North Korea v USA Mega Merge.

SeantheMan

Didn't see it on here at all ,

Video in link below of Korea saying such

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9915491/North-Korea-threatens-nuclear-strike-against-US.html

"(North Korea will) exercise its right to launch preemptive nuclear strike against invaders' stronghold.
(Key Resolve/Foal Eagle *these are the US training excercises to deter Korea* ) is an exercise of launching nuclear war against North Korea that aims for preemptive strike. Gone are the chances to resolve this by diplomatic means, but only military response remains."
"Forging so-called 'Resolutions' in United Nations Security Council to justify their invasion, and undergoing invasion while acting under the guise of UN Peacekeepers is a hackneyed method of war for United States. (They are) looking for a way out of their domestic economic crisis by provoking a 2nd Chosun (Korean) War.
"As long as the United States is trying to light the fuse of nuclear war, our revolutionary might is going to exercise the right of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the invaders' stronghold to protect this nation's prime interest.
"The UNSC's playing with anti-DPRK sanction resolution adoption under the lead of United States will only make our stronger second and third response measures to take place in advance.
"(We) solemnly warn UNSC not to repeat sinful mistake again. (Towards UNSC) They must disband United Nations Command, which is a tool for United State's invasion, and they must carry out measures that will end Korea's current state of war."

"As long as the United States attempts to light the fuse of nuclear war, (we) will exercise the right for preemptive nuclear strike on the aggressor's homeland/base... At a time when a second Korean War has become difficult to avoid, we solemnly warn the UN Security Council not to repeat the sinful/criminal mistakes."

Whole thread and discussion with numerous links
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/19u5mp/n_korea_threatens_preemptive_nuclear_strike/

The proposed sanctions North Korea called an "act of war" (summarized from here ), which the Security Council passed a few hours later:
-Ban on exporting luxury goods to North Korea (intended to target goods used by North Korea's elite)
-Freeze on all North Korean money thought to be connected to missile programs
-Ban on financial support for anything related to missile programs
-Travel sanctions that would effectively force out all expats working for North Korean ventures
-All North Korean cargo must be inspected
-3 arms dealers and 2 international organizations have been specifically targeted and sanctioned (from here )

I had planned to travel to S.Korea to teach...not so sure anymore

Grimreaper666

I don't care anymore tbh, sooner i'm out of here the better......

Jimoslimos

Might be more bluster, but threatening the US with pre-emptive nuclear strikes can only end badly, for North Korea.

NK behaving like a massive suicidal cult.

Seachmall

North Korea: The jack russell of international affairs.

JupiterKid

Looks like tensions are escalating further.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21709917

I would not want to be in Seoul right now.

AlmightyCushion

This is all that comes to mind.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up.gif

orestes

Honest question, but how many nukes would it take for the states to wipe North Korea off the face of the planet? Tiny country with very small amount of nukes -vs- very big country with lots and lots of nukes. This isn't USSR cold war stuff, this is an idiot poking a bear with a stick.

BrianG23

May as well get it over with, been stirring for years

Cork boy 55

The sorks should prepare for a sneak attack and then stage a false flag
and hit the norks, I am assuming that the norks don't really have any nukes that are weaponised and actually work.

The war would be over in 3 days.

BrianG23

orestes wrote: »

Honest question, but how many nukes would it take for the states to wipe North Korea off the face of the planet? Tiny country with very small amount of nukes -vs- very big country with lots and lots of nukes. This isn't USSR cold war stuff, this is poking a bear with a stick.

Not much, but then again the US is simply not allowed use Nukes(is that right?). They got away with it before, but murdering an entire Nation of people is just ****ed.

bizmark

where do you get the idea they "arent allowed?" and "got away with it" ? they brought a bloody war against a ruthless enemy who attacked them first to an end japan got nuked because nothing more would of ended that war bar a invasion of the home islands and **** knows how many deaths.

