This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
World War 3
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
baradiel
@Elhonna, I didn't know South Korea was a poor nation, i guess that explains why they have poor military weapons. As rank explained.
South Korea isn't very poor. North is, though.
I meant to say North, got confused!
Post by
Squishalot
I'm pretty sure I've read that we have the capability of shooting down thousands of missiles. My question is whether or not 200 nuclear weapons going off at any point on the planet is enough to cause the global devastation we were talking about. In other words, if they were shot down over the ocean, would half the east coast still die of radiation?
West coast, no? I'm not sure, but it'd severely damage natural wildlife patterns, I'd imagine. That, and the fact that having the capability of shooting down thousands of missiles doesn't really matter when it's more likely that each missile has a % chance of getting through, and that you've got enough interceptors to have that % chance at stopping 'thousands of missiles', if that makes sense. I'm not game enough to believe that a missile defense system will be perfect.
I honestly can't see China weighting on NK's side even if it did go to war; I also doubt they'd let in refugees, unless they were willing to give up their worship of the Great Leader of NK and swap over to the Great Leader of the Reds =P.
I was thinking they'd do it for political reasons - having more NK refugees gives them greater claim of the northern peninsula for resettlement and ownership purposes.
Post by
Adamsm
I was thinking they'd do it for political reasons - having more NK refugees gives them greater claim of the northern peninsula for resettlement and ownership purposes.
Eh I don't know; it's not like China is known for being all that good to people who are not natives. And if they did want something like that well, it would make more sense for them to just march over the country after all.
Post by
Gone
West coast, no? I'm not sure, but it'd severely damage natural wildlife patterns, I'd imagine. That, and the fact that having the capability of shooting down thousands of missiles doesn't really matter when it's more likely that each missile has a % chance of getting through, and that you've got enough interceptors to have that % chance at stopping 'thousands of missiles', if that makes sense. I'm not game enough to believe that a missile defense system will be perfect.
That wasn't word for word what it said. The impression I got from the article was that America's missile defense system is capable of stopping thousands of ICBM's before any begin to get through. I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject though, so I could be wrong, and of course it could just be bull^&*! to keep peoples fears in check.
From my understanding of the global situation, the Unites States, Russia, and the European Union are the only ones with enough bombs to be considered "world destroyers" as you put it.
Post by
Magician22773
I think one of the biggest concerns here is an "accidental" war.
With NK taking its normal posturing to a new level, they have set the stage for a major conflict, even if that was not their 'real' intention.
Just look at what happened in 2009 (I think). A SK ship sank off the coast. It has never been proven conclusively that NK actually sank the vessel. It is, at least possible, that it sank on its own, or (as NK claims), that it actually sank itself, during a live fire exercise that went wrong.
Either way, if something like that were to happen now, it would be the final spark that would ignite a war.
Also, NK is not the most technologically advanced country out there. With their military ot such a heightened state, one miscommunication could easily start a war. It is pretty much assumed that most of their military equipment is remnants from the 1950's and 1960's. If they are still using antiquated radios to communicate with distant troops, the chance of a misinterpretation is much higher than other military units that have direct video links, and crystal clear satellite radio communication.
And, lastly, you have the human element here. NK has its troops so 'fired up' for war, the chances of someone taking a shot across the DMZ is a dangerous possibility. Things are wound so tightly right now, that one errant bullet could be all it takes. And this wildcard goes both ways. Troops on the South are bound to be on edge as well, and one shot fired at a shadowy figure in the DMZ at night could set the whole thing off.
Post by
MyTie
The moral of the story is that the knowledge to create these weapons is out there, only waiting to be unlocked by those with the right ingenuity. So as long as it's inevitable that they are going to be out there, I want our government to be the one that has them, especially since we know others will.
You are agreeing with me here, but with justification. I'm not saying it isn't justified, I'm just saying that it was the government who created it.
Post by
Adamsm
I'd honestly rather the weapons were in the hands of every major power on the planet, as a kind of mutually assured destruction clause; after all, if your neighbor has the exact same weapon of mass destruction as you do, you'd probably be a lot more hesitant to use it.
