Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Desubot wrote:
Urg just wait for them particles to float up north and watch the real mess begin (internationally)

Edit: also wernt most of those nuke tests underground tests? (honestly don't know but if they where underground it would be far easier to contain than a surface test. also have no idea what the wind stream is like up there) also i would hate for something like this to start considering my other office in Seoul)

I submit any used against the Norks would most likely be underground detonations too....

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
You drop a nuke on a city and BANG, wide spread dispersal of radioactive particles. We had the ennvironment Agency in the UK picking up on the Chernobyl stuff in the grass over here. Okay it wasn't life threatening but it was at higher levels and this is from something which threw out the same sort of contamination as a dirty nuke.

So yeah big bad kick arse drop the bomb is cool when talking about it, but the reality is it would screw us all.

Better than 100,000 US casualties.

You're a comedy genius.




If you actually were joking. If not? Well, I suppose that would make you the other thing.

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
You drop a nuke on a city and BANG, wide spread dispersal of radioactive particles. We had the ennvironment Agency in the UK picking up on the Chernobyl stuff in the grass over here. Okay it wasn't life threatening but it was at higher levels and this is from something which threw out the same sort of contamination as a dirty nuke.

So yeah big bad kick arse drop the bomb is cool when talking about it, but the reality is it would screw us all.

Better than 100,000 US casualties.

You're a comedy genius.




If you actually were joking. If not? Well, I suppose that would make you the other thing.

Everyone knows we're each worth 10 of you! Unless they're royalty, then it's only 5

Well, my point was that it being OK for the entire WORLD to be fethed, just as long as 100,000 Americans don't get killed in combat, reads like someone doing a satirical impression of a right-wing American lunatic.

D'you know who lives in the World, the world that would be fethed in the event of a nuclear exchange?

Americans. Duh.

 Albatross wrote:
Well, my point was that it being OK for the entire WORLD to be fethed, just as long as 100,000 Americans don't get killed in combat, reads like someone doing a satirical impression of a right-wing American lunatic.

D'you who lives in the World, the world that would be fethed in the event of a nuclear exchange?

Americans. Duh.

We have a shield over the entire important part of the continent.

Unfortunately the deep South and Midwest are screwed.

 gorgon wrote:
Unfortunately the deep South and Midwest are screwed.

Are you me?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm hoping NK ends up committing suicide by China, they've been pissing off their only friend a lot recently.

I hope NK goes the sanity and starts to loosen up like China or Vietnam. Alas it doesn't seem to be the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
You drop a nuke on a city and BANG, wide spread dispersal of radioactive particles. We had the ennvironment Agency in the UK picking up on the Chernobyl stuff in the grass over here. Okay it wasn't life threatening but it was at higher levels and this is from something which threw out the same sort of contamination as a dirty nuke.

So yeah big bad kick arse drop the bomb is cool when talking about it, but the reality is it would screw us all.

Better than 100,000 US casualties.

You're a comedy genius.




If you actually were joking. If not? Well, I suppose that would make you the other thing.

I never joke
The life of 1 US citizen > all of North Korea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
Well, my point was that it being OK for the entire WORLD to be fethed, just as long as 100,000 Americans don't get killed in combat, reads like someone doing a satirical impression of a right-wing American lunatic.

D'you who lives in the World, the world that would be fethed in the event of a nuclear exchange?

Americans. Duh.

Then you'd love how I view my family vs. the rest of the world.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
Well, my point was that it being OK for the entire WORLD to be fethed, just as long as 100,000 Americans don't get killed in combat, reads like someone doing a satirical impression of a right-wing American lunatic.

D'you who lives in the World, the world that would be fethed in the event of a nuclear exchange?

Americans. Duh.

AWhat nuclear exchange? This is NK and the US.

Alternatively I'ds be just fine with the US pulling up stakes and telling SK, "Yep its been 60 years. You're 20 more powerful than NK. You deal. We're outta here."

If war does kick off between NK and SKwounld'nt the first few days be brutal with massive loss of life because its going to be lots of massed artillary,infantry and armour engagments untill the US can get forces mobilised and into korea to end/stop north korea.Also does anybody now exact military strenths of the NK compaired to the Sk plus the stationed US troops?because i feel this would mean alot to wether the north koreans could get a serious foot hold in the south and drag the conflict out obviously with massive losses once the US(plus any other nations who feel the NK are best stopped) beats the gak out of them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But who wants to fight the US army? I just saw a thing that showed off their completely automated supply truck. It drives itself, scans terrain, and can deliver things to the front lines without the risk of losing any lives. What country would willingly take on a military with technology such as this?

Don't worry, Ripley. Me and my team of ultimate badasses will protect you. Check it out. Independently targeting particle-beam phalanx. WHAP! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs. We got sonic, electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks.

 Ouze wrote:
Independently targeting particle-beam phalanx

Do want

I'm sure China will be thrilled with a nuclear device, of any size, being detonated on a neighboring country.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sure China will be thrilled with a nuclear device, of any size, being detonated on a neighboring country.

If they don't like it, they should tighten their dog's leash.

Well the Sunshine Policy failed to do anything other than buy North Korea time, so maybe the Chinese need to slap the spoiled child they've been coddling for so long.

