Taepodong-2 missile was aimed at Hawaii?

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by brandons1313, Jul 7, 2006.

  1. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant
    Orderite

    Jan 29, 2004
    We've been living under the nuclear range of the most belligerent nation of the second half of the 20th century for decades now - so don't go schooling us about 'nuclear threats'. You can call us Eurotrash, decadent, or whatever you want - but we've been in the middle of every dick-measuring contest the US has ever had; so don't expect anyone in Europe to feel an inch of sympathy when the US is muscling some backwater country because, omg, they might nuke Alaska.
     
  2. Elissar

    Elissar Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Orderite

    Aug 31, 2003
    Hawaii... Hawaii jeebs... seriously, after being stationed in alaska 3 and a half years, i can confidentally say, no one in the world cares about that frozen hellhole... unless the salmon are running, or bear's in season... Or Caribu, or moose... or Dall Sheep.
     
  3. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    Calling any nation the most belligerent is pulling hairs, particularly when the nuclear game kept the Russians from being anything but belligerent in regards to Europe. Unless you're being ironic and referring to the US, which I guess I could buy.

    The real threat isn't the nuclear one, though. It's the political. Conventional force has always been an option when dealing with North Korea, but what if they're capable of delivering a nuclear payload on American soil? Could we stop them if Kim up and invaded South Korea? Is an entire foreign nation worth a city?

    These are the kind of threats that a nuclear North Korea presents when it's capable of striking the US. I mean, if we aren't willing to intervene who's going to stop them? The South Koreans? They have a nifty military, sure, but it pales in comparison to the size of Kim's.

    You guys say who cares, but really, why shouldn't we?
     
  4. Roshambo

    Roshambo Antediluvian as Feck

    Apr 3, 2003
    Back to the actual missile, can't Kim hire/enslave someone to check his Engrish? Who can really take a missile that fizzles out at not even 1/20 of the way to its target when its name infers Keyboard Molestation? Part II?

    Back to the most comedic part... I laughed when they said it *might* hit land if the missile is aimed towards Alaska. Alaska's pretty damn big, and even the Russkies back in the 80's could have easily done better and with easily 100x the yield/armament. I grew up in Alaska during the Cold War. Compared to that, this is a laugh.
     
  5. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    If foreign newspapers say you might hit a landmass bigger than most countries, one would think twice before trying again.

    If we're lucky they'll hit Rushmore and give Teddy an interesting headpiece.
     
  6. Roshambo

    Roshambo Antediluvian as Feck

    Apr 3, 2003
    "We armoss hit some ting! Forty degree to reft! What you mean we destroy Nagasaki? Reft, you asshole, reft!" :D

    Word. Video. Priceless.
     
  7. Nonagon

    Nonagon Still Mildly Glowing

    220
    Jul 8, 2006
    World War III?

    Yeah I saw on the news the other day that Korea was doing some nuclear tests... what if Bush did something stupid(like always) and started WW3? If we invade Iraq and Korea, it could stir up some serious trouble. Korea seems to be building a lot of Nuclear bombs. We already started a war with them and retreated because just like Vietnam, the first desert storm, and the current war we never had a solid enemy, we're not fighting a COUNTRY it's a terrorist organization which has caused a lot of accidental killings in the war. Hell, we might not have to worry about it if Korea gets enough missles over here.

    BTW... I just joined these forums recently because I found it searching for Fallout related stuff,(used to be obsessed by the game and re-playing it has brought me back into it).
     
  8. DirtyDreamDesigner

    DirtyDreamDesigner Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Moderator

    Apr 15, 2005
    There is already a topic on the missile tests. Merged.
     
  9. Nonagon

    Nonagon Still Mildly Glowing

    220
    Jul 8, 2006
    K Thanks, just forget about my post then.
     
  10. Pajari

    Pajari Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    314
    Jun 7, 2005
    ...and up until twenty years or so ago, that "belligerent power" was using a massive chunk of its defense forces to protect "Eurotrash" from the Soviet Union, not to mention the fact that its belligerence was hardly indiscriminate, and was aimed squarely at the Soviet Union and its sattelites. And I guess it's Europe's perogative to extend "no sympathy" to the countries under the threat of a crazy bastard sitting on nukes and missiles, but I don't really see what the point is.
     
