PDA

View Full Version : North korea Tests Nuclear weapon.



Beatle
10-08-2006, 07:16 PM
I blame BOTH Clinton and Bush jr. for not doing enough . Thanks retards.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test.ap/index.html

Mike
10-08-2006, 07:16 PM
i blame Kim Jong Il

Briomega
10-08-2006, 07:17 PM
I blame Science.

Beatle
10-08-2006, 07:17 PM
i blame Kim Jong Il


tru dat

Taxman
10-08-2006, 07:18 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/glima/Net%20Photos/siren.gif

Ray G.
10-08-2006, 07:19 PM
Well, fuck.

jhz1963
10-08-2006, 07:20 PM
I blame the cast of M*A*S*H. They had no right to leave before the job was truly finished.

who cares?
10-08-2006, 07:20 PM
I blame the cast of M*A*S*H. They had no right to leave before the job was truly finished.

i know... fucking Hawkeye... he was the last one to leave....

Persevering Guy
10-08-2006, 07:25 PM
Until the US dismantles their weapons and commits to nuclear proliferation, they really have no right to tell other countries not to have nukes.

Ray G.
10-08-2006, 07:29 PM
Until the US dismantles their weapons and commits to nuclear proliferation, they really have no right to tell other countries not to have nukes.

Right? Maybe not.

Duty? When it comes to countries like Iran and North Korea? Fuck yes.

Dannñ B
10-08-2006, 07:29 PM
North Korea should spend their money on fixing their poverty and hunger problems instead of wasting it on weaponry.

Natty P
10-08-2006, 07:32 PM
Until the US dismantles their weapons and commits to nuclear proliferation, they really have no right to tell other countries not to have nukes.


Are you like a cartoon character? I mean Jesus.


First of all, as long as countries like North Koreawant to extort money out of us in order not to have nukes, we can tell podunk countries like North Korea whatever the fuck we want.


It's fine to be critical of American foreign policy, I sure am-- but use your head. I'm not even concerned about Iran getting Nukes, they are too poised to be wealthy and prosperous (as Persia has traditionally been) to ever really want to start a world war.


Also you seem ignorant of the fact that NOBODY wants NK to have nukes; we are tools of the world community's will, in this case at least.



I'm sorry the world doesn't run on rainbow powered cars and hugs, but life sucks.

Persevering Guy
10-08-2006, 07:36 PM
Right? Maybe not.

Duty? When it comes to countries like Iran and North Korea? Fuck yes.
These countries feel that they need nukes because their "enemies," the U.S. has them.

Remember when Bush declared Iraq, Iran, and NK an "axis of evil?"

Then Iraq gets invaded. The leaders of NK and Iran are probably thinking, "gee, we're also on that list. maybe they'll come after us, too."

I don't support these countries, but I really can't blame them for seeking nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the U.S.

This could have been prevented by disarming ourselves, first.

The U.S. is a hypocrate and the rest of the world knows this and they are not happy about it. Especially in Japan.

Briomega
10-08-2006, 07:39 PM
These countries feel that they need nukes because their "enemies," the U.S. has them.

Remember when Bush declared Iraq, Iran, and NK an "axis of evil?"

Then Iraq gets invaded. The leaders of NK and Iran are probably thinking, "gee, we're also on that list. maybe they'll come after us, too."

I don't support these countries, but I really can't blame them for seeking nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the U.S.

This could have been prevented by disarming ourselves, first.

The U.S. is a hypocrate and the rest of the world knows this and they are not happy about it. Especially in Japan.

Oh please. Iran has been pursuing nukes so they can hopefully one day destroy Israel, not for protection from us.

And NK is using this to try and blackmail the world so everyone else will feed their people instead of them doing it themselves. Oh and also because KJI is batshit insane.

Pia Guerra
10-08-2006, 07:42 PM
North Korea should spend their money on fixing their poverty and hunger problems instead of wasting it on weaponry.

:rofl:

Natty P
10-08-2006, 07:42 PM
These countries feel that they need nukes because their "enemies," the U.S. has them.

Remember when Bush declared Iraq, Iran, and NK an "axis of evil?"

Then Iraq gets invaded. The leaders of NK and Iran are probably thinking, "gee, we're also on that list. maybe they'll come after us, too."

I don't support these countries, but I really can't blame them for seeking nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the U.S.

This could have been prevented by disarming ourselves, first.

The U.S. is a hypocrate and the rest of the world knows this and they are not happy about it. Especially in Japan.



Dude, I don't even know what to tell you.


Other than "it's spelled 'hypocrite.'"

Dannñ B
10-08-2006, 07:43 PM
:rofl: Of course it won't happen. But their country is fucked.

Taxman
10-08-2006, 07:44 PM
Are you like a cartoon character? I mean Jesus.:rofl:

Ray G.
10-08-2006, 07:46 PM
All I know is, Captain Crazy and Mullah Crazy weren't going to abandon their nuclear weapons if we set a "good example". They have their insane violent goals, and I feel a lot better knowing that if push comes to shove, we can wipe them off the fucking map before they get to wipe us off the map. I hope it won't come to that, but still.

Persevering Guy
10-08-2006, 07:53 PM
Oh please. Iran has been pursuing nukes so they can hopefully one day destroy Israel, not for protection from us.

And NK is using this to try and blackmail the world so everyone else will feed their people instead of them doing it themselves. Oh and also because KJI is batshit insane.
I really can't fault you for not being able to see things from outside the US.

Nobody wants these countries to have nukes.

Nobody wants the US to have them, either.

If the US,were to disarm, they could do a lot more in getting other countries to disarm. The US' refusal to disarm is one of the main reasons that we live in a nuclear world. Since the cold war, this has been school yard survival. The US has them so China and Russia have them. India and Pakistan. France just wants to let their dick hang out, too. The UK is our bitch. Israel makes the most sense, but it also pisses off everyone else, especially when they are said they don't have weapons.

So, yeah, you can pass that off as rainbow bridge idealogy, but that's what the rest of the world is thinking. Everyone looks to the US to set an example.

Bill?
10-08-2006, 07:57 PM
so i guess congrats are in order? while other world leaders drag their feet, kim jong il gets things done!

Natty P
10-08-2006, 07:58 PM
I really can't fault you for not being able to see things from outside the US.

Nobody wants these countries to have nukes.

Nobody wants the US to have them, either.

If the US,were to disarm, they could do a lot more in getting other countries to disarm. The US' refusal to disarm is one of the main reasons that we live in a nuclear world. Since the cold war, this has been school yard survival. The US has them so China and Russia have them. India and Pakistan. France just wants to let their dick hang out, too. The UK is our bitch. Israel makes the most sense, but it also pisses off everyone else, especially when they are said they don't have weapons.

So, yeah, you can pass that off as rainbow bridge idealogy, but that's what the rest of the world is thinking. Everyone looks to the US to set an example.


We'd be in no position to disarm the world if we disarmed ourselves first.



Nuclear weapons exist, and will exist ad infinitum. This is no fault of the US's, it's the fault of human nature. If anything, nuclear weapons have a cooling effect on major powers. It forced the cold war to be fought between satellite states rather than two major powers, which would have been faaar more devestating.

Natty P
10-08-2006, 07:59 PM
I really can't fault you for not being able to see things from outside the US.

Nobody wants these countries to have nukes.

Nobody wants the US to have them, either.

If the US,were to disarm, they could do a lot more in getting other countries to disarm. The US' refusal to disarm is one of the main reasons that we live in a nuclear world. Since the cold war, this has been school yard survival. The US has them so China and Russia have them. India and Pakistan. France just wants to let their dick hang out, too. The UK is our bitch. Israel makes the most sense, but it also pisses off everyone else, especially when they are said they don't have weapons.

So, yeah, you can pass that off as rainbow bridge idealogy, but that's what the rest of the world is thinking. Everyone looks to the US to set an example.



Oh please. That's a lazy statement.

Briomega
10-08-2006, 08:05 PM
I really can't fault you for not being able to see things from outside the US.

