Random Insanity Alliance Forum, Mark V
Cactuar Zone => Random lnsanity => Topic started by: Buck Turgidson on April 10, 2013, 01:23:39 pm
-
Ok that's it. I think that's enough out of the Kim dynasty. As far as I am concerned, they're done.
Let's look at their pros:
- Awesome leadership cult artwork
- Rhetoric that would embarass Saddam
- Sheer stubbornness in the face of an obviously losing proposition
- Uniforms and hairdos
- Kidnappings & celebrity visits from losers like Rodman
And now their cons:
- To still be in a state of war after 60 years is a failure of leadership
- Bluffing the world into thinking you have WMD didn't work for Saddam - it's sheer arrogance
- They're doing this despite not having any oil, and they need to be shown that this fact doesn't make them safe
What are we going to do, wait another 60 years for the Koreans to sort out their sibling rivalry? No, we need closure now. It is time to sex them up.
-
I'm predicting when they finally do press the button the goddamn things will blow up before they launch.
And I'll be buying p0pcorn to watch the firework show.
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjm4n4umw1rn1xxfo1_400.gif)
-
we have the technology to destroy their infrastructure, but they have the manpower and fanaticism to fight a guerrilla war against occupiers. and they're still impoverished from our last war with them and the embargos, so further crippling them will make a burden to whomever wins. what they need is either a revolution, or south korea to take over without interference from china. but could SK beat them without direct US involvement?
here's a video which will address none of these questions.
The Adventures of Kim Jong Un Part 4 - Kim Jong Un vs Psy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPOD5f6wRw4#noexternalembed-ws)
-
There are... reasons... we don't just stomp them... but I can't talk of the reasons because it violates... something I signed...
If that's too cryptic, I'll just say that my primary focus at the Intelligence Academy was on the whole "Korea" situation, so there's things regular people aren't aware of that would effect any action we take.
-
No surprises there.
I'm sure China has a large part to play in those reasons.
-
I can neither confirm not deny that we have even taken the existence of China into account for any plans in regards to North Korea.
-
UN: We want to dip our feet in the Yalu.
China: Try that shit again, and we'll send more than 300,000 troops to sex you up next time.
UN: OK point taken. Shall we split Korea down the middle?
China: Yes. We need North Korea to act as a buffer between us.
UN: What if they attack us?
China: If they do, we will sex them up. Just stay on your side of the DMZ and we will ensure they stay on theirs.
UN: OK whatever you say you commie bastards. Just remember we have nukes.
China: You made that plenty clear when you threatened to nuke NK. And whatever, dude, you don't have enough nukes to deal with us.
UN: We will one day, bitch.
China: By which time we will have them too. So get the sex out of here. Thank you, don't come again!
-
UN: We want to dip our feet in the Yalu.
China: Try that shit again, and we'll send more than 300,000 troops to sex you up next time.
These troops?
(http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2010/05/6079.jpg)
UN: *skinny dips in the Yalu*
-
UN: We want to dip our feet in the Yalu.
China: Try that shit again, and we'll send more than 300,000 troops to sex you up next time.
These troops?
(http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2010/05/6079.jpg)
UN: *skinny dips in the Yalu*
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/288/654/a4e.gif)
-
You realize the US has enough nukes to destroy the entire world, right?
-
I believe a tenth of our nukes are enough to destroy the planet.
-
Yeah, but in 1953, even with the US losing its nuclear monopoly, the entire world only had a few hundred nukes.
Now there are almost 5000 active weapons, and twice that in stockpiles.
Also, the means of delivery in 1953 was far from certain - they best bomb truck SAC had was the B-47, and there were not a lot of them. The next best delivery truck was the B-50, a souped up version of the WW2 B-29.
-
Lol, only 5k? Please. Try 17k.
http://ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report (http://ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report)
-
the fuck?! pakistan have more nukes than israel? they also have one of the best intel agencies in the world.
-
the fuck?! pakistan have more nukes than israel? they also have one of the best intel agencies in the world.
They need them to keep the Indians in line.
I'm amazed that France is #3 in nukes
-
Lol, only 5k? Please. Try 17k.
http://ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report (http://ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report)
17K if you count those that need to be taken out of storage, armed, and deployed first (a 2-3 month process). 5K could be fired today by all sides.
This is 2008-2009 data:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat (http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat)
the fuck?! pakistan have more nukes than israel? they also have one of the best intel agencies in the world.
Assuming Israel isn't bluffing ala Saddam... If they have anything it is probably only deliverable by aircraft, and therefore far from certain to hit...
-
The problem with Israel is they change the subject anyone even talks about nuclear arms.
However we do know they have some mid-long range ballistic missiles. They could also have sub launched cruise missiles, but this is less certain.
-
Changing the subject everytime is a great way of activating conspiracy theorists & rumour mills.
The whole point of having nukes is to deter, and therefore it does not make sense to keep it secret.
If they have them, they definitely don't have SLBMs or MRBM/ICBMs. At best they have something like the B61, deliverable by F-15s.
Now if I wanted to do them harm, I would just find 1 such nuke and find a way to detonate it. Israel is not a lot wider than the blast radius of such a weapon, and the fallout would be devastating. All the more reason to not keep them on Israeli soil.
In the 1960s, Canada had an arrangement with the US to have Genies (Air-to-Air nuclear tipped unguided rockets!) delivered in case of NORAD Alert (ie DEFCON 2). I wonder if Israel might not have a similar arrangement...
