Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

That's the stupidest crap I ever heard. Korea can't reach us before we reach them.

Ok, i ll tell u everything about nuclear weapons and stuff. Currently, we have two types of Nuclear Bombs. One a rather old one called atomic bomb and another type called Thermonuclear Bomb or (Hydrogen Bomb). The process that is used for an atomic bomb to blow is called fission, an old way of making nuclear energy. By firing protons into an uranium atom, it splits into two releasing intense amount of heat that heats the water and turning the tubine of the nuclear plant by evaporating. There is a chain reaction after an atom is split, firing another proton into another atoms and so on. An atomic bomb utilizes this affect, so when it is deployed, it relases tremendous of amounts of energy when the bomb explodes. This process is weaker than more advanced Thermo Nuclear Bomb. Thermonuclear bomb utilizes the new ways that nuclear power plants devloped;fusion. Rather than spliting the atoms, in an intense amounts of energy(around 21 to 24 million degrees F), the uranium atom fuses togetherm and once again releasing much more amounts of energy than fission, so basicly thermo is about 10 times more effective than a fission ran bomb.(pending on warhead)So if we drop a nuclear bomb in North Korea, the whole entire Korea Pennisula would blow up and some of china and giving off radiation to Japan and China by the wind currents. When this happens, the explosion in the atmophere blocks the sun ray for couple of month, engragin a nuclear winter. Based on these facts, droping a nuclear bomb in NK is a foolish way of invading a country.

At 10/6/03 04:09 PM, MagicalMusicalShazmo wrote: I've just saw it on the news. Korea has threatened the US with a nuclear attack.

Get ready for a nasty war, and probably WW3.

please tell me that u r being sarcastic and not making fun of ur intellitectual mind and aptitude..

At 10/7/03 01:04 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 10/7/03 12:58 PM, CRAPMASTER2000 wrote: dont worry us'ers youve got counter mesaurs agianst incomming nukes so if he did launch i wouldnt realy care cause onley korea would suffer under that.

So Korea Launches its four nukes, and America launches its 1000+. Korea is dust, America has four nig Nuclear Dust patches in the middle of the magalopolis. That would cause the US to sufferr too.

r u a dumbass, i kno us has 1000+ nukes, but if we launch them, the whole fuckin world is going to blow dumbass! n its not that easy to launch a nuclear missile n us would do anythin to avoid an all out massive nuclear war on any country. so for the sake of ur family's diginity, please think before u say something.. and also to crapmaster, any counter mesaures onto an incoming nuclear missile not fully reliable because it is almost impossible to intercept an full sized nuclear missile

At 10/11/03 08:40 PM, yoman90531 wrote: Based on these facts, droping a nuclear bomb in NK is a foolish way of invading a country.

Wow, that's a very intelligant way of putting it. While we're on the subject of nuclear bombs- I was told by my friend in JROTC that we have 2 missiles called "Peace keepers" that are used in only the most dier of escapades. It's basically 10 different nukes attatched to one missile that detach when it reaches 100 miles from the target destroying a SHITLOAD of stuff. Now that's what I call protection.........................

At 10/11/03 09:04 PM, Guitar_clock wrote:

At 10/11/03 08:40 PM, yoman90531 wrote: Based on these facts, droping a nuclear bomb in NK is a foolish way of invading a country.

Wow, that's a very intelligant way of putting it. While we're on the subject of nuclear bombs- I was told by my friend in JROTC that we have 2 missiles called "Peace keepers" that are used in only the most dier of escapades. It's basically 10 different nukes attatched to one missile that detach when it reaches 100 miles from the target destroying a SHITLOAD of stuff. Now that's what I call protection.........................

they would never use that because if that nukes blows up anywhere in the globe, it would hav horrible effects on differnet country;nuclear winter, radiation, radiation by wind flow, limitaion of natural resource of the area, economical changes...so its a bad idea to use those "peace keepers"

