• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

NK tested the weapon

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sc4freak

Guest
Oct 22, 2004
953
0
0
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: NFS4
So let me get this straight. We go knocking on Saddam's door claiming that he's building nukes (which he wasn't), NK had a free pass to make their own.

Interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.

We do not have the military capability to effectively attack North Korea without taking absolutely unacceptable losses.

Oh yeah? How many of these do you think we have???

Answer: 5,735 active, 9,960 total.

You don't think we can win that war?
I don't know about you, but I think that the absolute destruction of NK and the death of 10 million people counts as "unacceptable losses".
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: NFS4
So let me get this straight. We go knocking on Saddam's door claiming that he's building nukes (which he wasn't), NK had a free pass to make their own.

Interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.

We do not have the military capability to effectively attack North Korea without taking absolutely unacceptable losses.

There is NO need to invade NK. Them having nukes is the best case scenario to guarantee their demise. They are a rogue nation. They can't use their nukes without being WIPED off the map in less than 20 minutes. They can't give/sell nukes to other parties to use either because now that they have nukes they will simply be warned that any nuclear weapon used ANYWHERE will be assumed to have come from NK and they will be wiped off the map in 20 minutes. Ignore them and they simply die a slow death they have brought upon themselves.

Seriously, i wonder what the hell NK is even thinking.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Go here and dial up about a 3KT blast on your favorite city. As you will see the effects would be minimal, this is not the city destroying nuke from the movies.

EDIT @ preslove 1 kiloton = 2,000,000 pound of TNT...


i see what you're saying about 3Kton....but it's NOT that easy.

Maybe someone of you guys remember when chernobyl exploded 20 years ago..the fallout was literally spread all over EU for weeks/months w/ the rain/wind...... and chernobyl/ukraine was FAAAAR away.

And this only from a faulty reactor and not a bomb.

It looks all nice and good on a map...3kton "does not do much damage"....in reality, even if a small bomb would explode in a city it would have far more consequences than wiping out stuff in the inner blast-circle.

It would still render a whole city useless, certainly evacuating most of them and surrounding areas.....danger even in other states, depending where the weather would carry the fallout...




 

AnthroAndStargate

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2005
1,350
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and well, just more proof organizations like the un have no balls. the euros like to talk about the wonders of diplomacy while sh*ts like kim jong just laugh in their face

You make no sense. The UN has no balls because it has no mandate. They cant send in troops with out the US and the US will never blue helemt actual tangible numbers of troops - becuase Americans bitch, and the South American blue helmets are tired of being the soul military force of the UN.

Dont say stupid things abotu the international system failing when it starts at home.
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Go here and dial up about a 3KT blast on your favorite city. As you will see the effects would be minimal, this is not the city destroying nuke from the movies.

EDIT @ preslove 1 kiloton = 2,000,000 pound of TNT...


i see what you're saying about 3Kton....but it's NOT that easy.

Maybe someone of you guys remember when chernobyl exploded 20 years ago..the fallout was literally spread all over EU for weeks/months w/ the rain/wind...... and chernobyl/ukraine was FAAAAR away.

And this only from a faulty reactor and not a bomb.

It looks all nice and good on a map...3kton "does not do much damage"....in reality, even if a small bomb would explode in a city it would have far more consequences than wiping out stuff in the inner blast-circle.

It would still render a whole city useless, certainly evacuating most of them and surrounding areas.....danger even in other states, depending where the weather would carry the fallout...

NK doesn't have much for delivery systems either

 

AaronB

Golden Member
Dec 25, 2002
1,214
0
0
Originally posted by: OS

NK doesn't have much for delivery systems either


If that crazy little bastard in North Korea wanted to do some damage to the US, I doubt he would have to look far to find a group willing to hand deliver a bomb to one of our major cities.

Being dropped out of a plane or launched from a silo aren't the only ways to get these things to their destination.
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Originally posted by: Evadman
So the hands on the doomsday clock move to what, 10 seconds to midnight?


Half past dubya's arse - quarter to his bombs. :laugh:

lol, nice one.


In all honesty, I await to see what time they move it to. At present, we're at "seven minutes 'till midnight." I predict we'll be 5minutes 'till midnight.
Nah, that's too conservative. I think we'll go 4 minutes, 3 if Iran gets something before the next update.
Considering when kennedy v. russia was going on, we were at 2mins, I think 4 is a little too liberal. I'd say 5 minutes seems apt. I also don't believe that Iran is actually developing "the bomb."
 

Alex

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 1999
6,995
0
0
oh man living in brazil is looking pretty damn comfy right about now!