Invite Kim Il Whatever for a visit. Two days before, shut off the gas for 24 hours.

commisar rhodes wrote:
If war does kick off between NK and SKwounld'nt the first few days be brutal with massive loss of life because its going to be lots of massed artillary,infantry and armour engagments untill the US can get forces mobilised and into korea to end/stop north korea.Also does anybody now exact military strenths of the NK compaired to the Sk plus the stationed US troops?because i feel this would mean alot to wether the north koreans could get a serious foot hold in the south and drag the conflict out obviously with massive losses once the US(plus any other nations who feel the NK are best stopped) beats the gak out of them.

This is why in my previous post, I mentioned that the existing forces are a "speed bump" force.... From what I understand of that situation (which isn't much), the US forces there are purely there to slow down enough of the NK advance to allow the "cavalry" to arrive. Had a PLT Sgt who was a former combat engineer, stationed there, and his company's task, should NK come to SK, was to blow up all bridges after the Americans went through to slow down the NKs.

 Frazzled wrote:
[

I never joke
The life of 1 US citizen > all of North Korea.

Because racism?

What nuclear exchange? This is NK and the US.

Says who? You have no idea how this whole thing is going to pan out. In your lunatic fantasy, the USA can unilaterally perform a nuclear strike against a much weaker adversary and everyone gives the US the big diplomatic 'thumbs-up'?

Come on now. You can't actually be that infantile. A Global war would break out.

 Albatross wrote:
Come on now. You can't actually be that infantile. A Global war would break out.

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
[

I never joke
The life of 1 US citizen > all of North Korea.

Because racism?


.

er... isn't this how every country view their soldiers?

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
[

I never joke
The life of 1 US citizen > all of North Korea.

Because racism?


.

er... isn't this how every country view their soldiers?

A few did, thankfully our forefathers defeated them.

War might shake things up a bit. For the heck of it I'll root for north korea. Why not- they are crazy communists where the regular man is oppressed. To me sanctions read 'bullying by the international community'

 Spyral wrote:
War might shake things up a bit. For the heck of it I'll root for north korea. Why not- they are crazy communists where the regular man is oppressed. To me sanctions read 'bullying by the international community'

You do know that we're still technical at war with them... dontcha?

 Spyral wrote:
War might shake things up a bit. For the heck of it I'll root for north korea. Why not- they are crazy communists where the regular man is oppressed. To me sanctions read 'bullying by the international community'

Wow. Well, now I've seen it all on the OT Forum. Someone actually coming out in support of North Korea.

People love to root for the underdog.

 Albatross wrote:

What nuclear exchange? This is NK and the US.

Says who? You have no idea how this whole thing is going to pan out. In your lunatic fantasy, the USA can unilaterally perform a nuclear strike against a much weaker adversary and everyone gives the US the big diplomatic 'thumbs-up'?

Come on now. You can't actually be that infantile. A Global war would break out.

It's pretty clear NK would be starting this party off. The US, and everyone else's long standing policy is thou who plays with nukes dies by nukes isn't exactly new, if it hasn't been dusted off ever. So if NK decides to launch on Seoul or Japan, after it's missiles are shot down it's open to nuclear retaliation. Only time it would expand globally would require China to back it's rabid dog.

I think such a conflict would really have to go nuclear, right? I mean, I cannot imagine the United States deploying the personnel for such a conflict, not in 2013.

I think the American people would be more willing to accept the horror of a one-sided nuclear exchange then they would the cost in American troops.

Also, what about the possibility of China pre-emptively invading? Unlikely, impossible?

Also, can we shoot down incoming ICBM's targeting Japan? I thought we only had a missile shield for Poland, and unfinished at that. But who knows what sort of secret squirrel stuff we have, stealth-Blackhawk style.

 Ouze wrote:
I think such a conflict would really have to go nuclear, right? I mean, I cannot imagine the United States deploying the personnel for such a conflict, not in 2013.

I think the American people would be more willing to accept the horror of a one-sided nuclear exchange then they would the cost in American troops.

Also, what about the possibility of China pre-emptively invading? Unlikely, impossible?

Impossible.

And we won't nuke them, either.

We might reveal some of our other secret weapon programs, but we're not going to nuke them.

 Ouze wrote:
I think such a conflict would really have to go nuclear, right? I mean, I cannot imagine the United States deploying the personnel for such a conflict, not in 2013.

I think the American people would be more willing to accept the horror of a one-sided nuclear exchange then they would the cost in American troops.

Also, what about the possibility of China pre-emptively invading? Unlikely, impossible?

Also, can we shoot down incoming ICBM's targeting Japan? I thought we only had a missile shield for Poland, and unfinished at that. But who knows what sort of secret squirrel stuff we have, stealth-Blackhawk style.

Ummm... I think the China would actually invade NK if they knew we'd be deploying nukes.

The drones are getting lots of practice flying through mountains, they should be able to handle things.

 d-usa wrote:
The drones are getting lots of practice flying through mountains, they should be able to handle things.

Well... I seem to remember that Alaska got a big bump in drones... you might be on to something. I didn't think that the drone's range was that large.