Forums / General

195,661 total conversations in 5,385 threads

+ New Thread


If a nuclear war were to happen this century, would we be ready?

Last posted Apr 12, 2013 at 12:33AM EDT. Added Mar 29, 2013 at 12:16PM EDT
57 conversations with 28 participants

We (the US) are fully capable of destroying North Korea, and they know it. They wouldn’t launch one at us because we would immediately deflect it and one of two things would happen:
a. We destroy them (BAD END)
b. Since we (the US) are not stupid enough to launch a nuke at anyone, let alone the nutjobs in Pyongyang, the DPRK would most likely lose all support from their allies, which at this point is Russia and China and no one else, and collapse.

The DPRK also wouldn’t launch missiles at South Korea, since they occupy the same landmass and would seek to obtain it should war between the two commence once again. Why would you poison land you want to farm on?

All in all, it’s never going to happen.

Mar 29, 2013 at 01:06PM EDT
Quote

So much as threatening to launch a nuclear weapon at anyone would instill paranoia and accusations would be soon to follow. The situation would then turn into the whole deterrence issue where neither side dare to attack over fear of being destroyed themselves. for example:

Country A threatens to nuke country B however they refuse to act as B will retaliate and destroy A if they do in fact launch an ICBM, therefore both sides will be destroyed

In conclusion weapons of mass destruction are impractical when it comes to actually fighting a war, they are merely a show of force of what they can do but wouldn’t.

Mar 29, 2013 at 01:19PM EDT
Quote

Thing is, the US really can’t afford to perform any Nuclear attack on North Korea without antagonizing China. North Korea can’t perform any Nuclear attack without antagonizing everyone. The recent B-2 test isn’t quite as dangerous as many think, considering past demonstration of force.

Mar 29, 2013 at 01:19PM EDT
Quote

Cale is entirely correct on the B-2 thing. However, the Russian Federation may not be so sympathetic if the US was nuked to the US. Russia really doesn’t have that great a reason to do so (US and Russia are still not that great of allies, even against the Middle Eastern terrorist threats to both). They do have more reasons to continue to support North Korea. However, China would not be sympathetic to North Korea for a number of reasons.

And the US has been on alert since the 60s. They’re about as ready as they can be. How well would they do/the rest of the world do? Hard to say, unless it would help. I think the US would be better off than say, if Croatia was bombed. But it’s a very difficult thing to say someones ready, vs. can they recover quickly and survive.

Mar 30, 2013 at 12:41AM EDT
Quote

Russia is not a James Bond villian. They wouldn’t let a nuclear attack by North Korea go unpunished. I can’t imagine Russia still supporting North Korea after seeing that it nukes countries for no reason.

Last edited Mar 30, 2013 at 10:15AM EDT
Mar 30, 2013 at 10:10AM EDT
Quote

North Korea is the kid on the playground who tries to be… er… I can’t think of an analogy.
Point is, they’re not going to try anything. Their military is too small and they can’t afford the risk of antagonizing everyone with it.

Mar 30, 2013 at 10:57AM EDT
Quote

The Doomsday clock is reaching midnight, and we don’t have even a Battlestar to evacuate the survivors.

Fuck this Earth, I’m moving to Caprica.

Mar 30, 2013 at 11:13AM EDT
Quote

CitationNeeded wrote:

North Korea is the kid on the playground who tries to be… er… I can’t think of an analogy.
Point is, they’re not going to try anything. Their military is too small and they can’t afford the risk of antagonizing everyone with it.

I got an analogy for you. North Korea is like a little kid throwing a tantrum holding his breath hoping to scare everyone into giving in to what he wants, everyone knows he’s bluffing though.

Mar 30, 2013 at 11:40AM EDT
Quote

CitationNeeded wrote:

North Korea is the kid on the playground who tries to be… er… I can’t think of an analogy.
Point is, they’re not going to try anything. Their military is too small and they can’t afford the risk of antagonizing everyone with it.

>Too small

>9,000,000 personnel
>3,500,000 Red Guard Paramilitary
>1,000 experienced employed Cyber-Warfare specialists
>10,066,704 fit to be drafted
>5000~ Tanks
>1200~ Armored Personnel Carriers
>1,852~ aircraft
>1,700~ recoil-less rifles
>Use of UN-Banned Lasers
>Stores of food from peasants to feed Army Regulars for 500 days in a non-nuclear war
>Stores of munitions for a full-scale war to last 100 days, sans productions that would naturally shoot up

People too often forget that North Korea is actually a significant threat in Conventional Warfare.

