KLAMarine said:
Ruler said:
That doesnt give the US the right to use the GBU-43, a weapon of mass destruction against anyone.
|
Let's make an exception for ISIS, shall we? Their Paris attack alone killed 130 and injured 368. I must remind you in case you have forgotten that ISIS targeted Paris knowing full well it was a civilian target. My university mourned the death of one of its alumni after the attack as a matter of fact.
This GBU-43 killed 30-something ISIS fighters as far as is currently known and was dropped on a tunnel complex used by ISIS.
Ruler said:
When just some days ago the US accused Assad of using some of his allgeged chemical weapons of mass destruction, and is now accusing North Korea of wanting to test weapons of mass destruction. Thats pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
|
The GBU-43 is neither a chemical nor nuclear weapon.
Bravo on sticking up for ISIS by the way. I'm honestly impressed.
North Korea's pretty bad too.
|
Its not about killing ISIS member its about using a weapon that can be classified as a weapon of mass destruction, just some days after bombing the Syrian army for accusing them of using weapons of mass destruction. Its pretty irational and unecaptable just like people accuse North Korea to be, but we are talking about the US here.
There was no need to use this weapon in order to 90 ISIS members, the US has plenty of other weapons.
Netyaroze said:
Ruler said:
Thats why you used a Green Bomb in Aghanistan which has more TNT power than North Koreas Nukes without a reason whats so ever recentley, and now you accuse the North Koreans of being irrational?
|
Sorry but you are simply wrong. There is a huge gulf of difference between the biggest non nuclear weapon and the smallest nuclear weapon.
The MOAB had an explosive power of 11 tons of TNT
The smallest nuclear bomb ever dropped by the US little boy was a 13 kt bomb. Which is 13000 tons of TNT. aproximatly 1200 times stronger than the MOAB.
The smallest bomb that North Korea tested was about 1 kt which is 1000 tons of TNT still 100 times bigger than the MOAB.
The biggest bomb North Korea tested was between 20-30 Ktons. Which is 2-3 times the size of little boy. 20000-30000 tons 2000+ times stronger than MOAB.
If North Korea would drop this on Seoul (which they can because its easily in their range) it will kill Millions of people.
The MOAB is compared to nuclear weapons nothing. It does not even register. The sensationalist media blew the use of this bomb way out of proportion. ALso it took out zero civilians and 36 Isis Fighters and destroyed their tunnels. This bomb was dropped in an empty place where no civilians where just some isis fighters in tunnels. It was 100% the right decision to do it. Those fighters would have killed hundreds of innocents. And smuggled thousands of weapons.
It was 100% the correct decision to throw this bomb on this place. I am not a fan of Trump. But his generals made the right call in this instance.
Again a non nuclear bomb will never even approach the explosive power of a nuclear weapon.
For instance the biggest nuclear bomb which is the Zar Bomba is 57 Megatons. Its 57000000 Tons of TNT its aproximatly 5 million times stronger than the MOAB.
And in this case the US made the optimal decision with the least risk for others. Because otherwise US Soldiers would have to be sent into those tunnels.
|
Its still a weapon of mass destruction, would it be fine for the rest of the world if North Korea persues to devolope its own Thermobaric bomb?
UnderstatedCornHole said:
Ruler said:
You just did, and you used weapons of mass destruction
|
Leaving thread after this post.
When the OP lacks the intellect to understand basic innuendo but is capable of making sweeping accusations in an eleborate OP from a liberal rag it's time to call it a day.
What's your favourite colour? Do you like bananas or oranges more?
I like crayons wheeeeeee
|
| Wiki: A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the biosphere. The scope and usage of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Originally coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, since World War II it has come to refer to large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. |
Leadified said:
Ruler said:
There was no proof of chemical weapons being used by Assad. If the US wouldnt have invaded Iraq and wouldnt have sanctioned Syria and sponsored these protests in the first place, all of this wouldnt have happened. Russia did good things for the world vetoing everything the US wanted, just look what happened in Lybia its even worse now without Gadafi. Lybia used to be one of the richest countries in Africa and now its balkanized and completley in ruins, ISIS is also spreading there rapidley.
Its funny how North Korea tested Nukes for quite some time now but no one losed as much sleep at night as now, so yeah the Russian politician is absolutley right.
|
Assad agreed to hand over his chemical weapons for destruction after the chemical attack in Ghouta in 2013, do you think he would if he didn't have any? Or that there is no possibility that he used them? I'm not sure why you list examples of American intervention and assume Russia is any better. If Russia did not invade Manchuria, there would be no North Korea. If Russia did not invade Afghanistan, there would be no mujahideen. Putin has dragged Russia right into the middle of the Sunni-Shia conflict now too. Don't be fooled by the crocodile tears from these politicians.
I'm not sure what's you're talking about now, North Korea developing nukes has always been a big deal. Instead of developing into a modern state such as China or Vietnam, North Korea is busy sucking its population dry and using international aid to fund its imperial family. I don't know how anyone can defend it.
|
There are reports that the rebels are in possession of chemical weapons as well.
If Russia/USSR wouldnt have invaded Manchuria, WW2 would still be going on, So i dont get how you can blame the USSR if they freed China and the Korean peninsuela from Japanese Fascists/Imperialists.
The Mujahideen existed for centuries in Afghanistan, they were supported by the US and Saudi Arabia in the Soviet/Civil War in Afghanistan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
America and europe allready are involved in the Sunni-Shia conflcit and they obviously pick the Sunni side lead by Saudi Arabia, despite that every terrorist attack in the west were done by Sunni Muslims so far.
Its the US who isolated North Korea to the ground thanks to their embargos and sanctions, they are the most independent and isolated state on the planet now. Thats why they can afford to have a nuclear programm in the first place. Any other devoloping country would give up their nuclear weapons ounce other countries would stop trading with it like Iran had to.
The international aid stopped long time ago for North Korea, and North Korea allready can substain itself. The Nuclear weapon maybe would also benifit their economy as they wouldnt need to employ 2 million soldiers every day in order to defend themselfs against a potential invasion, like what the US did in Iraq. And they wouldnt want to have a Nuke if these US invasions in Iraq or Lybia wouldnt have happened.
