Nuclear Alliance

[tasty]

just a note??i am posting this in jaguar, and it seems to be turning my commas in question marks

had to post on this because of sin's thing on NMD systems. i dont want to get too off-topic, but i dont see how this is a good idea. by installing these systems (putting missles in space?) we are showing the world that we support the usage of nuclear weapons and consider war with them to be reasonable. we are also showing the world that we don't need diplomacy??after all, who needs diplomacy when you have outer-space missles? maybe the reason a democrat would have never supported such a foolish waste (how much did this monstrosity of a system cost again sin?) of taxpayer money. maybe the democrats would rather be part of the solution to all this stupid weaponry rather than contributing to the problem like the Bush administration chooses to.

anyway, back to what i was saying earlier? who can blame north korea for trying to do what they can to get power? the leaders are under intense pressure to alleviate the poverty and hunger the nation's citizens face every day, and if i was in their position i would do what i could to try to scare the world's bully into respecting the authority of my country.

it just seems outrageous when i look at the flippant nature with which you people can talk about very serious issues that affect thousands of people. (ex: sin "ut the main reason that it will likely not go to war is because we will withdraw our aid from the UN stockpile that goes to North Korea and wew ill starve them into submission.") I'm not saying that this isn't completely true, but don't you think its??wrong? For one, its wrong to intentionally cause the starvation of innocent people to achieve an end to our own selfish means. Also, doesn't it say something to you that North Korea and countless other countries depend on aid from the US? And before you can think "its not our fault their stupid commie asses cant feed themselves," did you ever stop to consider that the fact that they cant feed themselves probably results from one of our government's own policies? And before anyone accuses me of hating America or something equally ignorant, realize that I do not hate anyone -- I only say this because I don't discrimate based on where people happen to have been born. I don't think that purely on the basis that we were born into lives of relative privilege that we deserve the right to dominate other people in order to keep the outrageous wealth that America has.

[(SiX)Ben]

Cook, what's with everyone saying China wants a piece of us? This North Korea thing is a reason, but they've had HUNDREDS of reasons. The spy plain over China just last year, that was a pretty good damned reason. The war on Iraq, they coulda stepped up with Germany... But they didn't. That's another reason. They don't WANT a war with us.

Ben

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Cookie, hate to break it to you, but look at the name of the website... www.indiaexpress.com

It is well documented that India and Pakistan hate each others guts, so that appears nothing more to me than propaganda.

Tasty: Puhlease. You are so worried about taxpayer money now and your social welfare programs. God forbid that North Korea, or any other rogue nation with nuclear arms and sufficient rocketry hit the city of Los Angeles with a Nuclear weapon. The ENTIRE U.S. Economy would collapse with that one vicious blow and at least 4 million people would die.

Also, don't start arguing NMD with me since you have demonstrated that you do not know what it is. NMD is a system of where you fire a Ballistic missile (Non-Explosive warhead) at an incoming Ballistic missile (Nuclear warhead). It is land/sea based and guided by a series of radar and satellite arrays.

It is not showing the world that we approve of any Nuclear weapons...where the hell do you get that? It is installed to protect against a limited number (wouldn't prtect us if Russia fired, but would if North Korea did) of missiles that could be launched at us.

Sure, starving them into submission might be "wrong" in your eyes, but that is the easiest way to bend them to our (and in this case, the world's) will without having to drive their government into extinction.

While your intentions are good Tasty, you are blind to the real world...

Casper: Alaska and Hawaii would get hit first because

A) They are closer
B) They are locations of strategic items such as radars, bomber fields, etc.
C) It temporarily paralyzes our forces until Naval units are deployed from San Diego

As you can see, it has nothing to do with population, but everything to do with Military strategy...the same reason why the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Loudnotes: Any attack on American soil is an outrage, and should be...that is why we react the way we do. We view our country as Fortress America and any successful hit on us demands a response.

[(SiX)Ben]

Frankly Assassin, if nuclear weapons were to be used, a draft would be enstated. Thus, even if they would blow up the military, millions and millions of reinforcements would be right behind them. An even bigger and more overwhelming force would follow up a hit on American troops. Thus, they would just feed the fire if they did that.

And although hitting LA and NY would be agains thte civilian population, and we would be able to strike back sooner, they who launched the nukes should be prepared for a counter attack before it happens. They are wiping quite a big percentage of our reinforcements when they hit us. Yes, America would be pissed and unite like before, but they would if any state was hit. In summary, If they hit the population where the majority of men are (LA and NY) they would choke the reinforcements and already should have prepared to wipe out our counter attack...

Just a thought.

Ben

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

The art of war you lack Ben...

Any LAUNCH[/u] of a Nuclear weapon (we can see and know exactly when the silo doors open up and the rocket is ignited) would bring a Nuclear retaliation...not troops. We would make North Korea glow for centuries. There would be no way in hell they would prepare for that...they would be killed.

