Politics.. I know.... but blah.. its important.

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 12 Oct 2006, 12:18

YOU LIE!!!!! I know you got one somewhere!!!

we are gonna invade and find it!~!!!

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 12 Oct 2006, 12:19

according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherland ... estruction

We only share weapons of mass destruction with other NATO members.

EDIT

So we don't have them.

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 12 Oct 2006, 12:21

wow... umm...

I never expected to say this... but reading that.... nukes are more abundant than I feel comfortable with....

edit: and we're givin em away...

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 12 Oct 2006, 12:41

NOiZE wrote:I find it a bit annoying that big country's as US/Russia/UK

ALL have nuclear BOMBS, but no1 else is allowed to have them!

Isn't that kinda naive?

EDIT:

I don't say NK should have them, i am saying NO ONE should have them!

Agreed.

USA has no right to say that NK shouldn't have nukes when they themselves were still researching new types of nukes 3-4 years ago ("bunker busting nukes?").

If the USA did something like... sign an agreement to start reducing their arsenal (and show some results of this) THEN They're in a position to talk about how the NK should have nukes or not. Any nations without nukes or trying to reduce their arsenal, go ahead.

I'm not defending NK, nor their fascist government with the brain washed people. You just can't just say that something is wrong while doing it at the same time, that's double standards.

So what countries should have nukes? Here's my list of nations that are "sane" enough to have nukes:

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 12 Oct 2006, 13:05

bunker busters aren't nukes, they are bombs that simply drill into the ground prior to detonation...

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 12 Oct 2006, 14:16

LathanStanley wrote:bunker busters aren't nukes, they are bombs that simply drill into the ground prior to detonation...

The nuclear type.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_we ... ent_status

A 2001 Nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The US Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress cancelled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request. According to Jane's Information Group, the program may still continue under a new name.

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_Nuc ... Penetrator

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 12 Oct 2006, 14:32

craziness... more stuff I don't know

seein half this shit makes me scared for North Korea... cause odds are, they will be the "real" testing grounds for most of it...

pheldens · Post by **pheldens** » 12 Oct 2006, 14:46

We got/had some stationed for NATO. It's indeed hypocrite iran and nk cant have nukes. Another example of the double standards of the west.

The only nation that has used these WMD against human beings so far is the USA. It's ok they do really, but dont be hypocrite about it.
Same goes for torture, sponsored coupes d'etat, and other forms of state terrorism.
And it's not just the USA, our Dutch governement like most western governments is happily with their arms in uncle sam's ass. They even offered help to do legal work on the gitmo geneva convention evasion construction.
And went beyond the parliament approved role in the iraq war.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 12 Oct 2006, 14:47

LathanStanley wrote:craziness... more stuff I don't know

seein half this shit makes me scared for North Korea... cause odds are, they will be the "real" testing grounds for most of it...

God forbid, because it's a VERY small chance anyone would actually be willing to drop nukes on them first strike. I have friends in Tokyo, a nuclear war with Korea is about the worst thing I can think of.

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 12 Oct 2006, 16:29

Slightly off topic, but Kixxe, you wouldn't happen to know if GBU-28 is a nuclear bomb or not? Its the original bunker buster (artillery barrel full of explosives, AP tip and guidance systems) I looked for ages all over teh net and couldnt find out...

Nuclear weapons are pure sin

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 12 Oct 2006, 16:52

pintle wrote:Slightly off topic, but Kixxe, you wouldn't happen to know if GBU-28 is a nuclear bomb or not? Its the original bunker buster (artillery barrel full of explosives, AP tip and guidance systems) I looked for ages all over teh net and couldnt find out...

Nuclear weapons are pure sin

Development continued, with weapons such as the nuclear B61, and conventional thermobaric weapons and GBU-28. One of

From wikipedia about nuclear bunker busters.

Thermobaric =/ Nuclear.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 12 Oct 2006, 17:09

SwiftSpear wrote: I have friends in Tokyo, a nuclear war with Korea is about the worst thing I can think of.

I don't have freinds in Tokyo and I still think a nuclear war, with ANYONE is a terrible idea. Even if you win, you lose. Hasn't anyone played DefCon, up at the White House!?!?! Cause the catchphrase of the game is "everyone dies" and you know what...its true.

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 12 Oct 2006, 17:27

Or go watch the movie Wargames.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 12 Oct 2006, 17:31

I've been trying to find that damn movie ever sence I played DefCon, but I can't seem to find it at my local library, and I'm too damn sick to do anything else.

Deathblane · Post by **Deathblane** » 12 Oct 2006, 17:38

Actually the results of a full scale nuclear war (even circa 1980) whilst pretty horible would not result in either:

a) A nuclear winter
b) The death of all mankind
c) The destruction of human civilisation plunging us back into the stone ages

And to everyone who thinks nukes==teh evil, go and learn some history.
Sure the effects are pretty horrible but they did stop communist Russia from conquering europe and starting WWIII (probable would have happened no more than 10 years after the end of WWII).

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 12 Oct 2006, 17:42

I know that a nuclear winter would be pretty damn hard to accomplish, but it would cause millions of civilian casualties, destroy miles of cities and probably kill MILLONS more from starvation/radiation poisoning/dehydration/burns/other horrible things that happen in disaster areas.

If you ask me a single nuke going off in a city is horrible. Yes, including the two that WE dropped on Japan. But, hell, I had nothing to do with it, and if Japan is willing to let by gones be by gones, then...well...you know.

diggz2k · Post by **diggz2k** » 12 Oct 2006, 18:23

If we or one of our allies (Japan, South Korea) were to be hit by a nuke from North Korea (Most likely a ground blast to cause more radioactive fallout, cause KJI is a crazy man) America would either:

A. Drop a couple nukes on strategic locations like Kim Jong Ills house and their military base(s). The nukes could be small air blasts to minimize fallout to Japan, because any nukes going off in either Korea send fallout straight to Japan. Unfortunately the air blast means more colatteral damage killing more civilians right away, something that we want to minimize. Not likely.

B. Or just do massive conventional bombing of every factory, base, and kim jong il house in North Korea. Minimizes civilian deaths and no fallout. Most likely

C. Massive nuclear strike erasing North Korea from existance. These sort of options are only for bigger conflicts like ussr vs usa. KJI will not launch a huge nuclear strike maybe one or two maybe more. Not very likely.

Either way it would be a second, but very final strike.

We will though, no matter what take swift retribution against any attacks on the USA or her allies by anyone attacking on that scale.

Afterwards with their government and army dead we would probably try to get north and south to unite Germany style.

Iran will probably be watching this whole deal to see how we react, if we destroy North Korea hopefully that will deter Iran.

Ground assault is very unlikely imo because we are spread too thin, so we will let South Korea and Japan take care of that after we clean out NK

I don't really know much so these are just some thoughts.

@Zoombie I don't think any of these options will come near 1 million deaths (except the allout destruction one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_japan
There were only about 200,000 killed in Japan from those smaller nukes we dropped and side effects. Millions of deaths just wont happen. Yet

Deathblane · Post by **Deathblane** » 12 Oct 2006, 18:24

Here we are, a quick guide to the effects of a global thermonuclear war

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear ... rwar1.html

Happy reading :)

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 12 Oct 2006, 18:29

I have a feeling if Il tried to launch the missiles he'd be killed by the military who'd like to live another day.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 12 Oct 2006, 18:41

How wounderfully reassureing. Only 200,000 deaths... If anyone asks, I think one is just a bit too many...

Spring RTS Engine

Politics.. I know.... but blah.. its important.