Layne ([info]layne3) wrote,
@ 2006-10-10 20:02:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
north korea has nuclear weapons. god help us all.

(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]millster
2006-10-11 01:34 am UTC (link)
*snuggle*

i was just about to post a similar lament.

::sigh::

i guess we should begin practicing the nuclear bomb drill:

1) sit on floor

2) pull knees to chest

3) bend over

4) attempt to kiss ones ass goodbye

lol. not funny and probably overused but appropriate none the less.

(Reply to this)


[info]imnot_the_actor
2006-10-11 02:13 am UTC (link)
yeah, they have the resources to build maybe 5 bombs?? And this was merely 1 megaton. The bombs dropped on Japan were 15 megatons and they didn't even destroy the entire cities they hit (of course the fallout was measured miles away). They may have the technology, but these rogue nations can't destroy the world. How about the US, with over 400 nuclear bombs, and reportedly 5 or so Hydrogen bombs (or Czar bombs since they were first developed in the former Soviet Union). A Czar bomb is over 100 megatons, or to put it in layman’s terms, it has more explosive power then ALL the bombs dropped in WWII combined INCLUDING the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. We need not fear North Korea so much as any other aggressive military force, which can do just as much real damage as North Korea's (relatively) small nukes. If Iran, for example, decided to invade Israel through Lebanon, their conventional weapons could kill a lot more people and destroy a lot more infrastructure than a lone, 1 megaton nuke, or even 5 nukess for that matter. Besides, if North Korea does use it, the entire world would rally against them (even their buddies China). Kim Jong Il has no air force, and the Americans have bases in South Korea and Japan and would air strike any missile sites before they became operational. Mind you, this test was done with a grounded nuke. Unless you drive it into a city it cannot get to a target. And North Korea has unreliable rockets. If they put nukes on those rockets, they could end up nuking themselves! But we won't allow that just like Israel never allowed Saddam to arm scuds at them for very long. We are watching them. They will never make it that far. I guess the biggest fear is selling the nukes to terrorist groups . . .

(Reply to this)

Meh.
[info]lbrltom
2006-10-11 08:36 pm UTC (link)
Add me to the list of people not worried about it. What I am worried about is the effects it will have on Japanese and Chinese foreign policy. The Japanese government will be under a lot of pressure to develop effective countermeasures, and I can't see the Chinese being to thrilled about that. Honestly, if there's one nation I actually worry about(besides America), it's China.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
man, this is fun to talk about
[info]imnot_the_actor
2006-10-12 03:36 am UTC (link)
The Japanese already have countermeasures; they're called American military bases . . . on Japan's main island. Part of the Marshall Plan's efforts to rebuild Europe and Asia after WWII called for the complete protection of the disenfranchised Japanese, German, and Italian governments so they would not fall into the hands of dictators (Stalin was the immediate threat at the time). These treaties still stand today. If Japan were attacked, the Allies that signed these agreements would have to defend her. We are their defense. Not to mention it is in our best economic interest to project Japan anyway, unless their opposition would happen to be China. But then why would China fight us? We owe them billions of dollars from this Iraqi war. If they fought us, they would never get that money back. That would be like breaking an artist's hand when she owes you money, and in turn, she can't earn anything TO pay you back because you just broke her hand!

We need not fear any government. Our conventional AND nuclear stockpile could rule the world if our cause was the least bit justifiable in the public eye. What we should fear are those governments who would sell things to terrorists. Think about it. What deterrent is there for, say, China, Russia, Pakistan, or North Korea to not drop a nuke on the US or our allies? Well, if they do, they can kiss their asses goodbye. ANY of those respective countries would become giant parking lots from our promised "full retaliatory response" initiative. Our nuclear arsenal could blanket more than three-quarters of the geographical world in nuclear fallout (there isn't even that much inhabitable land to begin with!!). Who would be so dumb? Only a terrorist group would be. Why? Because who are you going to retaliate against? The nation that harbors them? Like we did Afghanistan? It's a lot different when you talk about nuclear retaliation, because the few thousand terrorists don't care if North Korea gets flattened, and they don't even need Afghanistan or Syria's permission to set up camp in those countries. Fuck, we even have terrorist cells in THIS country. That is whom we must fear, because retaliation means nothing to them because we can't even strike back.

Ponder this: Why have we not seen a major war in over 60 year? The deterrent! Just because everyone seems to have 1 or 2 nukes or even 10 nukes doesn't mean we all need to duck and cover again (alluding to the Cold War). Thank God for nuclear weapons. I can't imagine how bloody a WWIII would be with modern-day conventional warfare. Nuclear weapons are saving, and have saved, generations of lives that we will never know would have been lost. How? Because nuclear weapons have prevented wars. One day, someone will use a nuclear weapon, most certainly. And that someone will be no more, and the world will live on for probably another 60 or 70 years AT LEAST too scared to stur anything up with another power.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
[info]peacerains
2006-10-11 09:20 pm UTC (link)
at least they like us.

(Reply to this)

(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…