The north korea thread

[tracy_t 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ 26 April 2003,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We know what go's on

in NK U.S. and SK Spec ops go in and out of NK like its a walmart.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh really? Where did you get that information? CNN - that "trusted" bastion of news? Or Fox News - that objective paragon of prose

I don't believe one cent of it.

Sending spec ops into a country on a knife-edge, one that appears to WANT war, wouldn't be the most clever plan.

You don't want to aggravate North Korea, that's for sure, not when it has a real nuclear capability and a madman for president.

I believe there will be a war between the US and North Korea, for sure, but the US cannot win unless the American public is prepared to take incredible casualties (e.g: the 37,000 US soldiers in South Korea).

A war in North Korea would have to be fought on the ground.

Cruise missiles, JDAMs and C130 spectres won't work too well against soldiers hiding in dense vegetation, using tunnel networks.

The main factor is that North Korea's army is prepared for war, as is the civilian population who apparently hate the Americans with a passion. Can you say that about the American public - are they so passionate about destroying NK?

Don't get me wrong, North Korea needs to be brought to heel, but I believe the US will need help from the UN this time.

(Closer to home: I just hope Britain doesn't get involved in any war - it's bad enough fighting in mountainous terrain, but more of our boys getting cut to pieces by "friendly" fire?    )

[Schoeler 0]

Any fight in North Korea will most likely be a U.N. action in which Great Britain will be involved. The U.N. is still at war with North Korea, no armistice was ever signed. I think the American people would be more than willing to accept casualties to prevent a nuclear North Korea. Its better than having Seattle or L.A. disappear in a blinding white fireball 4-5 years from now.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

There is absolutely no way that the US would start a war on the Korean Peninsula. Look for a coup in the White House before this happens. It simply won't happen. That doesn't mean we wouldn't fight if NK invades- in fact, I'm sure TBA is just waiting and hoping for Kim Jong-Il to give the order.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 28 April 2003,19:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its better than having Seattle or L.A. disappear in a blinding white fireball 4-5 years from now.<span id='postcolor'>

don't worry. I'll excercise my second amendment.

on serious note, if NK actually attacks US, then they can kiss their existence good bye. I won't be surprised if world will show same, if not harsher stance, in dealing a severe punishment such as nuking the peninsula thoroughly. I don't think China would dare to stop US from attacking NK if that happens.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is absolutely no way that the US would start a war on the Korean Peninsula. Look for a coup in the White House before this happens<span id='postcolor'>

since the war in iraq is over, Bush is trying to make sure he doesn't end up in father's path, and is trying to vitalize economy. so another war would not be a good choice. the last one was planned for about a year.

but if NK starts to use it's brinksmanship to extremety, then who knows.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 29 April 2003,03:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 28 April 2003,191)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its better than having Seattle or L.A. disappear in a blinding white fireball 4-5 years from now.<span id='postcolor'>

don't worry. I'll excercise my second amendment. <span id='postcolor'>

I know the second amendment gives you the right to own firearms, but your own ABM system? I think thats pushing it a bit far!

As for the past few coments, I agree, I doubt America will want to start a war in North Korea, because there is a chance that it would not be a walkover. Big costly wars lose public faith and lots of money.

[tracy_t 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 28 April 2003,19:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">on serious note, if NK actually attacks US, then they can kiss their existence good bye. I won't be surprised if world will show same, if not harsher stance, in dealing a severe punishment such as nuking the peninsula thoroughly. I don't think China would dare to stop US from attacking NK if that happens.<span id='postcolor'>

But surely if NK attacks the US, then the US can kiss its existence goodbye as well? Both parties have atomic weapons and I doubt NK has anything to lose.

Also, I don't understand why you think China would want to save North Korea? How did they come into this discussion? Have they sided with NK? I haven't heard any such talk.

I realise China was involved in the last Korean war but that was 50 years ago.

