Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Risk Of Nuclear War  
User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

Hello everyone:
Take a look at this
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/06/17/1638174-ap.html

Now, is there actually a possibility, that North Korea could fire these things, for real (ie-not a test 'flight')
They haven't done anything like it before, and seeing the state the country is in (80% of its population is malnourished, its health care system is non-existent, trade with anywhere other than China is minimal, it's cut off from the outside world, is pretty poor, and its leader is a basket case) is this a last ditch attempt to frighten the world or is there an actual risk of nuclear war (most likely against USA, S.Korea and/or maybe Japan).
The reason i'm slightly concerned is that I doubt they would waste so much power, energy and money into a project that wasn't for real.
Are we taking N.Korea seriously enough, I mean, all it takes is the push of a button.

I hope its not a real concern, and maybe this even a sign that North Korea is about to collapse ? They appear to be stuck in time, back when the Cold war was still going on.
I think that it's not a question of IF, but WHEN North Korea will collapse, and when they start to crumble, that's when we should be worried, as the 'dear Leader' will have nothing to lose.

So, what do you think ?

Thanks
Wrighbrothers


Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

Nuclear War is a Possibility one day if the Controls fall in the Hands of Lunatics in Non Democratic Countries.
We all know who those Countries are.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

I don't think they are going to be quite THAT stupid !

They peek out from behind China and shout taunts and threats: knowing they can get away with crap because their military stuff is all set up within 30 miles of the Chinese border.



gene
User currently offlineJutes85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

One way or another, mankind's reign on this planet will be over, it is just a matter of when.

User currently offlineWardialer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

The risk of nuclear war is very small. In fact, the world is in peace right now...so what makes you think of nuclear war? May I ask? Everything is nice and rosey and this question should never be asked in the first place.

Are you living in the 80s or what??? That was the past and this is now. So forget about Nuclear war because we aint seeing it down the road.

S. Korea will never nuke us. NEVER. Not in our life time.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
the world is in peace right now.

Planning any trips to Baghdad soon?


User currently offlineMaxQ2351 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
S. Korea will never nuke us. NEVER. Not in our life time.

This is correct!!! NORTH Korea might though.......

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
In fact, the world is in peace right now...

What rock have you been living under?!?! The USA is fighting "terrorism", which is a very, how shall I say this, ambiguous enemy. We know what we're fighting, just our enemies can number as small as 19 people....

The world right now is fighting a "war", of which the likes we've never seen before. During the Cold War, our enemy was Communism, so it was very easy to to define our enemies. A country is either communist, or it is not. In the case of terrorism though, cells may operate unabated inside a country's borders and the government may not even know about it. How can we blame them?? The US didn't see the Oklahoma City bombing coming until it was all over.

Back to the topic at hand though. While I personally think a nuclear exchange TODAY would be close to impossible, who knows what TOMORROW could bring. Iran rattling their sabre, now North Korea, and God only knows what will happen when demand for oil outstrips supply. The US and China will be at each other's throats, and will stop at nothing to get the black gold. What's to say both of us won't threaten use of nuclear weapons?? The US government at least feels the threat is still there. Why else continue the development of the airborne lasers?? Who has ICBM's that would pose a threat to the US??

the UK?? I think not...
Russia?? No, we're on good terms with them (to some extent at least)
India?? Unlikely...
Pakistan?? No...
Israel?? Hardly...
France?? Maybe  
China?? .........

China is the one. They are why we are continuing development of nuclear defense systems. Why else would we??

-Max

[Edited 2006-06-17 18:32:27]

User currently offlineMke717spotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2458 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

I dont think North Korea is going to go ahead and bomb other countries with nuclear bombs because then everyone is going to be all over them cause no one wants a country launching nuclear weapons around everywhere. BTW - if North Korea were to launch a missle at the United States, could there be any way to stop it or shoot it down? Do our military have some kind of Surface to Air missle launchers that could shoot these down or would the send some fighter jet to shoot it down? Or is there no way to stop it?


Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
The risk of nuclear war is very small. In fact, the world is in peace right now...so what makes you think of nuclear war

Sure, only war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Congo, Sudan, etc. Other than that it's fine.

And you're wrong. When it was an age where, basically, it was the US v. USSR, the world was probably safer in one way, since both sides were relatively stable, and fairly predictable-with the only real exception being the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Now, you have nations like Pakistan, the DRPK and Iran, either with weapons, or trying to get them. It's a much more unstable, unpredictable equation with these nations, backed by their ideologies, wth such weapons.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 5):
Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
the world is in peace right now.

Planning any trips to Baghdad soon?

 rotfl   rotfl 


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2275 times:

It's seven minutes to midnight.

User currently offlineMaxQ2351 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting Mke717spotter (Reply 7):
BTW - if North Korea were to launch a missle at the United States, could there be any way to stop it or shoot it down? Do our military have some kind of Surface to Air missle launchers that could shoot these down or would the send some fighter jet to shoot it down? Or is there no way to stop it?

If North Korea were to launch a true ICMB, the missile itself goes into space and then the warhead is ejected and drops down onto it's target. If that were the case, as of present, the US has very little means of shooting it down.

The only hope, as of present, of shooting down a warhead is the Patriot Missile Air Defense System:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/






-Max


User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2238 times:

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Thread starter):
Risk Of Nuclear War

There is no such thing as "Nuclear War"... Nuclear Holocaust because they fire on us, we fire on them... Both are irradicated in the process...



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2175 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 11):
irradicated in

"Irradicated" is a pretty good word ! Irradiated + Eradicated = That's all, folks !



gene
User currently offlineWardialer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

The probability of a nuke striking the US is 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

Nukes cannot even hit the US even from the Middle East...THEY DO NOT EXIST...And here we are spending billions of $$$$ on Nuclear Testing for crying out loud...I mean WHY??? It does not make any sense at all as to why we even have Nuclear weapons in our military arsenal because they will never ever be used anyway.

A nuclear missile cannot even hit us from 8000 miles away you know..


User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8459 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
A nuclear missile cannot even hit us from 8000 miles away you know..

Yes, but we have the technology to hit them.


User currently offlineJutes85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 11):
There is no such thing as "Nuclear War"... Nuclear Holocaust because they fire on us, we fire on them... Both are irradicated in the process...

I don't know if the US would be irradicated, I mean if NK lobs one toward the US, the US would probably send 20. Also, I don't know how accurate the missle would be, hell it might even land in an low-populated area of the US, or worse, Canada.


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4389 posts, RR: 27
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
The risk of nuclear war is very small. In fact, the world is in peace right now...so what makes you think of nuclear war? May I ask? Everything is nice and rosey and this question should never be asked in the first place.

Yeah... Look at the above examples and then look at India/Pakistan with Kashmir. No tension there, eh?

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
It does not make any sense at all as to why we even have Nuclear weapons in our military arsenal because they will never ever be used anyway.

Ever hear of something called deterrence?

You're in over your head. Nearly everything you have said here has been spot wrong. You're confusing the Koreas. For the good of everyone, you should probably leave this thread.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineKSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Quoting Jutes85 (Reply 15):
Also, I don't know how accurate the missle would be, hell it might even land in an low-populated area of the US, or worse, Canada.

This would be a serious disaster. If Canada was destroyed, not only would we lose 98% of the NHL, but we would also lose Tim Hortons, home of some of the best donuts on earth. Also, the world's maple syrup supply would be drastly limited, resulting in a massive spike in consumer prices and eventually all-out chaos. It is for this reason that I believe the United States and Canada should team up and develop a joint nuclear-defense missile system. The Americans could operate the machinery (in actuality within a few months the American jobs would be outsourced to New Delhi) while our Canadian friends worked on evacuating all known hockey players and fans to Cuba. They will be safer there and the weather is much, much better.


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3529 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 6):
China is the one. They are why we are continuing development of nuclear defense systems. Why else would we??

Actually, in the present time, China has a "no first launch" doctrine. That is, their official government policy is that China will never be the one to instigate a nuclear arms exchange.

