IconOfEvi 0 Report post Posted June 11, 2009 I think it more has to do with building low-yield but super penetrating weapons. That, and the missiles/warheads themselves eventually fall out of maintainence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 11, 2009 There is little to no bonus on having super penetrating nukes; conventional explosives make people just as dead. I'm not sure maintenance is the real problem, as the US has 40 year old hydrogen bombs on stock. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goose 0 Report post Posted June 11, 2009 That thing is a beast! No wonder they've kept hold of a few. I had a weird dream the other day that I was sitting in a park looking at central London, when a Russian Blackjack and Foxbat flew overhead, then dropped a nuke by tower bridge; subconscious cold war paranoia perhaps? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 11, 2009 With 50 of those, you can end the overcrowding problem of any nation on earth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spyvspy 0 Report post Posted June 12, 2009 The 15k radius of collapsing all structures bothers me, its still not big enough to take out the suburban sprawl properly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torlek 0 Report post Posted June 12, 2009 The 15k radius of collapsing all structures bothers me, its still not big enough to take out the suburban sprawl properly. Why do you think both sides stockpiled thousands of nukes and would have 20+ warheads targeted on a city? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IconOfEvi 0 Report post Posted June 12, 2009 Goose. while your dream was impressive, im sure foxbats didnt fly with blackjacks :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goose 0 Report post Posted June 12, 2009 I was asleep, I take no responsibility for the historical accuracy of my subconcious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaiser_Smeghead 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2009 So back to the main topic. North Korea to weaponize all plutonium They are now blatantly going to throw everything they have into making nuclear weapons. The world has to stop this mad regime. Enough of this sanctions crap, I say load up some F-22's with some GPS guided bombs and blast the shit out of North Korea's stupid nuclear facilities, then let the South Korean army kick the KPA's asses all the way to Pyongyang. North Korea has to be stopped before they start selling nukes to every idiot dictator and terrorist who is willing to pay some cash for one of the world's most destructive weapons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Acevetren 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Countries like this definitly give a name to orientel countries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pratom 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Alright, I see how the UN are worried about North Korea and being a independent country testing nuclear weapons and all. Government control over all aspects of their country but in my own personal opinion I don't find it too much to worry about to be honest. It's a very, very poor country, not much money, all their fuel and income is from China and they're not going to start sending them plans how to make missile guidance system to strike any country on the planet. For now they're doing what the U.N says. For one they're not testing nuclear weapons above ground for one, American launched two in space remember, 100's in the Pacific and Atlantic, Hawaii Islands and at least two under water. To me North Korea are just testing out their capabilities of their technology, once they start testing above ground and launching them in the atmosphere, THEN we should start to worry and take charge in telling them to stop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goose 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons has been banned for a long time. They're testing them underground because that's where everybody has to do it now, not because they don't have the technology to test them in the air. They're military and economy is in such poor shape though, that a few air strikes on their nuke facilities might do some good, but it might cause them to fire their artillery on Seoul too... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pratom 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Yeah I know. Once they or if they start testing above ground the U.N should take their steps in stopping them but that they're doing what the regulations state they're not doing anything majorly wrong in my own opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goose 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Well they're in violation of several UN resolutions, so they've already broken the regulations. Not that they care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pratom 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) Yeah course and I respect that the U.N are taking steps in the nuclear weapons test rules and regulations. I'm just saying, even though the country isn't part of North, South America and Europe shouldn't stop them from testing their nuclear weapons in defence of their country. It's not like they have lot's of support so they're forced to take other actions. Granted that they've isolated themselves but since the North Korean and South Korean war, there's not much more they could've done in retrospect. Edited June 15, 2009 by Pratom Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IconOfEvi 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2009 See, the problem, very short is that they've been in defiance of the almighty UN since the beginning. Yes the north is poor - that doesn't mean they cant have an effective nuke program. What do you think all that starving and resource diversion does anyways? The whole point of trying to stop them is so that they DONT get to a point of perfected nukes and the missles to deliver them. Waiting for them to get to that point out of some idea of fairness is national suicide. That and youre vastly underestimating their abilities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Korona 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2009 Kim's Secret :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IconOfEvi 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2009 :blink: Wow, that puts a lot into perspective. I mean I knew Kim got his freak on (had orgies commonly in the palace according to witnesses), but srsly. I guess when the Dear Leader inspected the works, they were told to get a thrill up their leg. In other news, Missile heading to Hawaii probably on July 4th Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2009 About 30 minutes after North Korea hurls shells with chemical warheads towards Seoul, Pyongyang will turn into a glass parking lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Korona 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 How about this scenario: NK aims nukes at their own people and threatens to kill them if the West attacks? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goose 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 At least we know they'd be in range. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IconOfEvi 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) About 30 minutes after North Korea hurls shells with chemical warheads towards Seoul, Pyongyang will turn into a glass parking lot. With President Pantywaist in charge? You kidding? I have doubts he'd even initiate hostilities beyond the immediate DMZ (i.e. to Pyongyang) before trying to negotiate. Case in point - I doubt they'll be stopping this ship Edited June 19, 2009 by IconOfEvi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 The UN resolution doesn't give him the right to stop the ship. It may be directed to port, but there is nothing in the resolution that would permit force to be used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IconOfEvi 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) No, but there is to inspect the ship. And based on both the litany of past resolutions and subsequent action, and just general perception, this goes unhindered. More info about the ship Analysis on the Resolution Edited June 19, 2009 by IconOfEvi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 They can inspect it in port by the port authorities. 12. Calls upon all Member States to inspect vessels, with the consent of the flag State, on the high seas, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of such vessels contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (B), or 8 © of resolution 1718 (2006) or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions; 13. Calls upon all States to cooperate with inspections pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12, and, if the flag State does not consent to inspection on the high seas, decides that the flag State shall direct the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities pursuant to paragraph 11; That's pretty much a paper tiger. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites