Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

"Since the US is about to ignite a nuclear war...Follow

#27 Mar 11 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I don't think the problem is in any likelihood of NK actually setting any fission bombs off on USA soil. I am worried that Kim Jong-un has grown up in such a sheltered bubble world, that he could be crazy stupid enough to lob his three nukes at the South Koreans, or at US military installations anywhere in Asia. From that point on, things would be *bound* to get ugly. Even if China and Russia join up with everyone else to flatten NK.

Plus, the northern Hemisphere will have MORE nuclear radiation pollution/fallout than it already does.
Again, I highly doubt that this is anything more than show. I'm confident that there are plenty of people in the political elite of NK who know how bad an idea it is to nuke anyone to make sure it never happens.

Smart people don't tend to run into wars that are pretty much guaranteed to end in a loss and take their lives in the progress.

Makes me wonder what they do if squeezed enough. If they've been restricted to the point their country/power is unsustainable wouldn't put it past them to lob something at someone as a "***** you" kind of thing before going under.

Right now though it just seems more of the same. Lots of news about what people are saying or not saying. I'll be more concerned when I hear something like "NK moves 200,000 additional troops to the border" or the like.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#28 Mar 11 2013 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,119 posts
If NK did manage to detonate a bomb it would still likely be no bigger than around 20 kilotons. America could respond with one around 15 megatons and call it a day.
____________________________
This sig better be appropriate...
#29 Mar 11 2013 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
It's not the blast that's the issue, it's the fallout. With the North/South wind currents that Japan experiences a couple of dirty bombs can render the northern 25% of the country uninhabitable for quite a while.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 5:14pm by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#30 Mar 11 2013 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Uninhabitable, right? Unless the radiation mutates the crops and turns the soil super fertile or something.

Yodabunny wrote:
Heck, throw them in container ships and ship them to a bunch of ports, blow them right at the docks and take out every major port in the US without even having to clear customs.


Thirteen Days. The Russians tried it back in the 60's and it didn't fly. Smiley: tongue

Whatever, I've played Homefront and seen Red Dawn. Obviously, if the North Koreans do decide to attack the US, they'll launch a full-scale invasion on the western border, but they'll only get to Chicago before being repelled by a handful of courageous teenagers lead by a former military man.

Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#31 Mar 11 2013 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
Mazra wrote:
Uninhabitable, right? Unless the radiation mutates the crops and turns the soil super fertile or something.


Yeah that word. Smiley: bah
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#32 Mar 11 2013 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Completely unrelated, but I was having issues deciding when I wrote my last post. Do you use "see" or "watch" about watching/seeing a movie?

Confusing language (we just use one word for it - "se").
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#33 Mar 11 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Either one.

Watch to me seems to indicate you liked it, or were interested in it, or were paying more attention to it than just saying "I saw it."
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#34 Mar 11 2013 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
It's funny how two words, that essentially mean the same thing, can change the meaning of a sentence so much.

I see you. I watch you. One has a slightly creepy ring to it while the other was used as a romantic catchphrase in the highest grossing movie of all time.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#35 Mar 11 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
Mazra wrote:
It's funny how two words, that essentially mean the same thing, can change the meaning of a sentence so much.

One has a slightly creepy ring to it while the other was used as a romantic catchphrase in the highest grossing movie of all time.






So which one was creepy again?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#36 Mar 11 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Mazra wrote:
It's funny how two words, that essentially mean the same thing, can change the meaning of a sentence so much.
Then there's the fun of one word meaning two things. "I'm a *** object. I ask for ***, and she objects."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Mar 11 2013 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Mazra wrote:
It's funny how two words, that essentially mean the same thing, can change the meaning of a sentence so much.
Then there's the fun of one word meaning two things. "I'm a *** object. I ask for ***, and she objects."

I have a theory that it is actually all the imprecisions in the English Language that have made it persist as the main trading language beyond the colonel era. You can mangle the language badly, as a beginner speaker of it, and you still have a good chance of getting your meaning across. Other English speakers are used to picking up actual meaning of individual words from the context of the whole sentence, or from the subject at hand.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#38 Mar 11 2013 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
Mazra wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Quote:
Now, everyone is pretty sure that NK missiles can't reach America.


