NK Missile

by Guest on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 08:03

Just me getting a little curious and edgy. Maybe paranoid.

What do you guys think of the recent NK missile launch?

Personally I kinda' feel unsafe for some reason. I kinda' fear the NKs would equip that thing with nuke and turn it into ICBMs which--considering how close we are--could be a pretty sweet bullseye if they ever attempt to equip one.

The UN & US will do SOMETHING...will they?

by **Kiskaloo** on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 09:13

Personally I find it a red herring. The targeting system is useless. A CEP measured in hundreds of kilometers is not something I am going to lose sleep over.

Also, they can't get it into the air with empty space in the nosecone, much less a nuclear warhead, which is not light (especially at NK's level of refinement).

So while they say it has the range to hit Seattle, I am not worried about it because I don't think it could find North America, much less hit it.

While I am sure the NK leadership could give a rat's ass about their people, the plain fact is that if they were dumb enough to hit Japan with it, even without a Japanese nuclear deterrent, the United States would glass the country out of enlightened self-interest, if nothing else.

The NK leadership is a relic of a passed age that are trying to remain relevant in a world that is as interested in them as they are a blank sheet of newsprint. It's all a lame and shallow attempt to stir up domestic patriotism so the peasants who haven't starved don't rise up with pitchforks and torches and do a Ceauşescu on their asses.

by Cherubino on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 12:41

Panzie, the UN won't do a thing. The UN never does a thing. Take Israel for example. No one cares that Palestinians declared war on us and then WE won. Suddenly, when WE fight rebels, WE get bashed. WE become evil. It's the UN that's evil. But then again, what do I know? I am just a 17 year old socialist from Brooklyn.

Look Panzie, my BFF is from SK. She knows what's what. She said, as you may know, that NK and SK have been talking about joining again and perhaps salvaging their ties. They were going to start this coming together in something light hearted like the Olympics. When they decided this the US (who funds the UN) threatened SK. SK, our "allies". Now, this was during the reign of Bush the second. Perhaps things will change. I hope so. But that's not the point. The point is that only Asian nations can tackle this problem. If they don't, this whole thing is gonna escalate.

But don't be worried. I am sure NK can't hurt anyone like Kisk says.

by LoC978 on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 12:46

on an only loosely related note:

by Cherubino on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 12:53

That pic made my fucking day. I wish I had that about 6 months ago. I did a report on the UN.

by Guest on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 12:57

But don't be worried. I am sure NK can't hurt anyone like Kisk says.

Hopefully...

I mean, the NK's leader is kind of a wacko-type 19th century dictator. I believe their tech is what's left of the Cold War and all. But the recent launch did send the majority of us into...paranoia, I suppose?

Sure, the NK missile couldn't find America. But Japan? Right next door. I kinda have a cartoony picture of Kim Jong Il with a big red button saying 'shall I push the button? Shall I not?' sort of comical way...

I kinda' have some idea that the NK tested the rocket with the purpose of fitting it with a nuke or something...I mean, they've been vying for one since the near-end of the Cold War I think, so if they can have it now why not...? Now that's scary...

by **Kiskaloo** on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 13:09

North Korea is not going to fire on Japan. If they did, they might as well cook another one off over their own capital because if they didn't the US would.

by Awinnell on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 13:41

thats a brit in the picture i'm fairly certain we are the only ones stuck with that rifle

by tsundere9kagami2 on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 14:15

i dont think you have to worry......

by **ElfenMagix** on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 14:48

I'm as worried about that missle as Kisk is...
So in being nice to a bunch of poor people in a dictatorship nation that would deem itself to be so powerful that it would be a mouse that roars, I'm not going to say anything. Roaring mice have a short lifespan.

by LoC978 on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 14:53

so it's pretty much...

*continues digging in for the nuclear winter*
yay Vault-Tec!

by maverick375 on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 15:33

North Korea is not going to fire on Japan.

There's a lot of bad blood in that part of asia, mainly because of centuries of japanese and chinese conquests. The Chinese are more likely to nuke japan for a reason. NK is likely to nuke japan just to see if we have the cojones to do something about it.

No, the more likely scenario is the NK's selling their rockets (it only takes time to get it right) to Iran, who will then take out Tel Aviv or Jerusalem with a nuke the UN seems intent on letting them develop. Note this is only after Obama makes nice with the Iranians and has forced Israel to accept a larger Palestinian state within their borders, turning Israel against us.

