BF2S Forums NK Conducts Nuclear Test

FatherTed wrote:

And some more naughty stuff

Yep.. just saw that. China and Russia already told them to chill prior to these launches.

NK (BBC News) wrote:

"Our army and people are fully ready for battle... against any reckless US attempt for a pre-emptive attack"

Kill them all (North Koreans)

Last edited by Kptk92 :D (2009-05-26 02:57:39)

FatherTed wrote:

i'd imagine Japan are sweating a little bit right now.

Do they have post WW2 restrictions on what they can and can't do with their military?

Yes. And they don't have nukes... (or any we know of)

Longbow wrote:

If there was enough oil or gas in NK, it would already turned into second Iraq. The only option for them to be protected from USA's resouce harvesting covered by 'spreading democracy' bullshit slogans is to have enough nukes so it will be not worth to touch it. Simple as that.

u wot m8

U FUCKIN WOT M8

Protip: Iraq wasn't for oil. If the USA wanted oil it would have it Kuwait. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Venezuela.

Longbow wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Protip: Iraq wasn't for oil. If the USA wanted oil it would have it Kuwait. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Venezuela.

aha, it was for liberating Iraq'is from evil Saddam and for fighting terrorism. Of cource, sorry, I forgot.

Nah, more for the USA's administration at the time to hand out several lucrative contracts to friends, to stop Hussein from trying to start a system of trading oil with the Euro instead of the dollar and several violations of various UN sanctions against him, along with his continued refusals to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors, the threat to regional stability he posed and the possibility of a US controlled oil pipeline to China.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
Those are just some of the reasons I've found on the net for the joint invasion by several UN/NATO member countries.

The fact that he was a total cunt was very useful for the PR spin though. One of the more interesting theories I've heard about for Australia's involvement besides ANZUS and the free-trade agreement was that the ADF hadn't really had any real combat experience since Vietnam, and desperately needed it for morale, budget, public relations and recruiting reasons.


Seriously though Longbow, Venezuela has far more oil (afaik) and is a lot closer, so why didn't the USA hit them instead? Why go halfway across the planet for Iraq when Venezuela is so much closer and easier to invade from a logistical point of view?

Venezuela has far more oil (afaik) and is a lot closer, so why didn't the USA hit them instead?

Because Venezuela was not a threat to Israel.

lowing wrote:

I have not read this thread but for here is my opinion on the matter:

I have always felt that it is (typically) arrogant for the the US, as the only nation that has used nukes as a weapon, to think it should dictate to the world what they can and can not have in the form of this technology.

Who are we to dictate to the world such things? If a nations wants nukes so be it. After all we started it.

In a time where we are trying to get rid of nukes, it'd be better if an unstable nation were not to aquire them. A big problem is, in my opinion, that while existing nuclear nations speak about disarmament, little has happened.

Also, if E.g. Japan would have gotten nukes now, I wouldn't be at all worried about the immediate future. When a closed totalitarianism like North Korea has them, it's scary to think of K.J. Il waving his dick at the "Imperialist pigs" with a press of the button. But since there's no oil in NK, I wouldn't worry about the U.S. doing much about it other than condemning it with speeches (grain of salt everyone).

The UN needs to harden the fuck up. It needs to have a habitus that says "If you step over the line, you will get fucked up. Don't step over the line". But that starts with getting rid of dumbass vetos and actually going ahead with nuclear disarmament, while keeping some in stock, just in case (That couldn't be launched without 90% of the UN:s consent, or something).

Lowing, I agree with you on one thing. As long as you have nukes (can't say "we", we aren't even allowed to have subs, for Christ sake. So by "you", I mean USA, UK, Russia, France etc.), who are you to say who can or can not have them?

Im_Dooomed wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

You forget about the possibility of my aforementioned domino effect. Once one country starts using nukes, there is the risk of many countries launching nukes in fear.

lol easy on the Terminator judgement day ideas...

Listen, if NK launched a nuke on someone, I HIGHLY doubt a different country would launch their nukes in return out of fear, I'm pretty sure they'd rather stay out of the conflict. 

BUT the country getting nuked by NK may sure have their reason to launch back on NK in retaliation. I'm just saying OTHER countries not involved are not going to be launching their nukes on a country that hasn't launched on them probably out of fear of being launched on themselves.

See what I mean, though?