Thanks for assuming. Not condescending at all. I've spent time living outside the US. I also have a degree in History. My opinions aren't formed solely based on where I'm living now, thank you very much.

FedEx Fanboy
10-08-2006, 08:21 PM
I blame Natty P.

WinstonWolf
10-08-2006, 08:22 PM
Now we know that leader Kim Jong is a brutal man. There's no way anybody would let you lead a country when you have that kind of hairdo.

Briomega
10-08-2006, 08:24 PM
Now we know that leader Kim Jong is a brutal man. There's no way anybody would let you lead a country when you have that kind of hairdo.

So you're saying Don King is destined to be President? :surrend:

RickLM
10-08-2006, 08:26 PM
That dude is nuts.

Mike
10-08-2006, 08:26 PM
nuke 'em and TAKE THEIR OIL!!!!!!!

WinstonWolf
10-08-2006, 08:28 PM
That dude is nuts.

Have you seen his hair? It's like Cheapet hair.

Mike
10-08-2006, 08:31 PM
Have you seen his hair? It's like Cheapet hair.

At least he's got his own style. In the US, there's just "politician hair." Even the women in politics have the same haircuts. There's politician hair for men and politician hair for women - demographically safe, unoffensive hair.

I notice little things like this and all of the head-bobbing news anchors do... it's why I can't watch television anymore.

WinstonWolf
10-08-2006, 08:34 PM
At least he's got his own style. In the US, there's just "politician hair." Even the women in politics have the same haircuts. There's politician hair for men and politician hair for women - demographically safe, unoffensive hair.

I notice little things like this and all of the head-bobbing news anchors do... it's why I can't watch television anymore.

Really? Can't you just blindfold yourself and just turn up the volume louder?

Mike
10-08-2006, 08:35 PM
Really? Can't you just blindfold yourself and just turn up the volume louder?

then i might as well be watching fox news.



HI-OOOOOOOOOOO

Persevering Guy
10-08-2006, 08:43 PM
Thanks for assuming. Not condescending at all. I've spent time living outside the US. I also have a degree in History. My opinions aren't formed solely based on where I'm living now, thank you very much.
You're welcome! ;)

I presented the perspective of things from a nation that was on the receiving end of nukes.

Basically, all nukes are bad nukes.

the US having nukes and invading other countries makes these countries more determined to have nukes. it doesn't matter if that's the us' intent or not. sure you guys are all correct in your arguements. but it's important not to overlook how the outside world sees the US as a bully nation that's nuclear armed.

Amos Moses
10-08-2006, 08:53 PM
I still suspect King Jong Il is a cartoon character who made it in to our realm.

Princesa
10-08-2006, 09:52 PM
I blame human nature. Of course I don't want to see a nuclear arms race on the other hand if I were a foreign country seeing an aggressive US military policy of interventionism I'd want to have them...

Pia Guerra
10-08-2006, 09:57 PM
the US having nukes and invading other countries makes these countries more determined to have nukes. it doesn't matter if that's the us' intent or not. sure you guys are all correct in your arguements. but it's important not to overlook how the outside world sees the US as a bully nation that's nuclear armed.

Countries outside of the US know the US isn't a nuclear threat, only an aggressive, oftentimes bullyish business partner. Countries that work to get nuclear arms aren't doing it to protect themselves from invasion, only to get economic leverage and a seat on the security council. They know if they actually use these weapons they'll have a rain of nukes several thousands of times more powerful than any of the firecrackers they can come up with.

When you hear them claiming to be afraid of invasion it's only as propaganda for their own people. You'll see these crazy posters in North Korea showing missiles hitting the Capitol building but that's so much crap. KJI wants his people to think the US is this great big boogeyman out to get them (the US couldn't care less about North Korea's problems) if only to keep them from tearing down the government for food.

Caley Tibbittz
10-08-2006, 11:04 PM
Right? Maybe not.

Duty? When it comes to countries like Iran and North Korea? Fuck yes.
Holy Christ. I just agreed with you...:shock:



...what's the catch...?:mistrust:

Smokinblues
10-09-2006, 03:44 AM
I really can't fault you for not being able to see things from outside the US.

Nobody wants these countries to have nukes.

Nobody wants the US to have them, either.

If the US,were to disarm, they could do a lot more in getting other countries to disarm. The US' refusal to disarm is one of the main reasons that we live in a nuclear world. Since the cold war, this has been school yard survival. The US has them so China and Russia have them. India and Pakistan. France just wants to let their dick hang out, too. The UK is our bitch. Israel makes the most sense, but it also pisses off everyone else, especially when they are said they don't have weapons.

So, yeah, you can pass that off as rainbow bridge idealogy, but that's what the rest of the world is thinking. Everyone looks to the US to set an example.

no, if the US were to disarm we'd be instantly subject to the whim of all the other countries who didn't. We'd be China's bitch in about a day. It's not like we have these things for no reason.

Persevering Guy
10-09-2006, 04:17 AM
no, if the US were to disarm we'd be instantly subject to the whim of all the other countries who didn't. We'd be China's bitch in about a day. It's not like we have these things for no reason.
* Afghanistan
* Albania
* Algeria
* Andorra
* Angola
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Armenia
* Australia
* Austria
* Azerbaijan
* The Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Barbados
* Belarus
* Belgium
* Belize
* Benin
* Bhutan
* Bolivia
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Botswana
* Brazil
* Brunei
* Bulgaria
* Burkina Faso
* Burundi
* Cambodia
* Cameroon
* Canada
* Cape Verde
* Central African Republic
* Chad
* Chile
* Republic of China (Taiwan)1
* Colombia
* Comoros
* Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Republic of the Congo
* Costa Rica
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Croatia
* Cuba
* Cyprus
* Czech Republic
* Denmark
* Djibouti
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* East Timor
* Ecuador
* Egypt
* El Salvador
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Estonia
* Ethiopia
* Fiji
* Finland
* Gabon
* The Gambia
* Georgia
* Germany
* Ghana
* Greece
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guinea-Bissau
* Guyana
* Haiti
* Holy See (Vatican City)
* Honduras
* Hungary
* Iceland
* Indonesia
* Iran
* Iraq
* Ireland
* Italy
* Jamaica
* Japan
* Jordan
* Kazakhstan
* Kenya
* Kiribati
* South Korea
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan
* Laos
* Latvia
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Liberia
* Libya
* Liechtenstein
* Lithuania
* Luxembourg
* Macedonia
* Madagascar
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Maldives
* Mali
* Malta
* Republic of the Marshall Islands
* Mauritania
* Mauritius
* Mexico
* Federated States of Micronesia
* Moldova
* Monaco
* Mongolia
* Montenegro3
* Morocco
* Mozambique
* Myanmar
* Namibia
* Nauru
* Nepal
* Netherlands
* New Zealand
* Nicaragua
* Niger
* Nigeria
* Norway
* Oman
* Palau
* Panama
* Papua New Guinea
* Paraguay
* Peru
* Philippines
* Poland
* Portugal
* Qatar
* Romania
* Russia2
* Rwanda
* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Samoa
* San Marino
* São Tomé and Príncipe
* Saudi Arabia
* Senegal
* Serbia3
* Seychelles
* Sierra Leone
* Singapore
* Slovakia
* Slovenia
* Solomon Islands
* Somalia
* South Africa
* Spain
* Sri Lanka
* Sudan
* Suriname
* Swaziland
* Sweden
* Switzerland
* Syria
* Tajikistan
* Tanzania
* Thailand
* Togo
* Tonga
* Trinidad and Tobago
* Tunisia
* Turkey
* Turkmenistan
* Tuvalu
* Uganda
* Ukraine
* United Arab Emirates
* Uruguay
* Uzbekistan
* Vanuatu
* Venezuela
* Vietnam
* Yemen4
* Zambia
* Zimbabwe

whose are who's bitches?

Shepherd
10-09-2006, 04:32 AM
I think it's funny that I'm probably the one in the most danger over all this on the board, but I'm one of the least worried about it. I seriously doubt he'd use them.