Last edited Mar 30, 2013 at 12:10PM EDT
Mar 30, 2013 at 12:07PM EDT
Quote

@cale

I believe they have the fourth largest military in the world, but numbers don’t determine effectiveness. Their military is very outdated and really not a big threat.
The Iraqi military was also one of the biggest in the world, but that didnt help them much during the gulf war.

Last edited Mar 30, 2013 at 12:18PM EDT
Mar 30, 2013 at 12:13PM EDT
Quote

Dac wrote:

Russia is not a James Bond villian. They wouldn’t let a nuclear attack by North Korea go unpunished. I can’t imagine Russia still supporting North Korea after seeing that it nukes countries for no reason.

I know they are not. I’m not talking Nuclear war, which is very unlikely. I’m saying conventional war. They have a large force, which can easily shoot up far above where they are at. No doubt, the US can have a much larger force within a few months than North Korea could ever pull out (and be effective). But North Korea has highly trained and a well maintained force. Russia is still a large military force. If North Korea went Nuclear, I know they wouldn’t hesitate to turn on them, cause that’s the kinda stuff that gets everyone killed. Russia isn’t our ally, but their not exactly our enemy either. I see them as either neutral or slightly in support of NK IF it’s conventional war. But I don’t see troops, maybe supplies. But with how Russia has been lately, they might just scale up their own military and not do anything than say to cut it out. It depends on how China handles it probably, that will decide how the RF will play it.

Outdated doesn’t mean anything. Once the Afghans and what turned into the Taliban had just Stinger missiles, as well as moddified and scrapped Russian eqitpment (remember, a large majority of these guys were still using British equiptment FROM WWI when this was going on). Russia ran away with their tails in their ass, it just took a very long time to do so, and numbers wise Russia won, but percentages Afghans won. It litterally looked like Red Dawn over there in terms of using old equipment stolen off dead USSR soldiers.

Mar 30, 2013 at 12:31PM EDT
Quote

@who am I?

Now you are talking about unconventional warfare which is a whole different beast. I’m saying that in an all out conventional war, Korea doesn’t stand a chance.

The reason Russia and China support North Korea is because they don’t want a unified Korea under the USA, but they still won’t support Korea if they are antagonizing the worlds largest economic and military power. You over estimate just how much Russia supports North Korea. I’d imagine if North Korea starts something, they will lose all support. Russia and China won’t support them even if it is a conventional war, because that could easily lead to nuclear war when North Korea gets desperate. Once North Korea is defeated they would probably work out how to deal with it between the three countries.

Last edited Mar 30, 2013 at 12:45PM EDT
Mar 30, 2013 at 12:42PM EDT
Quote

@who am I

I forget to mention this, I think you are forgetting that the afghans were heavily aided by the USA. It was Operation Cyclone and was one of the longest running and most expensive operations by the CIA. It was nothing like Red Dawn. Militant groups usually have support by some larger power. In North Koreas case, it would be isolated by everyone it borders and unless the USA try to occupy it after the hypothetical war, I doubt Russia or China would support any militant group.

Mar 30, 2013 at 02:11PM EDT
Quote

Dac wrote:

@cale

I believe they have the fourth largest military in the world, but numbers don’t determine effectiveness. Their military is very outdated and really not a big threat.
The Iraqi military was also one of the biggest in the world, but that didnt help them much during the gulf war.

They have the largest in the world, but it’s also prudent to remember that the KPA may be outdated, but it’s still staying on the cutting edge of military dogma and stratagem. As for being outdated, it’s not as bad as one might think. Most contemporary military inventions are just building upon older ones. So long as they have the basics, it’s not as though they’re outclassed completely. We all still use bullets.

Mar 30, 2013 at 02:49PM EDT
Quote

Cale wrote:

They have the largest in the world, but it’s also prudent to remember that the KPA may be outdated, but it’s still staying on the cutting edge of military dogma and stratagem. As for being outdated, it’s not as bad as one might think. Most contemporary military inventions are just building upon older ones. So long as they have the basics, it’s not as though they’re outclassed completely. We all still use bullets.

When talking about soldiers on the ground, yes you are right. But our stealth bombers can destroy most of their tanks and aircraft before the even have time to use them. Our tech in the airforce and navy is unparalleled and would easily decimate them.

Mar 30, 2013 at 02:54PM EDT
Quote

The Cold War taught us that no government that is tied to their own land and people will risk nuclear war, because mutual destruction would be inevitable.

However, if nukes get into the hands of INDIVIDUALS who DON’T MIND IF THEY DIE and THEIR LAND IS DESTROYED, then we have a lot to be afraid of. Because we can’t fight back.