Besides china and america could just steam roller through nk the south could likely do it on their own if they wanted this is a complete non issue

starviewadams

Why can't we all just get along!

Cork boy 55

orestes wrote: »

Honest question, but how many nukes would it take for the states to wipe North Korea off the face of the planet? Tiny country with very small amount of nukes -vs- very big country with lots and lots of nukes. This isn't USSR cold war stuff, this is an idiot poking a bear with a stick.

Wing Attack plan R to the 843rd bomb wing

2 B-83 bombs set for 1.2 megaton yield would suffice dropped by a single B2 bomber
on a single pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb

Primary Target Pyongsong ( not to be confused with Pyongyang )
Secondary target Hamhung

Estimated Nork losses of 10 Megadeaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadeath

bizmark

megadeath rock on you crazy north korean bastards \m/_(^_^)_\m/

AlmightyCushion

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

2 B-83 set for 1.2 megaton yield would suffice dropped by a single B2 bomber
on a single pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb

Primary Target Pyongsong ( not to be confused with Pyongyang )
Secondary target Hamhung

Estimated Nork losses of 10 Megadeaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadeath

Not megadeath, I love that band.

BrianG23

bizmark wrote: »

where do you get the idea they "arent allowed?" and "got away with it" ? they brought a bloody war against a ruthless enemy who attacked them first to an end japan got nuked because nothing more would of ended that war bar a invasion of the home islands and **** knows how many deaths.

Besides china and america could just steam roller through nk the south could likely do it on their own if they wanted this is a complete non issue

I don't know, I thought it was simply heavily frowned upon to even consider nukes in this day and age, By everyone...in the world...except North Korea. wasn't it the US who propsed the ban on development of Nuclear weapons? Due to the massive risk they hold?Anyway I don't think i'll ever agree with using nukes against Japan. Should have nuked off shore or a deserted part of Japan before taking out cities full of innocent people. Imo

ArtSmart

bit of drama I suppose.


wonder if China is 'havin a laff', or if nut boy really is acting independently?

nah. he's only in power coz China gave the nod.

So, the question is, what's China playing at?

Hard to know.

.Henry Sellers.

So when is this movie coming out again?

Cork boy 55

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Not megadeath, I love that band.

The band is named after the unit/term
It is an actual unit/term from the cold war
Megadeath is a term for one million deaths by nuclear explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadeath

ArtSmart

wait...isn't this old news...?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/15/content_11547835.htm

Jimoslimos

bizmark wrote: »

where do you get the idea they "arent allowed?" and "got away with it" ? they brought a bloody war against a ruthless enemy who attacked them first to an end japan got nuked because nothing more would of ended that war bar a invasion of the home islands and **** knows how many deaths.

A lot less deaths than detonating two atomic bombs over highly populated cities.

Of course the economic cost of waging war for a few more months would have been higher, which is what I suspect may have been one of the main contributory factors for using them.

Cork boy 55

Listen To Buck, Use your Nukes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgyjlqhiTV8

JJayoo

bizmark wrote: »

where do you get the idea they "arent allowed?" and "got away with it" ? they brought a bloody war against a ruthless enemy who attacked them first to an end japan got nuked because nothing more would of ended that war bar a invasion of the home islands and **** knows how many deaths.

Ah now, the US targeted cities not military strongholds. In Hiroshima 80,000 men, women and children vaporized instantly. The radiation brought this death toll up to 130,000 by the end of the year. 70% of the cities building destroyed. Nagasaki 75,000 were killed with tens of thousands dying later due to the radiation. Not to mention the fire bombing which preceded the nukes. 100,000 were killed in Tokyo due to this.

America targeted civilians.

bizmark

Revisionism history is easy to do when sitting 70 years in the future in all due respect.

The united states estimated anything from 250,000 casualties to 4 million on their side alone and maybe up to 10 million Japanese their only concern at the time and the only one anyone should ever expect of them is to preserve their own people at the expense of their enemy thats war a war they didnt start.

