North Korea conducts nuclear test - Page 2

mcflux · 09-10-2006, 08:29 PM

Kid A is actually a Radiohead album ;)

I think you're thinking of Kid Rock, Pammy-pummeler and rap-rocker.

FordFan86 · 09-10-2006, 08:30 PM

There are too many big words being used in this thread...
And dropping a nuclear bomb in defence? I love it....

"Yo baby, I see your gatling gun fire. I raise you 3 aircraft carriers and 2 nuclear bombs"

FordFan86 · 09-10-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

There are too many big words being used in this thread...
And dropping a nuclear bomb in defence? I love it....

"Yo baby, I see your gatling gun fire. I raise you 3 aircraft carriers and 2 nuclear bombs"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Kid A is actually a Radiohead album ;)

I think you're thinking of Kid Rock, Pammy-pummeler and rap-rocker.

No, just weeding out the stupid ones....10+ too you Dave, would you like a signed treaty paper?

ED Classic · 09-10-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pieoter

North Korea is already has heavy economic sanctions against it. Thats why they are starving. They developed the bomb for the same reason as France (To gain more influence)

In my opinion it don't care that NK has "the bomb" they havn't done anything agressive and know they will be beaten in a war. Look at it from their POV they are on the list of "rogue nations" which included Afghanistan and Iraq and what happened to both those countries? They got invaded despite it being Illegal under international law. So they developed the bomb as a deterant to being invaded. NK has not invaded or started a war unlike the US, UK, Australia, Israel etc in some time.

Id like to see food and economic aid being sent to NK in exchange for the destuction of the Atomic weapon program and return of UN inspectors to the atomic power plants.

Agree with Martin on your first 2 paragraphs, Just spewin crap.

Interested why you dont mention in your third paragraph that thats vitually what the US has been trying to do for years? Its either cause you cant see past yourself and your view or you fail to acknowlege the US goes about things the right way before they need to act on solve a very dangerous problem.

XR Martin · 09-10-2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stitty

It was talked about on JJJ radio this arvo - Nth Korea want the sanctions lifted against them imposed by various world nations. They threatened to keep esculating and esculating until someone finally either drops or reviews these sanctions, or agrees to sit down and discuss a solution. But rest assured, now they officially have the technology (unofficially for years), they wont surrender it. Having it is one thing, being able to deliver it is another.....
Dont the Koreans make Daewoos and Hyundais? I think i feel better already lol

South Korea (where Daewoos, Hyundais, etc are made) is a prosperous 1st World country, North Korea is a bottom of the barrel 3rd World nation (who dont export anything).
Two different countries.

North Korea having nukes would be no different various African nations having them, very ******* scary.

csv8 · 09-10-2006, 08:33 PM

If America hit Korea with a sustained bombing campaign and surgical strikes. How long would the Korean troops stand up for Kim ???? I think it would be over fairly quickly. America has plans to take out IRAN. Also Indonesia considers the top half of Australia as part of Indonesia.....Dangerous times ahead.........

05MkIIFutura · 09-10-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueoval

This is going to open up a BIG can of worms.

ha ha, I agree. Just wait till some redneck gets on here and suggests we shoudl stop f%^cking around and just get WWIII over and done with (and take out a few other nations while we are at it)

Oh dear!!

csv8 · 09-10-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

South Korea (where Daewoos, Hyundais, etc are made) is a prosperous 1st World country, North Korea is a bottom of the barrel 3rd World nation (who dont export anything).
Two different countries.

North Korea having a nuke would be no different various African nations having them, very ******* scary.

What will HOLDEN do ? if no Daewoo's for Barina, Viva and Vectra replacements???

XR Martin · 09-10-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

There are too many big words being used in this thread...
And dropping a nuclear bomb in defence? I love it....

"Yo baby, I see your gatling gun fire. I raise you 3 aircraft carriers and 2 nuclear bombs"

Who attacked who? Oh wait thats right Japan did, without declaring war prior to attacking either. And you didnt address my statement in that it actually saved lives, saved Japanese, American, British, Aussie etc lives.

FordFan86 · 09-10-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

If America hit Korea with a sustained bombing campaign and surgical strikes. How long would the Korean troops stand up for Kim ???? I think it would be over fairly quickly. America has plans to take out IRAN. Also Indonesia considers the top half of Australia as part of Indonesia.....Dangerous times ahead.........

I love it when big boys dress up and play army.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Who attacked who? Oh wait thats right Japan did, without declaring war prior to attacking either.

