But Star, NK isn't mad, its the most militarized country in the world!!
uh-oh news reports just in, Russia has been asked to evacuate her embassy in Pyongyang!!
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Nuclear War next week ?
Quote by starlightcouple
Flipping heck people.
Yep and several Aegis destroyers have moved in to the area. News reports from America are shuffling their papers rather nervously and have stated the pentagon was a little hasty in its comments about NK...and the Pentagon thinks they it is their inflammatory comments that have stirred up this situation.
This is scary stuff Rogue.
China is Amassing troops on the borders.
That will be to prevent an inflow of N.K. refugees, rather than a plan to get involved in any war.
John
Sex God
Remember that this guy is no more than a boy. His Dad may have been nuts but he was old enough and wise enough to understand the implications of his actions. This young boy has no understanding of the consequences of his actions and probably truly believes that he has the biggest and best arsenal of weaponry on the planet. He believes this because his Generals have told him so - to tell him anything else would be pretty foolish.
This boy is mad enough to push the buttons - I have no doubt about that. A precision strike is needed to take him out - for the longer term good of his people and the rest of the world.
This boy is mad enough to push the buttons - I have no doubt about that. A precision strike is needed to take him out - for the longer term good of his people and the rest of the world.
Quote by Too Hot
Remember that this guy is no more than a boy. His Dad may have been nuts but he was old enough and wise enough to understand the implications of his actions. This young boy has no understanding of the consequences of his actions and probably truly believes that he has the biggest and best arsenal of weaponry on the planet. He believes this because his Generals have told him so - to tell him anything else would be pretty foolish.
This boy is mad enough to push the buttons - I have no doubt about that. A precision strike is needed to take him out - for the longer term good of his people and the rest of the world.
Maybe we should merge this with the "Breadline" thread ? ie How will life be for the lowly Brits after the atomic dust has settled in the Far East ?
John
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Yes sadly the situation has not really got better, Israel we feel would use the Nuke to hit Iran and North Korea might use it on their percieved enemies. If they time it right Israel can do so without any real fear of nuclear retaliation and Korea well a lot of their leaders just don't give a fuck, they have their bunkers and the population needs trimming in their eyes
If I have to be right about something did it have to be this :sad:
Do you live in dreamland???
No Nukes will ever be used!!
If a nuke is ever launched, that is it, finito, game over, take your ball home and back to living in caves. There is not one regime on earth who plans to use them.
Do not confuse rhetoric and brinksmanship with a declaration of war.
Of course I do, but unlike your dreamland existance mine has some elements of reality in it.
There are not many people alive who do not know what happened at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, "No Nukes will ever be used" is your dreamland even on this planet?
Why is it game over ? what makes you think a low yield attack such as Israel taking out Irans Nuclear Capability with a low yield attack would devastate the whole world ? timed right before Iran gets a nuclear arms capability they would not be able to retaliate in kind, the targets are reported to be located deep underground in the desert, a very low populated area of Iran, fall out is at this time unpredictable since we do not know the weather conditions at the time of detonation but would probably be a fraction of what we experienced from Chernobyl.
Do you for one moment believe that if Hitler had a nuclear capability he would not have used it when sat in his bunker on the final days of WWII, do you not thik Saddam Hussein would not have done the same on his demise ? do you not think it feasable that in the future a similar situation might not arise for a leader who does have a nuclear capability.
I would agree there is nobody planning to use one (Iran if it gets one is debatable if they will or not) but planning now and doing so in a different future situation are two different things.
You fall into the category of "the earth is square you will never get past its edge and we will never get a man into space" syndrome
I doubt it would impress me, any person who does not know about the nuclear bombing of Japan and the different yield capability of Nuclear Weapons could do little employment wise to impress me If you did know you would extract or edit your statement, though that would do little good since the world has proved that it will use such force, faced with the impending death toll of up to a million American Servicemen they had no qualms at using it, such similar circumstances could easily occur again, or Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a fanatic who believes they are doing Gods will.
Knowing and not changing your statement says more about you than your employment does, I have always admitted when I am wrong in these forums and that has been often enough.
The knowledge that someone WOULD use Nuclear Weapons when all else has failed is what has made the Nuclear Deterrent a Deterrent for more than 60 years.
