The war with North Korea

[asmallsol]

Do you need to go back to science class? Nuclear weapons would effect everyone. Its not like a cluster bomb or even a biological weapon. This is why the idea of MAD was created. Look at chernobyl. Over 20 years later, the land is still unihabitable, and this was just a small melt down. No where near what an actual cold war missile would do. If a modern warhead was deployed on the west coast, nuclear fallout would cause cancer and death throughout the country.

Also, do you understand what the SS18 missiles are capable of. Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle or MIRVs missiles shot one main missle from there silo, then it can break apart and send 10 diffrent warheads to 10 diffrent targets, thousands of miles apart. New York, LA, Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Denver, Boston, San Daigo, and Tampa could all be taken out by one of these ss18 missiles. This is why there nickname was the ss18 SATAN. Remember, these were developed 20-30 years ago (Started making the SS18 series rockets in the mid 70's, the mod 4's in 1980 and more changes later through the 80's) You don't think that North Korea will ever be able to acheive something like that?
So what your saying is that one missle can't destory the entire economy of the US. Umm, you might want to look into that a little bit more.

 

[reckedracing]

Like say 9/11? Seems like we recovered or are almost fully recovered. Even if the infastructure is destroyed, so long as we have the knowledge and means to rebuild then life will go on.

this is pure bullshit, the economy is still tanked, no matter what numbers the gov't gives you, the economy is still shit, so many people on unemployment, and that unemployment is running out now...

You mean Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were not the men that created foreign policy and lived overseas working with other nations? You mean that those founding fathers didn't proclaim that we were to be more or less the big brother of the world and help other countries around the world? ...because I think they did and I think thats exactly where foreign policy is at today, except you'll all sit here and bitch about it. "Lets only care about the ourselves, screw everyone else" has been the general sentiment of many, specifically on this message board. That goes against the policy by which our forefathers intended. So with that in mind, I think you're wrong that foreign policy today isn't what the forefathers would have wanted because I think its pretty near what they intended.

hmm, lets take a look here
do you think their foreign policy was based on peace? or was it based on CAPITALISTIC desire? if you let us ship goods to you, then we'll let you ship goods to us... trade was the name of the game... trade = business...
anyone remember china? and the US and britian practically forcing our businesses onto them?
and you think the founding fathers, the ones that fought for FREEDOM would want the US to be the world bully? to go into other countries for regime changes? guerilla wars? assisinating leaders? the US backed the taliban, the US backed saddam... our foreign policy doesn't give two shits about FUCKING FREEDOM, all the US gov't cares about is money and what serves them the best a the time... ie: making them the most money...

Of course nukes and cluster bombs are scary if you're the specific target but if a nation strikes NYC then you're going to be fine over in California. To attack the United States and bring it to its knees, there would need to be attacks on atleast two major fronts - east and west but also hitting the large cities that produce much of the machinery up in the North and the ones down in the South. We would have to be attacked from all directions pretty much simultaneously. What nation has the numbers to mount this kind of attack? China? Yes, they probably could attack us and win if we were unprepared but who else? Russia? Russia doesn't have the money, numbers, nor support in the current times to mount that sort of attack...maybe back when the Soviet Union existed.

you are basing this on one nation vs the US...
don't you think we've made enough enemies to be attacked by more than one country? lets imagine a WW3, the entire world vs the US... thats a much more realistic version if our foreign policy remains that of an imperialist bully...

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by asmallsol@May 10 2005, 10:25 PM
Do you need to go back to science class? Nuclear weapons would effect everyone. Its not like a cluster bomb or even a biological weapon. This is why the idea of MAD was created. Look at chernobyl. Over 20 years later, the land is still unihabitable, and this was just a small melt down. No where near what an actual cold war missile would do. If a modern warhead was deployed on the west coast, nuclear fallout would cause cancer and death throughout the country.

Also, do you understand what the SS18 missiles are capable of. Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle or MIRVs missiles shot one main missle from there silo, then it can break apart and send 10 diffrent warheads to 10 diffrent targets, thousands of miles apart. New York, LA, Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Denver, Boston, San Daigo, and Tampa could all be taken out by one of these ss18 missiles. This is why there nickname was the ss18 SATAN. Remember, these were developed 20-30 years ago (Started making the SS18 series rockets in the mid 70's, the mod 4's in 1980 and more changes later through the 80's) You don't think that North Korea will ever be able to acheive something like that?
So what your saying is that one missle can't destory the entire economy of the US. Umm, you might want to look into that a little bit more.