Ok, first of all, NK CAN reach us before we reach them, if THEY fire first. This is WHY there was a little soehting called the COLD WAR? Ever hear of it? Second of all, I frankly don't GIVE a damn whether they attack or not. For all i care, we should plant a cruise missile smack dab in the center of Kim Jong's forehead. He's a frightiningly hypocritical leader who rules his people with an iron fist. He can't even feed half of them, and he's building museum's of Technology with "north korean" (america) space shuttles displayed in them and building nuclear weapons. Not only that, but he threatens to turn our country into a "sea of nuclear fire". I say we just kick his sorry ass beofre he gets any damn ideas, or at least destroy all his silos and weapons production facilities (along with a few bombings along the DMZ, to make sure he does not follow up with an attempted invasion of SK).

At 10/14/03 10:19 PM, General_Patton wrote: Ok, first of all, NK CAN reach us before we reach them, if THEY fire first. This is WHY there was a little soehting called the COLD WAR? Ever hear of it? Second of all, I frankly don't GIVE a damn whether they attack or not. For all i care, we should plant a cruise missile smack dab in the center of Kim Jong's forehead. He's a frightiningly hypocritical leader who rules his people with an iron fist. He can't even feed half of them, and he's building museum's of Technology with "north korean" (america) space shuttles displayed in them and building nuclear weapons. Not only that, but he threatens to turn our country into a "sea of nuclear fire". I say we just kick his sorry ass beofre he gets any damn ideas, or at least destroy all his silos and weapons production facilities (along with a few bombings along the DMZ, to make sure he does not follow up with an attempted invasion of SK).

Yes but the US has threatened North Korea as well. Remember that thing called the Korean War. Where the US jumped in and fought North Korea, all for the grace of god to keep capitalism in the south. North Korea has every right to attack, cause of the west's attitude toward it.

Yes but the US has threatened North Korea as well. Remember that thing called the Korean War. Where the US jumped in and fought North Korea, all for the grace of god to keep capitalism in the south. North Korea has every right to attack, cause of the west's attitude toward it.

NK has absolutely NO right to attack the west. First of all, we feed their damn people through that food program (the name escapes me at the moment). Second of all, North Korea attacked FIRST in the Korean War. And the US did not fight the North Koreans, it was the UN that declared a police action against North Korea. Also, there is certainly no justification for North Korea using nuclear weapons.

Wait, and thats not all. America ALSO limited its arms shipments to South Korea to keep the South Koreans from Starting a war. How do the North Koreans pay us back? They drive halfway across the South Korea in their Russian-bought tanks and almost crush the South Korean capitol, until the SK and american troops are able to stop them at the (some random long name i cannot remember) river.

At 10/14/03 10:19 PM, General_Patton wrote: Ok, first of all, NK CAN reach us before we reach them, if THEY fire first. This is WHY there was a little soehting called the COLD WAR? Ever hear of it? Second of all, I frankly don't GIVE a damn whether they attack or not. For all i care, we should plant a cruise missile smack dab in the center of Kim Jong's forehead. He's a frightiningly hypocritical leader who rules his people with an iron fist. He can't even feed half of them, and he's building museum's of Technology with "north korean" (america) space shuttles displayed in them and building nuclear weapons. Not only that, but he threatens to turn our country into a "sea of nuclear fire". I say we just kick his sorry ass beofre he gets any damn ideas, or at least destroy all his silos and weapons production facilities (along with a few bombings along the DMZ, to make sure he does not follow up with an attempted invasion of SK).

