World War III

[Prince Loeffler]

Can it be a possibilty that we may be heading to Nuclear War ? Are we ready ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/...e/us_us_nkorea

Here's the statement that stands out for me:

A Japanese newspaper reported Thursday that North Korea might fire its most advanced ballistic missile toward Hawaii around the Fourth of July holiday.

A new missile launch — though not expected to reach U.S. territory — would be a brazen slap in the face of the international community, which punished North Korea with new U.N. sanctions for conducting a second nuclear test on May 25 in defiance of a U.N. ban.

North Korea spurned the U.N. Security Council resolution with threats of war and pledges to expand its nuclear bomb-making program.

The missile now being readied in the North is believed to be a Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 4,000 miles and would be launched from North Korea's Dongchang-ni site on the northwestern coast, the Yomiuri newspaper said. It cited an analysis by Japan's Defense Ministry and intelligence gathered by U.S. reconnaissance satellites.

What if ?

[pgsmith]

What if ?

If they actually hit anything, I think the U.S. would probably launch a slew of cruise missles and take out their missle launch and fabrication facilities. As it is, they may well launch something in our general direction, but I think it would be passed of as simply more breast beating on their part.

[DustyMars]

Actually, our phased array radar could do that. Can you imagine an idiot under a tinfoil hat making war with us? Of course, if the "negotiator" has his way we'll be dust soon anyway.

[Senjojutsu]

Life imitates art...

Team America: World Police - Kim Jong Il & Hans Blix:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0hk9vaqWUg

Or else what?

Warning: Contains Profanity - NSFW or children - but it is funny and tragically maybe prophetic!

[jdostie]

It's like Kim Jong Il is saying "I can launch nukes because I don't care, and nobody can do anything (or at least not proportional) to me because you don't want to hurt my neighbors." Just how far reaching would the affects of a few nukes set off in North Korea be? Whatever the case, I don't think he's saying "I can beat the US," but that if the US or anybody else for that matter does anything, he's going to take it out on whomever he "can" hurt.

It feels very much like a school bully saying "you can't touch me because I am a minor" while bullying other kids. Or someone with hostages that he is threatening; you've got him in your crosshairs, but he has a "dead-man switch" to cause something very bad to happen if you pull the trigger.

In the movies we'd send in Chuck Norris or Stephen Seagall with a few crack special forces units to simultaneously take out the nuke and missle production facilities and anything he had in storage. What bothers me is what we saw with Iraq - if there were weapons (I think there were, but that's beside the point), they probably got moved, and we didn't know where - or that we possibly/probably don't know where everything is - so that if we did some "surgical" strikes, they may well still have the capability of responding. And, I distrust the notion that they haven't had a good missle launch, and only have a small amount of nuclear material - something about that whole scenario doesn't feel right to me at all given how long they have been a supplier of missile technology and parts to others. . . I can't reconcile what we've seen with that.

[Fred27]

What if ?

If a fullblown nuclear war happens then you should pray you live inside a target area. You wouldnt want to survive a nuclear total war.

[DustyMars]

It's like Kim Jong Il is saying "I can launch nukes because I don't care, and nobody can do anything (or at least not proportional) to me because you don't want to hurt my neighbors." Just how far reaching would the affects of a few nukes set off in North Korea be? Whatever the case, I don't think he's saying "I can beat the US," but that if the US or anybody else for that matter does anything, he's going to take it out on whomever he "can" hurt.

It feels very much like a school bully saying "you can't touch me because I am a minor" while bullying other kids. Or someone with hostages that he is threatening; you've got him in your crosshairs, but he has a "dead-man switch" to cause something very bad to happen if you pull the trigger.

In the movies we'd send in Chuck Norris or Stephen Seagall with a few crack special forces units to simultaneously take out the nuke and missle production facilities and anything he had in storage. What bothers me is what we saw with Iraq - if there were weapons (I think there were, but that's beside the point), they probably got moved, and we didn't know where - or that we possibly/probably don't know where everything is - so that if we did some "surgical" strikes, they may well still have the capability of responding. And, I distrust the notion that they haven't had a good missle launch, and only have a small amount of nuclear material - something about that whole scenario doesn't feel right to me at all given how long they have been a supplier of missile technology and parts to others. . . I can't reconcile what we've seen with that.