R

Persevering Guy
10-09-2006, 04:40 AM
I think it's funny that I'm probably the one in the most danger over all this on the board, but I'm one of the least worried about it. I seriously doubt he'd use them.

R
Kim hates SK more than Japan?

I don't think they'll be fired either. Maybe tested in the open somewhere.
This gives the excuses to some of Japan's leaders to start revising the constitution and building up the military. They want to be like the U.S.

Many of the teacher's I work with are very much against this. There is always anti-nuclear literature floating around. They paint the US as the cause of all of this, by not leading by example.

The world is run by children.

Smokinblues
10-09-2006, 04:44 AM
Kim hates SK more than Japan?

I don't think they'll be fired either. Maybe tested in the open somewhere.
This gives the excuses to some of Japan's leaders to start revising the constitution and building up the military. They want to be like the U.S.

Many of the teacher's I work with are very much against this. There is always anti-nuclear literature floating around. They paint the US as the cause of all of this, by not leading by example.

The world is run by children.

only children would think that things are as simple as you make them out to be.

Persevering Guy
10-09-2006, 04:48 AM
only children would think that things are as simple as you make them out to be.
the problem is lack of maturity.

the leaders of the world have closed minds. they have tunnel vision.

and they are impatient.

it's a shame.

Ethan Van Sciver
10-09-2006, 04:49 AM
The worst news ever.

Ethan Van Sciver
10-09-2006, 04:49 AM
the problem is lack of maturity.

the leaders of the world have closed minds. they have tunnel vision.

and they are impatient.

it's a shame.

Yes, they are all so unwise. You know better.

WinterRose
10-09-2006, 04:54 AM
Ya know... What the hell does North Korea think we might want from them? For that matter? What might we be interested in that we'd invade Korea nowadays? To stop the spread of communism? Just an FYI for KJI, our idea of Democracy seems to be looking more and more like a fascist dictatorship that he'd approve of nowadays ANYWAY. You'd think instead of rattling the saber at us for food money to spend on bombs, he'd be looking to make with some diplomacy.

And we all pretty much know how the communist revolution has worked out in the countries it was biggest in anyway. A great idea, but rather vulnerable to those who aren't idealists like its founders. The ones still up and surviving? They're hemorraging people in droves to Florida, or they're adopting more capitalist ideas to soften the totalitarian impact. What the UK used to call the velvet glove and the iron fist.

I don't really give a shit about North Korea unless they want to make themselves other people's problems. You wanna be communists out in North MumboJumboland? Cool. Be communists. My problem with you begins and ends at your doorstep. Have nuclear weapons if it makes you feel safer. Considering the food and disease problems you've got, I'm sure you feel you've got some PRIME real estate to protect.

However, you make it my problem when you rattle the saber at me, or my allies in South Korea and Japan. Then demand food money to spend on bombs instead.

Persevering Guy
10-09-2006, 04:58 AM
Yes, they are all so unwise. You know better.
They are unwise.

Bush's record and decisions speaks for itself.

Kim, what needs to be said?

China, look at it's internal, persistent human rights abuse.

Japan. After the war, Japan signed a treaty that said that Japan was a victim of a handful of men who hijacked the country and drove it to facism. Because they accepted this treaty, the US, China, Korea and Asia could not make Japan give them financial compensation for the war. But then Japan goes and turns those same men into gods at Yasukuni. And Koizumi would officially visit the Yasukuni Shrine each year, which pissed off China and Korea.

Israel. Lebanon, overkill.

Hamas. Real geniuses.

Yeah, wise men.

We should hand the world over to women.

Pia Guerra
10-09-2006, 05:01 AM
We should hand the world over to women.

Uhhh, that won't work either. Trust me.

WinterRose
10-09-2006, 05:17 AM
Uhhh, that won't work either. Trust me.

How about secularists? These religious folk seem pretty much like fuckups.

JoeE
10-09-2006, 05:20 AM
According to this report:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear_106

the bomb had a yield of only 550 tons of TNT. That's a pretty big boom, but compared to other nuclear bombs it's barely even a blip. For comparison, the WTC explosions released over 1000 tons of TNT.

Either this report is waaaaay wrong or lil' Kim is going to continue to be ronery in regards to having nuclear weapons.

Pia Guerra
10-09-2006, 05:21 AM
How about secularists? These religious folk seem pretty much like fuckups.

Try telling the religious folk that.

JoeE
10-09-2006, 05:21 AM
How about secularists? These religious folk seem pretty much like fuckups.

I am a secularist, but I don't think that would be a cure-all either. The Soviet Union was a very secular government, as is the current Chinese government, and the secular regimes in the Middle East over the last few decades have been just as bad as the religious ones, and in some cases worse.

DaveCummings
10-09-2006, 05:21 AM
I blame BOTH Clinton and Bush jr. for not doing enough . Thanks retards.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test.ap/index.html


Dude, it's not Clinton or Bush's fault. I mean, there was nothing we could of done short of an all out invasion of the country to stop it, really. And we wouldn't invade them because of thier close ties to China, a powerful country and a business partner of the U.S. I mean, sanctions hurt the people of North Korea more than the leader, he doesn't give a fuck that his own people are starving. We try to give him negotiations, but refuses the idea.

This has been a problem slowly coming to a boil for over 50 years.

And Perserving Guy, you really have no idea what's going on, do you?

~Dave

Persevering Guy
10-09-2006, 05:22 AM
MOSCOW - Russia's defense minister said Monday that
North Korea's nuclear test was equivalent to 5,000 tons to 15,000 tons of TNT.
ADVERTISEMENT

That would be far greater than the force given by
South Korea's geological institute, which estimated it at just 550 tons of TNT.

By comparison the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima during World War II was equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT.

In 1996, France detonated a bomb beneath Fangataufa Atoll about 750 miles southeast of Tahiti that had a yield of about 120,000 tons of TNT.

Persevering Guy
10-09-2006, 05:24 AM
Dude, it's not Clinton or Bush's fault. I mean, there was nothing we could of done short of an all out invasion of the country to stop it, really. And we wouldn't invade them because of thier close ties to China, a powerful country and a business partner of the U.S. I mean, sanctions hurt the people of North Korea more than the leader, he doesn't give a fuck that his own people are starving. We try to give him negotiations, but refuses the idea.

This has been a problem slowly coming to a boil for over 50 years.

And Perserving Guy, you really have no idea what's going on, do you?

~Dave
nope. no idea. i live in a fantasy land where everyone respects each other and isn't so gung ho on blowing things out of purportion to suit an agenda and manipulate their people.

DaveCummings
10-09-2006, 05:26 AM
According to this report:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear_106

the bomb had a yield of only 550 tons of TNT. That's a pretty big boom, but compared to other nuclear bombs it's barely even a blip. For comparison, the WTC explosions released over 1000 tons of TNT.


Yeah, in comparison the bomb detonated over Hiroshima in 1945 had a yeild compared to about 15,000 tons of TNT. So thier nuclear test had about the same success as thier recent missle tests.

But the principle of the matter is the whole reason why the global community is pissed at North Korea.

~Dave

JoeE
10-09-2006, 05:28 AM
If it was really only a 550 ton yield I would seriously wonder if they didn't just fake it, since it would be easy to do.

DaveCummings
10-09-2006, 05:30 AM
nope. no idea. i live in a fantasy land where everyone respects each other and isn't so gung ho on blowing things out of purportion to suit an agenda and manipulate their people.


Well most of your comments show that for the most part, you have no grasp on reality.

Persevering Guy
10-09-2006, 05:31 AM
Well most of your comments show that for the most part, you have no grasp on reality.
or see things from a different perspective.

these aren't even original ideas of mine.

welcome to the outside world.

WinterRose
10-09-2006, 05:33 AM
Try telling the religious folk that. THey might burn a cross on my lawn. ANd that would really hurt my feelingzlolz.

Seriously. The religious fuckups scare me. They are scary crazy, full of fail and murderous intolerance of their fellow man's beliefs and ideas.