If you did know you would extract or edit your statement, though that would do little good since the world has proved that it will use such force, faced with the impending death toll of up to a million American Servicemen they had no qualms at using it, such similar circumstances could easily occur again, or Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a fanatic who believes they are doing Gods will.Knowing and not changing your statement says more about you than your employment does, I have always admitted when I am wrong in these forums and that has been often enough.
The knowledge that someone WOULD use Nuclear Weapons when all else has failed is what has made the Nuclear Deterrent a Deterrent for more than 60 years.
why have nuclear war when you can send in special forces dressed as locals, every sentence uttered " aloha akbar", target the locals, blame the regime and then bomb them back to the dark age for attacking their own people, for the sake of humanity and democracy of coarse.
korea is a conveinient diversion. look else where when the compliant presstitutes divert your attention.
america will get it's way, whatever that is, without the use of nuclear weapons by full spectrum dominance and that includes "your minds".
korea is a conveinient diversion. look else where when the compliant presstitutes divert your attention.
america will get it's way, whatever that is, without the use of nuclear weapons by full spectrum dominance and that includes "your minds".
Quote by MidsCouple24
I doubt it would impress me, any person who does not know about the nuclear bombing of Japan and the different yield capability of Nuclear Weapons could do little employment wise to impress me
Knowing and not changing your statement says more about you than your employment does, I have always admitted when I am wrong in these forums and that has been often enough.
The knowledge that someone WOULD use Nuclear Weapons when all else has failed is what has made the Nuclear Deterrent a Deterrent for more than 60 years.
Mids, like I said its all about escalation not retaliation. No-one will use nukes to start a war, they are for finishing it.
And why do you think they are a deterrent? In one breath you appear to want to see them used on Iran and you also see them as a solution to the NK problem and then the next you agree that they have been a deterrent for 60 years because they haven't been used.
The reason they can not be used and will not be used today is that every nuclear power knows that once they are used in a theatre of war then escalation will occur leading to wipe out, hence deterrent.
Your presumption that a low yield device can be used as an effective tool against Iran's nuclear reactor is incorrect.
By the way you took my statement out of context and wrote your argument around that, very pedantic of you. On your request I apologise for the way you misunderstood my statement, its now edited. I shall like to see your posts edited to suit.
The reason they can not be used and will not be used today is that every nuclear power knows that once they are used in a theatre of war then escalation will occur leading to wipe out, hence deterrent.
Your presumption that a low yield device can be used as an effective tool against Iran's nuclear reactor is incorrect.
By the way you took my statement out of context and wrote your argument around that, very pedantic of you. On your request I apologise for the way you misunderstood my statement, its now edited. I shall like to see your posts edited to suit.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
And why do you think they are a deterrent? In one breath you appear to want to see them used on Iran and you also see them as a solution to the NK problem and then the next you agree that they have been a deterrent for 60 years because they haven't been used.
The reason they can not be used and will not be used today is that every nuclear power knows that once they are used in a theatre of war then escalation will occur leading to wipe out, hence deterrent.
Your presumption that a low yield device can be used as an effective tool against Iran's nuclear reactor is incorrect.
By the way you took my statement out of context and wrote your argument around that, very pedantic of you. On your request I apologise for the way you misunderstood my statement, its now edited. I shall like to see your posts edited to suit.
Now you have me totally confused, where have I said I want to see them used ? as far as I am aware I have like others merely pointed out what scenarios might be used, ie Israel who say they will if necessary use their nuclear arsenal may do so using low yeild methods in order to destroy Irans work on Nuclear Arms.
Their power has been a deterrent against their use for 60 years, during that time there have been instances where the very fact that both sides have them negotiations have taken place in times of conflict, for example the Cuban Missile Crisis, every power knows that should they win a conflict and destroy the enemy that enemy will resort to their Nuclear arsenal at the end.
So far Nations that do not have an Nuclear arsenal have been wary of going too far against a nation that does have them for that same reason.
The reason they can not be used and will not be used today is that every nuclear power knows that once they are used in a theatre of war then escalation will occur leading to wipe out, hence deterrent.