-
Canada's unique in that because of how great circle routes go, Canadian security is American security (Genies were made specifically for Soviet bomber groups who have to reach us from an over-the-pole route). I wouldn't expect Israel to get such an arrangement.
However, perhaps you missed where I said they DO have MRBMs. Israel posses 50 Jericho IIs. It known to have a range of 1300 km in test firings, however since the distance of Tel Aviv to Tehran is about 1600 km, I wager it can actually go a touch further. The weight of the B61 you cited earlier is well within the payload estimates for these missiles.
Israel has also developed a larger Jericho III.
detonating a nuclear weapon sitting atop a missile is not as easy as one would expect. warheads normally have numerous safety triggers, including ones that will only let the warhead detonate after being exposed to vacuum (Ballistic missiles fly pretty high). However, insuring second strike capability is one reason Israel would want to push towards SLBMs (or SLCMs). They've apparently worked on one called the Popeye Turbo.
-
Look I don't want to go all Dr. Strangelove on your ass, but again, why not tell the world about their stockpiles? The whole point in having nukes is to deter your enemy. The whole point in having multiple means of delivery is to ensure the credibility & resilience of that deterrence.
Israel may have means of delivery via Scud-equivalents or B61, but it just does not make sense that they have a pile of W80's lying around.
What is the reason for the secrecy. Don't tell me that they want to prevent an arms race - because secrecy is more likely to do that than disclosure...
-
It is to prevent an arms race, as many other regional powers have stated they'd pull out of the NPT if there were a public acknowledgement of nuclear arms in Israel. The existence of their Dimona reactor is enough to deter attack since it shows they could be nuclear capable in short order, without causing the international fallout a public declaration would have.
But don't take my word for it, listen to this peanut farmer interviewed by the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7420573.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7420573.stm)
-
Again, ipso facto ergo sum pro patria: Why would Israel go to the point of creating 150 weapons if they can't tell anyone about it? I mean, the reactor is understandable. Even making 1, 5 or even 10 nukes. but 150-200?
BTW Israel has done a good job of putting words in the mouths of Presidents in the past (ex or otherwise). ref. G. W. Bush & WMD...
Remember when Saddam was playing the game of pretending he had a program? His bluff was called, because it could be.
The only possible explanation I can think of for Israel to not declare its stockpiles is because it would be proof that the US is actively supporting & promoting nuke proliferation despite being a signatory to the NPT. Where the hell would Israel test the weapons? Their country is only a few KMs across at one point... Where the hell would they get Uranium? Ok, they have interests in Africa, but where would they process it?
If they have nukes, they got them from the US, and that makes every American President in the last 30 or 40 years a blatant liar and a threat to world peace. Except the peanut farmer, who, based on this interview, may be a traitor.
-
most likely they don't have 150 weapons sitting around, the estimates are if they run their reactor at top efficiency, they could have enough material for that many weapons. I agree they probably only have a few weapons, and 'parts' for many more.
Uranium ore is rather common, so finding it isn't too difficult (it's the enrichment that's hard, unless you're Canadian, they don't bother). Many people think they did a trade with South Africa when that country was running it's bomb program.
You're right that testing is the sticking point. However we didn't test the 'little boy' design before use (Trinity was a 'fat man' type) and South Africa had 6 nukes and never tested any.
-
The US went out on a limb with little boy, in a desperate bid to end WW2. The purpose was not deterrence, but compellence.
I forgot about the SA link, but again, testing is the fundamental proof of your arsenal, and its credibility rests upon successful testing. I mean, what would they do, surprise attack someone with a nuke?
-
Lol, only 5k? Please. Try 17k.
http://ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report (http://ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report)
17K if you count those that need to be taken out of storage, armed, and deployed first (a 2-3 month process). 5K could be fired today by all sides.
This is 2008-2009 data:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat (http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat)
the fuck?! pakistan have more nukes than israel? they also have one of the best intel agencies in the world.
Assuming Israel isn't bluffing ala Saddam... If they have anything it is probably only deliverable by aircraft, and therefore far from certain to hit...
Spoilers: We gave Israel MIRV technology. They can pretty much hit almost anywhere we can. I'd be surprised if (when it comes to light) it wasn't us who gave them nuke technology in the first place.
-
A MIRV's range is based on the candle under it.
But seriously, if Israel has nukes, why keep it a secret? That is the real question if they do indeed have them.
-
Lol, only 5k? Please. Try 17k.
http://ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report (http://ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report)
17K if you count those that need to be taken out of storage, armed, and deployed first (a 2-3 month process). 5K could be fired today by all sides.
This is 2008-2009 data:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat (http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat)
the fuck?! pakistan have more nukes than israel? they also have one of the best intel agencies in the world.
Assuming Israel isn't bluffing ala Saddam... If they have anything it is probably only deliverable by aircraft, and therefore far from certain to hit...
Spoilers: We gave Israel MIRV technology. They can pretty much hit almost anywhere we can. I'd be surprised if (when it comes to light) it wasn't us who gave them nuke technology in the first place.
More likely a combo of France and South Africa. France will sell reactors to anyone.
Also, what GS said about MIRVs, that said, Jericho III is a very sizable candle.
-
Exactly. I think it's 11k KM? So, that's on par with the Trident II, one of our better missiles.
-
So if this is the case, do you blame Iran for wanting nukes & delivery systems?
Again, why not tell the world you have them? Or categorically deny that you do?