The UN is NOT under US control, at least not since Reagan. The UN has become a corrupt, worthless, spineless weasel of an organization that has every interest in maintaining a perpetual state of war in Israel and places in Africa, because then they can say they are important to peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, while individuals padd their pockets from both sides of the issues. Passing resolutions condemning an action is laughable to someone who doesn't care and knows the UN doesn't have the balls to do more than that.

The only reason the Israel/Palestine battle is still raging after so many years is because the international "community" won't accept Israel kicking ass to finish it. Again, because there's money to be made at the expense of innocent lives. How many lives could have been saved if Israel had not had the ceeding of the West Bank and Gaza strip forced on them. Instead, it's a constantly embattled area, because people feel that national sovereignty is less important than the weak getting their way.

If the Palestinians were actually interested in setlling down into a peaceful state, they would stop blowing themselves and others up and start talking it out like rational beings. They are less a nation of people than they are a terrorist group insistent on hating the Jews. Sure there are some innocents among them, but the people doing the actual fighting, bombing, and rocket firing, are terrorists and should be treated as such.
Sorry to be so cold, but Israel has every right to bomb Palestine off the map, because that's what the Palestinians (backed by Hamas), want to do to the Israelis. It won't end until one side is history. My money is on the Jews.

by **Kiskaloo** on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 16:04

maverick375 wrote:No, the more likely scenario is the NK's selling their rockets (it only takes time to get it right) to Iran, who will then take out Tel Aviv or Jerusalem with a nuke...

Well the Iranian Shahab 3 is based on the North Korean Nodong-1 and I believe it can reach Israel with a 1 ton payload. Iran says they have something better - the Fajr-3 - but intelligence analysts debate whether it really exists.

Of course, it's all somewhat moot anyway considering Israel's nuclear inventory is conservatively believed to be between 75 and 200 warheads. All three Jericho ballistic missiles can carry nuclear warheads as well as their fighter-bomber and submarine forces. The main reason Iran wants the bomb is to prevent Israel from nuking Tehran or to hold US strategic interests in the region hostage to prevent a US invasion.

by LoC978 on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 16:35

Hence: Almighty Bob help us all if the first one ever launches. Maybe this is why Bob's followers never looked to the sky... [/Hitchhiker's Guide reference]

by **Nachtsider** on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 16:35

The North isn't going to nuke Japan, Panzer - it's all posturing. My trusted inside sources tell me so. If you still don't believe it, then all hope is lost. You could try moving somewhere, then. I hear Indonesia's got beautiful weather and scenery.

People keep on bitching about how Israel is killing innocent people in Palestine. Well, let me tell you about what al-Jazeera doesn't want you to see. I remember very vividly a video I watched where reporters were wandering through the ruins of houses populated by 'innocent' Palestinians. The vast majority of those houses had weapons caches hidden in their basements, along with little workshops out back for munitions production. Please do not for ONE MOMENT lead me to believe that a lot of the Palestinian people, who elected Hamas for their leaders, are not engaged in helping said government to carry out their terrorist aims.

by LoC978 on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 16:36

oh, you...

by **Kiskaloo** on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 16:47

Well Israel bombing Gaza back into the Stone Age (as in destroying all their power, water, sewer and other modern infrastructure) and penning them in like "Escape from New York" to try and make the inhabitants turn on Hamas hasn't exactly worked out now, has it.

Could be because Hamas is providing them the services Israel is denying...

by Whatface on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 18:21

So did they dig up that missile yet and find out what really was inside?

For those for have played Advance Wars: DoR

by **Nachtsider** on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 18:22

Didn't the thing fall into the sea?

by **Kiskaloo** on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 18:28

Nachtsider wrote:Didn't the thing fall into the sea?

Yes. It's deep in the Pacific. The US could recover it, but not NK.

by LoC978 on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 19:06

haven't been watching these for awhile... I knew there was a penis joke somewhere in this situation...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Bad Korea Move

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

by Nuke is Good on Thu 09 Apr 2009, 21:15

Whatface wrote:So did they dig up that missile yet and find out what really was inside?

For those for have played Advance Wars: DoR

We don't have to worry his seaplanes and choppers wont do shit.

Imma be spamming bombers with Tasha's attack bonus on their missile silos.

by Guest on Sat 11 Apr 2009, 05:17

Yes. It's deep in the Pacific. The US could recover it, but not NK.

Well, that's good news I guess...maybe they'll fill us with something 'good' and something not to freak about

You could try moving somewhere, then. I hear Indonesia's got beautiful weather and scenery.

