have to side with NK?
None. They have economic ties to the rest of the world, practically no other ties than the LOL COMMISM factor* with NK and don't risk a complete nuclear destuction over a little country (though more insane things have been seen, but during those times no nation had capability to kill the entire population of a planet in less than 24 hours). China is also pretty pissed off at NK at this time, they no longer give them adamant support and prefer US relationships over them so far.
And I pretty much say no one want's to invade NK, but if DPRK decides to nuke someone else than themselves they will get invaded.
*which is also quite BS in itself, as NK is avowedly juche and insane and dirt-poor and surrounded by A) US army B) Japanese army C) ROK army and D) everyone else, while China's economy is doing pretty well under their weird pseudo-communistic libertopia.
-
One problem though - the US import market is slowing down. China relies on US imports a LOT.
-
Originally posted by vyper
One problem though - the US import market is slowing down. China relies on US imports a LOT.
Indeed.
But EU - and Japan! - is still here, though US's weakening economical situation is affecting us as well. And "we" - EU - are their biggest trading partner (which is kinda stupid, because EU is 25 countries with different interests and economies, whereas US is just one huge country).
However, US is China's biggest export market, pretty damn important to them and I admit that readily. However, let's go wildly and stupidly hypothetical and speculative: Imagine China's export to US would decrease from roughly 30% to something completely stupendous, say 12% (worldwide depression). It's still nearly infinetly more money than they get from NK, which has no economy to speak of and is just a geopolitical powder keg with an ADD movie freak as a leader.
There is not a single reason for China to support NK - in an event of all-out war (even without it overheating to 1 000 000 degrees in nuclear exchange) they would lose practically ALL of their trade with their important partners, would be played into an offside and hated by the world and propably raped by US military (I don't want to even think what India would do. Or Pakistan.) In 2012 the situation could be different, since China would propably have some capabilities to match US asian forces, maybe. Perhaps.
super double edit for clarity and reduced insanity
-
One: China has, and has always had, close ties with North Korea. Witness the first Korean war.
Two: If the US is nuked, then they will completely obliterate NK. But not only that, if nukes are used, then think about it: All the other western countries will be pissing their pants, and rush to America screaming "You were right! You were right! We're so sorry for your loss! Let us help you get them!". Why? Because they'll be afraid they'll be next.
Three: NK can not do MAD, simply because of the ratio of size in relation to them vs. the US, and the fact that they don't ahve nearly enough nukes (yet) to blow us all to hell.
Four: If there is another Cold War, China would probably win. The US isn't as powerful as it used to be, and the political climate has changed drastically from the 1950s-1980s.
-
One: China has, and has always had, close ties with North Korea. Witness the first Korean war.
But Usa is important to Chinese economy so if USa would attack NK they would not go help NK (because China is still building their military so that they can counter USA in future)
but if Usa uses Nuclear weaponry then China would aid NK
-
I don't think anyone has hit the nail of the isse so far:
It's an insurance. From now on NK can't be "Dealt With" as a 3rd world/minor nation its status is similar to Pakistan's/India's.
From now on, no direct millitary action can be taken to unite Korea, since the Northerners can hit the button anytime.
With the US it's not a question of who wins - that's NEVER the issue with nuclear war.
It's the very prospect that attacking NK will have severe repercussions - namely several million dead US citizens. There's no useful anit-ICBM system in service, and the US simply can't risk a nuclear attack on one its cities - doing so will be political and literal suicide for any politician.
-
[q]All the other western countries will be pissing their pants, and rush to America screaming "You were right! You were right! We're so sorry for your loss! Let us help you get them!". Why? Because they'll be afraid they'll be next.[/q]
However much I'd like to think we (UK) wouldn't, I have to conceed you're right there.
-
The risk from NK is not to the Us but really to their allies, like Japan and the South; hostages if you will. And the US couldn't nuke North Korea in response without causing fallout damage to said allied countries.
-
JUST IN! THE NETHERLANDS HAS JUST AQUIRED WEAPONS GRADE NAQUADA AND IS GOING TO ENFORE WORLD-WIDE LEGALIZATION OF CANNABIS, PROSTITUTION, ABORTION AND EUTHANESIA OR ASS-RAPE THE ENTIRE WORLD!
...
:p
Seriously, this news is so 1996. ;)
-
The ass-raping part?
-
Originally posted by vyper
The ass-raping part?
Enough with the ass-raping, already!
-
https://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2932
[q]Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is due in the French city of Nice for meetings on Wednesday and Thursday with his NATO counterparts. He is expected to urge other NATO countries to contribute more to the military effort in Iraq.