North Korea is still a country that has to survive on its land and its people. So, while nuclear weapons may make us wary, they won’t attack directly.

Mar 30, 2013 at 05:29PM EDT
Quote

To answer the question in the title, we wouldn’t be ready. We don’t have nearly enough bottlecaps.

EDIT: ITT, we boast about American military power.

You guys do realize that conventional war basically doesn’t matter once the nuclear option is on the table? I find it highly unlikely that the North Koreans wouldn’t use the bomb on American bases in Guam and Japan if they felt that an American invasion of North Korea was imminent. And I find it highly unlikely that the US wouldn’t respond in kind. In that case, the NK military would collapse anyway.

However, neither side will use a nuclear weapon in all probability. They’ll just not go to war.

Last edited Mar 30, 2013 at 06:16PM EDT
Mar 30, 2013 at 06:11PM EDT
Quote

Best Korea is like the guy who started the Navy Seal copypasta. No matter how many threats they hurl, they’re just trying to intimidate us; they’re never actually gonna do anything.

Mar 30, 2013 at 06:19PM EDT
Quote

MDFification wrote:

To answer the question in the title, we wouldn’t be ready. We don’t have nearly enough bottlecaps.

EDIT: ITT, we boast about American military power.

You guys do realize that conventional war basically doesn’t matter once the nuclear option is on the table? I find it highly unlikely that the North Koreans wouldn’t use the bomb on American bases in Guam and Japan if they felt that an American invasion of North Korea was imminent. And I find it highly unlikely that the US wouldn’t respond in kind. In that case, the NK military would collapse anyway.

However, neither side will use a nuclear weapon in all probability. They’ll just not go to war.

ITT we don’t know about NMD

Really, North Korea most likely couldn’t strike because of our Missle Defence Systems, so it would just be an issue of conventional warfare. I’m not trying to boast about our military power, but in a thread like this, I think it’s worth bringing up. Our defense systems and military might really make it foolish for them to try anything, which is why I doubt they will. This is more of a way for North Korea to try to scare us into negotiating with them, and a nuclear arsenal is the only card they can attempt to play.

Last edited Mar 30, 2013 at 06:59PM EDT
Mar 30, 2013 at 06:50PM EDT
Quote

There’s only one way to find out…

LET’S START A WAR

LET’S START A NUCLEAR WAR

AT THE GAY BAR, GAY BAR, GAY BAR

Mar 30, 2013 at 07:53PM EDT
Quote

People can trudge through mountains and mountains of information, facts and opinions to justify the means for the opinions but at the end of the day its the death of thousands of civilians, proud country serving military personnel and children combined with national economic failure and the fall of yet another ideology that America would rather not have existing that will come out of it.

One country shouldn’t march around the planet proclaiming itself the global norm that everyone should conform to.

Mar 30, 2013 at 07:58PM EDT
Quote

Most people are really doubtful NK will do anything. Nobody wants war, not even NK. But NK is waving these threats around because they think it’s the only way to get everyone’s attention.

It seems like they are trying to force the international community to get involved and start negotiating so NK can make some deals/demands. It’s more likely they will get ignored though.

Plus NK is just really jumpy at the moment due to the US army doing some activity in SK right now. When the US finish their regular drills in SK, NK should calm down. Apparently this happens all the time.


While we are still making anologies, here’s one regarding China:

NK is like that long time friend you knew in school. The one that’s been with you for decades. When you met, you had so much in common. You were in the same boat and understood each other very well.

But over the decades, something happens: you change, your friend does not. You grow up and mature. You start taking yourself seriously. But your friend remains a childish delinquent. He never matures.

When that happens, your friendship collapses. Suddenly your friend becomes a nuisance and you have to break ties with him before he brings you down to his level.

That’s whats going on with China and NK right now. China and NK used to be very much alike: poor and impoverished victims of the cold war under threat from western powers. That is how their alliance first formed. But now China has matured significantly since the cold war, becoming an economic centerpiece and a world power with tons of international responsibility and carries positive trading terms with the west

…NK never changed. It is still stuck in the cold war.

This is causing China’s patience with NK to wither. China is finding SK to be a much more beneficial ally than NK right now in terms of economics while NK is becoming an increasing burden (especially to China’s reputation) and now they seem to be on the verge of cutting ties with NK entirely

Why am I bringing all this up? Because it’s a very good reason for NK to behave. NK cannot afford to lose China. But if they start throwing missiles at China’s trade partners, it could be the final straw that makes China turn their back on them. NK should know this risk.

