Yeah it all seems very imtimidating and such but of course the world will do Nothing ,me...i think the US should go in right this second and take that pshyco out but hey...what do i know

Originally posted by Faint
Yeah it all seems very imtimidating and such but of course the world will do Nothing ,me...i think the US should go in right this second and take that pshyco out but hey...what do i know

Errmmm.... I hate to sound negative, but how exactly can the US take out the bouffant-haired midget? What with? The US Army is currently up to its neck in Iraq. You don't have any more forces to deploy from the reserve that are in a battle-ready state.

Well you could simply bomb the holy be-jesus out of him with the USA's incrediable airforce , and there is always the option of withdrawing from iraq if needs bee

The way it sounds:

If North Korea does conduct a test, it "will realize that they had a bad day when they made that choice," he said.

They will nuke them don’t need troops for that They said it right there if there is a test it will be considered hostile to the US and will take out every nuclear testing program they have with a few nicely placed Cruse missiles!

AlBeMeT

That's problem - start the bombing and he will start the shelling. The NKs have thousands of guns dug in within range of Seoul. They also have a fully functioning air defence system (in 2003 Iraq's fell apart because it had been corroded to pieces by sanctions) plus silkworms and other rockets. Plus a very large ground force. It would have to be met with like force.
It would get very messy very quickly.
I hate to sound glib, but the best way to stop Kim Jong-Il would be to threaten the destruction of the US porn film industry. He has a scary collection.

Originally posted by Faint
Well you could simply bomb the holy be-jesus out of him with the USA's incrediable airforce , and there is always the option of withdrawing from iraq if needs bee

Hmmm...im not so sure drawing out of Iraq is even a viable option at all...not if we intend for there to be any measure of stability there.

Personally I think the US at the moment is writing checks that they cant cover by making such threats. However, I think that because they believe that most of what being said by North Korea is sabre rattling rhetoric, they feel as though some of the same directed back at them may make them think twice.

Only time will tell..


AB1


Edited for Typo

[edit on 5-10-2006 by alphabetaone]

If NK is going through with the test, I guess we would only hear about it if it were successful.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't say "dang, we spent billions of dollars on this thing and it doesn't work! We have no idea what we're doing!"

So it seems to me they are painting themselves into a corner here.

1. If they go through with it and it works, the world is going to condemn them.

2. If they try it and it doesn't work, they will look like they caved into western pressure.

Originally posted by super70
If NK is going through with the test, I guess we would only hear about it if it were successful.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't say "dang, we spent billions of dollars on this thing and it doesn't work! We have no idea what we're doing!"

So it seems to me they are painting themselves into a corner here.

1. If they go through with it and it works, the world is going to condemn them.

2. If they try it and it doesn't work, they will look like they caved into western pressure.

I'm not sure that this would be the case necessarily.

I think that even for NK to have their finger on the trigger, irrespective of whether or not it "works" is cause for alarm to the US (and other) governments. Because it's cause for alarm, I believe they will feel the need to take punitive (read: military) action before the results of any such test could be concluded.

Personally i'm beginning to wonder who the bad guy really is at the moment...NK for even purporting that they're going to conduct this test or for the US's stance on it..in some ways im thinking that secretly they WANT North Korea to do this, to give them a reason to pull their own trigger, especially when the mindset of the military seems to be "A weapon unused is a useless weapon".

AB1

I think that to suggest that the US wants this is quite a strong and strange comment.

I believe that most people here are missing the point.

Although NK has the ability to launch a few short range missiles it does not have the ability to launch inter continental.

HOWEVER!!!

We are living in an age where the ballistic missile as a form of delivery is not the most dangerous of delivery methods.

Remember it only takes one person with a suitcase filled with highly enriched uranium to blow him self up in the centre of a capital city to cause serious problems.

The way to kill a country is not to blow it up (Cold War Methods) all you have to do to destroy a country is destroy its economy.

Was it not GOLDFINGER who had a plan to irradiate the world’s largest reserves of Gold??

Anyway... The 7/7 bombings in London were not meant to cause much physical damage, it did cause a massive amount of damage in terms of lost per capita % for a good few months afterwards.

I believe this announcement by NK is simply an advertisement for all other would be terrorist around the world to buy NK made nuclear stock.

a very very dangerous situation.

Imagine Hezbollah armed with a dirty Bomb???

We live in very dangerous times people.

NeoN HaZe.

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Imagine Hezbollah armed with a dirty Bomb???

We live in very dangerous times people.

NeoN HaZe.

Dirty bombs have been proven to be fear-mongering with no substance. Many world experts on the topic have said that dirty bombs simply aren't dangerous. However, it does get the masses all scared up nice and proper

EDIT: theye experts said "Dirty bombs aren't the problem. Its the panic that would ensue that would be the prblem". How responsible of our leaders and media to inflate such a threat, eh?

[edit on 5-10-2006 by john_bmth]

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Imagine Hezbollah armed with a dirty Bomb???