The transatlantic military alliance was severely strained by the American-led invasion of Iraq. Some NATO countries, notably France and Germany, said they would have nothing to do with operations in Iraq.[/q]
He's lucky the UK are still there. :rolleyes: Then again... we have to forsake the will of our own people to help the Iraqi's supposedly have a chance to express theirs.
-
Janos is on the ball, North Korea is probably in more danger of a Chinese invasion these days than a US one.
-
Eh. They managed to survive this long, I don't see them going anywhere unless the US, China and Russia are all onboard, and the chances of that are, well, slim.
-
If they nuke the USA (or anyone else for that matter), the USA we will send them back to the stone age with the retaliatory strike.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Janos is on the ball, North Korea is probably in more danger of a Chinese invasion these days than a US one.
You're saying all of this "We Must protect ourselves from the US threat" is really "We must make China think we're tough, by barking at the US, so that China doesn't try to take us over"?
-
MP, North Korea doesn't have missles anywhere *near* the range required to hit US cities. The problem isn't only the actualy warheads, the main difficulty is delivery systems. As for hitting the South, well they already have enough long-range artillery aimed at Soeul and the DMZ to do major damage, so nuclear weapons would be largely redundant in that respect.
And even if they had ICBMs, please stop assuming that they're crazy enough to actually try anything. These things only happen in Tom Clancy novels, not the real world.
-
Indeed, they want Nukes for the same reason you do - as a deterrent to stop anyone from even thinking about touching them.
Edit: Erm, apparently I thought they "wank Nukes" :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And even if they had ICBMs, please stop assuming that they're crazy enough to actually try anything. These things only happen in Tom Clancy novels, not the real world.
Don't forget Oliver North. They happen in his too.
-
but if some author can think of things like that happening, who's to say some random paranoid minister for defence or equivalent won't?
the usa would have to be really really stupid though, if it manages to force nk into nuking something. nukes are always the last resort of any desperate plan.
-
The greatest irony is if the US stopped giving the NK people a common enemy by just ignoring them, the regime would fall apart a lot quicker.
-
Originally posted by Raa
You're saying all of this "We Must protect ourselves from the US threat" is really "We must make China think we're tough, by barking at the US, so that China doesn't try to take us over"?
FUNNIEST thing i heared all fuggin day!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
MP, North Korea doesn't have missles anywhere *near* the range required to hit US cities. The problem isn't only the actualy warheads, the main difficulty is delivery systems. As for hitting the South, well they already have enough long-range artillery aimed at Soeul and the DMZ to do major damage, so nuclear weapons would be largely redundant in that respect.
[/b]
Delivery is a ***** to them, for now and propably in foreseeable future. However, there are always ways to get a nuke in US soil - the cargo scanning is proceeding very painfully and only a minor part of the containers are inspected. It would take time and would depend on some luck, but it's possible.
However, as someone pointed out, it's really doubtful if the NK would ever try to nuke US. They could aim for troop concentrations in South Korea, Seoul or Japan (they have launched missiles over Japan years ago, they still have that capacity).
As for the Seoul + artillery thing.
Seoul is a big city, built on hills and stuff. And the NK could only reach the outskirts and suburbs of Seoul with the equipment WE KNOW OF (that's a lot, but still), and it's not their entire arsenal either. NK has so much artillery because they have spared every single goddamn gun they've ever got their hands onto. This also reduces their overall accuracy, and the older the gun the more impaired their accuracy is. Terror bombing a city does not take much of that, though, but the main thing is that the bulk of their artillery cannot reach Seoul - the forces near DMZ are a completely different matter.
But.
US and ROK forces have been training for such situation since the Korean war. Basically the counterbattery fire would most likely devastate the bulk of really dangerous NK artillery in matter of seconds and minutes - quite a few of their heavier guns also have fixed firing positions (and often those are the ones which can reach the Seoul), and we know how well a stationary target manages to survive against technologically vastly more advanced enemy. Not very well. Also the air superiority factor - it's not really funny to be an artilleryman when enemy CAS platforms are buzzing everywhere.
And even if they had ICBMs, please stop assuming that they're crazy enough to actually try anything. These things only happen in Tom Clancy novels, not the real world.
Quite true, though I also remember Tom Clancy wrote a stupid book where the Yellow Threat used commercial airplanes as weapons. Against White House and Capitol. lolocaust
ps. Tom Clancy's recent books suck ass
ps. edit: pyro-manic's feelings hurt were my postal stupidity by yes
-
Originally posted by Gank
Janos is on the ball, North Korea is probably in more danger of a Chinese invasion these days than a US one.