Exactly what I ment.

Its not like everyone else would get the urge to become extinct if NK nukes one or two cities.

Imaginario screnario:

NK nukes 2 USA cities.
->
USA Nukes NK.

[Why would lets say Russia start blowing up rest of the world for lulz at this point? Maybe in terminator movies....]

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have not read this thread but for here is my opinion on the matter:

I have always felt that it is (typically) arrogant for the the US, as the only nation that has used nukes as a weapon, to think it should dictate to the world what they can and can not have in the form of this technology.

Who are we to dictate to the world such things? If a nations wants nukes so be it. After all we started it.

In a time where we are trying to get rid of nukes, it'd be better if an unstable nation were not to aquire them. A big problem is, in my opinion, that while existing nuclear nations speak about disarmament, little has happened.

Also, if E.g. Japan would have gotten nukes now, I wouldn't be at all worried about the immediate future. When a closed totalitarianism like North Korea has them, it's scary to think of K.J. Il waving his dick at the "Imperialist pigs" with a press of the button. But since there's no oil in NK, I wouldn't worry about the U.S. doing much about it other than condemning it with speeches (grain of salt everyone).

The UN needs to harden the fuck up. It needs to have a habitus that says "If you step over the line, you will get fucked up. Don't step over the line". But that starts with getting rid of dumbass vetos and actually going ahead with nuclear disarmament, while keeping some in stock, just in case (That couldn't be launched without 90% of the UN:s consent, or something).

Lowing, I agree with you on one thing. As long as you have nukes (can't say "we", we aren't even allowed to have subs, for Christ sake. So by "you", I mean USA, UK, Russia, France etc.), who are you to say who can or can not have them?

The US will never be nuke free hence the hypocrasy of dictating to others that they should be.

Longbow wrote:

Flecco wrote:

The fact that he was a total cunt was very useful for the PR spin though. One of the more interesting theories I've heard about for Australia's involvement besides ANZUS and the free-trade agreement was that the ADF hadn't really had any real combat experience since Vietnam, and desperately needed it for morale, budget, public relations and recruiting reasons.

Well Saddam was a total cunt in the eyes of western majority, but I doubt he was that bad, compared to other ME leaders. Tbh he was better then most todays leaders of arab world. And he managed to keep Iraq in peace - unlike USA now. It is unstable region with situation close to civil war. And it is now, when USA and it's allies are still in there. What will happen when they leave? Despite the fact I don't like the whole idea of "USA in ME", they are actually a force that keeps order now. I doubt current Iraqi goverment, who is no doubt USA's puppet, will be able to keep situation stabilized once USA leaves.

Wtf does this have to do with you saying they invaded for oil?

Longbow wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Seriously though Longbow, Venezuela has far more oil (afaik) and is a lot closer, so why didn't the USA hit them instead? Why go halfway across the planet for Iraq when Venezuela is so much closer and easier to invade from a logistical point of view?

Because Venezuela isn't ME country? Iraq, besides it's oil, is also a very good bridgehead.

So what, now it's not about the oil? Not seeing who else the USA can really invade in the region. Iran would be a shitfight ten times worse than Iraq and most of the other countries there are reasonably friendly/ambivalent toward the USA on the whole.

Dilbert wrote:

Because Venezuela was not a threat to Israel.

Given Israel's history in war and the military backing they have from the USA I can't really see Iraq after Gulf War part 1 as being a serious threat to Israel. Maybe without all the sanctions that caused so much famine and their status as an international pariah under Hussein.

DonFck wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Exactly what I ment.

Its not like everyone else would get the urge to become extinct if NK nukes one or two cities.

Imaginario screnario:

NK nukes 2 USA cities.
->
USA Nukes NK.

And the flight paths of these nukes go over which country's?

Japan?

The world isn't flat. Try Russia and Canada.

Last edited by Flecco (2009-05-26 05:39:12)

AussieReaper wrote:

Flecco wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Japan?

The world isn't flat. Try Russia and Canada.

And or China.

I'm sure both China and Russia would love US nukes flying above them... lolno

You can shoot over Pacific Ocean no?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … _Korea.svg

why would they shoot over russia and china? lol

edit: besides, USA has this many military installations in South Korea. I bet they have nuclear strike capabilities there too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … outh_Korea

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2009-05-26 06:09:32)

or they could just launch from sea?lol