DaveCummings
10-09-2006, 05:37 AM
or see things from a different perspective.

these aren't even original ideas of mine.

welcome to the outside world.


Dude, do me a favor, stop trying to be so fucking condescending. You sound like a complete douchebag with remarks like that. You don't know fucking anything about me, you don't know if I've been to other countries or what. So just fucking stop with the goddamned "go see things from a different perspective because you're from America" shit.

~Dave

JoeE
10-09-2006, 05:43 AM
Christ, if anything you should be more paranoid about this than Americans. With North Korean nukes, worst case for America? We lose a few major cities on the West coast and Hawaii is gone. Worst case for Japan? The entire country is glassed. And the Koreans hate Japan a lot more than they hate us.

RebootedCorpse
10-09-2006, 05:53 AM
The only solution: Invade Iraq!

Nations have learned from experiance that having a nuke is the best way to protect yourself from America.

Scott Dubin
10-09-2006, 05:57 AM
The only solution: Invade Iraq!

Nations have learned from experiance that having a nuke is the best way to protect yourself from America.

Seriously, after Iraq, no country can feel safe from Bush without Nukes. He'll invade you if you don't have nukes by claiming you do, so you might as well actually make them.

JoeE
10-09-2006, 05:59 AM
Since when should the self-defense interests of unambiguously hostile countries enter into the determination of US foreign policy?

Ray G.
10-09-2006, 05:59 AM
Bush is speaking on it now.

RebootedCorpse
10-09-2006, 06:03 AM
Seriously, after Iraq, no country can feel safe from Bush without Nukes. He'll invade you if you don't have nukes by claiming you do, so you might as well actually make them.
Yup. There is absolutely no down-side for Korea to having nukes.

Ray G.
10-09-2006, 06:13 AM
Yup. There is absolutely no down-side for Korea to having nukes.

I can think of one.

http://indymedia.all2all.org/uploads/hiroshima.jpg

MIKE D
10-09-2006, 06:15 AM
Dude, do me a favor, stop trying to be so fucking condescending. You sound like a complete douchebag with remarks like that. You don't know fucking anything about me, you don't know if I've been to other countries or what. So just fucking stop with the goddamned "go see things from a different perspective because you're from America" shit.

~Dave

Him telling anyone else to be tolerant of different persepectives is actually pretty funny, given the fact that the first thing he wanted to do in Japan was radically change what that culture does and does not consider to be acceptable pornography.

RebootedCorpse
10-09-2006, 06:17 AM
The US has never attacked a coutry with nuclear capacity.

Gene Reginato
10-09-2006, 07:23 AM
And that's why these countries are counting on. Once they have nuclear weapons, America's influence on them diminishes. I expect a lot of countries will do the same from now on.

Cth
10-09-2006, 08:13 AM
i know... fucking Hawkeye... he was the last one to leave....

Not like this!!


The U.S. is a hypocrate and the rest of the world knows this and they are not happy about it. Especially in Japan.

This is why N. Korea launched missles across Japan?

Now Japan wants to arm to defend themselves against N. Korea.

Race
10-09-2006, 08:15 AM
The US has never attacked a coutry with nuclear capacity.Which means now we have to, in order to keep our "street cred."

Cth
10-09-2006, 08:20 AM
[ Edit ]

Greenville 90210
10-09-2006, 10:55 AM
Countries outside of the US know the US isn't a nuclear threat, only an aggressive, oftentimes bullyish business partner. Countries that work to get nuclear arms aren't doing it to protect themselves from invasion, only to get economic leverage and a seat on the security council. They know if they actually use these weapons they'll have a rain of nukes several thousands of times more powerful than any of the firecrackers they can come up with.

You are wise.

So, the US is kind of like the mob? I can see that.

JackBauer
10-09-2006, 10:57 AM
We should put North Korea in the Negative Zone.

Shepherd
10-09-2006, 12:31 PM
Kim hates SK more than Japan?

It's not about hate, it's about reuniting the country. I'm not sure if you're aware or not how strong that desire is for a lot of Koreans. To many of them, it's fixing history.

R

JoeE
10-09-2006, 01:28 PM
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061009/ap/d8kl919g0.html

So far, the Americans, the South Koreans, and the French are reporting one kiloton or less for the explosion. If this is true - and it's starting to look like it is - the North Koreans are officially the most incompetent nuclear state.

mike black
10-09-2006, 01:47 PM
Until the US dismantles their weapons and commits to nuclear proliferation, they really have no right to tell other countries not to have nukes.

Wow.

mike black
10-09-2006, 01:53 PM
I really can't fault you for not being able to see things from outside the US.

Nobody wants these countries to have nukes.

Nobody wants the US to have them, either.

If the US,were to disarm, they could do a lot more in getting other countries to disarm. The US' refusal to disarm is one of the main reasons that we live in a nuclear world. Since the cold war, this has been school yard survival. The US has them so China and Russia have them. India and Pakistan. France just wants to let their dick hang out, too. The UK is our bitch. Israel makes the most sense, but it also pisses off everyone else, especially when they are said they don't have weapons.

So, yeah, you can pass that off as rainbow bridge idealogy, but that's what the rest of the world is thinking. Everyone looks to the US to set an example.

We've committed to nuclear non-proliferation - Under Carter. We don't build nukes anymore. The U.S. and Russia are both disarming nukes on a constant basis.

MIKE D
10-09-2006, 02:31 PM
By the way, and this is coming from someone with liberal tendencies, but there's nothing good out of Kim Jong Il having a nuclear capacity. He was already safe with his standing army. All this is just deliberate provocation, just like the missle tests.

BrianS
10-09-2006, 03:42 PM
Democrats Assail Bush's N. Korea Policy (http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061009/D8KLDEKO0.html)

Democrats seized on North Korea's brazen act to criticize President Bush's record in confronting the communist regime, contending the administration's focus on Iraq ignored legitimate threats.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the president's rival in 2004 and a potential 2008 candidate, assailed Bush's policy as a "shocking failure," and said, "While we've been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction."

One month before midterm elections, North Korea's reported nuclear test provided Republicans an opportunity to shift the focus from their embarrassing - and politically explosive - congressional page scandal to national security, an issue the GOP considers its strength.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate's second-ranking Republican, accused Democrats of playing partisan politics with a nuclear weapons threat. "Listening to some Democrats, you'd think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il," he said.

Seizing on North Korea's actions to argue Republicans are stronger on security than Democrats is riddled with pitfalls and leaves the GOP's standard-bearer - Bush - as well as his rank-and-file vulnerable to criticism.

The president long has faced complaints that he has failed to sufficiently address North Korea and the threat has festered on his watch.

In the nearly five years since Bush labeled North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq, Kim Jong Il's government has withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, announced it has nuclear weapons, refused to return to six-nation talks and launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan, including a long-range Taepodong-2.

On Sunday, North Korea said it conducted its first-ever nuclear test.

"The Bush administration has for several years been in a state of denial about the growing challenge of North Korea, and has too often tried to downplay the issue or change the subject," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"We had the opportunity to stop North Korea from increasing its nuclear power, but George Bush went to sleep at the switch while he pursued his narrow agenda in Iraq," added Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat in a tough campaign in New Jersey.

Republicans, in turn, sought to deflect the criticism by lodging some of their own. They voiced their frequent claim that Democrats are weak on security - and dredged up Democratic votes they said illustrated their point.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, accused Democrats of standing in the way of work on a missile defense program. "It is now clear that such a position would weaken America's national defense and put Americans in danger," he said.

"Sherrod Brown's far left national security positions more troubling in light of North Korean missile test," the Senate Republicans' campaign committee said in a release that claims Brown voted a dozen times since 1993 to cut funding for ballistic missile defense.

Mindful of the tricky political subtext, some Republicans issued more carefully worded statements or refrained from attacking Democrats altogether.

GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, facing a bitter re-election battle, said in a barely veiled reference to Democrats - "North Korea's actions cause great concern. This is no time for inexperienced, weak leaders."

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and others directed their anger at the North Koreans, with the speaker calling the test "a desperate act of a criminal regime."