Also, you are wrong on the reinforcement getting wiped out issue because the populations of L.A. and New York are a small fraction of the total population of the US.

Anyway, this is all the more need to get the NMD installed because it would effectively wipe out any potential threat from North Korea.

[Cossack]

China is in a unique situation, the DPRK is a vassal of them. DPRK is to China, as Central America is to the United States. I do not think that the security council would vote China out if the defended the DPRK. First off Russia would just plain veto it, (china is our butt buddy.) North Korea is a decrepit little country, but as I said earlier Kim Jong Il is a little rich kid at heart. He just might be nuts enough to launch an attack. Yet overall I think the DPRK is doing this to get attention. Bush said they were in the Axis of Evil, they start making nukes to send the message, "FUCK YOU!" Sin, how many battle groups dow we have in there, 6? I think you mean we have the sixth Carrier Group in that area, god knows they have been in the Taiwan straights for what seems like eons.

[(SiX)Ben]

The art of war you lack Ben...

True, I haven't been in one.

Any LAUNCH[/u] of a Nuclear weapon (we can see and know exactly when the silo doors open up and the rocket is ignited) would bring a Nuclear retaliation...not troops. We would make North Korea glow for centuries. There would be no way in hell they would prepare for that...they would be killed.

I know that, which is why I said a launch would never happen in my original post. But if I didn, don't you think KNOWING they would kill their whole country, they'd go for the largest population. You're right, they wouldn't fear naval counterattacks, which is why you said bomb hawaii and alaska. They would fear death. And while launching the nuke and knowing they would die, they would go for the most casualities possible... New York and LA have the most people in them. Frankly, they'd never nuke us, but if they did, they'd hit for casualties in my opinion.

Also, you are wrong on the reinforcement getting wiped out issue because the populations of L.A. and New York are a small fraction of the total population of the US.

I know it's just a fraction, but its the biggest combination that 2 hits could make.

Ben

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

Remember again that N.K. doesn't have the rocketry power to fire missles onto the mainland. They could possibly hit alaska or hawaii but that's a very small possibility. Besides, N.K. hits the button and all of U.S. allies hit the button. 3-5 nukes coming at us. 50 nukes coming at them.

[jn.loudnotes]

Any attack on American soil is an outrage, and should be...that is why we react the way we do. We view our country as Fortress America and any successful hit on us demands a response.

Assassin, I then ask you if we're justified in feeling that way.  It's ok to have that mentality, but not if we disregard it completely for other countries.  It's hypocritical and immoral to be outraged over attacks on your country at the same time you're causing worser ones on other people's soil.

And, btw, the entire economy would not collapse if 4 million people died.  There would be great initial shock, but afterwards the country and its economy would move on, because there would be no other option.  It's not like losing LA would take out the infrastructure of our nation.  Again, don't call me insensitive to the loss of life. . .I'm merely looking at things in practical terms.

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

Yes you're right loud but I think Assassin was viewing it like this. You saw how the world trade center attack destabilized our economy. You saw how that attack that killed 3,000+ was good cause for us to go into Afghanistan and wreak havoc. If a nuke were to be fired at a city knocking out 4 million, wouldn't you think a lot of people would flee? Go into hiding? Think of the economy then. Mass hysteria/panic. Besides, think of the effects of nuclear fallout. Half of the U.S. would be practically uninhabitable.

[jn.loudnotes]

Whoa. . .overreacting a bit aren't we?

Fallout would be a problem in California, but probably not much farther east than Nevada.  Nukes aren't that powerful, and the ones Korea has certainly won't be for some time.  And if the country had a strong leader whom people trusted, initial panic could be calmed.

Sometimes, less is more.  The WTC attack presented a shadowy enemy that it was hard to do anything about.  If people saw the retaliation to N Korea, it would do a lot to restore confidence.

[cookie]

Ben, like I said, China does want to maim us, but the fact that we are bigger and stronger at the moment would make attack unwise. I never said that China would step up immediately, however i DID say it is likely that in the future they could. They want to take a stand against the US, and what better situation than this? Yeah, the spy plane thing last year was big, but not quite big ENOUGH to spark a nuke war. Plus you forget, it was China that raided Los Alamos under the Clinton Administration, so perhaps both sides look at that as payback  

Assassin:
I noticed the source as well, I just choss that article because it gets the point across concisely. If you'd prefer the longer NY times version that says the exact same thing, you may find it  at this site http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?4463. It affirms the exact same thing, that N.K. and pakistan have nuclear ties.

And tasty, about your "who could blame them" comment:
there are better ways they could have solved their problems, diplomacy being the best option. How I see it is that Kim Jong is probably seeing what is happening to Iraq in their absence of nuclear bombs, and perhaps he feels his country is vulnerable. Perhaps the situation is just reflective of the turmoil their government is facing. In any case, stirring up the whole world and exposing yourself to possible attack is NOT the way to solve things, and I think they are completely to blame.