Edit: Wasn't the more or less the point of the Cold War?
Post by
MyTie
I'd honestly rather the weapons were in the hands of every major power on the planet, as a kind of mutually assured destruction clause; after all, if your neighbor has the exact same weapon of mass destruction as you do, you'd probably be a lot more hesitant to use it.
Edit: Wasn't the more or less the point of the Cold War?
Adamsm, does every major power on the planet act in a way you would describe as logical?
Post by
Adamsm
No, but hopefully the fact that everyone has the bomb would make some of them at least reconsider whatever stupid ass move they are about to make.
Post by
MyTie
Would you say that every major power in the world would not be adverse to selling their nuclear weapons to terrorists, who would not be opposed to using them against civilian populations, even when it would have to be done by a suicide bomber?
Would you say that every major power in the world is so stable, that none of them stand a chance of dissolving, and their assets being taken by whomever is closest and has the most guns?
I can punch holes in your "nukes for everyone" idea all night long. Should be fun.
Post by
Adamsm
Go ahead if you want to MyTie.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Go ahead if you want to MyTie.
Maybe if we both had nukes it would make everything ok. Amirite?
Post by
Adamsm
Go ahead if you want to MyTie.
Maybe if we both had nukes it would make everything ok. Amirite?
Sure why not.
Post by
Gone
I'd honestly rather the weapons were in the hands of every major power on the planet, as a kind of mutually assured destruction clause; after all, if your neighbor has the exact same weapon of mass destruction as you do, you'd probably be a lot more hesitant to use it.
You realize that if North Korea had the same nuclear arsenal as the United States we would probably already be in a state of open war right now right?
Edit: Wasn't the more or less the point of the Cold War?
The cold war was about a lot of things, most notably capitalism vs communism and the power struggle between the east and the west. One of the reasons a lot of people went to bed in a state of perpetual terror was because America and Russia both had a roughly equal military and nuclear arsenal at the time.
Do you really want the entire world holding their breath every time two nations have some kind of conflict? It would only be a matter of time before some insane dictator started a war that killed everybody
Post by
Adamsm
Do you really want the entire world holding their breath every time two nations have some kind of conflict? It would only be a matter of time before some insane dictator started a war that killed everybody
If it's a country that 'matters', they already do that; look at this thread and the way the media is responding to what NK is doing right now.
Post by
Gone
Do you really want the entire world holding their breath every time two nations have some kind of conflict? It would only be a matter of time before some insane dictator started a war that killed everybody
If it's a country that 'matters', they already do that; look at this thread and the way the media is responding to what NK is doing right now.
So that means that we make it even more frequent? No offense dude, but that's dopey as $%^&. The one thing that has prevented another global war has been that the right countries have had the most weapons. Not to fuel more propaganda by saying the "right" countries, but it's true. You wanna give every middle eastern country the same nuclear arsenal as the United States? How about Africa?
Everything being "fair" works on the playground, but in this situation it's just stupid, idk how you would even defend the idea. The fact is there are good people and bad people in the world, and in some places, there are bad, irrational people in power, and the way of dealing with these people is not by arming them enough to actually pose a threat to the rest of the world, rather than just their own people.
You think the media has made a big deal about NK? Give them the thousands of nuclear weapons that we have and see what happens.
Post by
Adamsm
Then go the other way, and disarm all of the countries that have nukes, and actually make it a real punishable offense for countries having them.
Post by
Gone
Then go the other way, and disarm all of the countries that have nukes, and actually make it a real punishable offense for countries having them.
In an ideal world I would agree with the spirit of this. It's better for nobody to have these weapons. But it's too late, they're out there already. Lets say the entire world disarms, keeping nothing in reserve. Then a country like Iran develops nuclear weapons and can hold the entire middle east by the balls, because nobody has a counter to it.
We can no more go back to a time before nuclear weapons than we can go back to using swords and spears. Once you open that bag, it cant be closed. And as long as these weapons are out there, I know whose hands I want them in, and whose I don't.
Post by
Adamsm
I feel the same; there are a lot of countries I'd rather not have nukes.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.