A side that is losing and has nothing more to lose WILL use them, just before his demise Adolf Hitler stated that the German people did not deserve to continue in existance having lost the war for him, if he had been in possession of Nuclear Weapons he would have used them without a care, he was about to die anyway and cared nothing for the German People and less for those he would have used them against, that scenario could be repeated in the future and was during the Gulf War, there is a good possibility that Saddam Hussein would have used them just before being ousted in Iraq. Hardliners and extremists like those in charge of North Korea would like to win a war first, but if they were losing there is no telling to what extent they might use a Nuclear arsenal most of them would rather see the world destroyed before they would see it ruled by the West (or in their case the South).
Quote by Rogue_Trader
I think there are distinct parallels with the Cuban missile crisis. However I also know that the world has evolved. I don't believe we are on the eve of Armageddon, but then again I don't believe it's all over yet.
Our subs may already be there, who knows. What is for sure is that enormous constraint hs been shown in reent years, and this is likely to be sabre rattling.
You are right Trev it is just sabre rattling.
We only have 1 sub at sea with nuclear strike capability and she has better things to do than sit on the Korean peninsula. The USA on the other hand...they may have an Ohio class sitting somewhere close by. And it only needs one of those babies to lay waste a nation.
There is no need for Britains Nuclear submarine to "sit off the Korean peninsula", it's nuclear weapons have a range of 7,500 miles and personally I do not know of "anything better" for them to do, sitting under the ocean posing a threat to someone is exactly what the submarine has been designed for.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Yes sadly the situation has not really got better, Israel we feel would use the Nuke to hit Iran and North Korea might use it on their percieved enemies. If they time it right Israel can do so without any real fear of nuclear retaliation and Korea well a lot of their leaders just don't give a fuck, they have their bunkers and the population needs trimming in their eyes
If I have to be right about something did it have to be this :sad:
Do you live in dreamland???
No Nukes will ever be used by North Korea or Israel to start a war!!
If a nuke is ever launched, that is it for your country, finito, game over, take your ball home and back to living in caves. There is not one regime who will swop their cushy powerbase for bunkers thereafter.
Do not confuse rhetoric and brinksmanship with a declaration of war.
Now, this I think is much more plausible in most scenarios, because I believe in the Nuclear Weapon as a deterent, I agree that they are more likely to be used as a final solution/last resort/nothing to lose weapon rather than the a first strike weapon.
But that said, the world is changing in there are some people obtaining such weapons who are extremists, who believe that any amount of destruction of themselves and their people is perfectly acceptable and worth the rewards they will get in heaven.
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
Our subs may already be there, who knows.
Quote by Trevaunance
We only have 1 sub at sea with nuclear strike capability and she has better things to do than sit on the Korean peninsula. The USA on the other hand...they may have an Ohio class sitting somewhere close by. And it only needs one of those babies to lay waste a nation.
Not quite correct. We have a minimum of one submarine at sea at any one time, however their movements are generally kept secret and therefore there is potential for there to be more than one out there somewhere. for example was reported in the Indian ocean last month, well within strike range of Korea.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Trenchant is a t-class...
You need a vanguard class boat for ballistic missile work. We have 4, I know where 3 are. The other, that is on patrol, well not even the Admiralty knows exactly...which is just how it should be.
Rogue, you appear to have misunderstood me and attempted to put words in my mouth. I haven't mentioned anywhere that we have sent an SSBN to the area, or that the sub we may or may not have nearby has a nuclear strike capability. You have.
I have said that we may possibly have a sub in the area. If so then I imagine they are doing what subs do best, listening, gathering intelligence and threatening surface and subsurface operations. The additional strike capability of cruise missiles against land based targets is also a formidable weapon.
Sex God
Oh don't get me wrong, I think that if it all kicks off we will get involved militarily. However I think that this country knows that Nuclear weaponry is a deterent and a last resort. Not first strike.
Incidentally, You mentioned the thread being about nuclear war? I presume you are aware that the OP was over one year ago and not related to North Korea at the time?
Incidentally, You mentioned the thread being about nuclear war? I presume you are aware that the OP was over one year ago and not related to North Korea at the time?
Quote by Trevaunance
We are probably as close to a nuclear war now as we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Actually you probably aren't wrong. For once.
yes, it was your statement that kicked it off, I presumed you meant NK when you reopened this thread and you had re-opened it with the intention of discussing a possible nuclear war/attack.
Quote by Trevaunance
Oh don't get me wrong, I think that if it all kicks off we will get involved militarily. However I think that this country knows that Nuclear weaponry is a deterent and a last resort. Not first strike.