However, they have been looking at changing it, from a technological and security point of view.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
When it was an age where, basically, it was the US v. USSR, the world was probably safer in one way, since both sides were relatively stable, and fairly predictable-with the only real exception being the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Yes, mutually assured destruction (MAD) was a pretty insurmountable wall/obstacle to climb for a real nuclear war. For those who aren't aware, MAD basically means that if one side instigates a nuclear attack, the other will respond in kind (based on the time frame it takes them to arm and launch their own nuclear tipped warheads) before the other countries missles are able to fall, thus ensuring each country unloads enough missles to totally wipe out the other country before the missles actually fall and destroy them. This was paramount during the Cold-War.

Wikipedia has a lot about MAD, and can be found here, and here.

enjoy your nuclear apocolypse-themed reading  spin 



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3387 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2129 times:

Quoting KSYR (Reply 17):
This would be a serious disaster. If Canada was destroyed, not only would we lose 98% of the NHL, but we would also lose Tim Hortons, home of some of the best donuts on earth. Also, the world's maple syrup supply would be drastly limited, resulting in a massive spike in consumer prices and eventually all-out chaos

It's terrible already $1.25 for a Medium Double-Double is extorsion I tell you  Wink



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 5):
Planning any trips to Baghdad soon?



Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 6):
What rock have you been living under?!?!

Casualties during WWI avereaged about 320,000 per month.

Casualties in WWII averaged about 640,000 per month.

Both those numbers are on the conservative side and could be up to 40 or 50% higher.

Get some perspective.


User currently offlineMaxQ2351 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 20):
Get some perspective.

Has the United States Congress declared war???

Didn't think so....

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Albert Einstein

War has not been declared Cfalk. However, I assure you, as Mr Einstein does, if we were ever to enter a World War 3, those monthly casualty rates would geometrically higher, no doubt including you and me.

THERE is your perspective.

-Max

[Edited 2006-06-18 11:17:36]

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2077 times:

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 21):
War has not been declared Cfalk. However, I assure you, as Mr Einstein does, if we were ever to enter a World War 3, those monthly casualty rates would geometrically higher, no doubt including you and me.

That's my whole point. For all the bitching about how violent the world is today, it's peanuts compared to a real war.


User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 2):
don't think they are going to be quite THAT stupid !

Probably not, but when they are collapsing, the leader will have nothing to lose, why not just hit 'us' with everything they've got ?

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
The risk of nuclear war is very small. In fact, the world is in peace right now...so what makes you think of nuclear war?

The fact that there are thousands of nuclear weapons, some in the wrong hands, that's quite a big contributor.

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
Everything is nice and rosey

Daily bombings and killings in Iraq ring any bells ?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
Sure, only war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Congo, Sudan, etc. Other than that it's fine.

And civil war about to break out in Sri Lanka again

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
The probability of a nuke striking the US is 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

That means there's still a chance, however slim.

Wrighbrothers



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2053 times:

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
The probability of a nuke striking the US is 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

The problem with your assessment is that the probability of something happening is a function of time. The probability of it happening in the next hour is probably around the number you quoted. The probability of it happening in the next year will be much smaller. Within 10 years, smaller still. If time becomes infinite, probability will become 1. In other words, it is certain that one day, someone will nuke the USA.


