Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

North korea Nuke threat to USA.

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam
Just out of curiosity-- someone more knowledgeable than myself-- please tell me what would be the political consequences for the US if we nuked these fanatics back into the stone age, ASAP?


It would be politically incorrect. For some reason we care what people think of us more than we care about protecting our sovereignty. Even if they have nothing of value to offer us.




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I see a balance, Ying/Yang.....this is not such a bad thing
Remember the Cold war?
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by EL1A5
reply to post by jhn7537
 


It does seem they are "pushing our buttons." Maybe they are trying to give us a reason to start a "nuclear war," and make the U.S. seem like the ring leader.


Maybe that's it, but it just seems very reckless on their part, especially knowing the US military's track record recently... I dunno, it sounds like suicide on their part if they keep provoking...

What do they expect, to make USA look worse than they already do to the rest of the world?? Highly unlikely...
edit on 24-1-2013 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by EL1A5
 


Could be wrong, but I am fairly certain modern nuclear weapons are designed to minimise spread and contamination.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


Most of the world, as well as a sizable chunk of our own population, would be very cross with us, and would potentially send us to bed without supper.

I myself would be none too happy about it, because it would mean we had squandered valuable resources on a non-entity, sort of like throwing our last egg at a kid who stuck his tongue out at us.

China would be very cross with us, because we would have shot their pet dog. I can understand that - most folks like to take care of their own dog when it's misbehaving (ref: US actions against Saddam Hussein). If China got cross with us, we should expect to pay more for our computers, iphones, and cheap knockoff textiles from Walmart in order to compensate them for their put-out-ness.

We would pay... OH YES, we would pay...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by EL1A5
 


Could be wrong, but I am fairly certain modern nuclear weapons are designed to minimise spread and contamination.


Well, when you say modern you mean like USA, where they've been building them for 60+ years... The countries who've just recently developed nuclear weapons technology probably not working with the same stuff the USA and Russia are...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


Yeah good luck with that. There isn't a millitary force in the world that would stand a chance.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by drsfinest72
 


Guess it's time to stop procrastinating and build that Faraday cage




If it's just for your own electronic goods (small stuff) get a big metal trashcan. Line it with a blanket for that extra protection (so the electronics are not in contact with the metal). That's the simple setup I use. I haven't tested it against EMP, of course, but it blocks cell signals, etc....



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EL1A5

Originally posted by iwilliam
Just out of curiosity-- someone more knowledgeable than myself-- please tell me what would be the political consequences for the US if we nuked these fanatics back into the stone age, ASAP?


I'd be more concerned with environmental consequences.


?



What "environmental consequences"?

Even in an "all out" nuclear exchange with North Korea, environmental impact would be negligible, if there were any at all. Let's face it - "all out" in reference to North Korea STILL doesn't amount to much.

Nuking North Korea would be akin to using a rocket launcher to rid yourself of your neighbor's fluffy little Pomeranian because it barked like it MIGHT try to assault your ankles if you went to check your mail.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLaDOS

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective

Originally posted by GLaDOS

What makes you think you should have the power to simply "wipe countries off the map" just because they don't adhere to your military imperialism?


You missed the part about them making threats for the past 20 years. Threats by the way, which we have been greatly ignoring. Just economic sanctions and slaps on the wrist have been our only reaction. The last two threats were of a nuclear strike. If that's not enough to justify a reaction, I don't know what is.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Unidentified_Objective because: (no reason given)

They're just trying to deter you. Do you think NK is f.ing stupid to attack the US? no. They know they will be finished in a week.

They haven't attacked you, you have no right to attack them. If they do attack you, then, of course, you have every right to get them.




Right... they're trying to deter us with threats of violence, perhaps nuclear violence. Makes perfect sense.

And that would be why they said that this needs to be settled with force, and not words right? Because they're just posturing? I'm afraid your obvious bias is clouding your judgment here.

You had one good point in this thread, and that was about the unnecessary invasion of Iraq and people rightfully defending their homeland. However, that was your only legitimate point so far.

I am very anti-war. I really dislike the "military industrial complex". You could easily call me a "peacenick" and not be wrong. A selective pacifist, even. Selective in that I believe in a right to self defense. Now, if someone were standing on my porch with a weapon saying "I'm going to come in there, and I'm going to kill you," I do not imagine myself waiting for them to break down my door and come in, for me to fire on them. I would consider that a serious enough threat to my safety.

Likewise, we see NK building the weapons, we see them making the threats... I don't think we can afford to not take this as a serious threat. This situation is very unlike an Iraq, or an Iran. These people are our sworn enemies. They are bitter over our help to the south. And yes, the US is a massive propaganda machine. But so is NK. And NK blocks any info to their citizens other than their own propaganda-- something which the US does not do.

Again, I really don't think we can afford to ignore this. For me it's more a matter of what the other chain of consequences would be, if we used force to shut their stupid little mouths and squash their capacity to harm us in the future-- as they clearly have every intention of doing. NK we could take with one hand tied behind our figurative backs. It is China and Russia, specifically, I'm concerned about in this scenario.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
If they nuke the U.S, we will send them back to the stone age...