China must feel threatened by Kim Jung Il, surely.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 29 April 2003,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But surely if NK attacks the US, then the US can kiss its existence goodbye as well? Both parties have atomic weapons and I doubt NK has anything to lose.<span id='postcolor'>

NK supposedly has 2 nukes. That's not enough to wipe out the continental US, is it? Also, there are defensive weapons (ABs? ) to knock them out before they hit.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 29 April 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, there are defensive weapons (ABs? ) to knock them out before they hit.<span id='postcolor'>

No, none operational. It's still in development and is expected to have the first operational units between 2020-2025. Not anytime soon that is.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 29 April 2003,20:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 29 April 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, there are defensive weapons (ABs? ) to knock them out before they hit.<span id='postcolor'>

No, none operational. It's still in development and is expected to have the first operational units between 2020-2025. Not anytime soon that is.<span id='postcolor'>

I bet Bruce Willis could stop 'em!

[Schoeler 0]

Currently the North Koreans don't hace an ICBM platform to place those two nukes on that can hit the U.S. Their best missile would dump the warheads into the central pacific, but they can hit Japan quite easily. In 3-5 years they will have a true ICBM though. I think if they try to market either technology (ICBM or warhead) as they are threatening to do, then its on. The U.N. can't tolerate a big fuck you in the non-proliferation arena. Everybody becomes threatened then.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 29 April 2003,19:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Currently the North Koreans don't hace an ICBM platform to place those two nukes on that can hit the U.S.  Their best missile would dump the warheads into the central pacific, but they can hit Japan quite easily.  In 3-5 years they will have a true ICBM though.  I think if they try to market either technology (ICBM or warhead) as they are threatening to do, then its on.  The U.N. can't tolerate a big fuck you in the non-proliferation arena.<span id='postcolor'>

They do indeed have an platform ICBM that can reach the US west coast. They havn't deployed it yet though since they're still testing it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Everybody becomes threatened then.<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, they're not remotely close to having missiles that can reach Europe.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 29 April 2003,20:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 29 April 2003,19:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Currently the North Koreans don't hace an ICBM platform to place those two nukes on that can hit the U.S.  Their best missile would dump the warheads into the central pacific, but they can hit Japan quite easily.  In 3-5 years they will have a true ICBM though.  I think if they try to market either technology (ICBM or warhead) as they are threatening to do, then its on.  The U.N. can't tolerate a big fuck you in the non-proliferation arena.<span id='postcolor'>

They do indeed have an platform ICBM that can reach the US west coast. They havn't deployed it yet though since they're still testing it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Everybody becomes threatened then.<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, they're not remotely close to having missiles that can reach Europe. <span id='postcolor'>

How long would it be before they sell the technology either directly to or through an intermediary nation to a terrorist group though? Do you want Algerian terrorists setting of a tactical nuke in the Paris metro?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 29 April 2003,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But surely if NK attacks the US, then the US can kiss its existence goodbye as well? Both parties have atomic weapons and I doubt NK has anything to lose.

Also, I don't understand why you think China would want to save North Korea? How did they come into this discussion? Have they sided with NK? I haven't heard any such talk.

I realise China was involved in the last Korean war but that was 50 years ago.

China must feel threatened by Kim Jung Il, surely.<span id='postcolor'>

as many said, not enough to annihilate whole US. so US will make sure NK gets nuked.

China ans NK have mutual support treaty that states if NK is attacked, China will help to defend NK. that expired in 90s, but new treat, although lesser in strength of terms on paper, pretty much says the same thing.

for China, havin SK+US right next to their boarder is more threat than current NK since China will be influenced more in western styles and thought, which caused Tianamen square.

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 29 April 2003,20:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 29 April 2003,209)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 29 April 2003,19:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Currently the North Koreans don't hace an ICBM platform to place those two nukes on that can hit the U.S.  Their best missile would dump the warheads into the central pacific, but they can hit Japan quite easily.  In 3-5 years they will have a true ICBM though.  I think if they try to market either technology (ICBM or warhead) as they are threatening to do, then its on.  The U.N. can't tolerate a big fuck you in the non-proliferation arena.<span id='postcolor'>

They do indeed have an platform ICBM that can reach the US west coast. They havn't deployed it yet though since they're still testing it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Everybody becomes threatened then.<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, they're not remotely close to having missiles that can reach Europe. <span id='postcolor'>

How long would it be before they sell the technology either directly to or through an intermediary nation to a terrorist group though?  Do you want Algerian terrorists setting of a tactical nuke in the Paris metro?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure the French wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't mind.

[toadeater 0]

I hope Kim Jong Il nukes California. Hollywood needs a good kick in the ass. I also hope Kim Jong Il nukes Seattle because Microsoft is there. I'd say to nuke Texas too, but North Korean missiles can't reach that far supposedly.