What they did was an act of war, it was a mistake. Due to time differences and government red tape and all that **** I'm sure. They attacked before declaring war. Know your **** before opening your mouth.

EDIT:
It saved lives at the cost of what though? 1 million dead Japanese straight up, how many lives did that "save" that's 10% of 10 million, a minor dent in the total WWII casualties.
Let's make it simpler for you.
Take a supspected terrorist, put him to death. He was found with bombs strapped to his chest, how many lives are worth his life? Take one to save 10, 100, 1000??? where do you stop & who is to make that call? Truly a utilitarian (sorry for the big word) outlook.
And for those in need of a more humorous read:
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_may2005/Water_Closet.htm

MITCHAY · 09-10-2006, 08:44 PM

The hypocritical thing about the US stance on nuclear weapons is they are trying to dictate what weapons a country has a right to arm themselves with, yet don't they have the biggest stock pile of nuclear weapons than any other nation?

They are the only nation to use not 1, but 2 nuclear weapons to kill people.

To me N.Korea having nukes is no more concerning than the US having them due to above fact.

Really I don't trust either N. Korea or the US.

mcflux · 09-10-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

I love it when big boys dress up and play army.

Bwahahaha!

XR Martin · 09-10-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

The hypocritical thing about the US stance on nuclear weapons is they are trying to dictate what weapons a country has a right to arm themselves with, yet don't they have the biggest stock pile of nuclear weapons than any other nation?

They are the only nation to use not 1, but 2 nuclear weapons to kill people.

To me N.Korea having nukes is no more concerning than the US having them due to above fact.

Really I don't trust either N. Korea or the US.

What about the fact North Korea cant even feed its own people? Something like 80% of the population is mal-nurished, that rivals various African nations.

ED Classic · 09-10-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 05MkIIFutura

One thing u are forgetting is that wars are not faught with manpower anymore, he with airplanes and trans-continental missiles shall be the winner (considering that the US has over half of the worlds fighter jets, that makes them somewhat, um, favourites!!)

That is one thing that gives Australia some degree of security, the fact that we have a good deal of ocean between us and our nearest (unfortuneately unstable) neighbours. We can rely on having a relatively small (but very suitable) fleet of war machines can defend us against any vessels required to move troops. We should be very grateful for that.

Yeah I was going to write the same thing. The jets and bombs can even out the numbers pretty fast. 20-30 Aircraft carriers can ship over a bloody lot of jets. All the troops in the world is going to have trouble beating a massive number of Destroyers spaced out shooting missles 1000 miles and landing them within 50cm of where they are aimed.

I think the US realise this war would take more innocent lives than the Iraq, Afgan wars so they are hesitant because of this to give them credit. Its not that they are worried. They can sit 1000 miles out and bomb for 5 years without sending troops in if thats what they want to do. Of course they can drop the magnetic bombs that wipe out all electricity if they want to or the bombs with concentrated endorphine gas that just makes every one in the vicinity just start having sex and care about nothing else including fighting the war. Then theres the invention from an Australian guy they bought which is a laser bullet firing machine gun that shoots in excess of 100,000 rounds per minute. And thats just the stuff we know about :Up_to_som :evilsasmo

mcflux · 09-10-2006, 08:54 PM

delete

XR Martin · 09-10-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

I love it when big boys dress up and play army.

What they did was an act of war, it was a mistake. Due to time differences and government red tape and all that **** I'm sure. They attacked before declaring war. Know your **** before opening your mouth.

EDIT:
It saved lives at the cost of what though? 1 million dead Japanese straight up, how many lives did that "save" that's 10% of 10 million, a minor dent in the total WWII casualties.
Let's make it simpler for you.
Take a supspected terrorist, put him to death. He was found with bombs strapped to his chest, how many lives are worth his life? Take one to save 10, 100, 1000??? where do you stop & who is to make that call? Truly a utilitarian (sorry for the big word) outlook.
And for those in need of a more humorous read:

For starters, it killed no where near 1million Japanese straight up. Try just over 100,000 both combined, and maybe another 100,000-150,000 from the after effects. You'll find that a conventional bombing raid on Tokyo actually caused more deaths
Invasion would have cost between 3-5million Japanese civilians and soldiers, and between 500,000-1,000,000 allies. Thats 250,000 sacrificed their life for a potential 6 million+
If you think that was wrong, you seriously need to have a rethink.