The GOP's campaign to convince voters that Democratic rule is dangerous for the country was sidetracked when Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned amid revelations that he sent sexually explicit electronic messages to teenage males who once worked as House pages. That set off infighting among Republicans - and knocked the party off its strong-on-safety message.

Smokinblues
10-09-2006, 03:46 PM
We've committed to nuclear non-proliferation - Under Carter. We don't build nukes anymore. The U.S. and Russia are both disarming nukes on a constant basis.

and that doesn't even address the fact that his premise is completely flawed even if we weren't. Even if the evil U.S. did disarm there is no reason to believe anybody else would. It's not like the rest of the world is going to, "Oh okay we can get rid of ours now." It's just a totally naive line of thought.

mike black
10-09-2006, 04:22 PM
Democrats Assail Bush's N. Korea Policy (http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061009/D8KLDEKO0.html)

Democrats seized on North Korea's brazen act to ....blah blah blah

We all get it, you hate Republicans.....give it up for a while?

Jamie Howdeshell
10-09-2006, 05:57 PM
We all get it, you hate Republicans.....give it up for a while?

i and other enjoy his posts.

feel free to put him on ignore instead of pointlessly bitching about it.

DaveCummings
10-09-2006, 06:20 PM
i and the other pinko commie hippies enjoy his posts.

feel free to put him on ignore instead of pointlessly bitching about it.


Well, I just ignore his tired ass anti republican remarks (along with the other ones that seem to dominate these boards), but also make fun at his lack of taste when it comes to his utter distaste of Grant Morrison or Mike Mignola or John Romita Jr..

~Dave

Jamie Howdeshell
10-09-2006, 06:29 PM
Well, I just ignore his tired ass anti republican remarks (along with the other ones that seem to dominate these boards), but also make fun at his lack of taste when it comes to his utter distaste of Grant Morrison or Mike Mignola or John Romita Jr..

~Dave

i see.
so not only do you jump in here with puerile personal insults, but you also insist that your personal artistic tastes should be THE standard.

congrats.
you win the internet.

:jackoff:

JoeE
10-09-2006, 06:49 PM
Check Drudge for maybe the greatest front page ever.

sugarcrisp
10-09-2006, 06:51 PM
I blame BOTH Clinton and Bush jr. for not doing enough . Thanks retards.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test.ap/index.html

China shares a border with them.. they are the ones who should be applying serious pressure, but i dont trust China almost as much as Korea

DaveCummings
10-09-2006, 06:55 PM
i see.
so not only do you jump in here with puerile personal insults, but you also insist that your personal artistic tastes should be THE standard.

congrats.
you win the internet.

:jackoff:


Dude, I wasn't trying to be insulting. I was just poking fun a bit. Jeez, you and the other more left leaning people on here are so eager to call those who may have different views names and poke fun and shit, but I do the same and all of a sudden you cop a smartass douchey attitude.

As for the remark about the taste. I poke fun at him about it because he'll pop into a thread about Morrison , about Mignola and make just the most inane remark against that creator, without giving any reason WHY he doesn't like the creator. So, I poke fun a bit because of that.

So, just back off with the attitude, please.

NickT
10-09-2006, 07:06 PM
and that doesn't even address the fact that his premise is completely flawed even if we weren't. Even if the evil U.S. did disarm there is no reason to believe anybody else would. It's not like the rest of the world is going to, "Oh okay we can get rid of ours now." It's just a totally naive line of thought.
Also, they would still be outgunned. A nuke levels the playing field, somewhat. If the US got rid of them all, North Korea would keep theirs I would bet.

NickT
10-09-2006, 07:08 PM
China shares a border with them.. they are the ones who should be applying serious pressure, but i dont trust China almost as much as Korea
They're in quite the awkward positiion. If they cut trade, two big things could happen. First, North Korea might become more hostile. As you said, China shares a border with them, so they wouldn't want to risk pissing them off. Also, there is a chance that North Korea could collapse. They lose trade, plus scores of people from NK could migrate to the greener grass of China.

WinstonWolf
10-09-2006, 07:27 PM
How about this. If they have more nukes, could we fight them? I don't think we could afford to. We can't fight two wars in a row, that's for sure, especially when wer'e fighting one that we shouldn't have even fought in the first place (or that we should have LEFT about two years ago.). Can we just let somebody else handle this for once, and get our shit together first?

Taxman
10-09-2006, 09:19 PM
How about this. If they have more nukes, could we fight them? I don't think we could afford to. We can't fight two wars in a row, that's for sure, especially when wer'e fighting one that we shouldn't have even fought in the first place (or that we should have LEFT about two years ago.). Can we just let somebody else handle this for once, and get our shit together first?I think you are confusing cant with dont want to. If circumstances dictate it, the situation could require sacrifices from everyone.

Ryan Elliott
10-09-2006, 09:30 PM
Dude, do me a favor, stop trying to be so fucking condescending. You sound like a complete douchebag with remarks like that. You don't know fucking anything about me, you don't know if I've been to other countries or what. So just fucking stop with the goddamned "go see things from a different perspective because you're from America" shit.

~Dave




I like that once you call him on it, he disappears from the thread.

Persevering Guy
10-10-2006, 01:53 AM
Dude, do me a favor, stop trying to be so fucking condescending. You sound like a complete douchebag with remarks like that. You don't know fucking anything about me, you don't know if I've been to other countries or what. So just fucking stop with the goddamned "go see things from a different perspective because you're from America" shit.

~Dave
I don't mean to be condescending.

Seems like I ticked off a lot of people.

Anyway, the view here is pretty much how I stated.

Welcome to a view from another culture that's very different than the view held by most people in the United States.

Never said it was right or better. Just different.

Persevering Guy
10-10-2006, 02:00 AM
Christ, if anything you should be more paranoid about this than Americans. With North Korean nukes, worst case for America? We lose a few major cities on the West coast and Hawaii is gone. Worst case for Japan? The entire country is glassed. And the Koreans hate Japan a lot more than they hate us.
As much as the governments of US and Japan would like to convince their people to live in fear of a threat from any enemy (note these "leaders" never call up the people they're fighting with and ask if they can come over and actually talk about things), North Korea also needs an enemy.

That's what the whole point is. Getting your people riles up and scared about shit so they don't focus on internal problems. Though Japan is decrying it, this gives the leaders an oppurtunity to revise the pacifist constitution.

North Korea wants attention.

I'm not going to cower to fear.

Persevering Guy
10-10-2006, 02:02 AM
Him telling anyone else to be tolerant of different persepectives is actually pretty funny, given the fact that the first thing he wanted to do in Japan was radically change what that culture does and does not consider to be acceptable pornography.
rape is not acceptable, period.

Persevering Guy
10-10-2006, 02:04 AM
Not like this!!



This is why N. Korea launched missles across Japan?

Now Japan wants to arm to defend themselves against N. Korea.
my bad, I failed to clarify that there is a distintion here between the people and government like Democrats and Republicans. The government is conservative. But there is only one party with power here.

Persevering Guy
10-10-2006, 02:11 AM
And your comics scare the Japanese. You have no right to speak for them, no offense.

Seriously, drop the condenscending stuff.. if you're seriously trying to "educate" us backwards thinking Americans, insulting isn't the way to go.. it automatically causes you to dismiss that person's opinion.



Exactly my point. Illegally staying past your work visa is respecting other's cultures as well.
many people like comics. 2 women didn't like them. one is very close to me.

i never overstayed a visa. that is illegal.

i guess my failure is in my words. i called the us policy hypocritical due to that they have nukes and tell others not to. it's viewed as being hypocritical in other countries as well. if you are offended by these statements or feel its condescending, then ask yourselfs why?

why these attacks on my lifestyle? why these snipes and judgements? have i ever attacked any of you?

i know i live a life where i can make a difference and help people to best the best of my abilities. i have a lot of stories of what has happened this past year. but this doesn't sound like a good place to share them.

you guys are being nasty.