I don't mind collateral damage, George W. Bush says collateral damage is ok if it's for a good cause.

[tracy_t 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 29 April 2003,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 29 April 2003,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But surely if NK attacks the US, then the US can kiss its existence goodbye as well? Both parties have atomic weapons and I doubt NK has anything to lose.

Also, I don't understand why you think China would want to save North Korea? How did they come into this discussion? Have they sided with NK? I haven't heard any such talk.

I realise China was involved in the last Korean war but that was 50 years ago.

China must feel threatened by Kim Jung Il, surely.<span id='postcolor'>

as many said, not enough to annihilate whole US. so US will make sure NK gets nuked.

China ans NK have mutual support treaty that states if NK is attacked, China will help to defend NK. that expired in 90s, but new treat, although lesser in strength of terms on paper, pretty much says the same thing.

for China, havin SK+US right next to their boarder is more threat than current NK since China will be influenced more in western styles and thought, which caused Tianamen square.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I expect the Americans would counterattack, I know that - they would be warned of a nuclear launch by Satellite - but that's not what I meant.

The US would not exist *after* the bombs landed. The people would be annihilated contrary to what you think. Those who weren't evaporated in the immediate blasts (note the plural) would be engulfed by the radioactive fallout.

Unlikely? Don't kid yourself.

Look at the Chernobyl disaster - a similar yield in comparison to an A-Bomb (apologies to my Russian friends for trivialising it) and we in the UK, hundreds of miles away, are still being contaminated years on. (Do you remember the stories about sheep eating contaminated grass? http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-34886.html )

It really pisses me off to see America invading a benign Iraq on the pretext of "WMDs" and finding nothing (so far), yet North Korea is blatantly flouting their Atomic wares, threatening all and sundry, with the US sitting on their hands doing squat. And someone's already said NK has no oil

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"It really pisses me off to see America invading a benign Iraq on the pretext of "WMDs" and finding nothing (so far), yet North Korea is blatantly flouting their Atomic wares, threatening all and sundry, with the US sitting on their hands doing squat"

dont you think the two might be related?

(G.W.B.- Lets see, 1. invade a state that can potentially nuke the western areas of our country and decimate our SK allies

or 2. invade a country our intel says has no nuke capability *yet* and severely limited mass destruction capability....hmmmm)

Obviously might is right and those who foes can strike america where it hurts get given the kidglove treatment from TBA (ie not being invaded) whereas as those weaker states who cannot get to meet Mr.Macknuckle duster.

I dont accept the oil as casus belli argument. Its quite probably a very important secondary consideration though.

[tracy_t 0]

Yes, I see what you mean, but then by your logic that means Bush & Blair knew Saddam had no WMD, otherwise they wouldn't have invaded Iraq, right?

Or were they willing to trade, say, the existence of Kuwait and Turkey, for removal of Saddam?

Just thinking aloud.

Right. As they say in Germany, alle ist klar!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I think they knew or had believable intelligence that Iraq did not have NBC substances in weaponised form (at least not in significant amounts) and that they did not have ready access to WMD platforms (ie methods of using NBC substances to real effect). I presume they believed Iraq had SOME chemical and or biological weapons or they wouldnt have foolishly placed such emphasis on it as a cause for war.

They took a fairly small risk that although Iraq probably had chemical and biological weapons they wouldnt be able to do significant damage with them (not surprising as theyde spent the last decade making sure).

I think the biggest WMD risk for the 'coaltion' was either a

relatively small attack or Israel (enough to provoke them) or

Iraqi agents releasing chemical or biological weapons in British or American cities.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 30 April 2003,13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 29 April 2003,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 29 April 2003,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But surely if NK attacks the US, then the US can kiss its existence goodbye as well? Both parties have atomic weapons and I doubt NK has anything to lose.

Also, I don't understand why you think China would want to save North Korea? How did they come into this discussion? Have they sided with NK? I haven't heard any such talk.

I realise China was involved in the last Korean war but that was 50 years ago.

China must feel threatened by Kim Jung Il, surely.<span id='postcolor'>

as many said, not enough to annihilate whole US. so US will make sure NK gets nuked.