[post=497644]Quoted post[/post]​

And even though its not probable that one missile would destroy the entire economy, if it did, that doesn't mean the nation would fall. I just cited examples of countries that have went through major hardships and are fine and thriving now...the United States is one of them.

As for going back to science class, I understand nuclear fallout. I also understand that nuclear fallout will not encompass the entire country, the immediate area and a hundred, two hundred, a thousand? miles away...thats not the entire country. To encompass the country we would have to be hit with a multi front attack just as I said.

...and no North Korea isn't capable of that right now, the nations that I stated are the ones that are capable of something like that right now.

Once again, nothing will happen so continue to be a doomsdayer.

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by reckedracing@May 11 2005, 08:55 AM

this is pure bullshit, the economy is still tanked, no matter what numbers the gov't gives you, the economy is still shit, so many people on unemployment, and that unemployment is running out now...

The economy isn't fully recovered but in 5 years it will be recovered and thriving. Whats that, less than a 10year span of recession...not depression? Thats absolutely nothing. I'm sorry to say but one man's lifetime means nothing in the greater world of time. We are nothings in the big picture.

and you think the founding fathers, the ones that fought for FREEDOM would want the US to be the world bully? to go into other countries for regime changes? guerilla wars? assisinating leaders? the US backed the taliban, the US backed saddam... our foreign policy doesn't give two shits about FUCKING FREEDOM

In short, yes. This is what they intended to make as much of the world 'free' to share the liberties that they endowed upon the great country that they created.

Our foreign policy has and always will do whatever it takes to eliminate threats to the United States. This is the idea of defense. If we can take preemptive strikes to eliminate threats meanwhile 'liberating' other countries and turning them to democracies then I think we're doing exactly what is required of the United States as the big brother and overseerer of the free world. We're bullying the bullies, is that not what you would do or more importantly should do if you were bigger than another bully? ...or should we just let it slide and let those bullies do whatever they'd like to their people. Its a moral question. I think hell no, we should stop them from harming the innocent people. If you think this is the United States being a bully then all I have to say is atleast we're not bullying innocent people but people who deserve every ounce of what they get.

Gas your own people? You get eliminated.
Oppress your people? You get removed from power and your people freed.
Commit genocide? You have to get punished or else you'll just continue what you're doing.

hmm, lets take a look here
do you think their foreign policy was based on peace? or was it based on CAPITALISTIC desire? if you let us ship goods to you, then we'll let you ship goods to us... trade was the name of the game... trade = business...
anyone remember china? and the US and britian practically forcing our businesses onto them?

all the US gov't cares about is money and what serves them the best a the time... ie: making them the most money...

Hmmm, lets combine your two sentences. Which is it? The founding fathers meant for a capitalist society. They meant for a foreign policy that incorporated trade with as many nations as possible. Is that where our economic policy is today? Yes.

The founding fathers also proclaimed when the country was built that we were to make as much of the world democratic and free as possible, is that where foreign policy is aimed today? Yes.

So my statement remains that our foreign policy is currently right where the founding fathers intended. I don't know how you can argue that.

you are basing this on one nation vs the US...
don't you think we've made enough enemies to be attacked by more than one country? lets imagine a WW3, the entire world vs the US... thats a much more realistic version if our foreign policy remains that of an imperialist bully...

Wrong. Britain and all the other free nations would never leave our side and if they did, they would remain neutral NOT attack us.

So basically if you combine all the countries that dislike the United States and have the means of fighting you also have to consider that the United States is going to have some sort of allies. Nations depend on our economy. Are they going to bite the hand that feeds them? I think not.

Once again I'll say that you're all doomsdayers and think in unrealistic worst case scenarios. Worse case scenario - world explodes unexpectedly and we die. ...its just not going to happen.