  11. Roshambo

    Roshambo Antediluvian as Feck

    Apr 3, 2003
    Bullshit. The US has done far enough to fuck up many countries without care, even aided in the production of heroin in Afghanistan in order to fund those they wanted to, without care what it did to the region or that Europe was the main target for the heroin supply. Said supported folks later turned into the Taliban.

    It is also funny that it's claimed that the US used the defense forces to protect the Euros...when it was a lot of what the US was doing that created a need for that build-up, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HOST COUNTRY'S WELFARE.

    Want me to cite Nam, the fuckery the US did in Cambodia, Laos, and other Asian regions, or should we look into what was done elsewhere?

    Really, if you want to look up who wins at shit tricks, the US wins, but they were excused because the US was deemed the good guys, and they were excused under "a necessary but regrettable action".

    Now, the US is simply fuckheaded belligerent, with an oil baron king that can't give a fuck about anybody but himself and his pride. So if the US is only going to care about the US, the US can go play "Hide-and-Go-Fuck-Yourself" to those whom are tired of the US acting like however it wants without regards to everyone, and who often has to pay for the US' selfishness and short-sightedness.

    The US is NOT the same US as it was during the Cold War, and especially not what it was during WWII. The US, thanks to the mildly-retarded President, has lost the honorable and favored image it once had, taking the US back about a century in terms of global relations.

    Funny, since most of the "Eurotrash" had been living under the threat of nukes from the Soviet Union for being allied with the US, they know exactly what it's like and don't care that the belligerent US has its turn to feel the same thing. Except that the mainlander US citizens are shitting a brick because some tinpot king is testing missiles that don't even make it out of the back yard. Alaska has been under nuclear threat, much like...ALL of Europe, for many decades. Yawn.
     
  12. calculon000

    calculon000 Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 10, 2004
    Rosh, can I have your manbabies?

    I've said it (once) before and I'll say it again:

    The USA is the only country who actually nuked someone. They have NO right to tell anyone what they can or can't do with nukes.
     
  13. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    The US has no real right to tell anyone to do what they can or can't with nukes than anybody else. The only people with a legitimacy to nuclear programs are the people that instigate those programs in the first place.

    Your reasoning is highly suspect, though. Saying that the US has no right to tell anybody what to do on nukes because we dropped the bomb on Japan is pretty childish. It's akin to a teenager complaining about being "forbidden" to have sex by their parents because OMG YOU HAD SEX WHEN YOU WERE MY AGE THIS IS SOOOOO UNFAIR!

    Also, America has never been outside the spectre of nuclear annihilation. We and the Russians still have our remaining ICBMs pointed at each other, as well as some other targets of opportunity, I'm sure. Don't tell anybody that, though. It is big secret.
     
  14. brandons1313

    brandons1313 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    190
    Oct 18, 2004
    Come on people now
    Smile on your brother
    Everybody get together
    Try to love one another
    Right now

    Come on people. This isn't about USA vs Europe. It is about some psychopath in Asia who has, or is in the pursuit of, Nukes. Plus he is testing long range missiles that could potentially reach US states. We are just going to have to wait see if he tests more Taopodong 2 missiles in the next few weeks.
     
  15. Kan-Kerai

    Kan-Kerai Still Mildly Glowing

    253
    Sep 16, 2005
    I'm getting really fucking tired of the ridiculous hysteria over the tests of Kim's piece of shit missiles. I love how "missile which could potentially reach the western edge of Alaska" becomes "missile which can reach Alaska", which subsquently becomes "missile which can reach most states in America", which finally becomes "missile which can reach all of America and is tipped with Kim's gloriously powerful nuclear warhead of shiningly wonderful greatness!". God, it's not like the damn thing is even accurate. NK has no idea how to make proper guidance systems, as evidenced by their "upgraded" Scuds which still use the shitty, ridiculously outdated Soviet-style gyroscopic Inertial guidance systems which result in not being able to hit anything accurately beyond three feet. And they're using the same damn system in the Taepodong!