China ans NK have mutual support treaty that states if NK is attacked, China will help to defend NK. that expired in 90s, but new treat, although lesser in strength of terms on paper, pretty much says the same thing.

for China, havin SK+US right next to their boarder is more threat than current NK since China will be influenced more in western styles and thought, which caused Tianamen square.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I expect the Americans would counterattack, I know that - they would be warned of a nuclear launch by Satellite - but that's not what I meant.

The US would not exist *after* the bombs landed. The people would be annihilated contrary to what you think. Those who weren't evaporated in the immediate blasts (note the plural) would be engulfed by the radioactive fallout.

Unlikely? Don't kid yourself.

Look at the Chernobyl disaster - a similar yield in comparison to an A-Bomb (apologies to my Russian friends for trivialising it) and we in the UK, hundreds of miles away, are still being contaminated years on. (Do you remember the stories about sheep eating contaminated grass? http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-34886.html )

It really pisses me off to see America invading a benign Iraq on the pretext of "WMDs" and finding nothing (so far), yet North Korea is blatantly flouting their Atomic wares, threatening all and sundry, with the US sitting on their hands doing squat. And someone's already said NK has no oil <span id='postcolor'>

Hardly!

According to your logic, all the nuclear testing done would have exterminated all life on the planet several times over.

Chernobal was not a nuclear detonation in the classic sense, and therefore did not have the same 'yeild'. The fact that the building is still standing is testament to that. In this case, the reactor exploded, but did not go critical. This drove the reactor through several floors of concrete, and the resulting destruction of the reactor, and the following fire, allowed radioactive dust to disperse.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US would not exist *after* the bombs landed. The people would be annihilated contrary to what you think.<span id='postcolor'>

The Russians would stand a good chance, as thery have a massive standing arsenal. N Korea? 2 bombs? Hardly. Worst case scenario, two cities are destroyed, fallout moves with prevailing winds. Severe disruption to agriculture in area. Mass decomtamination required to ensure civilian safety.

Fallout also depends on the bomb used. If you want to be a utter fucker, you can strap a cobalt jacket onto it. That will irradiate the city it falls on,and make it unlivable for the forseeable future.

Besides, look at Japan. They survived two A-Bombs, and the resulting radiation, although at a cost.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 30 April 2003,14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, I expect the Americans would counterattack, I know that - they would be warned of a nuclear launch by Satellite - but that's not what I meant.

The US would not exist *after* the bombs landed. The people would be annihilated contrary to what you think. Those who weren't evaporated in the immediate blasts (note the plural) would be engulfed by the radioactive fallout.<span id='postcolor'>

maybe i should remind the fact that NK does not have capability to even reach Alaska right now, and their accuracy is somewhere around me firing RPG in OFP . the whole continential US will not be affected, but rather west of Mississippi in worst case scenario.

[Schoeler 0]

North Korea doesn't have thermonuclear weapons from what I've been able to glean from the reports. They are in the first stages of nuclear development and have produced fission bombs, not hydrogen bombs. Fission bombs are limited in their punch to I think around 40 kilotons. Russia has hydrogen bombs with a yield in excess of 100 megatons. That's a huge difference. The Hiroshima bomb was around a 20 kiloton yield. 20 kt can put a serious dent in a modern day city, but wouldn't completely destroy it (though fallout could still get quite nasty).

I dealt with fallout patterns and zones of destruction with all types of nuclear weapons when I was in the Navy. Low yield bombs can hurt a city, but not really affect a region too drastically. A 20 megaton weapon on the other hand can kill a significant portion of the region surrounding a city depending upon prevailing winds, and the surface conditions where the bomb detonated, as well as bomb detonation height. A 100 mt weapon is a state or province killer.

People put an added mystique on nuclear weapons, but they are actually much like a very big conventional bomb. The chain reaction can irradiate the debris caused by vaporizing buildings and materials, but thats about the only difference.

[tracy_t 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ 30 April 2003,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 30 April 2003,13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 29 April 2003,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 29 April 2003,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But surely if NK attacks the US, then the US can kiss its existence goodbye as well? Both parties have atomic weapons and I doubt NK has anything to lose.

Also, I don't understand why you think China would want to save North Korea? How did they come into this discussion? Have they sided with NK? I haven't heard any such talk.

I realise China was involved in the last Korean war but that was 50 years ago.