I see this said a lot and I've always wondered. Why does this matter? I mean, it matters for typical explosive ordinance as you need fast multiple delivery capability to be effective but Nuclear bombs aren't typical ordinance. In a first strike scenario with a nuclear weapon you can take as long as you like to get the weapon into position before setting it off. There are individuals who could get one of these into the country let alone sovereign nations...


It matters because NK would never settle for one or two bombs. They're not terrorists hiding in a cave in a desert. If NK takes a shot at the US, it will be war. Nuclear war. Need ICBMs for that, which they probably already have. I mean, they almost sent a rocket into space a while back, and if they're really building the warheads right now then they've already got the delivery system.


North Korea doesn't have enough plutonium to lauch a large scale missile based nuclear attack. It takes roughly 4-8kg Plutonium to make a lightweight nuclear weapon. North Korea could possibly have up to 131 Kg Plutonium at their Yongbyon reactor, which is capable of prodicing about 6KW per year. they had 16KG in 1989, call it another 115 since then if they were operating full blast, for probably enough for 26-30 missile loads, assuming small payloads.Thats assuming they were running full out every year they possibly could have, which we don't think they were. I personally would put it closer to 10 at the outside. Which either way would be bad, but is nowhere near enough to impede the military strenght of the United States. mainly because as soon as we saw them opening up their missile silos, we would nuke the crap out of them with the ICBM submarines we keep nearby, and China would probably help nuke them at that point maybe even before we did. We've never seen North Korea sucessfully test an implosion based plutonium weapon yet either. They probably have the designs, and they probably even built some, but I would doubt they have anything flight tested or ready to go in quantity. Implosion triggers are tricksy stuff, and making a nucelar weapon that will withstand a rocket launch is even trickier.

North Korean missiles are basically crap at the moment, so they wouldn't really be able to hit anything aside from japan and south Korea. Maybe Australia. Possibly a few rogue Denmark shots there just to keep things interesting. They sent the rocket almost into space, they didn't send a payload heavy enough to mean something up with the rocket...

The bigger threat comes from their uranium bomb stockpiles. they have a bunch of those probably given how much uranium they have, and they could load a bunch of them up on trucks and roll into the DMZ easily enough, or stick them in freighters and sail them into harbors, etc. The usual fun stuff.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#39 Mar 11 2013 at 11:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
North Korea doesn't have enough plutonium to launch a DeLorean back to the future, back to the present, back to the past, and back the future again.


Fixed.
#40 Mar 12 2013 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
While the US isn't exactly a secure bubble, we do have means of detecting radioactive materials. It's not foolproof, obviously, but the idea of loading nuclear bombs on pleasure craft and sailing them into harbors is unlikely to work. You'd need some kind of container with sufficient shielding to prevent detection. And that would have to go through third party ports, increasing the likelihood of being picked up. It's not quite as simple as it may seem at first.

It's far more likely that the saber rattling is designed to do two things:

1. Secure the new boy-king as a tough guy among his own people and leaders.

2. Scare people just enough that they'll give NK more aid money.

Let's not forget that the NK economy more or less exists solely because of foreign aid. China gives them money and materials to maintain them as a semi-puppet state. We (and other western nations) give them "humanitarian aid" under the idea that if we appear to be helping their people and providing them some basic subsistence, they'll be less likely to actually do something really really crazy. Oh. And we pay them to not build the nuclear weapons that they build anyway. So there's that too.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Mar 12 2013 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I laughed way too hard at this and now people in the library are looking at me...

dailyoftheday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/little-man-syndrome.jpg

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 11:42am by Nilatai


I enjoyed that strip, so I did a Google search on the artist to see what else he did.

Imagine my surprise when the first Google hit was WikiFur...

Edit: To be fair, he's not a obscene fur artist... and now I'm stuck reading some 800 odd strips of a comic called Sequential Art which I am enjoying.

