| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
On March 10 2013 04:08 Yuljan wrote: Dont worry. We would not support the US against China anyway. We only honor alliances if it doenst cost us much nowadays. Either way, we would lose quality of life. America is our greatest cultural influence (shut up, you know it's true) and China builds our stuff. Also, war in general sucks. | ||
|
Blezza
United Kingdom191 Posts
On March 10 2013 03:16 Xenocide_Knight wrote: I don't think nuclear weapons are quite that powerful They most definetly are my friend. This isn't the 1940s anymore and i think people forget that, 70 years ago 2 bombs was enough to put half of japan full of radiation. nukes in 2013 are are a different ball game. | ||
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
On March 09 2013 08:00 Lucumo wrote: They didn't start WW1, so it doesn't really matter. In a way, they did. Wilhelm II. pretty much pushed Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia. Obviously it's much more complex than that and most of Europe was poised for war, but Germany was very directly responsible for the initiation of WWI. | ||
|
Blezza
United Kingdom191 Posts
On March 10 2013 04:23 kafkaesque wrote: In a way, they did. Wilhelm II. pretty much pushed Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia. Obviously it's much more complex than that and most of Europe was poised for war, but Germany was very directly responsible for the initiation of WWI. I thought it originated from some guy getting assassinated, surely its the Killers fault | ||
|
quaZa
Germany58 Posts
On March 10 2013 04:16 kafkaesque wrote: Either way, we would lose quality of life. America is our greatest cultural influence (shut up, you know it's true) and China builds our stuff. Also, war in general sucks. German Army sucks so i dont think we would do much if it comes too a NATO intervention. we arent have the Wehrmacht anymore which is sad in my eyes. | ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
| ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On March 10 2013 04:00 grush57 wrote: the nuke they tested in 2009(?) was 5kt which would make a blast of like 1-2km, which would kill not even a hundred thousand(tho obviously more after radiation but it wouldnt even destroy all of seoul) You aren't confusing "it would destroy both koreas" with "it would make them inhabitable", are you? It wouldn't even need to kill anyone directly. How much fallout do you think an "only 1-2km blast" nuclear bomb would have? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
On March 10 2013 04:25 Blezza wrote: I thought it originated from some guy getting assassinated, surely its the Killers fault The guy was Franz Ferdinand and the party involved was non-governmental, but a student organisation. In normal circumstances, this wouldn't start a World War. Back to North-Korea: Would US-intelligence ever let a missile get that far? I would assume that every intercontinental launch of that magnitude would be know weeks beforehand, giving the US more than enough time to intercept a missile. | ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
On March 10 2013 04:19 Blezza wrote: They most definetly are my friend. This isn't the 1940s anymore and i think people forget that, 70 years ago 2 bombs was enough to put half of japan full of radiation. nukes in 2013 are are a different ball game. North Korea is behind the US in 1945..... Their two tests have been between 1-6 KT, which is far less than 12-18 and 18-23 of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. While the US and China are capable of building far more powerful devices, North Korea is not. | ||
KwarK
United States44398 Posts
habitable = people can live there inhabitable = people can live there uninhabitable = people cannot live there :English: | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On March 10 2013 04:38 KwarK wrote: Sorry but this needs to be said because it's been getting repeated for pages and a lot of the people repeating it are native English speakers. habitable = people can live there inhabitable = people can live there uninhabitable = people cannot live there :English: lmao. I haven't made this error... but I would have. Nice to know. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
You aren't confusing "it would destroy both koreas" with "it would make them inhabitable", are you? It wouldn't even need to kill anyone directly. How much fallout do you think an "only 1-2km blast" nuclear bomb would have? How much fallout occurs strongly depends on the type of nuclear bomb you're talking about. It ranges from very high if your talking about a "dirty bomb" (which isn't really a nuclear bomb, but just a conventional bomb with radioactive material) to very low if you're talking about clean bombs, which may cause a very strong explosion but do spread that much radioactive material at all. And most nuclear bombs don't really make a certain area uninhabitable. It's not like if you're walking into contaminated area you will dissolve into green goo or something. Statistically the cancer rates and other radiation related diseases go up, but as you can see in Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear affected areas aren't uninhabitable. (btw i'm not defending nuclear attacks of course, but there seem to be some misconceptions about what kind of effect nuclear bombs actually cause) | ||