China must feel threatened by Kim Jung Il, surely.<span id='postcolor'>

as many said, not enough to annihilate whole US. so US will make sure NK gets nuked.

China ans NK have mutual support treaty that states if NK is attacked, China will help to defend NK. that expired in 90s, but new treat, although lesser in strength of terms on paper, pretty much says the same thing.

for China, havin SK+US right next to their boarder is more threat than current NK since China will be influenced more in western styles and thought, which caused Tianamen square.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I expect the Americans would counterattack, I know that - they would be warned of a nuclear launch by Satellite - but that's not what I meant.

The US would not exist *after* the bombs landed. The people would be annihilated contrary to what you think. Those who weren't evaporated in the immediate blasts (note the plural) would be engulfed by the radioactive fallout.

Unlikely? Don't kid yourself.

Look at the Chernobyl disaster - a similar yield in comparison to an A-Bomb (apologies to my Russian friends for trivialising it) and we in the UK, hundreds of miles away, are still being contaminated years on. (Do you remember the stories about sheep eating contaminated grass? http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-34886.html )

It really pisses me off to see America invading a benign Iraq on the pretext of "WMDs" and finding nothing (so far), yet North Korea is blatantly flouting their Atomic wares, threatening all and sundry, with the US sitting on their hands doing squat. And someone's already said NK has no oil <span id='postcolor'>

Hardly!

According to your logic, all the nuclear testing done would have exterminated all life on the planet several times over.

Chernobal was not a nuclear detonation in the classic sense, and therefore did not have the same 'yeild'. The fact that the building is still standing is testament to that. In this case, the reactor exploded, but did not go critical. This drove the reactor through several floors of concrete, and the resulting destruction of the reactor, and the following fire, allowed radioactive dust to disperse.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US would not exist *after* the bombs landed. The people would be annihilated contrary to what you think.<span id='postcolor'>

The Russians would stand a good chance, as thery have a massive standing arsenal. N Korea? 2 bombs? Hardly. Worst case scenario, two cities are destroyed, fallout moves with prevailing winds. Severe disruption to agriculture in area. Mass decomtamination required to ensure civilian safety.

Fallout also depends on the bomb used. If you want to be a utter fucker, you can strap a cobalt jacket onto it. That will irradiate the city it falls on,and make it unlivable for the forseeable future.

Besides, look at Japan. They survived two A-Bombs, and the resulting radiation, although at  a cost.<span id='postcolor'>

Erm, Badgerboy,

How can you compare uncontrolled (Chernobyl) with controlled nuclear tests --> "According to your logic, all the nuclear testing ' done would have exterminated all life on the planet several times over."  

Did you not READ the contents of the hyperlink?

I mean, it did say that Chernobyl produced a yield 100 times more potent than Hiroshima ffs!! For God's sake man, do you really need to hear a bang before you understand the after-effects?

Also, where did you get the 2 bombs figure from? CNN? lol.

BTW: who was talking about the Russian arsenal? Why did that come into the conversation?

And tell me, how can the US "decontaminate" an area? If they could, how come the UK hasn't done it (see previous hyperlink.)

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 01 May 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, where did you get the 2 bombs figure from? CNN? lol.<span id='postcolor'>

it is estimated from various sources and CIA seems to agree that NK would have enough materials to produce 2 bombs.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 01 May 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, where did you get the 2 bombs figure from? CNN? lol. <span id='postcolor'>

Uh, that comes from what the North Koreans told us they have.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 01 May 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: who was talking about the Russian arsenal? Why did that come into the conversation? <span id='postcolor'>

Well, read the post.  It has to do with the level of destruction the NK's could wreak on the U.S.  Yes, they can fuck up a city or two, but they couldn't completely destroy them.  Their weapons are too low yield.  Fallout can be nasty, but not as bad as a nuke powerplant meltdown like Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island.  Nuclear meltdowns produce toxic steam, with a lot more rads than say a 20 kt airburst.  Bomb fallout comes from particles of vaporized buildings and the dirt thrown up by the explosion becoming irradiated.  The bigger the bang, the deadlier the fallout simply because there is more of it.  Now if the NK's strapped a cobalt or irridium jacket to the bomb just to be pricks, things could get really nast for Oh, say about 14,000 years.  BTW, most nuke decontamination can be washed off of surfaces.  Its when it enters the biosphere that you get purple cows and fish with three heads.