The First Nuclear War

Is North Korea Moving Another 'Red Line'?

North Korea and South Korea exchanged artillery fire near their disputed border in the Yellow Sea/West Sea on Nov. 23. The incident raises several questions, not the least of which is whether Pyongyang is attempting to move the real “red line” for conventional weapons engagements, just as it has managed to move the limit of “acceptable” behavior regarding its nuclear program.

Read more: Is North Korea Moving Another 'Red Line'?

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by concernedcitizen519

 

Has anyone seen the relationship between a nuclear explosion and suicide?

I have looked at the two of world's highest suicide rates in the world, Belarus and Japan, guess what, they both had nuclear explosions. 2 nuclear bombs were dropped in Japan, and a nuclear explosion in Belarus which contaminated 99% of Belarus land.

The above being said, if a nuclear war starts, do you think the world suicide rates would sky rocket?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by concernedcitizen519

 

In addition I must add that you can always back out from an situation. This stupid behavior that makes 2 sides want to wipe out each other instead . It's pride which is not one of our virtues.

An side who is willing to place death above a the loss of face should be getting their buts to a psychiatrist, and work on their minority complex.

Just my 2 cents

edit on 11/27/2010 by Sinter Klaas because: spelling... I know @@

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
reply to post by concernedcitizen519

 

I totally agree. The more Countries that have them, the more chances there are of them being used.

Maybe we live in a time that people in the future will look back on in envy at what we had.

That is a false logic.

The less countries that have nuclear weapons, the more chances of nuclear usage.

Hence

Nukes will always be used against nations which don't have them, if everyone have nukes, then nukes will become obsolete.

It is not logical to use nukes against countries nations which can nuke you back

That's exactly right. Saddam didn't nuke the US when the US went in there twice shooting depleted uranium everywhere, which is classified as a WMD and banned by the UN (Gulf War had 350t of it deployed on Iraqis, current war had no such limits). The Serbians didn't nuke the US when the US-lead "peacekeeping" mission lead every air sortee armed with DU weapons. The Taliban didn't retaliate with dirty bombs when the US ousted their government with, you guessed it, DU.

People talk about North Korea being dangerous? They never nuked anyone. When was the last time they deployed WMD in combat? US does it all the time, and anyone who thinks depleted uranium is safe because the US military says so is probably half retarded. The US uses it on purpose as another dimension to holding an entire society down, because it certainly isn't beneficial for millions of potential Iraqi "insurgents" to be sick from radiological poisoning, and their next generation to be capable of even walking when they are born with extreme physical deformities.

So in conclusion, what does North Korea shelling a South Korean island have to do with nuclear war? I'm more concerned about Americans using nuclear weapons, whether they be nuclear bombs or depleted uranium. They have no regard for the fact that they've already turned Western Asia into a radiological wasteland that has affected not only millions of the people there, but also hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers. Nothing but pawns to the American political/corporate/military elite.

edit on 27-11-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)