|
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
On March 09 2013 23:48 Shikyo wrote: It's not Starcraft. 1 nuke would make both koreas inhabitable. Did you mean uninhabitable..? Edit: Fixed above me before I refreshed. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
On March 10 2013 04:25 Blezza wrote: I thought it originated from some guy getting assassinated, surely its the Killers fault The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was just the catalyst, a large conflict was brewing and would have started eventually even if Gavrilo hadn't got lucky enough to fire at his target that day. On March 10 2013 04:38 KwarK wrote: Sorry but this needs to be said because it's been getting repeated for pages and a lot of the people repeating it are native English speakers. habitable = people can live there inhabitable = people can live there uninhabitable = people cannot live there :English: Reminds me of this bash.org quote: paper: shit paper: flammable and inflammable mean the same thing?! paper: shit i gotta warn bob | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On March 09 2013 23:35 NerdFace wrote: South Korea gots 3/3 upgrades + all other upgrades and North Korea is not upgraded and don't even got combat shields or stim and they are supply capped. I don't see how North Korea makes a chance. No, South Korea is US expo, so US has to send mass Mawreen and CattleBruisers to defend, which weakens US econ even more :| Relevant: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada346 Posts
| ||
|
ItanoCircus
United States67 Posts
The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability. If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides. Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward? Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On March 10 2013 05:56 YumYumGranola wrote: If there's any people from South Korea here, I was wondering what the general feelings were surrounding the recent North Korea proclamation that the armistice doesn't apply anymore. It sounds like the same threats have been made before, but I guess now that the boy's it's not as clear whether he's playing the same game as his father or is actually crazy. Is the feeling around South Korea any different this time, or is it just business as usual? I have a few friends who live in Seoul, none of them care about it whatsoever. Like, they don't even mention it in passing conversation, it's not on their minds at all. Bear in mind that Koreans do have a remarkable ability of ignoring things they really ought not to though, so I guess it's not much of an indicator as to whether Norks might really be up to something or not. | ||
|
Tor
Canada231 Posts
On March 10 2013 06:08 ItanoCircus wrote: KwarK, thank you for saving me the trouble of making the same correction. The United States and other nations have the capability to render North Korea's military components extinct with minimal casualties without relying on nuclear weaponry. The only reason it has yet to be done is that it's not politically feasible. The United States hasn't waged all-out war for one reason or another since World War II and instead has decided to emphasize precision attacks. I believe that this reduces the horror of war (or in some cases during the Cold War, incalculably raises it) and that this is NOT to the benefit of global security and stability. If countries such as North Korea understood and truly believed that countries they antagonized would mete out as vindictive and damaging a punishment as possible, they (North Korea and similar countries) would understand that war against a superior force isn't merely unlikely or unlikeable. War against a superior and merciless force would be UNTHINKABLE. War against or even statements hinting a future attack towards the United States and its allies would be so mind-bogglingly SCARY that any nation would do its level-best to ensure they were on their (antecedent problem) good sides. Of course, I feel the majority of the posters on this thread have a flawed premise. I hear over and over that North Korea wouldn't attack the United States, South Korea, or any other countries because it would be suicide. I keep hearing that North Korea is merely blustering. What if North Korea decided that it didn't care about the consequences and that any risk was worth the reward? Those on this site that talk about "only" hundreds of thousands of lives lost in a "small" hypothetical attack on Seoul... it must be nice to be so insular. After all, isolation has a proven record of successfully bringing peace on the international stage for the last several hundred years. This is terrible foreign policy for a number of reasons but assuming it wasn't, you're ignoring that unprovoked pre-emptive war with North Korea would lead to retaliation by China (good luck scaring China). There is a reason the Korean war ended in a stalemate and not a total victory by the western world and it wasn't the "horrors of war". | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
SHIN vs GuMiho
Clem vs Classic
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
GSL
Epic.LAN
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
