At 4/16/13 11:52 AM, Feoric wrote: I don't see how that's relevant. You made the claim that "the soviet union also lacked a strong cult of personality figure to rally behind" and that's not true.

Furthermore, before Stalin there was Lenin. Stalin created his cult of personality by piggybacking off of the one Lenin had and inserting himself into the history books of being side by side with Lenin in every phase of the revolution.

At 4/16/13 12:30 PM, Ceratisa wrote: North Korea would need hundreds of its nukes just to end all life on America

Sure. Because in the end NK has shitty rocket tech, and no ICBM's. They aren't the country to really be afraid of or go after that hard. Especially with new reports saying this is sabre rattling because Ung doesn't have full control of the military.

to end all life with the initial blasts, yes. However, the fallout from Today's best nuclear weapons would cause such widespread damage over such a long period of time from the fallout that it could effectively end all life without using too many of them. Remember that the Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki only had a 21 kiloton blast.

That is why I clarified that I was talking about NK's nukes (Less potent than Fat Man)

I wouldn't say it would be a World War but rather the allied forces turning North Korea into a parking lot.

At 4/16/13 10:20 PM, Korriken wrote: if that's the case, then it would be a perfect time to strike. infighting makes for an even less effective army.

Ok...did we not understand why I said ICBM's make them less dangerous? I meant it makes them not dangerous if we stay over HERE. If we go OVER there, then all they need to do is make a missle go up and detonate, they can then kill soldiers and poison their own people and the South with fallout. Which I expect they're more then willing to do so long as they have a way to save themselves and rule over the ashes.

At 4/17/13 03:16 AM, Korriken wrote: Since when did we lack the technology to strike their missile platforms and vehicles? If we can launch a missile and land it on an enemy military base, surely a missile wouldn't be that much harder.

There's also the Chinese to consider. I know people are saying "well it's not the 50's anymore, they aren't ideologically alinged anymore" this is true, but treaties are treaties and countries don't break them because they don't want the reputation. Also last I checked we don't screw with countries with nukes because of unintended consequences and shit. Again I don't get the idea that any time cooks with weaponry act up the answer is to blow them to hell...but then we want to bitch about deficits, government spending, and etc. I simply don't want to hear that line anymore from people who advocate all problems should be solved by going to war and blowing our problems up.

At 4/18/13 01:52 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I simply don't want to hear that line anymore from people who advocate all problems should be solved by going to war and blowing our problems up.

If the problem is Vietnamese peasants who dislike the South Vietnamese government then that applies. If it is a weapon built for the express purpose of killing 100000s of people in Seoul to use as a bargaining chip so a tyrant can stay in power and ruin the lives of millions of North Koreans then that doesn't apply.