The guy is a certified nut case, like all other dictators are, but even crazy people are dangerous. We can take them out in a moments notice; if we had the will. I doubt the current idiots have the will. We alwasy find ourselves on the shitty end of the stick and have to hire (elect) people to get us out of the mess. It never ends.

[DustyMars]

If a fullblown nuclear war happens then you should pray you live inside a target area. You wouldnt want to survive a nuclear total war.

we do not use dirty nukes now days. Good old clean, efficient neutron pulses just clean out the rats and leave the rat droppings.

BTW, I survived several wars, including WW III.

[Moenstah]

Every single mention of World War III is about as preposterous and populist as choosing a date for the Apocalypse.

[Prince Loeffler]

as choosing a date for the Apocalypse.

So you met my future ex-wife ?

[jdostie]

Every single mention of World War III is about as preposterous and populist as choosing a date for the Apocalypse.

Perhaps, but this guy is really unstable, and as I said before, he doesn't seem to think anyone can touch him. I don't pretend to be up enough what's available in our arsenal to "take him out" cleanly and without causing lots of problems for our allies in the area. Certainly, I know we can take him out, but I suspect the "collateral damage" whether direct, or indirect seems to be of concern. Hence my previous post. I am sure the Whitehouse knows what our military options are, and has a better sense about what the "collateral damage" may be. But after Iraq, (even before), unless the whole world is willing to step up against him, nobody wants to do anything.

We can take them out in a moments notice; if we had the will.

Well, we can make another UN resolution, and if that doesn't work, have a resolution saying that we really meant our previous resolution. And then we can resolve to have more resolutions proving our resolve not to tolerate this.
How exactly is the United Nations better than the League of Nations was again?

[DustyMars]

Perhaps, but this guy is really unstable, and as I said before, he doesn't seem to think anyone can touch him. I don't pretend to be up enough what's available in our arsenal to "take him out" cleanly and without causing lots of problems for our allies in the area. Certainly, I know we can take him out, but I suspect the "collateral damage" whether direct, or indirect seems to be of concern. Hence my previous post. I am sure the Whitehouse knows what our military options are, and has a better sense about what the "collateral damage" may be. But after Iraq, (even before), unless the whole world is willing to step up against him, nobody wants to do anything.



Well, we can make another UN resolution, and if that doesn't work, have a resolution saying that we really meant our previous resolution. And then we can resolve to have more resolutions proving our resolve not to tolerate this.
How exactly is the United Nations better than the League of Nations was again?

Ever wonder why those nitwits chose the Twin Towers instead of the UN building to ram? I think the UN would wilt if we stopped bailing them out. The UN and League of Nations is no better than Little League whale hunting.

[niten ninja]

unless the whole world is willing to step up against him, nobody wants to do anything.

Well, that's because he hasn't actually done anything yet. Sure he's shouted alot and tested some weapons, but that's different to actually marching across the border into South Korea.

[Fred27]

we do not use dirty nukes now days. Good old clean, efficient neutron pulses just clean out the rats and leave the rat droppings.

Well thats comforting...I think. Ah well, think positive eh?

[DustyMars]

I took a lot of work to save us from a nuclear war. I was stationed at Westover AFB, in Mass in October 1962 when we nearly came to blows with them. While I never had doubts who would win, it was scary never the less. The media and their cronies then got away with their version of the period; they are dead wrong about who had the upper hand. It is a different story now but the media takes to opposite view now; they still get it wrong. Now we really need to worry.

When old Harry signed off on nuking Japan in August 1945 my father was in training for the invasion of Japan, after fighting in France and Germany for over a year. I am certain he would have not made it home after the slaughter that would have been the case. Nukes helped prevent larger wars, for that I am glad. My early career was training crews for the ultimate Kamikaze cruise, B-52 missions to the USSR.

We have more to worry about with an unobserved asteroid than with a nuclear war; but, a small freighter and dirty bomb is a real threat too.