All bias bs aside does North Korea really think they would do themselves any justice by attacking the US? Add fuel to the fire, by having that attack be a nuclear strike...I just don't see what NK gets out of it other then being blow to pieces...

ETA:

"They have the capability, frankly, to conduct these tests in a way that makes it very difficult to determine whether or not they are doing it," he said in a Pentagon press conference.
"We are very concerned with North Korea's continuing provocative behavior," he said, but he added that the United States is "fully prepared" to deal with any provocations.


-SAP-
edit on 24-1-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hhensley84
Bias aside, this is a real story, with real threats and real consequences. Kim made good on his threat to launch a satellite (as wonky as it may be), I wouldn't toy around with this guy. He feels like he has a lot to prove, and people like that are just plain dangerous.


A whole satellite?? Wow, this guy is dangerous...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by EL1A5
 


Could be wrong, but I am fairly certain modern nuclear weapons are designed to minimise spread and contamination.


It depends on a lot of variables - yield, burst altitude, weather patterns that day, etc. Only ground bursts - where the fireball incinerates part of the ground, leaving a crater - yield any fallout at all, and this minimizes damage radius, so you're not getting as much bang for your buck. If you pop it high enough to make a big damage radius on the ground, it's not close enough to the surface to generate any fallout. Smaller nukes of course make less fallout, even with a ground burst, and all of the big nukes we worried about back in the 70's and 80's have already been mothballed and dismantled. There are no more megaton and above nukes in service. It was found that they produced less damage per pound, so they were scrapped in favor of more, but smaller, nukes.

Weather patterns are the most important part of fallout dispersal, and they are nearly impossible to predict ahead of time. Rain washes the fallout out of the air faster, meaning more of it is deposited at or near the explosion site. Faster winds spread fallout faster, but because of that spread, it gets deposited thinner, and so is weaker when it does come down. Same amount of fallout over a larger area means a lighter concentration.

Then you have to take the radioactive decay rates into account. Most of it decays before it even hits the ground. It decays more rapidly (this is the idea behind "half-life") at first, meaning that stronger radiation comes from it then, but for a lot less time. Same idea as the area spread - you have a fixed amount of radiation, and if it's released fast enough to be dangerous, it's released much quicker, and it gone then. Once it's gone, it's gone - it can't be released again.

These are just generalities. Consult the manual for specifics. You'll sleep a lot better if you do, and find out the facts.


edit on 2013/1/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by EL1A5

Originally posted by iwilliam
Just out of curiosity-- someone more knowledgeable than myself-- please tell me what would be the political consequences for the US if we nuked these fanatics back into the stone age, ASAP?


I'd be more concerned with environmental consequences.




I disagree. I would only be concerned with the environmental consequences if there were severe political consequences-- ie, it triggers a full-scale nuclear war.

If we dropped several (and I mean just a few... 3-5 or whatnot) nukes on NK, that would be enough IMO to not only seriously cripple them, but to show them they have no hope, and should not continue with their threats. Nukes have been tested enough on our planet, where I don't think a few nukes dropped on the other side of the globe would have that severe of a long-term impact for us.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Do you think blowing up a house wouldn't cause damage to anything that is around it?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLaDOS
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Please don't synonymise Iran with Persians. Only 51% of Iranians are Persians.


LMAO Right, only the majority of Iranians are Persian. Good Grief.

And what's that have to do with North Korea? Except that both countries have sworn to wipe one of our allies off the face of the map. Can't see any reason we would have a problem with that. It's funny how civilians are so important to you when it's the U.S. accidentally killing a few (and then apologizing and investigating), but when Kin Jong-Un and Ahmadinejad threaten to wipe Israel and South Korea off the face of the map it's OK. Guess those civilians don't matter to you.

You know, I'm, not replying to this thread anymore. Not if people aren't going to make sense.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by EL1A5
 


What is there around North Korea?

Ocean. Chinese waste lands, and South Korea.

I'm not quite getting what it is you expect to be damaged, and that's assuming that we expended most of the nuclear energy in creating little tiny nuclear craters rather than destroying infrastructure in large swaths.

If we decide to destroy the infrastructure instead, and forego making the little glowing craters, then there is no fallout generated. Do you think that China, south Korea or Japan are going to miss the North Korean power grid? Have you seen North Korea at night in the satellite images? I don't even think North Korea would miss the North Korean power grid.

About the worst to expect would be destruction of military installations, and in order to do that properly they would need air bursts to maximize the damage radius for each detonation, which does not produce fallout.

Could you be more specific about what sort of problems you would expect environmentally?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The birthing of Godzilla and his monster kin, naturally.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


Imagine the steaks you could cut out of that baby - it would solve Li'l Kim's problem feeding his starving masses!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Look, this is the same country that thinks they've found a unicon cave.

Meethinks some people here have been watching the new Red Dawn movie to much. North Korea isn't a threat. If they tried to launch an ICMB, it'd probably either land in their backyard or in the ocean.

Just sent Psy up there and tell him to do his Gangnam style dance at a karoke bar. Psy-cological warfare!





new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join