Incidentally, You mentioned the thread being about nuclear war? I presume you are aware that the OP was over one year ago and not related to North Korea at the time?
No he doesn't know that this country knows that Nuclear weaponry is a deterent he questioned me why I would think this just a few posts ago
And why do you think they are a deterrent
Then it was a worthless thing to say in the conversation because to deter is not to stop, you can put in measures to deter people from doing things but that doesn't mean you will always stop them especially when talking about fanatics and religious motivation. The deterrent has worked to an extent but has not stopped war just perhaps curbed the etremes leaders might take it.
According to Saddams military advisors when asked why Saddam had refrained from using Chemical Weapons against the coalition forces replied that he was scared to use them because he knew the coalition had much more powerfull weapons at their disposal to retaliate with. (The Kurds however did not)
At this time we have no knowledge of any middle eastern (arab) Nation having a nuclear weapons ability and North Korea has at best a limited ability, Israel has a nuclear weapons capability which they have said they will use against Iran, wether they would or not is conjecture at the moment.
According to Saddams military advisors when asked why Saddam had refrained from using Chemical Weapons against the coalition forces replied that he was scared to use them because he knew the coalition had much more powerfull weapons at their disposal to retaliate with. (The Kurds however did not)
At this time we have no knowledge of any middle eastern (arab) Nation having a nuclear weapons ability and North Korea has at best a limited ability, Israel has a nuclear weapons capability which they have said they will use against Iran, wether they would or not is conjecture at the moment.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
Then it was a worthless thing to say in the conversation because to deter is not to stop, you can put in measures to deter people from doing things but that doesn't mean you will always stop them especially when talking about fanatics and religious motivation. The deterrent has worked to an extent but has not stopped war just perhaps curbed the etremes leaders might take it.
According to Saddams military advisors when asked why Saddam had refrained from using Chemical Weapons against the coalition forces replied that he was scared to use them because he knew the coalition had much more powerfull weapons at their disposal to retaliate with. (The Kurds however did not)
The assurance of mutual annihilation is the deterrent that stops Nuclear war. When both sides faced each other in the cold war, neither side had the balls to launch first, because they knew what would happen to them. However the knowledge of certain death ensured that once the bluffing, posturing and expelling of diplomats was over then no one pressed the launch buttons. So deter was to stop surely? Or did I sleep through a nuclear war?
When Saddam was deterred from using chemical weapons against the coalition, it was the threat of even greater military action against him that stopped him. If the Kurds had a deterrent, then I have no doubt it would have stopped him also.
So far I agree with you wholeheartedly, the Nuclear deterent has so far worked, it has prevented the escalation of many disagreements since it's awesome power was demonstrated in Japan.
I believe it's use then saved millios of lives both American and Japanese, the US estimated that their casualties could have reached a million had they been forced to carry out a ground and air war on the mainland of Japan, Japanese casualties would have been much higher. Without the demonstration of what it could do it would have been useless and sooner or later it would have been used at a later date in a later war.
So yes right now it is working as a deterent, but it will not work forever, as I have said, the first time someone with the capability realises all is lost they will hit the launch buttons, perhaps ever a fanatic or someone who believes through religion that the consequences are worth the devastation it will cause.
How safe would you feel if one of those fanatics was sat in a Nuclear Submarine somewhere with an equally fanatical crew ?
There is a good chance that the Nuclear Bomb/Missile will soon be outdated and replaced by the weapon that scientists are currently developing, the anti-matter bomb, this if built will have the same devastating power of a nuclear weapon but without the release of radiation, thus allowing the owner the power to destroy a Nation and occupy it to take control of the resources therein or risk to themselves from "overspill".
A few Nations have Nuclear Weapons capability but not all have Nuclear Submarines the ultimate nuclear weapon since the chances of someone taking out your ability to retaliate through their use after a first strike against you is just about impossible.
The world admits to working on the anti-matter bomb although even though research has been taking place since the cold war we are not really any further along with creating such a weapon at this time, at Cern in Switzerland anti-matter is created on a regular basis but they believe we will never be able to make it in sufficient quantities as to make it an effective weapon.