We live in very dangerous times people.

NeoN HaZe.

Dirty bombs have been proven to be fear-mongering with no substance. Many world experts on the topic have said that dirty bombs simply aren't dangerous. However, it does get the masses all scared up nice and proper

What are you talking about?

Do you know what the cause of lasting damage is after the event of a nuke going off???

FALLOUT!!!!

If someone were to detonate a normal explosive device with highly enriched uranium as a component the entire blast area would be contaminated.

The Uranium would be scattered across a wider area by the prevailing wind. Anyone breathing in even a single particle could have there lives drastically shortened.

Then for the real damage... the damage a dirty bomb was designed for.

It could take 30+ years before radiation levels fall to within acceptable levels depending on the type of material spread.

If you are not English you probably don't know about the bishops gate bomb, Bishops gate is an area in the heart of the financial district of London. the IRA blew up a very very large proportion of that area with one explosion back in the mid 90's.

If that bomb had had a dirty component then Liverpool street (a major rail intersection) and the financial district would be a no go area for up to and over another 20 years from now.

So anyone who said that a dirty bomb is not bad is completely wrong.

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 5-10-2006 by Neon Haze]

dirty bomb not equals nuke.

Repeate after me:

dirty bomb not equals nuke.

One last time for clarity:

dirty bomb not equals nuke.

There, cleared that one up, didn't we?

[edit on 5-10-2006 by john_bmth]

Originally posted by john_bmth
dirty bomb not equals nuke.

Repeate after me:

dirty bomb not equals nuke.

One last time for clarity:

dirty bomb not equals nuke.

There, cleared that one up, didn't we?

[edit on 5-10-2006 by john_bmth]

Just exactly where did I say that a dirty bomb = nukes....???

Anyone want to interject??

NEON HAZE

Originally posted by Neon Haze

Just exactly where did I say that a dirty bomb = nukes....???

Originally posted by Neon Haze
What are you talking about?

Do you know what the cause of lasting damage is after the event of a nuke going off???

FALLOUT!!!!

...and around we go. Dirty bombs aren't dangerous. The panic that would follow, however, WOULD be dangerous. So why are our leaders hyping up the "devestation" of such bombs? To cause panic? Why, this is exactly what would be needd for a dirty bomb to actually cause any devestation. Convinient, eh?

I doubt highly that the main concern anyway, with respect to North Korea is the ability for terrorist factions to obtain the material, or dirty bombs at all.

My opinion is that the instability that would be created in the Korean Peninsula is of more concern, as well as the shift in balance of power that would surely ensue.

What do you guys think?



AB1

Originally posted by crisko
But even if you still think nothing will be done if N.K. tests this missle / warhead - well - we may not have to do anything at all as China has stepped onto the scene...

True, we may not, although China has stated before that, while they exercise a great deal of influence in North Korea, they certainly won't interfere in their affairs.

Seeing how this turns out will definitely be interesting


AB1

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Neon Haze
What are you talking about?

Do you know what the cause of lasting damage is after the event of a nuke going off???

FALLOUT!!!!

...and around we go.

And you don't see the link between fallout caused by a nuclear bomb and the material scattered in a dirty bomb??

What Dirty Bombs Are, and What They Are Not

The first step in appreciating the threat of dirty bombs is to understand that they are not nuclear weapons. Indeed, the only difference between a dirty bomb and a conventional explosive is that the dirty bomb is laced with some sort of radiological material. Therefore, it is better to think of the threat not in terms of the dirty bomb, but instead in terms of any devise that disperses radioactive materials.

A radiological dispersal device may not even require an explosion. It is quite possible to separate the "dirty" from the "bomb." A terrorist could choose any number of methods to disperse dangerous radioactive material. The dispersion method may well be a conventional explosion, but putting radioactive material in a trashcan or sprinkling it on a sidewalk could also be an effective--and covert--means of contamination.

The initial destruction caused by a dirty bomb would likely result from the explosion itself and not from the nuclear material. Its destructive capacity would be a function of the amount and type of explosive materials used, not of the radioactive additives. A car bomb laced with radioactive cobalt-60 would look no different from a car bomb without the extra material.

Likewise, the radiological affect would be defined by the type and amount of radioactive material. A bomb with a small amount of radioactive material might wreak economic havoc and spread terror, but it would have little biological effect on local populations. On the other hand, a bomb laced with large amounts of strontium-90 (a highly radioactive isotope found in old Soviet power generators), highly enriched uranium, or spent nuclear fuel from a nuclear power plant could be devastating.

However, like most threats, the highest risks are also the least likely. Not only are the more dangerous materials much more difficult to obtain, but the successful dispersal of a highly radioactive material would require an extremely sophisticated terrorist.

Perhaps Highly Enriched Uranium has become a lot easier to obtain recently due to NK.... Therefore a devastating Dirty bomb much more likely...

Hope that makes my point of view clearer.

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Neon Haze]