Caley Tibbittz
10-10-2006, 02:20 AM
The worst news ever.
Um... you know they cancelled Firefly, right?

The Craig
10-10-2006, 03:15 AM
We've committed to nuclear non-proliferation - Under Carter. We don't build nukes anymore. The U.S. and Russia are both disarming nukes on a constant basis.

I was with the anti-Perservering Guy tone of the thread until this post and no-one called it or has called it for more than 12 hours. In fact one poster tacitly affirmed it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-06-nuclear-usat_x.htm (see below)

Then there's this from my own fair and beautiful country, 'Brown backs Trident replacement':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5103764.stm

Perservering Guy is wrong, in my view, about many issues surrounding the current events, but anyone who can't smell the faint whiff of hypocrisy from all the nuclear nations isn't paying attention and doesn't have a clue about the perceptions of non-nuclear states.

Enjoy the read!

OMAC


Bush pushes for next generation of nukes
By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
MERCURY, Nev. If the Bush administration succeeds in its determined but little-noticed push to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, this sun-baked desert flatland 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas could once again reverberate with the ground-shaking thumps of nuclear explosions that used to be common here.

The nuclear-weapons test areas are now a wasteland that is home mostly to lizards and coyotes. Throughout the Nevada Test Site, the ground is strewn with mangled buildings and pockmarked with craters, the ghostly evidence of the 928 nuclear tests the government conducted here from 1951 to 1992.

A concrete tower designed to hold the bomb for what would have been the 929th test still looms over the desert floor.

But "Icecap," the test of a bomb 10 times the size of the one that devastated the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945, was halted when the first President Bush placed a moratorium on U.S. nuclear tests in October 1992. The voluntary test ban came two years after Russia stopped its nuclear tests.

In the 11 years since, the United States has worked to halt the spread of nuclear weapons around the world and has often touted its own self-imposed restraint as a model for other nations.

But the Bush administration has now taken a decidedly different approach, one that has touched off a passionate debate in Washington. Last year the White House released, to little publicity, the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. That policy paper embraces the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike and on the battlefield; it also says a return to nuclear testing may soon be necessary. It was coupled with a request for $70 million to study and develop new types of nuclear weapons and to shorten the time it would take to test them.

Last November, months before the invasion of Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld casually told reporters during a flight to Chile that military strategists were examining ways to neutralize Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. Among options studied were bunker-busting bombs that might have nuclear payloads.

Bunker-busters are heavy, missile-like bombs with hardened noses that penetrate the ground before exploding. No nuclear bunker-busters were employed in Iraq, although their use was considered there and in Afghanistan.

But the matter-of-fact way in which Rumsfeld suggested their possible role was a rare public sign of a growing effort by the administration to end the decade-long ban on developing and testing new nuclear bombs.

The main reason offered by the Pentagon is that "rogue" nations such as North Korea, Iran and Libya have gone deep, building elaborate bunkers hundreds of feet underground where their leaders and weapons could ride out an attack by the biggest conventional weapons U.S. forces could throw at them. U.S. officials also theorize that the vaporizing blast of a nuclear bomb might be the only way to safely destroy an enemy's chemical or biological weapons.

The Pentagon says developing new nuclear weapons makes sense in a dangerous world. "Without having the ability to hold those targets at risk, we essentially provide sanctuary," J.D. Crouch, an assistant secretary of Defense, told reporters earlier this year.

But others argue that moving toward a new generation of nuclear weapons, instead of improving conventional and non-nuclear ways to attack deep targets or chemical weapons sites, is fraught with danger.

"They are opening the door to a new era of a global nuclear arms competition," says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C. "As we try to turn the tide of nuclear proliferation, the last thing we should suggest is that nuclear weapons have a role in the battlefield, and these weapons are battlefield weapons. This is a serious step in the wrong direction."

Kimball and others say research would eventually lead to testing. If Congress approves the White House requests, the first live tests of any new nuclear weapon could come as early as 2005.

Since 1992, weapons have been tested only in non-nuclear experiments 963 feet below the ground at the test site and in computer simulations here and in labs. Congress has mostly gone along with the new approach and has green-lighted most of the Bush administration proposals. This spring, the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed to spend $15.5 million to develop a nuclear bunker-buster called the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator." They also agreed to spend money to make changes to the Nevada Test Site, shortening to as little as 18-24 months the time it would take to resume nuclear tests. (It would take 24-36 months now.)

Congress is hung up on just one element of the Bush plan: a ban on researching and developing a nuclear bomb with a payload of 5 kilotons or less. (A kiloton is equivalent to the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT.) The Senate voted to end the ban, while the House voted to keep it; the two sides are expected to settle their differences in a House-Senate conference committee by August.

'10, 9, 8, 7 ...'

In the peak days of nuclear testing, more than 11,000 people worked here at the test site, an area larger than Rhode Island. It was a bustling place with a movie theater, newspaper, social activities, souvenir earrings in the shape of mushroom clouds and a clear sense of mission underscored by its own peculiar brand of humor. When protesters occasionally slipped through security and hid on the grounds to try to stop a test, officials would flush them out by turning on the PA system and faking a countdown "10, 9, 8, 7. .. " until the terrified trespassers jumped up and waved their arms to be hustled away.

Now the test ranges look like historical snapshots that have faded under the blistering Nevada sun. Lizards skitter about the debris that survived the numerous nuclear blasts. Coyotes give hard stares to the rare human interloper who interrupts their scavenging. Just over a hill is "Area 51," the ultra-secret Air Force test site that spawned rumors of strange new weapons and UFO visits.

Go north, and the land becomes a moonscape where craters large and small pinpoint the locations of dozens of underground tests. Turn south, and the road leads to "Doom City," where twisted steel girders, a shattered bank vault and the skeletal remains of buildings, cars and airplanes are testimony to the savage power of nuclear blasts.

"In the past, you could take (a nuclear weapon) off the shelf, take it to the Nevada Test Site and detonate it to see what you needed to see," says Kevin Rohrer, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which maintains the U.S. nuclear arsenal. "Now we have to do it with computers, and that doesn't tell you how the (nuclear) material ages, what physical properties have changed, what all you need to know."

The United States has signed three treaties to limit nuclear weapons testing: the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban treaty, which prohibited aboveground and underwater nuclear tests; the 1974 Threshold Treaty, which limited tests to less than 15 kilotons; and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban, which was to halt all testing. The Senate never ratified the 1996 treaty. But like other nations, the United States abides by treaties it has signed, even if they have not been ratified.

Bunkers and bugs

During his trip to Chile last fall, Rumsfeld questioned the reliability of aging and long-untested U.S. nuclear stockpiles. He suggested that the military might need to resume testing weapons to ensure they would work if deployed.

"If you are asking me (if I am going) to go to the president and recommend re-initiating nuclear testing, the answer is, no, I am not. Could I someday? Yes, I could, if they came to me and said, 'I'm worried about the reliability and safety and our weapons,' " Rumsfeld said then.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says nuclear weapons could be crucial tools for destroying chemical and biological weapons stocks without causing wider harm.

"In terms of anthrax, it's said that gamma rays can ... destroy the anthrax spores, which is something we need to look at," Myers told reporters at the Pentagon on May 20. "And in chemical weapons, of course, the heat (of a nuclear blast) can destroy the chemical compounds and make them not develop that plume that conventional weapons might do, that would then drift and perhaps bring others in harm's way."

Military planners also see nuclear bombs as vital for destroying deep bunkers, which they say have become rogue nations' tool of choice for putting their weapons beyond the reach of the world's mightiest military force. At the top of the bunker list is North Korea, according to an official at the Defense Intelligence Agency who asked not to be named. The North Koreans have developed advanced tunneling equipment and improved building materials that allow them to dig deeper, more quickly and more stealthily. They can make their bunkers stronger and put them in places where U.S. surveillance now has a tougher time finding them.

Neutralizing such bunkers is getting more difficult, according to a congressional agency.

"Special operations forces or precision-guided conventional bombs might defeat buried structures by attacking power supplies, ventilation systems and exits. The only way to destroy them is with a strong shock wave that travels through the ground," the Congressional Research Service said in a report in January.