From listening how things are there from my penpal about the large Muslim-fanatic population and how frequent demonstrations are, I guess not unless I'm looking to get myself bombed sky-high by some random guy working for Al Qaeda or something.

by **boomer_gonz** on Sun 12 Apr 2009, 05:12

Nachtsider wrote:Didn't the thing fall into the sea?

Yup!

Kim siphoned gas from every home, vehicle, aircraft, and government facility and STILL couldn't get enough juice to power the damn thing passed the Sea of Japan. WTF?!!

by **ElfenMagix** on Sun 12 Apr 2009, 06:03

boomer_gonz wrote:
Nachtsider wrote:Didn't the thing fall into the sea?

Yup!

Kim siphoned gas from every home, vehicle, aircraft, and government facility and STILL couldn't get enough juice to power the damn thing passed the Sea of Japan. WTF?!!

What, he couldn't make enough Ethanol from all the Rice The UN has been sending there to feed the masses and his cohorts been stealing?!!

by **boomer_gonz** on Sun 12 Apr 2009, 06:04

You kidding?

Have you seen how fat that little guy is? He'd rather maim kittens than give up his stash of rice.

by Awinnell on Sun 12 Apr 2009, 06:11

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nd-b.htm

everything that you never wanted to know about NK missile systems !

by **boomer_gonz** on Sun 12 Apr 2009, 06:40

I say if Kim can secure enough juice to launch that thing at US's West Coast. Go Ahead, I DARE YOU!!!

Again, two words.

Southwest Airlines!!

Salt Lake Incident

by Awinnell on Sun 12 Apr 2009, 07:05

the report above says that the missile launcher could easily be fitted into a cargo container which if fitted with a hatch on top could be placed on a cargo ship and sailed to just off the US coast,just like a poor mans missile sub

by **KodokuRyuu** on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 00:32

The thing is, if they actually did something to us, we could just erase their country from the map with a snap of our fingers.

by Guest on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 08:38

...and you do know if the US did the the SK and the UN wouldn't respond so kindly...right?

by LoC978 on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 09:24

John Stewart wrote:Somebody's gonna get a sternly worded statement!

...but seriously, they're just posturing. If they really wanted to drop a missile on one of us, they wouldn't warn us with a test-firing. Kimmy just wants us (meaning first-world nations) to acknowledge that he's a big boy. It's so cuuuuute.

by Guest on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 09:31

It's so cuuuuute.

Heh...just got this weird idea...

KAWAII~ OMOCHIKAERI~~~!!!!

but seriously, if that's what Kim really want then I *can* understand. But why missile of all thing? If Kim wants to be acknowledge then the first thing he should do is unite Korea and abdicate or open up a trade or something. Maybe then the rest would notice him.

by **Kiskaloo** on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 10:20

Panzer IV wrote:...and you do know if the US did the the SK and the UN wouldn't respond so kindly...right?

South Korea would probably welcome the United States eliminating the North. Japan would get annoyed due to the fallout patterns drifting east over the southern Home Islands, though, but them is the breaks. And it would eventually cross into the US, as well, so...

As for the United Nations, the Security Council would hold an extraordinary session after the exchange, but all they'd do is issue "stern statements of regret" so to quote the Borg - "The UN is irrelevant".

Panzer IV wrote:But why missile of all thing? If Kim wants to be acknowledge then the first thing he should do is unite Korea and abdicate or open up a trade or something. Maybe then the rest would notice him.

Well in theory he has already detonated a nuclear warhead (there remains debate whether or not it actually worked). So the next step is to show he can deliver said warheads to a target. And a missile is the most effective and grandiose way to do that.

So right now he is at best 1 for 2 and could actually be 0 for 2 if the nuke test was not successful (or the bomb detonated, but "fizzled" and didn't properly cook off).

by **KodokuRyuu** on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 14:23

Panzer IV wrote:...and you do know if the US did the the SK and the UN wouldn't respond so kindly...right?

The UN is a bunch of sissies that are scared to offend anyone. They won't take action. And SK just doesn't have the power to take on the US. Now China's response on the other hand... that's the one that would scare me.

Panzer IV wrote:
LoC978 wrote:It's so cuuuuute.

Lol.

Panzer IV wrote:but seriously, if that's what Kim really want then I *can* understand. But why missile of all thing? If Kim wants to be acknowledge then the first thing he should do is unite Korea and abdicate or open up a trade or something. Maybe then the rest would notice him.