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 7:12pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#42 Mar 12 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's far more likely that the saber rattling is designed to do two things:

1. Secure the new boy-king as a tough guy among his own people and leaders.

2. Scare people just enough that they'll give NK more aid money.

I definitely agree that the saber rattling is designed to do the first thing. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was also meant to do the second thing. But I think that he's NOT achieved the second aim, this time around. I'm a little hazy around NK current affairs but I THINK that the UN/NATO/ASEAN etc had decided food aid wasn't working to prevent any NKoreans from starving, and that there was a decision to wind it back, if not cut it off altogether. This might have been what prompted the pre-emptive nuclear strike threat from Kim Jung-un, but I think he's badly misjudged his tactic. Nuclear weapons are too deadly serious for any nation to just assume they've been put on the table as a bluff. And they are too deadly serious for any nation to allow themselves to be held hostage by them. I can't stress enough how significant it is that China has walked away from NK on this one.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#43 Mar 12 2013 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's far more likely that the saber rattling is designed to do two things:

1. Secure the new boy-king as a tough guy among his own people and leaders.

2. Scare people just enough that they'll give NK more aid money.

I definitely agree that the saber rattling is designed to do the first thing. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was also meant to do the second thing. But I think that he's NOT achieved the second aim, this time around. I'm a little hazy around NK current affairs but I THINK that the UN/NATO/ASEAN etc had decided food aid wasn't working to prevent any NKoreans from starving, and that there was a decision to wind it back, if not cut it off altogether. This might have been what prompted the pre-emptive nuclear strike threat from Kim Jung-un, but I think he's badly misjudged his tactic. Nuclear weapons are too deadly serious for any nation to just assume they've been put on the table as a bluff. And they are too deadly serious for any nation to allow themselves to be held hostage by them. I can't stress enough how significant it is that China has walked away from NK on this one.


You could be right, but historically that's how NK gets other nations to give it money. I wouldn't put it past him to think that having nuclear weapons just makes his demands that much more powerful and thus entitles him to more money. I agree that this may be a mistake on his part, but is it really? If the rest of the nations in the region actually think he's crazy enough to go through with it, you don't think they'll find some excuse to hand him some cash and get him to stop? I think that real politik steps in at some point, and I think he's counting on it.


He may very well be right, unfortunately.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Mar 12 2013 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
gbaji wrote:
While the US isn't exactly a secure bubble, we do have means of detecting radioactive materials. It's not foolproof, obviously, but the idea of loading nuclear bombs on pleasure craft and sailing them into harbors is unlikely to work. You'd need some kind of container with sufficient shielding to prevent detection. And that would have to go through third party ports, increasing the likelihood of being picked up. It's not quite as simple as it may seem at first.


Which is why I said "freighter" of which North Korea does own a few of, believe it or not. Also, they have access to lead and carbon, so shielding neutron radiation from an inert nuclear weapon the size of a small volkswagon is not exactly an impossiblity (especially in the bowels of a giant dense steel faraday cage with 3 feet cumulative steel sheet between the device and the sensors assuming they aren't borded). Not to mention the whole North Korea being surrounded halfway by water thing. They "let" a few dozen starving refugees "escape" on an old single hull freighter, wait for it to sail into the nearest frendly harbor, then boom! Everyone should be panicking about that possibility and ignoring air travel threats entirely at this point, but no one does.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#45 Mar 12 2013 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
I'm reasonably certain most nations coast guards board and search ships in that condition prior to taking them into harbor. Obviously, there are ways around any security, but it's not quite as easy as "load nuclear weapon on a ship and sail it to the US". A cargo container on some kind of freighter would be the most likely means of delivery, but they'd almost certainly have to pass the container through a few hands (and nations) to get it there with any chance of not being searched. And that process itself increases the odds of such a thing being randomly discovered. I'm sure you're aware that radiation detection devices can be ridiculously sensitive, it's just a matter of whether they're employed (and how). Also realize that the kinds of countermeasures that would be required to conceal such a weapon would also be unusual enough to potentially be picked up (why is this one container opaque to pretty much every frequency of RF?).

And even if you avoid detection, how do you set off the bomb? Can't radio detonate it, cause anything capable of preventing the bomb from being detected will also prevent radio waves from penetrating. Any physical trigger (like on the door) runs a risk of detonating prematurely (those containers aren't exactly handled with care). Again, these are surmountable problems, but I'm just pointing out that the kinds of things a terrorist group might try a nation might not precisely because the terrorist group can afford to fail as many times as it takes, while a nation like NK really only gets one shot at doing something like this. I'm not saying that this isn't something to be concerned about, but I just don't see NK going this route anyway. I don't think they want to blow anyone up. They just want people to think they might.


