By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - North Korea makes one of the dumbest decisions in history- Decides to Nuke America

Looks like we need a sequel to Team America.



Around the Network

The only thing they would get out of that is their own death and a world war



KeptoKnight said:
What makes you people think that North Korea does not have the capacity for a nuclear strike against the mainland of the United States?

They haven't developed a nuke capable of fitting on a rocket (all their nukes that they have made so far are probably big bulky nukes that look similar to the first nukes ever made).

Their rockets just plain suck.  I believe most of their rocket tests have ended in failure.



crissindahouse said:

crazy that some people are like "haha if they nuke us or fight against us and we would nuke or invade them they wouldn't be there anymore'

do people realize that just because one country would win the probably very short war, there are still only two losers then? america wouldn't win anything, they would just lose less and would probably have the same if not more dead in their country if a nuke would really hit los angeles or something which won't be really the case but even if it's a short war with a few thousand dead american soldiers you already lost. the nuke on los angeles is just a theoretical example.


The thing is if they shoot a nuke we should be able to intercept it while it is over the ocean.  They dont have the technology to intercept something that we shoot




       

JayWood2010 said:
crissindahouse said:

crazy that some people are like "haha if they nuke us or fight against us and we would nuke or invade them they wouldn't be there anymore'

do people realize that just because one country would win the probably very short war, there are still only two losers then? america wouldn't win anything, they would just lose less and would probably have the same if not more dead in their country if a nuke would really hit los angeles or something which won't be really the case but even if it's a short war with a few thousand dead american soldiers you already lost. the nuke on los angeles is just a theoretical example.


The thing is if they shoot a nuke we should be able to intercept it while it is over the ocean.  They dont have the technology to intercept something that we shoot


that's why i said in theory, since other people on the internet say that north korea would lose so badly if a nuke would hit the usa. but like i also said, even if you invade north korea and "only" lose some thousand soldiers we only have losers, one is just the bigger loser but the other country didn't win anything except the certainty that you won't lose even more people. with or without nukes involved in such a war.

sometimes people sound like "yeah we are so powerful they shall try and we give them what they deserve, who cares that this also much worse for us as if we have no war"



Around the Network
crissindahouse said:
JayWood2010 said:
crissindahouse said:

crazy that some people are like "haha if they nuke us or fight against us and we would nuke or invade them they wouldn't be there anymore'

do people realize that just because one country would win the probably very short war, there are still only two losers then? america wouldn't win anything, they would just lose less and would probably have the same if not more dead in their country if a nuke would really hit los angeles or something which won't be really the case but even if it's a short war with a few thousand dead american soldiers you already lost. the nuke on los angeles is just a theoretical example.


The thing is if they shoot a nuke we should be able to intercept it while it is over the ocean.  They dont have the technology to intercept something that we shoot


that's why i said in theory, since other people on the internet say that north korea would lose so badly if a nuke would hit the usa. but like i also said, even if you invade north korea and "only" lose some thousand soldiers we only have losers, one is just the bigger loser but the other country didn't win anything except the certainty that you won't lose even more people. with or without nukes involved in such a war.

sometimes people sound like "yeah we are so powerful they shall try and we give them what they deserve, who cares that this also much worse for us as if we have no war"

Hopefully it doesnt come down to an invasion or a bombing.  An invasion will result in a lot of deaths and we lost in the Korean War because of the landscape.  They even had underground tunnels built.  They aren't dumb at all and a bullet can kill anybody but if they try and nuke us then it will likely result in us bombing them.  I mean look at lybia.  I know people criticise obama but he has already shown that he wont hesitate to bomb a country.  We wouldn't nuke them but we would bomb them.  Not to kill all of them but more of a warning to cut the shit out.  The thing  about that is, it could anger China.  But at this moment I dont think China is supporting N.Korea on the matter.  America is just not allowed to make first move.

How it would likely happen.

N.Korea:  Nuke headed towards Western U.S.. Likely California

U.S.A. : Intercepts Nuke.  We also probably have eyes on them at this very moment.

U.S.A ;  Few small bombs and Air Support attacks

N.Korea:  Mad but it is over.  


They don't have a lot going for them in this case and America would be dumb to set foot in N.Korea




       

KeptoKnight said:
What makes you people think that North Korea does not have the capacity for a nuclear strike against the mainland of the United States?

No proven launches and not much point, ROK is their target and they might have means to nuke them.



Does North Korea realize what they're doing. After the embarrassment that was Iraq, the US is dying for a win. Like World War 2 where the whole country will rise up in support and america will be the heroes again.



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

JayWood2010 said:

The thing is if they shoot a nuke we should be able to intercept it while it is over the ocean.  They dont have the technology to intercept something that we shoot

Over national territory maybe simply due to not many missiles availble (like one?), but over Korea? With what? Aegis? No proven interceptions outside testing environment with known trajectory of single incoming missile not even equiped to engage missile defence. The only thing Aegis ever hit in battle is Iranian Airbus.



mai said:
JayWood2010 said:

The thing is if they shoot a nuke we should be able to intercept it while it is over the ocean.  They dont have the technology to intercept something that we shoot

Over national territory maybe simply due to not many missiles availble (like one?), but over Korea? With what? Aegis? No proven interceptions outside testing environment with known trajectory of single incoming missile not even equiped to engage missile defence. The only thing Aegis ever hit in battle is Iranian Airbus.

So it goes both ways. nothing proven for both.