 

[posol]

and if you cut trade, you have peal harbor all over again. that's why japan attacked us back in wwii

 

[reckedracing]

Our foreign policy has and always will do whatever it takes to eliminate threats to the United States. This is the idea of defense. If we can take preemptive strikes to eliminate threats meanwhile 'liberating' other countries and turning them to democracies then I think we're doing exactly what is required of the United States as the big brother and overseerer of the free world. We're bullying the bullies, is that not what you would do or more importantly should do if you were bigger than another bully? ...or should we just let it slide and let those bullies do whatever they'd like to their people. Its a moral question. I think hell no, we should stop them from harming the innocent people. If you think this is the United States being a bully then all I have to say is atleast we're not bullying innocent people but people who deserve every ounce of what they get.

oh, i forgot that saddam was a major threat to the US
bahahahaha, all those WMD's right?

pre-emptive strikes = illegal...
pre-emptive strikes that were based on untrue accusations = making a mockery of the US...
and oh yes, we have definately LIBERATED iraq alright, MORE LIKE FUCKING OCCUPIED...
you are refering to bullying the bullies, but THE US PUT THOSE BULLIES IN POWER, there was no consequence when saddam gassed his people... the US let him stay in power... we are now fighting against the regimes that were placed in power by the US...

your view of the US as the world police, and eternal fighter of freedom and democracy is truly flawed...

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by reckedracing@May 11 2005, 12:29 PM

oh, i forgot that saddam was a major threat to the US
bahahahaha, all those WMD's right?

pre-emptive strikes = illegal...
pre-emptive strikes that were based on untrue accusations = making a mockery of the US...
and oh yes, we have definately LIBERATED iraq alright, MORE LIKE FUCKING OCCUPIED...
you are refering to bullying the bullies, but THE US PUT THOSE BULLIES IN POWER, there was no consequence when saddam gassed his people... the US let him stay in power... we are now fighting against the regimes that were placed in power by the US...

your view of the US as the world police, and eternal fighter of freedom and democracy is truly flawed...

I beg to differ.

Your naysayer pessimistic opinion is skewed in my opinion.

Why didn't we go to war with Iraw when he first gased his people? Because of people such as yourself.

Understand that you're wrong and the war in Iraq is infact legal. You're proven wrong everyday about this. You may think its unjust but Congress has stated its legal, so don't bring up the issue again. You're wrong.

We're currently occupying Iraq because if we just leave then all the work that has been done will be pointless, the country will just regress and those who were in power will go back to being in power. Its the reason for peace keeping troops occupying many of the countries around the world. Duh. War isn't over when the fighting is, even though mind you obviously theres still much fighting in Iraq to be done, but war ceases when the idea of fight has left the people.

People who were placed in power that we now view as enemies were not threats to the United States at the time. They were better than the people in power in our mind, so thats why they are where they are currently. They may not have been the best choice but they were the best WE HAD.

The world isn't perfect so don't try to hold the government to your unrealistic standards. Your standards are somehow humorous though because of how pessimistic you are about people but then you want to require them to be absolutely perfect and do everything correct...kind've contradictory.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by reckedracing@May 11 2005, 06:29 PM

and oh yes, we have definately LIBERATED iraq alright, MORE LIKE FUCKING OCCUPIED...

[post=497888]Quoted post[/post]​

We are no longer occuping Iraq. Iraq controls (if you can call it that) Iraq. We are there to provide stability for the new government. We were occuping, now we are securing, there is a difference. If that is the case, we are still occuping Germany. Not trying to argue sematics, but fair is fair.

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by Blanco@May 11 2005, 02:53 PM

The point that you continue to miss, or ignore, is this. That's what one SS18 "Satan" can do. Russia has over 300 of them. Not to mention:

"Russia is currently estimated to have about 5,000 strategic nuclear warheads plus 3,400 tactical nuclear weapons. It should be noted, however, that estimates of Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal vary widely, ranging upwards to 10,000-15,000 when estimates include weapons waiting dismantlement."