    Fucking ridiculous, the way the American media has been reacting to this- it's no wonder Europeans are laughing at us. It's going to be decades (The PRC isn't about to help them this time, since this puts them under threat as well) before NK can fix the guidance and construction problems with the Taepodong, or develop even a mildly effective warhead which is small enough to fit on it. At maximum range, the capacity of the Taepodong 2 is TEN TIMES LIGHTER than NK's current warheads. Oh nooooo!! We have to save the ten people living on the Aleutians from the less-than-Scud-sized payloads coming their way once NK figures out how to develop their own (or steal a) guidance system, instead of using sixty year outdated WW2-vintage!

    Shouldn't we be worried that the TP-2's range and capacity puts Japan potentially in range of a 25KT warhead RIGHT NOW? But no, a tiny sliver of America where barely anyone lives which could potentially be hit with a +-10KT warhead in a few decades is more fucking important. Of course, it's not like NK could even hit what they're pointing at with the thing. They'd aim at Tokyo and hit the middle of the Sea of Japan... oh wait, maybe that's what they did! That one doesn't count, the totally for-real test is coming up soon, guys!

    Oh, and the pointing at Hawaii crap is just a piece of scare-tactic bullshit most likely fomented by America's government. Hawaii's a tiny strip of islands, which provided if the TP-2 even had the range to hit (and somehow made it the whole way), would be perfectly safe as there's a 99.9999999% chance (with a 0.0000001% margin of error) that the shitty guidance system would send it careening into the Pacific. At least Alaska's a big enough target that the missile might manage to hit SOMETHING. Probably a rock which would result in a rain of Kim's Glorious Pebbles of Death on Anchorage. Duck and Cover!
     
  16. Ratty Sr.

    Ratty Sr. Formerly known as Ratty Moderator Orderite

    Apr 23, 2003


    Great post, Kan-Kerai.
     
  17. SuAside

    SuAside Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Admin

    May 27, 2004
    was afk a while, so couldn't reply & wanted to do a further followup on the thread now, but looks like Kan-Kerai & Rosh kinda did all the work for me.

    gj guys.
     
  18. welsh

    welsh This ghoul has seen it all

    Apr 5, 2003
    Honestly, I don't care if the Korean missile can't hit crap.

    I do care that the Koreans do have nuclear weapons.

    If the North Koreans were to launch they could hit a target in Alaska or Europe, fine. Future generations of missiles will be more accurate. You may doubt that, but then people were saying tha the North Koreans were going to build the bomb, then short-range missiles, than long range missiles.

    And while Europe might not be taking the US concerns about North Korean missile seriously, fuck them. Europe had its own missiles and atomic weapons during the Cold War so it also had the ability to deter aggression. That the Europeans would prefer not to worry about what happens in Asia is fine. It's not there sphere of influence and if Europe would prefer to hide its head in the sand because it lacks the capacity for imperial ambitions, fine.

    And I also agree that W is a prick and has really fucked up the North Korean situation. The problem has been reliance on China and Russia as mediating partners.

    But while China and Russia are trading partners they are also political rivals. Counting on them to solve your problems is just foolish.

    So fuck North Korea. They want to develop nuclear armed missiles, let's just say that's provocation. We can argue that the Korean War never really ended- there was no real peace treaty. Sooner or later the North Koreans are going to provoke something or do something stupid- another assassination effort in Burma, the tunneling of commandos into South Korea.

    Nuke them now and get it over with. You can threaten to nuke them now and then follow it up. Send a message- do not play a nuclear game unless you are willing to pay the price. Let the North Koreans and everyone else remember that this is a serious and bloody business.