He doesn't want that kind of acknowledgment. He wants to be seen as a big dog in terms of power. He wants to be able to frighten others to do whatever he wants too. He doesn't care about uniting Korea or making life better for his people. He just wants control.

by Robert Frazer on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 14:38

As for the United Nations, the Security Council would hold an extraordinary session after the exchange, but all they'd do is issue "stern statements of regret" so who gives a darn.

I'm not a great enthusiast of the UN (the principle of it being a vector for charity and relief efforts is decent enough - at least, if it wasn't run through with more endemic corruption than a European Union gravy-train - and as a forum for discussion it has some role, but it should keep its nose out of dictating national politics), but I think that it actually commands more power than people necessarily expect. The U.N. may not be able to affect much itself, but it can exert a fair amount of influence on other people.

Even though most of its members are an assortment of tinpot republics and petty tyrannies(Zimbabwe as chairman of the sustainable development committee? Jesus wept!), the U.N. has a surprisingly resilient reputation as a blemishless moral arbiter - nothing is justified without the approval of the "international community" (never mind that that community is often a contrary mob...). Going back to Gulf II, the decision to go to war in Britain was a lot more fraught and divisive than in America, and a continual bugbear raised by the protestors was that there was no U.N. resolution explicitly sanctioning an invasion.

by **Kiskaloo** on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 15:04

Robert Frazer wrote:I'm not a great enthusiast of the UN, but I think that it actually commands more power than people necessarily expect. The U.N. may not be able to affect much itself, but it can exert a fair amount of influence on other people.

I'm really not against the UN in practice or in principle, as well.

But it's ability to influence a First or Second World nation is effectively none. Said nations may seek a "UN Mandate" to provide the illusion of legitimacy to their actions, but if they can't get it, as we have seen (in many cases across many countries) that certainly won't stop them from going ahead with their actions, anyway. And as we have seen (in many cases), the UN can do nothing to stop them.

by **Nachtsider** on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 19:14

Panzer IV wrote:...and you do know if the US did the the SK and the UN wouldn't respond so kindly...right?

Your naivete is amazing, Panzer. The South would want nothing more than the North's elimination.

by **Kiskaloo** on Tue 14 Apr 2009, 19:03

LoC978 wrote:

by Guest on Wed 15 Apr 2009, 10:01

Your naivete is amazing, Panzer. The South would want nothing more than the North's elimination.

That may be true, but do remember that not all from the south were wishing that. A number of them wished for the reunification.

...and also, don't forget international response if US did attack--considering how large it is when its just NK missile

by **KodokuRyuu** on Wed 15 Apr 2009, 12:02

Panzer IV wrote:...and also, don't forget international response if US did attack--considering how large it is when its just NK missile

1) International response means nothing - people won't stop trading with us because they need our money and they know it, and if they did we can get along well enough on our own. Plus there's no way a first or second world country would be foolish enough to declare war on us - it could too easily turn into WWIII. 2) I don't think the US would be foolish enough to attack unless a nuke/missle actually touched US soil (or would have if we hadn't shot it down). So the likelyhood of the US attacking SK is pretty slim. We don't want to mess with that war again if we don't have to.

by **emperor** on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 08:45

Sometime,I think this is a Command&Conquer:Red Alert 2 's thread.

Laughing

by Guest on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 09:42

Sometime,I think this is a Command&Conquer:Red Alert 2 's thread.

...if that's so I prefer to have it Red Alert 3 since then you have us to apprehend with... Laughing

1) International response means nothing - people won't stop trading
with us because they need our money and they know it, and if they did
we can get along well enough on our own. Plus there's no way a first or
second world country would be foolish enough to declare war on us - it
could too easily turn into WWIII

You know, not to offend anyone, but I start to think that the old 'US-all-powerful-WWII-victor-world-police' arrogance is starting to get old. Also, I should ask...who's the original culprit who caused today's day and age recession? I believe China's on the rise and damn hell correct me if I'm wrong but by a few years time Chinese will be the world's major superpower.

That scares me even more than having NK with their Cold War antics invading us.

If anyone did launched a nuke missile at this time and age I believe something like that would definitely start another global arms race for 'security reasons'.
And I do believe it would cause a major spark across the globe...especially Russia with Putin as the Prime Minister considering the recent US attempt on establishing an anti-missile defence system in Europe if I do recall something--someone should remember the Russians once in awhile.