Then again, there's no full accounting for crazy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Mar 12 2013 at 10:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm reasonably certain most nations coast guards board and search ships in that condition prior to taking them into harbor. Obviously, there are ways around any security, but it's not quite as easy as "load nuclear weapon on a ship and sail it to the US". A cargo container on some kind of freighter would be the most likely means of delivery, but they'd almost certainly have to pass the container through a few hands (and nations) to get it there with any chance of not being searched. And that process itself increases the odds of such a thing being randomly discovered. I'm sure you're aware that radiation detection devices can be ridiculously sensitive, it's just a matter of whether they're employed (and how). Also realize that the kinds of countermeasures that would be required to conceal such a weapon would also be unusual enough to potentially be picked up (why is this one container opaque to pretty much every frequency of RF?).

Don't even need to be anywhere near a harbor really, lots of populated areas right next to land. Sneaking up on the US would be tricky, but sneaking into range of South Korea? Not difficult at all. Martime officials usually sleep sometime, and night inspections are rare unless they think you are already sneaking something. Would they ignore a north Korea flagged freighter? probably not, but what if it's flying a Japanese flag and has a fresh coat of the finest paint North Korea can buy? Doesn't ever need to exit north Korean control or even be at sea longer than a few hours to get from Pyongyang to somewhere "interesting" at night.

Most radiation detection equipment decreases in sensitivity logrithmically the further you are from the source. We can detect detonation from space easily, or from land anywhere on the planet when the neutron surge happens, but tracking an inert soft ball sized piece of plutonium inside a large lead and carbon box inside a steel cargo freighter at anything closer edit: further than a mile isn't happeneing. Too many potential background radiation sources.

gbaji wrote:

And even if you avoid detection, how do you set off the bomb? Can't radio detonate it, cause anything capable of preventing the bomb from being detected will also prevent radio waves from penetrating. Any physical trigger (like on the door) runs a risk of detonating prematurely (those containers aren't exactly handled with care). Again, these are surmountable problems, but I'm just pointing out that the kinds of things a terrorist group might try a nation might not precisely because the terrorist group can afford to fail as many times as it takes, while a nation like NK really only gets one shot at doing something like this. I'm not saying that this isn't something to be concerned about, but I just don't see NK going this route anyway. I don't think they want to blow anyone up. They just want people to think they might.

Then again, there's no full accounting for crazy.

Thats an easy one. Physical hardline from the bomb to an external antenna / cell phone. And if you can build the infrastructure to produce a functional nuclear weapon, you can probably figure out a simple remote relay switch. One would hope anyways.

North Korea probably wouldn't try that, and they probably wouldn't try it on us, but against South Korea, who knows. And North Korea is about as zany as they come these days. Who knew Kim Jungle was the stable sane one of the family???

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 11:30pm by Kaolian
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#48 Mar 14 2013 at 3:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,119 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Would they ignore a north Korea flagged freighter? probably not, but what if it's flying a Japanese flag and has a fresh coat of the finest paint North Korea can buy? Doesn't ever need to exit north Korean control or even be at sea longer than a few hours to get from Pyongyang to somewhere "interesting" at night.


Bolded where your evil plan for them goes wrong, NK can't afford fresh paint.
____________________________
This sig better be appropriate...
#49 Mar 14 2013 at 4:32 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
dustinedan2 wrote:
Fanaticism begets chaos. Radicalism begets folly. A nuclear war between east and west spearheaded by a fanatically radicalized Iranian leadership and the American leadership's belief that only our way is the right way may lead us into a nuclear holocaust that very few may survive unscathed.

link removed

Iran don't even have nukes yet. Smiley: dubious
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#50 Mar 14 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Even if NK smuggles a nuke, covered in lead and carbon, onto a covert freighter with a Japanese flag, there's still the matter of spies and ****. I know the Cold War is over, but I think it's safe to assume that the US has a couple of guys in NK keeping tabs on this stuff.

Whatever, Jack Bauer will handle it, assuming he's still alive.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#51 Mar 14 2013 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Mazra wrote:
I think it's safe to assume that the US has a couple of guys in NK keeping tabs on this stuff.

As long as they aren't the same people we had on the ground in Iraq keeping tabs on the WMDs.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 69 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (69)