But that makes me wonder what scientists are working on that they don't tell us about ? and how far in the future will a weapon become available that will beat the atomic bomb, we all know about experiments with sound and lazers and even dating back to ancient times using the raw power of the sun directed at a target.
I believe it's use then saved millios of lives both American and Japanese, the US estimated that their casualties could have reached a million had they been forced to carry out a ground and air war on the mainland of Japan, Japanese casualties would have been much higher. Without the demonstration of what it could do it would have been useless and sooner or later it would have been used at a later date in a later war.
So yes right now it is working as a deterent, but it will not work forever, as I have said, the first time someone with the capability realises all is lost they will hit the launch buttons, perhaps ever a fanatic or someone who believes through religion that the consequences are worth the devastation it will cause.
How safe would you feel if one of those fanatics was sat in a Nuclear Submarine somewhere with an equally fanatical crew ?
There is a good chance that the Nuclear Bomb/Missile will soon be outdated and replaced by the weapon that scientists are currently developing, the anti-matter bomb, this if built will have the same devastating power of a nuclear weapon but without the release of radiation, thus allowing the owner the power to destroy a Nation and occupy it to take control of the resources therein or risk to themselves from "overspill".
A few Nations have Nuclear Weapons capability but not all have Nuclear Submarines the ultimate nuclear weapon since the chances of someone taking out your ability to retaliate through their use after a first strike against you is just about impossible.
The world admits to working on the anti-matter bomb although even though research has been taking place since the cold war we are not really any further along with creating such a weapon at this time, at Cern in Switzerland anti-matter is created on a regular basis but they believe we will never be able to make it in sufficient quantities as to make it an effective weapon.
But that makes me wonder what scientists are working on that they don't tell us about ? and how far in the future will a weapon become available that will beat the atomic bomb, we all know about experiments with sound and lazers and even dating back to ancient times using the raw power of the sun directed at a target.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
How safe would you feel if one of those fanatics was sat in a Nuclear Submarine somewhere with an equally fanatical crew ?
Safer than I feel when Mrs T is driving :scared:
Quote by starlightcouple
israel has bombed gaza many times, bombed and invaded lebanon many times, bombed syria and bombed the uss liberty during or rather at the beginning of the 1967 war. it even attacked and killed people on an aid ship delivering vital humanitarian aid to gaza.
just to balance things up a bit. the way you are talking gulson is to blame israel for everything.
why should israel not be able to defend itself from her aggressors?
Quote by gulsonroad30664
deliberately, haveyourdinnerdad was misquoted. he never said anything of the sort about wiping israel, i mean palestine, off the face of the earth.
nitpicking there gulson. the words he used have been studied but for many they were clear.
The Iranian presidential website stated that "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map," and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."
now i know what that sounds like to me gulson. but then it could be just a conspiracy thingy i suppose
Quote by gulsonroad30664
the war mongering and arab springs are products of psyops created in tel aviv, wall street and the city of london to overthrow existing regimes in the middle east to secure oil, gas and minerals for the west but more importantly, to prevent india and china from obtaining the same.
and of course gulson you have pots of evidence of this
i mean reel evidence not just another of your thought processes.
Quote by gulsonroad30664
the figure of 9 thousand dead in syria as a result of the syrian regimes crack down on peaceful ? protesters is pure fabrication. the syrian free army is the priduct of western intelligence and special forces.
evidence please??? :jagsatwork:
Quote by gulsonroad30664
the danger does not come from iran, but western agression that the whole of the world can plainly see because the are not so inundated with with the propaganda and media control that exists here.
the greatest danger comes from a false flag (gulf of tonkin) incident perpetrated by the west/israel. not iran.
sorry gulson but the whole context of that rant without any facts or a shred of evidence except for what you think, is a massive anti Jewish rant.
of course if you can supply the evidence i am sure i will have a look, but looking back over some of your previous posts of months and years gone by, it is clear you are a ranter but when asked to supply evidence you simply cannot. i am sure that max who has asked you a million times for factual evidence, but has just been met with a wall of silence.:notes:
i for the record am not anti anything but israel as usual are called the aggressors, when they are only on many occasions acting in self defence of its borders and its peeple.
i never mentioned religeon and i am anti zionist, not anti semite as many jewish people are. well documented....the free syrian army are trained, armed and financed by america, nato and israel. al cia qaeder are formost in libya and syria.