...and besides, I knda' doubt the US position in power right now with the recession. I doubt they would even risk spending a huge sum of money to launch a single ICBM.

by Awinnell on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 09:46

by **Kiskaloo** on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 10:13

Panzer IV wrote:You know, not to offend anyone, but I start to think that the old 'US-all-powerful-WWII-victor-world-police' arrogance is starting to get old.

Also, I should ask...who's the original culprit who caused today's day and age recession?

As you are seventeen, Panzer, you were born at the tail-end of the Japanese asset price bubble which was driven by absolutely insane real-estate valuations. For a time in the late 1980s, the 23 wards of Tokyo were worth more on a square meter basis then the entire continent of Europe. Office space in the Ginza ward was valued at $100,000USD a square meter. Two decades later, Japan is still trying to dig themselves fully out of that chasm.

And then there was the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 which affected not just Japan but most major Asian economies and was also driven in no small part due to what? Ridiculous real estate valuations.

I kinda' doubt the US position in power right now with the recession. I doubt they would even risk spending a huge sum of money to launch a single ICBM.

The huge sums of monies were spent to build, install and maintain them. Actually launching them is just a couple bucks worth of power.

by Guest on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 10:28

seventeen

I'm eighteen, thank you. I was born in 1991 and I do know what its like in the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

But this year, its the worst financial crisis that has been going and will still get worse for the next few years. Hey, all major world economics run towards the US so if they're going down then they're dragging the world with them -_-;
I mean, after the news of US recession, Asia got hit then Europe. IF US was not the center of it, the entire world would not be dragged along with them. I do read newspapers and such, and I do know US automobile companies (Chrysler and such) were going bankrupt...and I don't want to know how much money the US spent to bail them. We history students in class started to think that the money US spent on Iraq never existed at the first place...though that's just assumptions with no solid base.

...although I do have to applaud US attack on Iraq to an extent. It really gives me the 'pride' to actually see history in the making with seeing the fall of a dictator. It is really cool Very Happy

But anyway, I kinda' don't want to imagine how my financial future will be if this recession keeps going. I just pray what happened in 1928-1930 (the Great Depression) didn't happen again. That's bad-bad mojo...

by Awinnell on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 10:31

North korea does its shopping at this branch of a Pakistan /Iranian corner shop company !

by Awinnell on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 10:31

the US borrowed a lot of money off of the Chinese

by LoC978 on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 10:36

AWinnell wrote:Nick's Nuclear Weapons

Panzer wrote:...although I do have to applaud US attack on Iraq to an extent. It really gives me the 'pride' to actually see history in the making with seeing the fall of a dictator. It is really cool

?

...

by **Kiskaloo** on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 10:49

Panzer IV wrote:I mean, after the news of US recession, Asia got hit then Europe. IF US was not the center of it, the entire world would not be dragged along with them.

It's not so much that the United States "runs the world's economy", but that the "world economy" is so intertwined that a significant collapse of one market affects others. I doubt the Irish banking system, for example, was issuing sub-prime mortgages to US homeowners, but the lock-up of credit still totally collapsed that system, requiring a bailout approaching Ireland's entire Gross National Product to right it.

I do read newspapers and such, and I do know US automobile companies (Chrysler and such) were going bankrupt...and I don't want to know how much money the US spent to bail them.

Ford is not in danger of bankruptcy. In fact, they're financially stable enough they do not require any government intervention. GM is more in trouble at a headquarters level then a manufacturing one - at least outside of the US market, but then even Toyota and Honda are reporting record losses in part because of the lack of sales in their most important market - the US. GM of Europe and GM Asia are both doing quite well which is why there are calls for a "surgical bankruptcy" to try and pare the "dead weight" from GM while saving the good to return them to a viable entity.

We history students in class started to think that the money US spent on Iraq never existed at the first place...though that's just assumptions with no solid base.

I imagine a good part of the trillion USD spent to date in Iraq does indeed "not exist" - being deficit spending funded by US Treasury bills which, as Awinnell noted above, a significant amount are held by the Chinese. It should be noted that I believe China still pegs the value of their currency directly to the US Dollar so part of it is likely an attempt to keep the US Dollar stable to keep the Yuan stable and part of it is no doubt to the United States being China's largest export market (the drawback in US retail sales has put a bit of a crimp on China's own economy). That being said, I do believe China will become a superpower as will India, though over a period of decades.

...although I do have to applaud US attack on Iraq to an extent. It really gives me the 'pride' to actually see history in the making with seeing the fall of a dictator. It is really cool

I think it was a disaster of epic proportions that will haunt us for decades to come, but that's just my opinion.