[tasty]

cookie: i totally agree

assasin: no, i am not going to argue with you about any specific military weapons/tactics because no, i really don't know many specifics about them, while you obviously do. but as far as spending, i think its pretty outrageous that those in favor of social programs are branded as "irresponsible spenders" and whatnot. these programs make up only a small percentage of the entire US budget. where does the other 60-70% go? the military, of course. for bush to spend almost a trillion dollars on new weaponry that will in all likelihood never be used is suddenly NOT irresponsible spending, yet spending a tiny fraction of that on a social program that will actually help people is?

sorry if i was unclear in my post last night, i had just come home from a party . and what i was trying to say last night about approving of nukes or whatever, i just meant that such purchases just contribute to the arms race. i believe that part of US policy should be trying to disarm the world, rather than gear up for a war against hostile sectors of it.

[Mr. Lothario]

Whoa. . .overreacting a bit aren't we?

     Well, hypothetically, if an insane leader were to decide to commit national suicide and lobbed (assuming they have the ability, yadda yadda) several, let's say four, nuclear missiles at America, and none of those missiles were intercepted and all hit their targets--it would be entirely possible to virtually knock out America's economy, consumer panic or no consumer panic. There are only three "important" cities in California: LA, San Francisco, and San Diego. In reality, one nuke each wouldn't be enough to vaporize those big cities or anything, but if their points of impact were carefully chosen, they could do significant damage to the production capacities of those cities. California is responsible for a disproportionate percentage of the USA's economic output. If California were crippled, even if the mass of consumers did not panic and take to the hills (which, credulous sheep that they are, they would), America's economy would be dealt a powerful blow. The other missile's logical target, from an economic-attack point of view, would be New York. The financial capital of America.

     ::shrug:: I'm just pointing out that it's silly to say with such confidence that a nuclear attack would "only" cause a loss of life.

[kami]

There's no chance that N. K. would have any ICBM's yet, or as someone said earlier, not until 2015? Why are you concentrating so much on the effect of a nuke from them, it's not going to happen, more likely they would try to nuke Japan or S. Korea. From what I've heard, the fact that N. Korea would have nukes already is really not confirmed.
I don't think the RPC would have any interest in trying to help N. Korea, they are bonding closer to the western world all the time. They may have undealt business with the US but they wouldn't be stupid enough to actually stand against the US which would probably mean a big nuclear holocaust (what would China gain from that?).

[jn.loudnotes]

I suppose you're right in that instance, but to suggest that the US would be brought to its knees is folly.  The biggest danger I could see is that we would be vulnerable to another nation or nations taking advantage of the weakness.  

But I think the country would be fairly resilient, assuming the president had the strength to rally the people.  If enough did "take to the hills", then we would have serious problems.

[[[EUR]] HoloGram]

Ben - I think that u should know something about Pearls Harbour ( and may be some of you, being so proud of US milirair and leaders ), and that it is bad excample in one case a good one in an other case.

Bad case:

During the WW2 the whole US population was against that US goes into WAR - but Government wanted it.
IT is also true that the US headquaters knew about the Japanes attac one day before. But they did nothing to prevent it and they did nothing to inform Pearl Harbour - although they easily could have done this.
So they let thousands of US guys die - only to take influece on the feelings of  the US population and to make them being for the US going into WAR.

Good case:

This what I typped before shows really good how US acts. And how far they can go if they want a war!

 -- And now I AM READY to get tought in US history that u learned in US  , and how wrong I am - b/c the US did not know anything and so on ...

And I say you this would be  BS - read more books and not the propaganda stuff in US u get to read in the SCHOOLs.

[jn.loudnotes]

Heh Holo.

You're right actually, except for one count.  The American public was strongly against fighting the war in EUROPE.  Once Japan attacked, they were gung-ho about shooting everything that moved.  

Frankly, I think war against Hitler was justified and necessary, and that it might have been lost without American troops, so I think that "the US may have allowed Pearl Harbor to manipulate public opinion" can only be a good thing.

[(SiX)Ben]

Cook, nay. China has the same feelings for us as we have for them more then likely. Do we, at the moment, want to blow them to hell? No. Why would they want to blow us to hell? No reason. You're assuming.

Hologram, 9/11 it is speculated the government knew something beforehand as well... this being said it's the perfect example.

Loud, no offense intend... but somethings your logic can make you a cool-hearted bastard.

Loth, thanks for backing up my point that LA and New York would be the two ideal targets. And as we continue to say, a nuclear attack on these cities would NEVER EVER happen. Well, at least not in the immediate future.

Ben

[jn.loudnotes]

No offense taken.  But I think it's necessary to talk bluntly, cooly, and unemotionally if you're discussing how many people you shoud kill.

Death shouldn't be taken lightly, and being hot-headed about it doesn't help anyone.  Hopefully from my posts you can see my ultimate point, which is:

War, when viewed in a cool, rational way, is bastardly and horrid.  It is necessary to view it rationally, so as to see that it is wrong.