Ok, General, this is a serisou issue of nuclear weapons. like u said NK will reach us first, but it is best to approach this situatuion in diplomacy. if we pissed them off, we might hav destroyed them, but they probalby will have taken much more than we hav taken from them if a war broke out. (firing nukes at europe, western hemisphere, and china, which is a critical blow) even if we survive, the nuclear winter will commense freezing EVERYTHING to deathe for couple years. so i think the best way is to make peace and make them disarm thnx for the discussion, very well said

At 10/14/03 10:34 PM, General_Patton wrote:

And the US did not fight the North Koreans, it was the UN that declared a police action against North Korea.

this is true, but it was US's wish to end this war since if the NK won, Russia, and NK would at world power now for not stopping the NK. If they didnt, after they invade SK, US would HAVE TO fight NK and Russia of their communism and socialim of russia and NK because if would become a big threat thnx comments r welcomed

At 10/15/03 04:05 PM, yoman90531 wrote: this is true, but it was US's wish to end this war since if the NK won, Russia, and NK would at world power now for not stopping the NK. If they didnt, after they invade SK, US would HAVE TO fight NK and Russia of their communism and socialim of russia and NK because if would become a big threat thnx comments r welcomed

At 10/15/03 04:05 PM, yoman90531 wrote: this is true, but it was US's wish to end this war since if the NK won, Russia, and NK would at world power now for not stopping the NK. If they didnt, after they invade SK, US would HAVE TO fight NK and Russia of their communism and socialim of russia and NK because if would become a big threat thnx comments r welcomed

I understand this. I am just deomnstrating to wasted America, however, that it is, in fact, not the fault of the US that the Korean War began. America did, as i stated before, put itself at a disadvantage to AVOID that war. However, the NK's took advantage of that situation and invaded.

Also, I do believe that we should try to resolve the situation with NK diplomatically. However, there is a limit to how much rope we should let out for NK, considering how much we ALREADY do for it, while it still threatens the west with nuclear devastation.

Also, my tactical scenario only applies to a situation in which we are sure of the locations of their nuclear weapons, and their ability to use them. I would not condone jumping in all willy-nilly and bombing based on shoddy intelligence. As you said, nuclear politics are a serious matter. I would much rather have NK defanged, then starting another Cold War with the NK's and all those they see fit to hand their weapons out to.

At 10/15/03 05:08 PM, General_Patton wrote:

At 10/15/03 04:05 PM, yoman90531 wrote: this is true, but it was US's wish to end this war since if the NK won, Russia, and NK would at world power now for not stopping the NK. If they didnt, after they invade SK, US would HAVE TO fight NK and Russia of their communism and socialim of russia and NK because if would become a big threat thnx comments r welcomed

At 10/15/03 04:05 PM, yoman90531 wrote: this is true, but it was US's wish to end this war since if the NK won, Russia, and NK would at world power now for not stopping the NK. If they didnt, after they invade SK, US would HAVE TO fight NK and Russia of their communism and socialim of russia and NK because if would become a big threat thnx comments r welcomed

I understand this. I am just deomnstrating to wasted America, however, that it is, in fact, not the fault of the US that the Korean War began. America did, as i stated before, put itself at a disadvantage to AVOID that war. However, the NK's took advantage of that situation and invaded.

Also, I do believe that we should try to resolve the situation with NK diplomatically. However, there is a limit to how much rope we should let out for NK, considering how much we ALREADY do for it, while it still threatens the west with nuclear devastation.

Also, my tactical scenario only applies to a situation in which we are sure of the locations of their nuclear weapons, and their ability to use them. I would not condone jumping in all willy-nilly and bombing based on shoddy intelligence. As you said, nuclear politics are a serious matter. I would much rather have NK defanged, then starting another Cold War with the NK's and all those they see fit to hand their weapons out to.

I definitely agree with your statement, but US did start the war by dividing korea into two separate countries and letting USSR taking control of future NK. US did this to establish Korean Government as soon as possible but the communist overran future NK because of separation at 38th parallel. USSR had a big envolovement of this because of the hatred betwen USSR and USA at that time. I 100% agree with ur statements, but US was responsible for Korean war.

General Patton, ur 18!?

At 10/15/03 05:43 PM, yoman90531 wrote: I definitely agree with your statement, but US did start the war by dividing korea into two separate countries and letting USSR taking control of future NK. US did this to establish Korean Government as soon as possible but the communist overran future NK because of separation at 38th parallel. USSR had a big envolovement of this because of the hatred betwen USSR and USA at that time. I 100% agree with ur statements, but US was responsible for Korean war.