Last edited Mar 30, 2013 at 08:08PM EDT
Mar 30, 2013 at 08:00PM EDT
Quote

Dac wrote:

ITT we don’t know about NMD

Really, North Korea most likely couldn’t strike because of our Missle Defence Systems, so it would just be an issue of conventional warfare. I’m not trying to boast about our military power, but in a thread like this, I think it’s worth bringing up. Our defense systems and military might really make it foolish for them to try anything, which is why I doubt they will. This is more of a way for North Korea to try to scare us into negotiating with them, and a nuclear arsenal is the only card they can attempt to play.

>Don’t know about NMD
>Not trying to boast, but untested missile defense renders nuclear missiles not a threat, despite the fact that missile defense system is not installed in Guam, Japan or Hawaii.

Saying just discount it and go into conventional is kind of pointless. NK could easily hit Japan at the very least.

Mar 30, 2013 at 08:56PM EDT
Quote

@sloth

You know that while they may have nukes and long range missles, at the moment they can’t make a nuclear device small enough to fit on a long range missle ( that is, if this source to be believed) link

Anyways, notice how I said most likely, I never said that it couldn’t happen. But mabye I was being boastful for saying that a missle Defence system could actually do its job. Plus, I’d imagine unless the North Koreans just launch a nuke out of nowhere, the USA would make them priority targets and destroy them.

Am I saying that in the event we do go to war, that we would beat North Korea by just sending in a couple tanks? No. That no way in hell could they nuke us and our allies? No, but I don’t think it’s wrong to assume the USA and South Korea could come out on top.

Mar 30, 2013 at 11:02PM EDT
Quote

No, but I don’t think it’s wrong to assume the USA and South Korea could come out on top.

Especially if China wont have NK’s back this time.

It’s only because of China that NK lasted this long. Without them, NK is screwed.

Mar 31, 2013 at 01:00AM EDT
Quote

If a kumquat war were to happen this century (and it will) would we be ready? I for one, believe our defenses to be inadequate!

Mar 31, 2013 at 01:59AM EDT
Quote

Philip J. Fry wrote:

Best Korea is like the guy who started the Navy Seal copypasta. No matter how many threats they hurl, they’re just trying to intimidate us; they’re never actually gonna do anything.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about us, you little bitch? I’ll have you know we are top of the class in armies, and We’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on South Korea, and every soldier has over 300 confirmed kills. We are trained in nuclear warfare and we’re the top army in the entire world. You are nothing to us but just another target. We will wipe you the fuck out with missiles the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to us over seas? Think again, fucker. As we speak we are contacting our secret network of spies across the USA and your location is being traced right now so you better prepare for a nuke, maggot. The nuke that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call a country. You’re fucking dead, kid. we can be anywhere, anytime, and we can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with our nuclear weapons. Not only are we extensively trained in nuclear combat, but we have access to the entire arsenal of the Korean People’s Army and we will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable country off the face of the globe, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. We will shit nuclear all over you and you will burn in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

Mar 31, 2013 at 06:00AM EDT
Quote

Let’s just hope the fat kid eats himself to death and dies of heart disease, before he can actually drag the US and NK into full-blown warfare.

But then again……
If there was to be a nuclear war, is there any such thing as a nuclear war that turns out well? Hell, is there any kind of war, nuclear or otherwise, that leaves anyone but the politicians in charge better off?

Mar 31, 2013 at 11:51AM EDT
Quote

I think politically speaking, we’re still in a Cold War Scenario, similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis and I think every since nukes were developed, nations having been working on ways to stop them. Of course we can’t know of the defense systems otherwise someone would work out how to counter them but I don’t doubt they’re their. For example where I live is quite a rural area and there’s plenty of military bases ad tests around (of course I’m not saying where). They’ve had enough time, surely they can do something to stop one measly missile, hell, even AA guns might do it.
But say the missiles did strike, they hit a city like Los Angeles, San Francisco (it’ll have to be somewhere on the western seaboard, NK’s missile’s aren’t THAT good) the immediate effects will be bad, a few thousand to a million dead but after that, that’s when problems start. The entire area for miles around will forever (almost) be condemned and abandoned, there cannot be easy aid or recovery, imagine an entire seaboard turned into somewhere as radioactive as plutonium. It’ll be extremely destructive for a country in the long term.

So, are we ready? I hope so.