And thats before you even get into the whole total war and no ones really innocent if they are working in a munitions plant or indirectly supporting the war effort in some way mentality

blackwave

More posturing by North Korea trying to be one of the big boys again, only problem is they are liable to do anything. The leadership there are the only country atm which I think that are batsh1t crazy enough to use a nuke on a neighbor even if the fallout could potentially fall onto their country. They are proven over the past they don't care for their population. I think they are facing isolation even from their closest ally now in China, theres more pressure coming on China to act responsibly in international affairs and the incoming leadership are supposedly meant to be more interested in working with the West compared to previous incumbents.

However I dont think that will stop NK if they get it in their head that they need to prove themselves on the world stage. Hopefully this will blow over but the brinkmanship sees just keeping going on and the stakes are getting higher and higher. Also I think America might be reluctant to use a nuke on North Korea due to the possibility of China fallout on which would never go down well particularly with relations being somewhat tense lately. So its kinda left to North Korea to show their hand first and god knows what that could be. for now its going to keep going in the cycle of North Korea testing nukes and the international community imposing sanctions and repeat.

smileyj1987

They must blame the south for the death of Kim Jong il .

JJayoo

bizmark wrote: »

The united states estimated anything from 250,000 casualties to 4 million on their side alone

Japan were responsible for 250,000-4 million American deaths?

Jimoslimos

bizmark wrote: »

And thats before you even get into the whole total war and no ones really innocent if they are working in a munitions plant or indirectly supporting the war effort in some way mentality

Wow! I've read some amount of claptrap on here but really?? I'm guessing Dresden was justified in your eyes as well.

bizmark

If america invaded the home islands thoses where the estimates

JJayoo

I think that is such a pile of piss

Cork boy 55

starviewadams wrote: »

Why can't we all just get along!

starviewadams, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got 1 USA megadeath, and the other where you got a 10 North Korean Megadeaths.

smileyj1987

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Equium

Does this mean we get more iodine tablets in the post?

smileyj1987

Equium wrote: »

Does this mean we get more iodine tablets in the post?

Enda Kenny and Co will be charging top whack for them .

P_1

Feck, there goes the TEFL in South Korea plan I suppose

Jimoslimos

I don't think the US would launch a nuclear attack, not unless by some incredible twist of fate NK actually managed to pull off an attack on US soil. Highly unlikely.

Probable target would be Seoul, which even with best anti-missile defences stands a high chance of success. The US though would retaliate with conventional missile attacks, which would be more than sufficient to do the job.

Still I reckon this is bluster, if they had intended to attack they would have cancelled pacts minutes before missile launch - not give SK and the US time to organise defences.

BrianG23

I think NK are just pushing their balls around again. I mean look at this http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=203_1360053143 All propaganda BS over there. However it really it getting too far at this point imo.

Cork boy 55

Somewhere over the Pacific tonight

In this clip of Stanley Kubrick's classic 1964 film "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," our heroes receive their coded instructions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-KIAsuoMAQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ynY5NvYsZY

Celly Smunt

I'm going to bed,it would be nice to wake up tomorrow to no more north Korea.

bizmark

JJayoo wrote: »

I think that is such a pile of piss

I take the word of american military predictions over your feelings any day though btw if you want a really nice example of someone targeting civilians look up the rape of Nanking thats a concentrated horror show costing the lives of more people than the 2 nukes that ended a world war and for no reason what so ever.

I do not weep for the destruction of nazi or empire of japan citys

old_aussie

Kim Jong-un....."when I said Nuke the Chinese, I meant, put the left-overs in the microwave"

Hammar

North Korea is best Korea.

Jimoslimos

bizmark wrote: »

I take the word of american military predictions over your feelings any day though btw if you want a really nice example of someone targeting civilians look up the rape of Nanking thats a concentrated horror show costing the lives of more people than the 2 nukes that ended a world war and for no reason what so ever.