How could the US be responsible for the Korean war? The russians and Americans were responsible for the liberation of the Korean peninsula from Japanese control. However, the US could not merely take the whole peninsula. A compromise HAD to be made with the USSR. America ALSO atempted to stave off the war by limiting arms shipments to the SK's. Meanwhile, the Soviets increase their arms shipments to the NK's. North Korea Invaded first, while the Americans had no plans of allowing the SK's to do so. I cannot see how the Korean War was the fault of the US.

At 10/11/03 09:04 PM, Guitar_clock wrote:

I was told by my friend in JROTC that we have 2 missiles called "Peace keepers" that are used in only the most dier of escapades. It's basically 10 different nukes attatched to one missile that detach when it reaches 100 miles from the target destroying a SHITLOAD of stuff. Now that's what I call protection.........................

That is what I call Kick-ass.

At 10/11/03 05:28 PM, Guitar_clock wrote: That's the stupidest crap I ever heard. Korea can't reach us before we reach them.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that when the news flashes a Taipo-Dong II missile headed towards Seattle.

At 10/15/03 06:46 PM, General_Patton wrote: How could the US be responsible for the Korean war? The russians and Americans were responsible for the liberation of the Korean peninsula from Japanese control. However, the US could not merely take the whole peninsula. A compromise HAD to be made with the USSR. America ALSO atempted to stave off the war by limiting arms shipments to the SK's. Meanwhile, the Soviets increase their arms shipments to the NK's. North Korea Invaded first, while the Americans had no plans of allowing the SK's to do so. I cannot see how the Korean War was the fault of the US.

i am not sayin US is blamed FULLY for the war but divding the country was the mistake that eventually led to the war. If i am wrong, please correct me, because u r probably more wiser than me since i am only 13....

At 10/15/03 08:14 PM, yoman90531 wrote: i am not sayin US is blamed FULLY for the war but divding the country was the mistake that eventually led to the war. If i am wrong, please correct me, because u r probably more wiser than me since i am only 13....

Ok, here is how it is. The US has its hands CLEAN on the start of the Korean war. Here is why.
1. The division of Korea was a necessity. Nither side could possibly give up the whole territory, or take the whole territory.
2. Soviet Russia and the USA were to totally dichotomous systems of government, they could not have overseen the territory together. That would have probably led to a massive civil war.
3.While the SK's WERE extremely anti NK, they were never supplied with enough munitions by the US to launch any invasion on their own, and invasion the US government would have stopped, not wanting to start a war with the communists so early on.
4. North Korea invaded first. There is no way to gussy it up either. This was not a symbolic invasion, or encroachment into foreign territory. This was a full-fledged, balls-to-the-wall invasion that almost totally crushed all south Korean forces on the peninsula. Due to America's hesitancy to give the SK's anti-tank equipment, and their tentative trust with the division agreement, NK tanks were able to blitz almost to the doorstep of the Seoul.

Now that u hav explained that way, its perfectly clear. By the way, do u hav aim???

http://newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=91724

the thread i started patton, give some comments
all about nukes

At 10/6/03 04:32 PM, Pueidist wrote: if the smaller countries of the world want to destroy the Pax Americana empire, all they have to do is be themselves (countries with a differing ideology from Democracy) and the U.S. will launch wars on them, and drain the economy.

Don't be a tard. This is the most foul and stupid thing that I have ever read in my life. Do you know how many countries in the world are existing with out a care as to what America thinks of them? ALL OF THEM! Yes, we are the superpower of the world, and yes, people try not to get in our way. But in the UN, all these little countries will send their representatives to tell us that we are capitolist pig-dogs and we just say "No, no we're not just that...blah blah blah" and everyone lives unhappily ever after. No one tells them that they are wrong for going against America's grain, and know one screams out "Ooooh, snap! Dawg!" or anything like that. America respects the opinions of other countries and expects the same from them (although we do hold some claut for being a superpower...).

