[Kosh]

i think what hes on about is should a intercepting missile hit the missile around the payload then you risk creating a dirty bomb effect with non critical radioactive material falling to earth

Which is significantly better than the massive fallout from a nuclear explosion. In any case the casualties a dirty bomb can cause are greatly overhyped.

[Nemesis6]

1. Nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

[SpardaSon21]

We're dealing with a psychotic midget in charge of a country with nuclear warheads, so yeah, being sure is a good thing.

[General Battuta]

We're dealing with a psychotic midget in charge of a country with nuclear warheads, so yeah, being sure is a good thing.

Effectorize him!

[Dilmah G]

Well, we have two possible options for dealing with a possible Zerg Rush by the North Korean Army, should Kim decide to launch an invasion.

1. Nuke the site from orbit.  Not useful due to fallout and contamination issues.

2. Kill them with fire.  This is always an option for dealing with enemies, unless trying to kill fire demons, fire elementals, and other fire-aligned entities.

I daresay the missiles are the bigger problem.

[IceFire]

We're dealing with a psychotic midget in charge of a country with nuclear warheads, so yeah, being sure is a good thing.

From what I've been reading NK has no effective warheads that would be easily deployed. I'm not even sure if they are at the level of capability that the US had in 1945.  They have the technology but it's not refined.  Actually wait too long and maybe they will have a more serious capability.

[BlueFlames]

It's even possible that they don't have the technology.  Recall that North Korea's two alleged nuclear weapons tests were underground explosions of around half a kiloton.  With a big enough cave, that's doable with conventional explosives.  For comparison, the yields of Fat Man and Little Boy were between fifteen and twenty kilotons.

That said, "North Korea has a nuke," is a hell of a lot more believable now than, "Iraq has a nuke," was in 2003.

[Klaustrophobia]

chemical weapons were the concern in iraq

[BlueFlames]

chemical weapons were the concern in iraq

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."  -- Dr. Condoleezza Rice, then National Security Advisor

It was a dart game for the Bush administration.  When one rationalization was shown to be false, they latched onto another.  The only evidence we had to support an Iraqi chemical weapon program were the chemical weapons the United States sold Iraq, twenty-plus years prior (well past the use-by date), so the rhetoric shifted to subtle implications about a ficticious nuclear program.  By the end, they were down to "Saddam Hussein was a bad man," not quite realizing that setting that precedent would demand quite a great many wars be declared, including several within the United States' own territory.

[Klaustrophobia]

so the people he gassed weren't evidence?

[General Battuta]

chemical weapons were the concern in iraq

In terms of justification for the invasion? No they weren't. Most of the buildup was about the 'Iraqi nuclear program'.

[karajorma]

so the people he gassed weren't evidence?

As was already pointed out to you those weapons were past their use by date at the time of the war. Not to mention that the weapon inspectors had found no proof whatsoever that Saddam hadn't destroyed the weapons already.

[Bobboau]

because this has anything to do with north korea.

[Mongoose]

Yeah, this thread was going so well until that four-letter word showed up.

[karajorma]

If anyone actually posts on-topic I'll split it. Not worth it if no one wants to continue about NK though.

[BlueFlames]

so the people he gassed weren't evidence?

In 1988?  Chemical weapons have a shelf life.  After twenty-five years, the left-overs from the Al-Anfal campaign would have been next to useless.

[Liberator]

And he couldn't have made more how?  Is there come magic in Iraq that prevents the creation of chemical formulae?  He couldn't have bought more?  I mean his own people were telling us he had them.  BAW all you want, but doing so over spilt milk 10 years in the past is a little ridiculous.

[General Battuta]

And he couldn't have made more how?  Is there come magic in Iraq that prevents the creation of chemical formulae?  He couldn't have bought more?  I mean his own people were telling us he had them.  BAW all you want, but doing so over spilt milk 10 years in the past is a little ridiculous.

He didn't. There was no intelligence that he had. There was intelligence that he hadn't, and in fact that turned out to be true: he had destroyed his own program.

And the build-up to the war wasn't about a chemical weapons program. It was about nukes. Centrifuges. Purchase of uranium from Africa. The bomb.

It was all a lie.

And you're stupid enough to claim that this is 'BAW' 'ten years after the fact.'

News flash, my out-of-touch friend. We are STILL DYING IN IRAQ because of this lie.

If we're going to die in a foreign country I'd rather it at least be for the truth.

[Dilmah G]

I thought we acknowledged years ago that Iraq, period, was a colossal waste of time, money, and inched the US closer to the gurgler? Really, Iraq has to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen, obviously no one reads their history books in Congress these days. Iraq is just like another Russia, in terms of invading it.

[Scourge of Ages]

Iraq is just like another Russia, in terms of invading it.

Obligatory "land war in Asia" quote here.