    And yeah, so what the US nuked Japan. They deserved it. I think the US should have dropped every bomb they had until the Japanese surrendered. I feel no guilt for that at all.

    Are the Russians going to risk nuclear oblivion for North Korea? Are the Chinese? Probably not. Those regimes have too much self-interest. Counting on them for partnership and support is just a waste of time, and looking for support from the Europeans is not going to help.

    Don't play to European sense of moral ethics. The Europeans have their own national interests. They are not the ones at risk, the US is. The Europeans want to hide their head in the sand and play the morally superior game, fine. Let the North Koreans know that they are due to feel the hot end of a nuclear exchange.

    To win at nuclear diplomacy, one must be willing to go all the way or at least convince your opponent that you will.

    Kim's a whacko, the regime is corrupt, the people suffer famine for his ambitions and now the guys is developing a posture to launch attacks outside his region. He's a drama whore. Time to slap him down and shut him up, once and for all.
     
  19. SuAside

    SuAside Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Admin

    May 27, 2004
    Wrong, Welsh.

    we do take NK very seriously. what we do not take seriously is the moronicly propagandic way this event is turned into a PR event for Bush, the american way & in the end for NK.

    Bush gets more support, the american ways needs to be defended & due to the fear you are spreading throughout your media, the NK gets an ego boost (which is pretty much what they're always gunning for lately).

    now, if the US really was serious about the NK, please tell me why NK refugees are turned away from UN & US refugee programs? when contacting the UN, they are told to ask the US for approval and when contacting the US, they are told they need the UN's approval. now thats a bit fucked up, isn't it?

    only the big countries (UK, France) & those nukes only threathened small amounts of relevant targets back then.

    it's doubtful genocidal leaders like Stalin would worry about the damage of France's nukes at the time if he were to push for the European mainland.

    arguably, in this day & age of gung-ho cowboy national leaders, that could also be called self-preservation or self-defense.

    thats also why i admire Iran in a way.

    there is no monetary incentive to do so, Welsh.

    Afghanistan was a past mistake rectified (both islam terro / drug prob) as well as oil/gas productor.
    Iraq was another past mistake rectified (first funding saddam / not taking out saddam when you were at his door in the gulf wars) as well as huge oil/gas productor.

    both efforts were worthwhile for a certain amount of specific people.

    NK is another past mistake, although it's different from the others. NK also has nothing resourcewise. there is no incentive.

    call it what you will. it might not be the best thing to do, but at least it's not feeding the masses moronic propaganda.

    is - not - going - to - happen

    but also think about what you're suggesting, Welsh.

    you're about to nuke a country for having a certain type of weapon & for having a different form of governement.

    that is a dangerous premise... where do you draw the line after that?
     
  20. Roshambo

    Roshambo Antediluvian as Feck

    Apr 3, 2003
    Not if they are using SCUD technology, which is really laughable in expecting the guidance to go past 1Kkm. Old Russian surplus is ALL KIM CAN REALLY AFFORD.

    Euro armaments, compared to Soviet Union, were pathetic in number and as I pointed out before, only served to have the other side aim more nukes at the country. Deter aggression, my ass. Most of those sites were on a procedural system to launch if the US did, and really not much else in stand-alone orders.

    That, and the Euros are already living with the effects and other bullshit the US has recently caused/stirred up, again, like Afghanistan in the 80's. There's a huge pond between the US and the other side of the world and somehow that seems to fuck up with the US' perception, or the US simply doesn't care because "it's all happening on the other side of the pond".

    Understatement of the year. :D

    Ah, just like the US' manufacture of weapons are "provocation" as well? Funny how the US seems to think they're the only ones who should have anything.

    THAT would be provocation. Development of weapons, aside from those specifically banned, is not provocation. And if banned weapons are the problem, there's routes for that.