No. First, coz many would have something to tell about that, like South Korea and, behind it, the NATO and the UN. Second, coz they sure as well don't want the millions of refugees that would w/o a doubt run to their border, third, coz the current situation suits them fine. They don't want to bother with NK, no more than they want it to unite with SK and make a new, potentially strong economical power at their border, no more than they want NK to bomb the **** out of anybody. Any since everybody is fine with that, nobody will do anything. The US will do nothing, the Japanese will keep winning at football I suppose, but that's it, China will do nothing, and North Korea will do nothing.
Stop watching James Bond movies, people.
-
Ps. I never said that China would try to invade Korea unless something really wacky happened. Nico is right, the status quo allows everyone to just sit there and wait for NK to collapse or maybe get sensible.
The entire China point is that China has no interest in opposing the US in any ways in near future because it would be bad bussiness and policy, and the NK is just one small part of the entire thingie we call "Asian realpolitiks". Ideologism is kinda dead.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
It's an insurance. From now on NK can't be "Dealt With" as a 3rd world/minor nation its status is similar to Pakistan's/India's.
From now on, no direct millitary action can be taken to unite Korea, since the Northerners can hit the button anytime.
North Korea NEVER dould be "dealth" with like any other 3rd world hell-hole because they have scores of artillery aimed at Seoul. Enough to basically flatten the city and cause more damage and death than a single nuke dropped on the city could.
any conflict with Kim's gulag is going to result in massive damage to the Seoul. Under any scenario.
-
Well NK is now actin like the true looser it is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
North Korea NEVER dould be "dealth" with like any other 3rd world hell-hole because they have scores of artillery aimed at Seoul. Enough to basically flatten the city and cause more damage and death than a single nuke dropped on the city could.
any conflict with Kim's gulag is going to result in massive damage to the Seoul. Under any scenario.
No. Skim back a couple of posts.
-
Originally posted by Janos
- I also remember Tom Clancy visionating someone to use passenger airplanes as weapons - [/B]
I AM THE GHOST OF BASIC ENGLISH, AND I DEMAND VENGEANCE FOR THAT SENTENCE...
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
I AM THE GHOST OF BASIC ENGLISH, AND I DEMAND VENGEANCE FOR THAT SENTENCE...
Sorry, I me english very ****y indeed :(
-
Heh. Sorry. Just seeing the word "visionate" made me physically wince. No offence intended. :)
-
Originally posted by Raa
You're saying all of this "We Must protect ourselves from the US threat" is really "We must make China think we're tough, by barking at the US, so that China doesn't try to take us over"?
No, what I was saying was theres more chance of China invading NK than the US.
Originally posted by Nico
No. First, coz many would have something to tell about that, like South Korea and, behind it, the NATO and the UN. Second, coz they sure as well don't want the millions of refugees that would w/o a doubt run to their border, third, coz the current situation suits them fine. They don't want to bother with NK, no more than they want it to unite with SK and make a new, potentially strong economical power at their border, no more than they want NK to bomb the **** out of anybody. Any since everybody is fine with that, nobody will do anything. The US will do nothing, the Japanese will keep winning at football I suppose, but that's it, China will do nothing, and North Korea will do nothing.
Stop watching James Bond movies, people.
Very nice Nico but you've just outlined why people want to preserve the status quo, not said why China is less likely to invade. Yes China arent actively looking to invade NK, its more hassle than they need or want, but at the end of the day going in themselves is a more attractive option than a long bloody war on their frontier with the mass of refugees, disruption of trade and loss of face and influence that entails. They're in a far better position to actually take the place in the first place, their border isnt as heavily militarised, the north korean people dont hate them anything like they hate the US and anyone they install is likely to have a lot easier time running the place than a US/South appointed man. Its probably not the most attrative option to them, but at the end of the day installing your own man is a lot better than having your largest competitor in influence and economics invading your traditional ally right on your doorstep.
China already was pretty pissed with Pyongyang:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GA29Ad01.html
That article dates to before the NK pulled out of the talks, you can bet they're extremely pissed in Beijing at the minute.
-
First, i want to point out I took up your post randomly among the few that were saying about the same thing.
Well, i'm no expert, but I know that NK is helped by China concerning economics and stuff, so I assume they have their reasons to prefer for the situation to remain the way it is. regardless, no matter what, no country can invade another one freely anymore. China can't risk that, they already have troubles with trying to take back Taiwan and the foreign protests that have emerged from that, they can't add more to the bill, their tremendous economical growth would suffer from an agressive foreign policy.
Of course, that's purely personal speculations, I have no data to prove my point.