North Korean Thread

Reports on current military activity
User avatar
Beяnie
Regular contributor
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:16 pm

Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:44 pm

RiffRaff wrote:Experts have always maintained that the lack of use of nuclear weapons since WW2 is due in large part to the relative sanity of the world leaders who possess them. KJU changes that equation measurably, and anyone who uses the argument of "KJU would never use a nuclear weapon because he knows it would result in the complete annihilation of his own country" is failing to account for the complete psychopathy of the man.

Call me paranoid, but I believe the poor handling of this situation by the US, China, and Russia is going to result in the first combat use of a nuclear weapon in 70 years by North Korea unless somebody steps up to plate soon.
I can't say I disagree with you. Due to the prevalence of tactical nuclear weapons and the communist doctrine on nuclear weapons, the threshold for employing nuclear weapons on enemies is disparagingly low by many of their users. The use of nuclear weapons, or war, in general, will weigh most heavily on social stability, I fear, and most are simply not prepared for such an event physically or mentally. I simply hope that it will limit itself and that my homeland and as many lives as possible will be spared. But you never know, miracles might still happen.
"You are remembered for the rules you break, not the ones you follow"
- General Douglas MacArthur

rapidfire25
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:32 am

Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:08 pm

I really don't see why nukes freak people out so much though, I mean fire bombing like Dresden and Tokyo was pretty common, and during the Vietnam war operation rolling thunder probably dropped the conventional equivalent of a few nukes just by sheer quantity.

User avatar
Beяnie
Regular contributor
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:16 pm

Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:20 pm

rapidfire25 wrote:I really don't see why nukes freak people out so much though, I mean fire bombing like Dresden and Tokyo was pretty common, and during the Vietnam war operation rolling thunder probably dropped the conventional equivalent of a few nukes just by sheer quantity.
The most daunting thing about nuclear weapons is the nuclear fallout, and the associated radiation sickness, not to mention the fact that it only takes one or two nuclear weapons to equal a massive amount of fire bombing, to think of it differently.
"You are remembered for the rules you break, not the ones you follow"
- General Douglas MacArthur

User avatar
jayfeather31
Power poster 3
Power poster 3
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: Douglas, WY / Converse County
Contact:

Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:36 pm

Beяnie wrote:
rapidfire25 wrote:I really don't see why nukes freak people out so much though, I mean fire bombing like Dresden and Tokyo was pretty common, and during the Vietnam war operation rolling thunder probably dropped the conventional equivalent of a few nukes just by sheer quantity.
The most daunting thing about nuclear weapons is the nuclear fallout, and the associated radiation sickness, not to mention the fact that it only takes one or two nuclear weapons to equal a massive amount of fire bombing, to think of it differently.
Would I be wrong in summarizing your statement to say, "While the damage from firebombing is temporary, the psychological and physical damage from nuclear weapons are forever."
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.
~Albert Einstein
Great, let's round up all the useless cats and hope a tree falls on them.
~Jayfeather

User avatar
Beяnie
Regular contributor
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:16 pm

Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:40 pm

jayfeather31 wrote:
Beяnie wrote:
rapidfire25 wrote:I really don't see why nukes freak people out so much though, I mean fire bombing like Dresden and Tokyo was pretty common, and during the Vietnam war operation rolling thunder probably dropped the conventional equivalent of a few nukes just by sheer quantity.
The most daunting thing about nuclear weapons is the nuclear fallout, and the associated radiation sickness, not to mention the fact that it only takes one or two nuclear weapons to equal a massive amount of fire bombing, to think of it differently.
Would I be wrong in summarizing your statement to say, "While the damage from firebombing is temporary, the psychological and physical damage from nuclear weapons are forever."
That's sort of what I meant. What I mean in full is that while yes, the firebombing in Tokyo could in some ways be equated to the use of a nuclear bomb, it's still not the same as a nuclear weapon. A single (key word) nuclear weapon causes complete destruction of all structures and living things in a large area, and leaves behind deadly amounts of radioactive materials, which may plague the area and any surviving inhabitants for centuries. So to say that nuclear weapons have the same effect as firebombing just doesn't make sense.
"You are remembered for the rules you break, not the ones you follow"
- General Douglas MacArthur

User avatar
workingdog
.
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:35 pm

Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:57 pm

Beяnie wrote:
jayfeather31 wrote:
Beяnie wrote: The most daunting thing about nuclear weapons is the nuclear fallout, and the associated radiation sickness, not to mention the fact that it only takes one or two nuclear weapons to equal a massive amount of fire bombing, to think of it differently.
Would I be wrong in summarizing your statement to say, "While the damage from firebombing is temporary, the psychological and physical damage from nuclear weapons are forever."
That's sort of what I meant. What I mean in full is that while yes, the firebombing in Tokyo could in some ways be equated to the use of a nuclear bomb, it's still not the same as a nuclear weapon. A single (key word) nuclear weapon causes complete destruction of all structures and living things in a large area, and leaves behind deadly amounts of radioactive materials, which may plague the area and any surviving inhabitants for centuries. So to say that nuclear weapons have the same effect as firebombing just doesn't make sense.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that there actually is quite a difference between a nuclear weapon and the firebombing of Tokyo, as horrific as the firebombing was. Remember that the total explosive power used in world war 2 is estimated to be 3 megatons. While North Korea doesn't possess weapons that reach that scale (yet), it wouldn't take much for a single nation to surpass that threshold. The scale really is quite different and the consequences far worse.

User avatar
Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:30 pm

Nukes are like pulling a gun in a fistfight. It is a new moral level that you can't come back from.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

User avatar
RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2159
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:58 pm

Worldwatcher wrote:Nukes are like pulling a gun in a fistfight. It is a new moral level that you can't come back from.
I don't think it's a moral issues so much as a psychological one. The morals of killing 100,000 people with a single nuclear weapon and killing 100,000 people with 10,000 conventional bombs don't differ much as far as I'm concerned. But the terror produced by the use of a nuclear weapon is 100-fold the terror of a firebombing campaign. My wife and I both believe that the world economy stands a good chance of crashing hard if a single nuclear weapon is detonated in anger anywhere on the planet just due to the psychological impacts it will have on civilian populations. This would not happen with a conventional bombing campaign.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Slim313shady
.
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:36 pm

Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:48 pm

Do we have any footage of last nuclear test?

darrell231
.
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:56 am

Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:15 pm

Slim313shady wrote:Do we have any footage of last nuclear test?
No. The weapon was tested underground, so any existing footage would had to have been captured by the North. Since they have not shown any to display their "triumph" I doubt their is any.

Post Reply