25 ANother : IMHO ALL of them are in the wrong hands. The world doesn't need these weapons, how about some serious effort to get rid of them all. I propose - that
26 Post contains images ManuCH : Never trust a statistics you didn't forge yourself (tm) -Manuel
27 Post contains links and images Wrighbrothers : http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/intern...news/20060618p2g00m0in019000c.html Seems like the are going to test it then. Wrighty
28 MaxQ2351 : I don't really have the time right now to look it up for sure, but I heard somewhere that the USA holds approximately 2,000 more warheads than any ot
29 Lijnden : The thread of large scale (country vs country) nuclear war is small, even from nations like Iran. The threat of small scale nuclear attacks (smart bom
30 Wardialer : The US will NOT see or be hit by a nuke...I am 100 percent sure. Even the 9/11 attacks were setup by our own Government. Like I said, the world is pro
31 Post contains images JpetekYXMD80 : HAHAHAA AND YOU'RE DONE. Thats all you need to see here, folks. Are you really, reallly that stupid? HAHAHA! You gotta be shitting me. This has to be
32 Post contains images Wrighbrothers : That's a joke right, why would the government deliberatly kill thousands of their own civilians, ruin their airlines, therefore having to give them f
33 JpetekYXMD80 : Because!!....because... oh wait. I never really thought about that, but the youtube movie said so. The people that believe that shit tend to throw lo
34 Post contains images Wrighbrothers : Very true, always baffles me when people try convince me it was a cover up or a conspiracy or what ever. These are the same people that say the moon
35 Post contains images Mke717spotter : Hmmmm......Oh really then how come were still technically at war with them from the 1950's, because it was only a ceasefire and not an end to the Kor
36 TheSorcerer : I've heard nuclear ICBMs called peacekeepers, i think that's a good description, as long as they're not fired. China won't fire on america because the
37 Post contains images Boeing4ever : Am I the only one who sees a splash of sarcasm in Wardialer's postings? B4e-Forever New Frontiers
38 Post contains links and images MaxQ2351 : It's one of two remaining types of ICBM's in the United States inventory. The other is the MinuteMan III. As of present, the MMIII ICBM's are equiped
39 Mke717spotter : Hey maybe not exactly on topic - but how are US-Russian relations these days anyway?
40 SmithAir747 : Would those lines (the fiery reentry of the warheads) really be visible to witnesses on the ground in case of an ICBM attack? Would fiery trails be v
41 Post contains images Leezyjet : Even if they were, you wouldn't have time to tell anybody about them !!!. "Hey Hank, you see those"..............BOOM One of the most humbling images
42 MaxQ2351 : To be quite honest, I don't know. My knowledge about the subject comes from about one week of classes on the matter. I used to be a cadet in Civil Ai
43 Post contains images Leezyjet : I didn't actually ask the question, but I'd imagine that there would be a possibility there would be visible trails if the were coming in through the
44 Post contains images Jutes85 :
45 Post contains images Greyhound : So that's what I've been doing the past 6 years.... and here those nice people with the stop-the-armageddon signs outside our base were thinking othe
46 Post contains links Jetjack74 : You're 100% sure? That's interesting. You're 100% that a communist-dictator/madman won't attack the country he hates? May I remind you that this is g
47 Kaitak : I'm ready a fascinating book at the moment about NK and its nukes, called "Nuclear Showdown" by Gordon Chang (it's an American book, so you should be
48 Post contains images Leezyjet : Jutes85, Yeah thats pretty much it. Pretty scary thought.
49 Wrighbrothers : Hello all: They still haven't launched it (at time of writing), which is good, however, some think that they will have to launch it within the next fe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Experts Warn Of Accidental U.S.-Russia Nuclear War posted Sat Oct 7 2006 22:27:41 by AerospaceFan
Students At Risk Of Contracting Hepatitis C posted Mon Nov 6 2006 14:44:07 by Dtwclipper
Nuclear War Starting In 10 Days? posted Fri Aug 11 2006 17:57:25 by Clickhappy
N. Korea Threatens U.S. With 'nuclear War' posted Mon Jul 3 2006 20:52:32 by MaverickM11
Humour In A Time Of Nuclear Crisis... posted Tue May 2 2006 13:38:41 by Windshear
Bunch Of Nuclear Questions... posted Tue Dec 20 2005 21:01:16 by Lehpron
Risk Of Natural Disaster Where You Live? posted Tue Oct 25 2005 16:04:31 by HAJFlyer
CNN "Overestimates" Number Of Anti-War Protestors posted Fri Jun 4 2004 22:51:14 by B757300
Eating Pizza May Lower Risk Of Cancer posted Mon Jul 21 2003 14:31:05 by Airways1
Masturbating May Lower Risk Of Prostate Cancer posted Thu Jul 17 2003 01:55:30 by Jhooper