I do not weep for the destruction of nazi or empire of japan citys

American military predictions eh? Because they've been shown to be absolutely spot on everytime haven't they?

At no stage in this thread did anyone attempt to apologise for Nazi or Japanese actions during WWII. Two wrongs don't make a right however and just because your enemy indulges in some horrific behaviour (of which the Japanese were very guilty) doesn't give you the same.

P_1

Strategically it would be suicide for North Korea to do anything of the sort at the moment.

They don't have any allies and have a finite set of resources that can't possibly come near to competing with any of their perceived enemies.

They might have a shot if they took ourselves on but thankfully we are out of their range.

bizmark

Jimoslimos wrote: »

American military predictions eh? Because they've been shown to be absolutely spot on everytime haven't they?

At no stage in this thread did anyone attempt to apologise for Nazi or Japanese actions during WWII. Two wrongs don't make a right however and just because your enemy indulges in some horrific behaviour (of which the Japanese were very guilty) doesn't give you the same.

Your agrument makes no sense unless your basically saying the military of the day should of ignored their advisors and predictions because they might be wrong on the level of carnage inflicted on their men because....er i don't know ? why would they why would they say "well we might lose up to 4 million people and we have ample proof of how fanitical the japanise are but someone on the internet in the future might think it was wrong so best put away the wonder weapons and throw away our children in this fight because gosh darn im just a really stupid person.

The real world doesn't work like that

Jimoslimos

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The band is named after the unit/term
It is an actual unit/term from the cold war
Megadeath is a term for one million deaths by nuclear explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadeath

I can't stop trivialising the matter in my head to the loss of a few Korean heavy metal tribute bands, which would be devastating given that nothing would then stand in the way of K-Pop

Jimoslimos

bizmark wrote: »

Your agrument makes no sense unless your basically saying the military of the day should of ignored their advisors and predictions because they might be wrong on the level of carnage inflicted on their men because....er i don't know ? why would they why would they say "well we might lose up to 4 million people and we have ample proof of how fanitical the japanise are but someone on the internet in the future might think it was wrong so best put away the wonder weapons and throw away our children in this fight because gosh darn im just a really stupid person.

The real world doesn't work like that

Why was a land invasion the only other option? An island nation with limited natural resources losing ground in East Asia with minimal air defences. Continued conventional bomber attacks would have been effective eventually - with fewer civilian casualties

No, the US military were desperate to justify the millions they spent developing their shiny new toy. Hence the wild exaggerations of projected casualties if they didn't get their way.

old_aussie

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, the US military were desperate to justify the millions they spent developing their shiny new toy. Hence the wild exaggerations of projected casualties if they didn't get their way.

The Japs started it and the Yanks finished it.

Saved possible 100,000's of allied lives.

Japan would have fought till the last man standing, costing possible millions of Jap lives.

bizmark

So your choice would of been mass starvation through naval blockade and continued massive areal bombardment possibly killing 100's of thousands anyway? assuming the russians didnt swing in from manchuria and invade in the meantime either way death and hardship was to be hand in great numbers plus the entire atomic bomb cost was 2 billion dollars at the time in comparison the 24 essex class carriers would of cost a combined 1.9 billion this wasnt some huge expenditure comparatively.

Though i would say they used it in part to warn the russians along with saving their own soldiers and bring the war to an end all of which is A ok in my book

We be hugely off topic now mind

NTMK

you mean like the General of the Army, the chief of staff to the president, the head of intelligence for Japan and the commander of the pacific fleet who all disagreed with the use of the nuclear weapons

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

P_1

NTMK wrote: »

you mean like the General of the Army, the chief of staff to the president, the head of intelligence for Japan and the commander of the pacific fleet who all disagreed with the use of the nuclear weapons

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

The nukes were never about beating Japan, as you said by that stage they were done. The reason for using them was to warn the Soviets off