Report: N Korea Conducts Nuke Test - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-15-2006, 02:40 AM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 08:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The United States typically has 250 Kiloton yields on average for most of its strategic nuclear warheads. I don't think the French are really much different in that regard. During the Cold War, the Soviets would average about 1 Megaton or 1,000 Kilotons per startegic nuclear warhead because they were not as accurate as western warheads and they needed the extra yield to insure the destruction of the target if there was a miss by a moderate distance.

Short Range Nuclear Warheads and battlfield nuclear warheads will often have yields as small or smaller than what was used in World War II. The smallest nuclear weapon ever fielded by the United States was a 155 mm artillery shell with a yield of about 1 Kiloton. Considering the range of artillery, you don't want to use a yield that would not have any immediate impact on the area your firing from.

But hey, if you think these average yield totals are wrong, go look it up yourself.
Still surpirised why North korea wants nukes people ?
__________________

__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 10-15-2006, 11:29 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Numb1075
gotcha - because you wrote that the US size was 15 kilotons and that the French was 250 and that appears to be a large difference.
Actually there's no trickery involved. This isn't even an "issue." Sting was just pointing out that technology has increased to the point where today's modern nuclear weapons are much more powerful than the atom bombs used in World War II.

There's really nothing to debate.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-15-2006, 11:38 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
ok this is a question i've asked many people but then they all agree with me (which is nice hehe) but...why is it so bad that North Korea has nuclear weapons? I mean of course i don't want them to have nuclear weapons but i don't want ANY country to have nuclear weapons.

Here is my question; Why are only SOME countries allowed to have the technology and a supply of nuclear weapons? I don't trust any country and i find it rather cynical for the us to be calling for sanctions on north korea cause to quote Bill O'reilly (that wonderful journalist *cough*) 'nth korea is a country with an insane man as a leader'
while im not calling GWB insane (childlike retardation more like it) i don't trust the usa as much as i dont trust nth korea. The USA have invaded countries, killed thousands of innocents and forced people to bend to their will. Russia fucks over the Chechens people, France is trigger happy, India and Pakistan are eyeballing each other, in fact NO country is responsible enough to have them, so if the usa, russia, india and so on can have them, who are they and we to deny North Korea, Iran and so on to have them?
I think the answer to the queston isn't very "fair" perhaps, but in the hard-nosed, pragmatic world of geopolitics it just makes sense.

The biggest fella on the playground basically makes the rules, and right now that fella is the United States. Those countries that are allies of the U.S. who gain nuclear weapons will be less of a concern to the U.S., whereas countries that are not allies of the U.S. are not considered to be trustworthy with nukes because they may use the nuclear weapons (or more likely the leverage that the weapons give them) in ways that do not suit U.S. interests.

Though really, the current members of the nuclear club would prefer not to have ANY new members regardless of alliance, because your ally today may not be your ally down the road, and nukes automatically give a nation a much stronger hand to play. Which of course is the same reason that countries like Iran and North Korea would want such weapons. If they have them, they can't be ignored. If you have nukes, you and your concerns matter. If you don't maybe you and your concerns don't matter so much.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-15-2006, 11:46 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
Still surpirised why North korea wants nukes people ?
I don't know that North Korea really wants to nuke anyone. What they want is the power and attention to North Korean needs and interests that possessing nuclear power brings.

Wouldn't be great to have a seat at the U.N. Security Council? To be able to make requests and demands and express concerns and have those requests mets, demands considered, concerns addressed because of the might you wield? Wouldn't it be great to have the world interested in supporting your interests, dealing with you as an equal on the world stage?

These are the dreams of the North Korean leader, I think.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-15-2006, 11:59 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:05 AM
I'd also add that for small-potatoes dictatorships like NoKo (and even Saddam-era Iraq) the primary goal is to stay in power. These types will generally do whatever it takes to secure their own despotism and will not do anything that might result in their overthrow.

Here A_Wanderer does a valid point. Atheistic despots may be plenty murderous but generally, they tend to put a pretty high value on self-preservation. (Though, I would question the implication that atheistic countries are somehow more humane. History shows that both religious and irrelgious tyrants are capable of equally horrific displays of inhumanity).

The real danger from a country like North Korea is not that they might launch a suicidal attack on the U.S., but that, in order to make some short term cash (which will help continue to prolong their grip on power) they may short-sightedly sell whatever nasty weapons they have to the types of people (say Al-Qaeda) for whom self-preservation is not such a high priority.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-16-2006, 05:48 AM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Here A_Wanderer does a valid point. Atheistic despots may be plenty murderous but generally, they tend to put a pretty high value on self-preservation. (Though, I would question the implication that atheistic countries are somehow more humane. History shows that both religious and irrelgious tyrants are capable of equally horrific displays of inhumanity).
And there is a big difference between a theocratic, atheistic and a secular state - namely that the secular state enjoys freedom of religion.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-16-2006, 08:35 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
And there is a big difference between a theocratic, atheistic and a secular state - namely that the secular state enjoys freedom of religion.
Right. And if I had to choose, though I am a very religious person of what you might call the more fundamentalist stripe, I would definitely choose the secular state. History bears out that this is the best form of government to live under in terms from protecting it's citizens from excesses of belief or unbelief.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-16-2006, 10:56 AM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


You tend to get a far more intelligent and unbiased perspective from the military than you will from any other source. The military is there to serve period, they have nothing to sell for profit and are not running for political office.




erm ...

[q]Two ordered not to discuss Guantanamo claims
Paralegal, military attorney brought forward allegations of prisoner abuse


SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - A paralegal and a military lawyer who brought forward allegations about prisoner abuse at the Guantanamo Bay detention center have been ordered not to speak with the press, lawyers and a military spokeswoman said Saturday.

Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, who represents a detainee at the U.S. naval base in eastern Cuba, filed a complaint with the Pentagon last week alleging that abuse was ongoing at the prison. He attached a sworn statement from his paralegal, Sgt. Heather Cerveny, in which she said several Guantanamo guards bragged in a bar about beating detainees, describing it as common practice.

Muneer Ahmad, a civilian defense lawyer for Omar Khadr, a Canadian detainee whose military counsel is Vokey, said that Vokey and Cerveny were ordered Friday by the U.S. Marines not to speak with the press.[/q]
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com