Apr 05, 2013 at 06:03PM EDT
Quote

i think the estimated range of NK’s missiles go up to Guam (says BBC News). not exactly mainland USA but there are american troops located there

Apr 05, 2013 at 06:39PM EDT
Quote

I really think that this situation is going to stay stuck in the near and far future. Think about it, USA won’t attack first because of China and Russia, and NK won’t attack either because if they attack first they’ll lose the support from China and Russia. Why woud any of this big countries risk entering a WWIII for a country like North Korea? In a few months the hostilities will cease and everything will be like always.

Apr 05, 2013 at 08:13PM EDT
Quote

Define: This country.
Define: Ready.

After defining both of those, please explain what exactly about being ready for nulcear war has anything to do with ponies.

Apr 09, 2013 at 12:09AM EDT
Quote

^
America: a country that started out as simple as that. Probably the most hell-raised, but it has grown into something today. A hell-raised country, but with bacon and ponies.

Ready: adj. to be in a suitable state for an activity, action, or situation; v. prepare (someone or something) for an activity or purpose

And it’s ponies, can’t they not be relevant most of the time?

Apr 09, 2013 at 12:37AM EDT
Quote

I would think that if a nuclear war, or even a nuclear strike would occur, other countries would either launch their nukes against the attacking nation and/or invade the country entirely. Maybe they would even go as far as to disable that nations millitary altogether in the thought that a nuke is the most deady weapon around. I think we got rid of germanys millitary after WW2 but i don’t check up on that shit.

Apr 09, 2013 at 11:32AM EDT

Nuclear weapons (fission and fusion) are the most devastating weapons to everything living. However if we are talking strictly human casualties, most likely nerve agents and super-strains are far more lethal and potentially far worse than any nuclear strike.

In terms of yield, nuclear is still far and a way the most devastating weapon that mankind currently has…or at least we have acknowledged its existence.

Apr 09, 2013 at 11:37AM EDT
Quote

Who am I? wrote:

Nuclear weapons (fission and fusion) are the most devastating weapons to everything living. However if we are talking strictly human casualties, most likely nerve agents and super-strains are far more lethal and potentially far worse than any nuclear strike.

In terms of yield, nuclear is still far and a way the most devastating weapon that mankind currently has…or at least we have acknowledged its existence.

There’s no such thing as nuclear fusion weapon.

Apr 09, 2013 at 11:47AM EDT
Quote

Not pure fusion, but in the most powerful weapons such as the Tsar Bomba, most of it’s power is derived from fusion. It’s far more devastating than a typical purely fission weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon

Apr 09, 2013 at 12:29PM EDT
Quote

Nuclear war is imminent.

We may be preparing for another Cold War.
Or WWIII, whatever you choose.

Apr 09, 2013 at 06:25PM EDT
Quote

I was watching SportsCenter last night, and we’re still the heavy favorites going in to this one.

Apr 09, 2013 at 08:44PM EDT
Quote

We’re not terribly far from a nuclear war with N. Korea, and all we can do is make funny jokes and pictures about it.

Apr 09, 2013 at 10:12PM EDT
Quote

@Lone K

>implying DPRK doesn’t do this every three years so they can get more food for their fat leader.

Apr 10, 2013 at 04:45AM EDT
Quote

Ernest Is dead wrote:

I would think that if a nuclear war, or even a nuclear strike would occur, other countries would either launch their nukes against the attacking nation and/or invade the country entirely. Maybe they would even go as far as to disable that nations millitary altogether in the thought that a nuke is the most deady weapon around. I think we got rid of germanys millitary after WW2 but i don’t check up on that shit.

No, if anyone nukes anyone it would turn into everybody fucking everyones ass with nukes. Maybe africa will nit be nuked and humanity if partialy saved

Apr 10, 2013 at 07:31AM EDT

Rimshot wrote:

No, if anyone nukes anyone it would turn into everybody fucking everyones ass with nukes. Maybe africa will nit be nuked and humanity if partialy saved

Only north Africa is fucked up but South Africa is a well functioning society so i’m sure if everyones getting fucked up the ass with nukes they’d get it from someone

Leaving only north Africa i suppose which most of it isn’t much to look at in most places

Apr 10, 2013 at 10:36AM EDT

@Lone K

The article still admits that nobody is expecting NK to do anything at all.

But headliners love to sensationalize about as much as NK loves making idle threats.

Apr 10, 2013 at 11:04AM EDT
Quote

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

@Lone K

The article still admits that nobody is expecting NK to do anything at all.

But headliners love to sensationalize about as much as NK loves making idle threats.

Chances that there will be a WWIII are there, but I honestly doubt NK will be a leading cause.

Apr 10, 2013 at 01:19PM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Hello! You must login or signup first!