    Amusing that people have this idea when there isn't a few hundred nukes pointed back. Kim is trying to overextend the range of a SCUD guidance system by over 6x times to *just* make it to Hawaii, and Hawaii is a few thousand kilometers from the US, and so that justifies severe NK civilian casualties.

    How about this? For those that don't want to cross legally, pay taxes, do their fair part of living in this country, and for the source government's actions in aiding these illegals in crossing to invade the US, we should simply nuke Mexico? Hey, they deserved it, as the actions of a few in power turned the civilians meaningless, and you just fell into the trap Hitler was trying to get the Allies to play regularly - reciprocal actions that would kill many innocents. In some cases, the US did, and it wasn't just because of Germany that the Geneva Conventions were expanded upon. Then, when the reciprocal actions are taken and kill loved ones, that breeds up a whole new generation anti-US, and it's just like the new generation of Taliban from Afghanistan, who grew up in the US-sponsored parking lots, and you've now just bred some fanatics bent on destroying you no matter what.

    And your shitty handling of the situation just bred a likely cause of why your boy comes home in a box when the next inbred cowboy of a President decides to wage a war for war profiteers on the excuse of those fanatics. Versus...doing the job right, like in certain parts of WWII, that make the US look noble for coming to the aid of those the aggressors were attacking. Now the US are the aggressors, and not surprisingly Kim would be a little nervous and try to form up some deterrance, no matter how laughable it is, or he knows that if there was a financial excuse, W would be all over NK.

    Plus, there's a reason why we can't easily nuke NK. The fallout wouldn't be that kind to Japan or China.

    Yet if the US goes back to that whole "killing of innocents" thing, who is the worst country in the world's eyes? A selfish tinpot king that looks out for his interests at the expense of his country's welfare, and who is mildly antagonistic at best in the scope of the world right now, and who *might* someday get the ability to use nukes and *might* someday get a missile to travel halfway around the world on antiquidated Soviet technology - careful, if aimed towards a large land mass, it could actually hit land!; or an oil baron who decides to attack countries at whim and without regard to any form of protocol, has already re-fucked Aghanistan into another generation of fanatics ready to stir this shit up again in about decade or two, fucked up Iraq, ALREADY sends missiles into uninvolved countries as FAILED assassination attempts without any form of diplomacy while killing innocents, who wages a war that gets many of his own countrymen killed over numerous lies for the sake of personal profit for his VP and cabinet, and who already has nukes.

    The US wouldn't have a shred of the "good-guy" image left anymore.

    I really don't see why the Euros should have to deal with any more short-sightedness and selfishness of the US. So really, why the hell should Europe care when the US makes a mess and has to deal with it? The selfishness is extremely evident when it seems the Euros are EXPECTED to care and follow along with the US in its selfish desires, no matter what it means to their home country. Again, this is an issue that has been going on since the Cold War, has never improved, and in fact has gotten far worse under Dubya.

    In fact, the US STILL owes Europe aid for dealing with the long-term effects of the operations in the 80s (but never will), and Afghanistan is still a mess.

    So really, why should normal people come to the aid of a really stupid kid that keeps whacking on a bee hive with a stick?

    Well, it's great that innocents mean something to you. And here you were getting upset at my idea of using those illegally invading the US as target practice, who are by nature not just committing a crime, but are invading a country en masse.

    Funny how the scope of consideration changes when it's about something you care for, hm? Now put yourself in the shoes of the Euros. They've had to deal with the US' shit for decades, and that was with the US being kind and friendly to them, if the US couldn't bother to be wholly supportive in turn. Now the US is acting like a spoiled child, and for once the Euros can sit back and take a breather, as the US hasn't ever really given a fuck about the IRA or anything else the Euros had to deal with - unless it involved US interests.

    So what else do you expect?

    And nuke those poor hungry people so you don't have to worry about sending them a token crate or two of Pop-Tarts and Twinkies, as if being malnourished while eating junk food is supposed to help them like the people in Afghanistan.

    Nukeular (using the Dubya spelling) weapons have only one clear target. Civilians.