The fallout problem

But some military experts argue that while underground bunkers are a legitimate concern, nuclear bunker-busters are not the answer.

"Even if there were a worldwide trend toward deeply buried bunkers, which is doubtful, alternative means exist for disabling the devices stored there," says Loren Thompson, a military analyst with The Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va., public policy group. "These include conventional penetrating warheads with higher yields, microwave weapons that shut down bunker electronic systems and various special forces."

The limitations of physics mean even the best-designed bunker-busters can burrow only 30 to 50 feet before exploding. The explosion triggers shock waves that travel down toward buried targets and destroy them.

Critics say that means nuclear bunker-busters wouldn't be able to burrow deep enough before exploding to contain the fallout they would create. Sidney Drell, a Stanford University physicist, determined that destroying a target dug 1,000 feet into rock would require a nuclear weapon with a yield of 100 kilotons more than six times that of the Hiroshima bomb. The explosion of a nuclear bomb that big would launch enormous amounts of radioactive debris into the air and contaminate a huge area.

To contain fallout for a one-kiloton bomb, the warhead would have to penetrate an estimated 220 feet underground, many times the depth achievable by any current earth-penetrator warhead. The challenge scientists face is to find some way to get the bomb deep enough so that the explosion harms only what's underground not people on the surface.

Critics say the evidence against battlefield use of nuclear weapons is spread all over the Nevada Test Site. Most notable is Sedan Crater, 1,280 feet across and 320 feet deep. It is the largest crater at the test site, the result of a 104-kiloton device that was exploded 635 feet underground in 1962.

The idea was to see whether nuclear weapons could be used for such peaceful purposes as creating new harbors. The blast threw 12 million tons of radioactive earth 290 feet into the air, where it became airborne fallout. That was the end of the idea of digging harbors with nuclear bombs.

Skeptics of the Bush program and the ability of the new weapons to perform as advertised say they hope the debate over the weapons has not started too late.

"The public does not focus very much on national security and foreign policy," says John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World, a Washington, D.C.-based nuclear arms public policy group. "The administration has prevailed by telling Congress this is only research, not developing or testing or building. The next battles (in Congress) may not be as easy."

Ethan Van Sciver
10-10-2006, 04:06 AM
Um... you know they cancelled Firefly, right?

Even worse than that. The only thing worse than North Korea testing nukes would be cancelling LOST midseason.

Persevering Guy
10-10-2006, 04:07 AM
Perservering Guy is wrong, in my view, about many issues surrounding the current events, but anyone who can't smell the faint whiff of hypocrisy from all the nuclear nations isn't paying attention and doesn't have a clue about the perceptions of non-nuclear states.


thanks, kind of

I'm really shocked at how I was attacked here by some people I respected.

I didn't mean to be condescending, that is the perception people took of my posts.

maybe it was the line, "welcome to the outside world"

this was faulty, I should have said "welcome to Japan," but didn't want to speak for this nation. in Japan, "welcome to..." is something we say when confronted with something different. it's meant in a friendly tone.

for the guys who got personal, don't know me at all. thanks for keeping creepy tabs on me. you guys are wrong about so many things. the reason i changed my name is because i wanted to post less about me. i'm just going to say that you don't know me, you don't know what I've done and you don't know what I'm doing with my life. if you want to make judgements, fine.

i don't need the negative thoughts and energy. i don't need to feel bad because some holds a grudge against me.

Mike B, you're right, US did sign the treaty. I forgot about it after some of Bush's comments about wanting to build new nukes.

as for nukes, they kill indiscrimately. the worst part is that they continue killing for years after they been deployed.

and, yes, I think arms races are childish.

Caley Tibbittz
10-10-2006, 04:11 AM
and, yes, I think arms races are childish.
You can't hug your children with nuclear arms...:no:

Ethan Van Sciver
10-10-2006, 04:12 AM
You can't hug your children with nuclear arms...:no:

Voltron can.

Persevering Guy
10-10-2006, 04:16 AM
You can't hug your children with nuclear arms...:no:
i know you're making a joke, but it's really a beautiful sentence

Ethan Van Sciver
10-10-2006, 04:37 AM
So can Godzilla.

Bill?
10-10-2006, 05:24 AM
So can Godzilla.


and Nuclear Man.
he's got nuclear everything. plus he was made out of hair.
but I don't think he hugs much.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/NuclearMan2.jpg/250px-NuclearMan2.jpg

MIKE D
10-10-2006, 05:27 AM
Lest anyone think that nuclear irresponsibility is incompatable with love for our future generations, remember this: Gammera is friend to children.

Cth
10-10-2006, 06:18 AM
i guess my failure is in my words. i called the us policy hypocritical due to that they have nukes and tell others not to. it's viewed as being hypocritical in other countries as well. if you are offended by these statements or feel its condescending, then ask yourselfs why?


And again, consider what you're saying.. It's VERY condescending.

You're presuming we're offended.

Some of us KNOW other cultures. Some of us have friends/family members/etc overseas who 'enlighten' us to how the US is perceived. There's the world wide media you can find anywhere on the internet.

In other words, the only point of saying "if you're insulted, it's because you're not aware of how the US is perceived in the rest of the world" .. that's insulting that you presume to think everyone discussing this in here is ignorant of worldwide opinion.

All that does is make enemies and causes people to tune you out.

That's all I was saying.

The US has been perceived as hypocritical from day one, that'll never change, so why would anyone be upset about it? People are set in their beliefs, and if it comforts them, oh well, not much you can do about it.



why these attacks on my lifestyle? why these snipes and judgements? have i ever attacked any of you?

i know i live a life where i can make a difference and help people to best the best of my abilities. i have a lot of stories of what has happened this past year. but this doesn't sound like a good place to share them.

you guys are being nasty.

Again, I'm trying to point out that what you said is very antagonistic and tantamount to calling people ignorant. You might want to ASK if people are aware before saying "well, duh, that's why, you're not aware of how people see you in the rest of the world stupid hypocrites"

Persevering Guy
10-10-2006, 06:27 AM
And again, consider what you're saying.. It's VERY condescending.

You're presuming we're offended.

Some of us KNOW other cultures. Some of us have friends/family members/etc overseas who 'enlighten' us to how the US is perceived. There's the world wide media you can find anywhere on the internet.

In other words, the only point of saying "if you're insulted, it's because you're not aware of how the US is perceived in the rest of the world" .. that's insulting that you presume to think everyone discussing this in here is ignorant of worldwide opinion.

All that does is make enemies and causes people to tune you out.

That's all I was saying.

The US has been perceived as hypocritical from day one, that'll never change, so why would anyone be upset about it? People are set in their beliefs, and if it comforts them, oh well, not much you can do about it.



Again, I'm trying to point out that what you said is very antagonistic and tantamount to calling people ignorant. You might want to ASK if people are aware before saying "well, duh, that's why, you're not aware of how people see you in the rest of the world stupid hypocrites"

for clarity, I'm calling the government and it's policy, hypocritical. not the people. i just asuumed that most people make this distintion between the government and people.

well, it looks like i have a problem undertstanding/expressing myself online. i think i know what it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers), but this isn't about me so just know two things.

1. i believe in the points i made
2. i didn't mean this as an attack on anyone or meant to call anyone stupid or anything. that's not who i am.

really, sorry for making people angry.

and you should erase what you said about me because it's not true.

Cth
10-10-2006, 06:33 AM
That's cool..

And you're immersed in another culture, so it's understandable having to jump between languages.. there's bound to be some confusion.

Persevering Guy
10-10-2006, 06:41 AM
That's cool..

And you're immersed in another culture, so it's understandable having to jump between languages.. there's bound to be some confusion.
i've had very little conversation with native english speakers this year.

so, aside from this board and yahoo news, no natural english for me. no sarcasm. in fact, here's something that's been bugging me. lately, you've guys have been saying, "I love how.." and then you say something you dislike. i can understand this, but you have to understand that this sarcasm would confuse the fuck out of anyone studying english.

so, not to make excuses, but yes, the brain changes to adapt to it's culture. and, an I'm sure you know, Japan and America are 180 different. many foreigners complain about Japan, but I feel at home here whereas i felt uncomfortable in the states. that's just me.