Or maybe you think they should have been left in power? Killing between 20-50 million Chinese, Koreans and other Asians, thousands of British, American and Australian.

FordFan86 · 09-10-2006, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

For starters, it killed no where near 1million Japanese straight up. Try just over 100,000 both combined, and maybe another 100,000-150,000 from the after effects. You'll find that a conventional bombing raid on Tokyo actually caused more deaths
Invasion would have cost between 3-5million Japanese civilians, and between 500,000-1,000,000 allies. Thats 250,000 sacrificed their life for a potential 6 million+
If you think that was wrong, you seriously need to have a rethink.

Or maybe you think they should have been left in power? Killing between 20-50 million Chinese, Koreans and other Asians, thousands of British, American and Australian.

See bolded stuff: Thought I'd try you again, you could pick 1million lives from one hundred thousand yet not know that 2 bombs were dropped??? Done some quick google searching or what?

Did I once say or imply that I thought it was wrong(or right for that matter)? Your thinking is serioulsy ****** up mate, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Who the **** are you (or anyone else here) to try and predict what affect (or lack of) dropping or not dropping those bombs back then, or invading N. K now will have, in terms of lives saved -v- lives lost.

XR6-VCT-2000 · 09-10-2006, 09:17 PM

Its Rediculous ! , bloody nuclear bombs and atom boms etc etc , all this technology, time and money could be put into something worthwile which could actually help this plannet achive something , in the way of moving foward ! . Gee the world is already a mess , and people wanna build stuff to finish off alltogether, its so stupid.

Im interested to see now if there will be a flood of earthquakes / hurricanes / bad weather etc etc to come soon ! , lastime someone tested a bomb i noticed tere was alot of bad world cotastrophies during the time. Surelly setting of bombs that large has to do some damage to the earths crust, oh and not to mention the atmosphere too ! .. ?

XR Martin · 09-10-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

See bolded stuff: Thought I'd try you again, you could pick 1million lives from one hundred thousand yet not know that 2 bombs were dropped??? Done some quick google searching or what?

Where did I say only one bomb was dropped? I was the one who first brought that two were dropped. See post #28
Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking.

FordFan86 · 09-10-2006, 09:22 PM

To backtrack a bit, what does nuclear capabilities have to do with **** in todays warfare? They kill.
Weapons that cause major injury/illness (let's say bio WOMD) are far more favourable as a lot more of a countries resources are tied up in dealing with injured civilians and military personnel as opposed to a dead body.

Outbackjack · 09-10-2006, 09:24 PM

The next few months should be interesting.

FordFan86 · 09-10-2006, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Where did I say only one bomb was dropped? I was the one who first brought that two were dropped. See post #28
Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking.

See nobodies perfect. My reading is fine, I've taken in everything in this thread. Sue me for not taking note of who's posting what.
Care to rebute your thinking patterns?

XRQTOR · 09-10-2006, 09:29 PM

No one nation has a full battle fleet, America has a about a dozen i think.

Even if NK had 1omillion people in the armed forces i doubt they'd be capable of keeping up with the running cost of a war, unlike the yanks who's econemy would thrive on it. The yanks have the capability to pick their targets (Airports, powerstation's, radio/sat aerials, military bases) and take them out before setting foot on NK soil, manpower is one thing but being able to destroy anything at will from the other side of the globe is another.

mcflux · 09-10-2006, 09:32 PM

But James, how about dirty bombs? They're ideal for fubaring the general public without killing them.

XR Martin · 09-10-2006, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

Care to rebute your thinking patterns?

Theres no such word as 'Rubute'
So how can I do something that doesnt exist?

Homer1 · 09-10-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pieoter

NK has not invaded or started a war unlike the US, UK, Australia, Israel etc in some time.

LOL!! Ever heard of the Korean War? Maybe do a little research B4 posting crap to avoid looking stupid!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

EF, What else? · 09-10-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

And I rest my case.

My bad, I just saw my mistake.

Bucket · 09-10-2006, 09:50 PM

Awww..Poor Kimmy said it himself "Im sooo Ronreeyyy"...he just need's some lovin...If he got layed, i reckon he'd be as docile tree sloth.

rodderz · 09-10-2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

The next few months should be interesting.

or in the next few days even, the US and Japan have just both agreed to act on North Korea, in what way hasnt been said yet

XR Martin · 09-10-2006, 11:21 PM

Apparently Bush will make a statement in about 30mins.

Get your bomb shelter ready ;)