If they fire, it won't be just one missle to just one target. Taking out most of NYS was just from the blast of one SS18, not from the fallout, not from the wind catching the radiation and dumping it across the rest of the country like acid rain. And you better believe that a weapon with an almost five mile fire ball/blast radius is going to throw some serious shit into the atmosphere. That's going to rain down on the rest of the country, get into the soil, destroy crops, spread cancer, et cetera. The same thing will happen, on a smaller scale, from a smaller missle. It won't be like the relatively small bombs used in WWII. This is, of course, a worst case.

Sure, it might be a doomsday prediction, but only a fool discounts such a serious threat in that manner. The smart man prepares for the day that he hopes never comes.

Have you found that they have the means to launch all these missiles simultaneously? Do you know the numbers that coincide with how a realistic attack would happen? I don't but all I know is numbers posted about the number of warheads Russia, a fallen nation right now, has that the United States can match as well.

Russia has much bigger problems to worry about right now, so sure prepare all you want but its not going to happen. Take your own statements about nuclear fallout, having atomic particles blasted into the hemisphere and raining down cancer and doom and apply these statements to the conclusions that actual experts have come to. Obviously you understand that a researcher, an expert has quite the better grasp on what would happen in said event, so you must also understand that they know the consequences. Coastal winds blowing debri? Acid rain falling globally? Infected species migrating to foreign countries? With that said, the experts also know if such a large scale attack was launched that it would mean the end for them as well. Sure they can drop every last one of their nukes if they like but they understand the reprocussions for themselves as well.

So the foolish man believes that they need worry, the intelligent man understands that if such an event were to occur...who fucking cares because you're toast anyway.

 

[asmallsol]

Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@May 11 2005, 04:10 PM
Coastal winds blowing debri? Acid rain falling globally? Infected species migrating to foreign countries? With that said, the experts also know if such a large scale attack was launched that it would mean the end for them as well. Sure they can drop every last one of their nukes if they like but they understand the reprocussions for themselves as well.

So the foolish man believes that they need worry, the intelligent man understands that if such an event were to occur...who fucking cares because you're toast anyway.

[post=497970]Quoted post[/post]​

LOL, I love it, again you stay against anything we say (even if we us true solid facts to back it up) you then change your basis for an arugment. First you say well, a nuke in _____ city wont effect _____ city, then right there you mention how it will effect the person that is attacking us.

On top of that, everyone that has gone against you has use SOLID facts to back them up, but you use zero sourse and basicly everythign you say is opinionated but you try to use it as fact. You use your past knowledge to structure your whole argument, however, your past knowledge is not always correct (just in this thread, first your statement about only china has the capabilty, then russia sold all theres away.)

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by asmallsol@May 11 2005, 03:33 PM

LOL, I love it, again you stay against anything we say (even if we us true solid facts to back it up) you then change your basis for an arugment. First you say well, a nuke in _____ city wont effect _____ city, then right there you mention how it will effect the person that is attacking us.

On top of that, everyone that has gone against you has use SOLID facts to back them up, but you use zero sourse and basicly everythign you say is opinionated but you try to use it as fact. You use your past knowledge to structure your whole argument, however, your past knowledge is not always correct (just in this thread, first your statement about only china has the capabilty, then russia sold all theres away.)

Tree hugger, I was using your own argument against you. You're obviously too stupid to see that I ran with your idea and provided you with your own source and own scenario a reason why it will not happen. Can you refute that? I've used everything you've said against you, I don't think you can.

Its humorous how you're so blind that you could not see exactly what happened.

You begin to attack my character rather than the argument and can't refute what i said.


I'll let you have it your way, the attack is going to be horriffic and whipe out the entire United States but if its so horriffic its also going to mutually destroy the nation that launched the attack. Have it your way, have it your way...


Any scenario posed and its just not going to happen. Short of destroying the world a thriving nation thats the original 'superpower' is not going to fall to a nation in finnacial decay or simply a nation that understands the consequences of their actions and holds their life in any regards. Unless the world has become suicidal maniacs (you know, the little terrorists that don't have the means of mounting this type of attack, occupy the majority of this suicidal group...so i guess that leaves them out) then there's no worries.

One bomb dropped, we're okay. Two? We're okay. 10? We'll recover. More than that that will encompass the entire United States plus a much greater distance? We're all fucked.

Duh.

 

[posol]

This topic has gotten out of control. There will be no further discussion / argument.

Closed by a moderator.