DaveCummings
10-10-2006, 08:13 AM
for clarity, I'm calling the government and it's policy, hypocritical. not the people. i just asuumed that most people make this distintion between the government and people.



Fair enough. However, you need to keep in mind that alot of people in America do take offense when people who are not in the country criticize American government and policy. Especially when the person doing so tries to come off as enlightened. They do make the distinction between the government and people, they just get offended because the person making the remark comes off as arrogant.

I mean, don't get me wrong, my government and policy is far from perfect. I am a staunch supporter of term limits in our legislative branch here because there are people I think have been there too long and they abuse the fact I think because the fact that they've been there so long, they don't really listen to thier people. Hell, I'd love that instead of having a President being allowed to serve 2 4 year terms, only allow 1 term, be it 4 or 6. Mainly because I think that if the people in office aren't so obsessed with trying to be reelected in the next election, maybe they can get shit done. I think that both parties have done a piss poor job handling terrorism pre 9-11. They are doing a piss poor job with illegal immigration and taxes (I support the concept of the Fair Tax). But, I don't like it when someone who isn't in America tries to criticize american policy and attempts to come off as preachy. Just as I would never have any desire to criticize the government and policy in say France or Canada or Great Britian, especially towards those who are from that country. Because it would be arrogant of me to do so.

I mean, do you see where I'm trying to come from with this?

I mean, I hate nuclear weapons, I mean who loves them? If they do, they're fucking nuts. But our arsenal that we have was developed in a different time. We were competing against the Soviet Union, we built up this thing that as scary as it looked, wasn't going to end in nuclear war because both sides wouldn't dare to attack the other. And in the end, what we did ended up bankrupting the communist government there and essentially ended the threat.

However, the issue with have with North Korea and Iran with Nuclear weapons is because we are worried about our allies in the area, particularly Japan and South Korea. Not only that, there is the issue of them selling the material and the know how to groups that are crazy enough to use it. Also, especially in the case of Iran, the leadership is insane. The reason why we are concerned is because of remarks that they've made like President Amajibajab of Iran making remarks about wiping Israel off the face of the earth or making mentions of wanting the whole world to become an islamic state does make the world nervous when they want nuclear technology. Especially, when people like Bin Laden have said that they want an American Hiroshima.

The thing with North Korea isn't them having a Nuclear arsenal, they would be suicidal to do anything with it themselves. The thing is who would they sell the stuff to.

~Dave

Khrutch
10-10-2006, 12:14 PM
U.S. doubts Korean test was nuclear (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061009-115158-2477r.htm)

Korean test 'went wrong,' U.S. official says (http://www.cnn.com/)

"The U.S. believes North Korea tried to detonate a nuclear device and "something went wrong," a government official told CNN Tuesday. The official confirmed North Korea told China before the test that it would be a 4 kiloton device. The official added the unexpectedly small blast, of a half kiloton or less, indicates the test was not very successful."

Greenville 90210
10-10-2006, 12:19 PM
Stupid question:

Is China more our friend or N Korea's?

The Craig
10-10-2006, 12:27 PM
Stupid question:

Is China more our friend or N Korea's?

The way China is at the moment, I would say it is equally not the friends of both the US and Korea. There are arguments for both relationships.

Culturally, historically and geographically obviously North Korea is closer, but China is currently more pragmatic than idealogical and the US is economically a partner rather than North Korea, which is simply a burden.

If you put a gun to my head, I'd say North Korea, because the Chinese value it's stability and they're something of a check on Japan's influence in the region. That is until they start building nukes.

EDIT: Or then again maybe the US, because they're making the Chinese shitloads of cash. AARGH I can't decide!

OMAC

Greenville 90210
10-10-2006, 12:41 PM
The way China is at the moment, I would say it is equally not the friends of both the US and Korea. There are arguments for both relationships.

Culturally, historically and geographically obviously North Korea is closer, but China is currently more pragmatic than idealogical and the US is economically a partner rather than North Korea, which is simply a burden.

If you put a gun to my head, I'd say North Korea, because the Chinese value it's stability and they're something of a check on Japan's influence in the region. That is until they start building nukes.

EDIT: Or then again maybe the US, because they're making the Chinese shitloads of cash. AARGH I can't decide!

OMAC


Let's bomb them both and see who gets madder!!!

Jamie Howdeshell
10-10-2006, 02:52 PM
Dude, I wasn't trying to be insulting. I was just poking fun a bit. Jeez, you and the other more left leaning people on here are so eager to call those who may have different views names and poke fun and shit, but I do the same and all of a sudden you cop a smartass douchey attitude.

As for the remark about the taste. I poke fun at him about it because he'll pop into a thread about Morrison , about Mignola and make just the most inane remark against that creator, without giving any reason WHY he doesn't like the creator. So, I poke fun a bit because of that.

So, just back off with the attitude, please.


i was just kidding too.

don't get rattled.

:no:

Natty P
10-10-2006, 03:44 PM
I don't mean to be condescending.

Seems like I ticked off a lot of people.

Anyway, the view here is pretty much how I stated.

Welcome to a view from another culture that's very different than the view held by most people in the United States.

Never said it was right or better. Just different.


It's wrong and it's worse.

KryptoGal
10-10-2006, 04:12 PM
Uhhh, that won't work either. Trust me.

So very, very true.

DaveCummings
10-10-2006, 04:39 PM
i was just kidding too.

don't get rattled.

:no:


Don't sweat it. I wasn't anywhere close to being rattled. I never take anything seriously, especially on message boards.

~Dave

Persevering Guy
10-11-2006, 01:44 AM
Fair enough. However, you need to keep in mind that alot of people in America do take offense when people who are not in the country criticize American government and policy. Especially when the person doing so tries to come off as enlightened. They do make the distinction between the government and people, they just get offended because the person making the remark comes off as arrogant.

I mean, don't get me wrong, my government and policy is far from perfect. I am a staunch supporter of term limits in our legislative branch here because there are people I think have been there too long and they abuse the fact I think because the fact that they've been there so long, they don't really listen to thier people. Hell, I'd love that instead of having a President being allowed to serve 2 4 year terms, only allow 1 term, be it 4 or 6. Mainly because I think that if the people in office aren't so obsessed with trying to be reelected in the next election, maybe they can get shit done. I think that both parties have done a piss poor job handling terrorism pre 9-11. They are doing a piss poor job with illegal immigration and taxes (I support the concept of the Fair Tax). But, I don't like it when someone who isn't in America tries to criticize american policy and attempts to come off as preachy. Just as I would never have any desire to criticize the government and policy in say France or Canada or Great Britian, especially towards those who are from that country. Because it would be arrogant of me to do so.

I mean, do you see where I'm trying to come from with this?

I mean, I hate nuclear weapons, I mean who loves them? If they do, they're fucking nuts. But our arsenal that we have was developed in a different time. We were competing against the Soviet Union, we built up this thing that as scary as it looked, wasn't going to end in nuclear war because both sides wouldn't dare to attack the other. And in the end, what we did ended up bankrupting the communist government there and essentially ended the threat.

However, the issue with have with North Korea and Iran with Nuclear weapons is because we are worried about our allies in the area, particularly Japan and South Korea. Not only that, there is the issue of them selling the material and the know how to groups that are crazy enough to use it. Also, especially in the case of Iran, the leadership is insane. The reason why we are concerned is because of remarks that they've made like President Amajibajab of Iran making remarks about wiping Israel off the face of the earth or making mentions of wanting the whole world to become an islamic state does make the world nervous when they want nuclear technology. Especially, when people like Bin Laden have said that they want an American Hiroshima.

The thing with North Korea isn't them having a Nuclear arsenal, they would be suicidal to do anything with it themselves. The thing is who would they sell the stuff to.

~Dave
i agree, 100%