At 10/16/03 04:37 PM, GreatTeal wrote: Don't be a tard. This is the most foul and stupid thing that I have ever read in my life. Do you know how many countries in the world are existing with out a care as to what America thinks of them? ALL OF THEM! Yes, we are the superpower of the world, and yes, people try not to get in our way. But in the UN, all these little countries will send their representatives to tell us that we are capitolist pig-dogs and we just say "No, no we're not just that...blah blah blah" and everyone lives unhappily ever after. No one tells them that they are wrong for going against America's grain, and know one screams out "Ooooh, snap! Dawg!" or anything like that. America respects the opinions of other countries and expects the same from them (although we do hold some claut for being a superpower...).

Ok on some point i do believe that the U.S. doesnt fuck over every country that talks shit. I think its just the ones that can be pushed around. example, we can push around iraq becuase well nobody really likes them, right. but if we attacked someone like france or germany we would get fucked over. so to a point we hold back but we also push ppl around cuase we have to power to do so

At 10/15/03 09:37 PM, General_Patton wrote:

At 10/15/03 08:14 PM, yoman90531 wrote: i am not sayin US is blamed FULLY for the war but divding the country was the mistake that eventually led to the war. If i am wrong, please correct me, because u r probably more wiser than me since i am only 13....

Ok, here is how it is. The US has its hands CLEAN on the start of the Korean war. Here is why.
1. The division of Korea was a necessity. Nither side could possibly give up the whole territory, or take the whole territory.
2. Soviet Russia and the USA were to totally dichotomous systems of government, they could not have overseen the territory together. That would have probably led to a massive civil war.
3.While the SK's WERE extremely anti NK, they were never supplied with enough munitions by the US to launch any invasion on their own, and invasion the US government would have stopped, not wanting to start a war with the communists so early on.
4. North Korea invaded first. There is no way to gussy it up either. This was not a symbolic invasion, or encroachment into foreign territory. This was a full-fledged, balls-to-the-wall invasion that almost totally crushed all south Korean forces on the peninsula. Due to America's hesitancy to give the SK's anti-tank equipment, and their tentative trust with the division agreement, NK tanks were able to blitz almost to the doorstep of the Seoul.

I think you have a great knowledge of popular textbook history.

But the Korean War didn’t start on the day North Korea invaded the South. The US had their hands in the events that led up to the war.

The US and Russia had their armies stationed on the Korean peninsula while they were fighting the Japs in WW2 and eventually kicked them off. After the war neither country wanted to leave. Why? Because in the late 40s America started their anti-Cold War foreign policy--which was to stop the spread and contain communist governments at all costs! Pres. Truman supported the operations of covert teams, which were to stimulate guerilla activities within foreign countries, if they thought that the country was going to fall to Communism.

America was not going to leave the peninsula cause they saw the current Korean government as a threat. So when the Russian and US divided the country, the US installed their puppet government in the South. Which activity sought to over throw the North Korean government and unite the peninsula. It was America’s own puppet Capitalist state that the North was attacking. If the US didn’t create the government to begin with, to counter balance the spread of communism, then Korea would have been united and their would have been no war.

Thats what i said. Neither side wanted to give up the peninsula. However, it still does not eliminate the fact that America actively LIMITED south korea's ability to invade in an effort to avoid war. That's why we got our asses kicked at the beginning. Anyway, both nations had a policy to keep each other in check. Personally, i support that decision. If we decided we would cave every time that the soviets wanted territory, we would have had the USSR on our doostep from mexico, and nuclear missiles aimed at our country from Cuba. What you say makes no sense. Both sides had a puppet government, although Korea was originally NOT communist. The TRUE puppet government was that of the Koreans in the north, Also, you might want to look at NK today to see how wonderful it would have been if we had just given up Korea. The fact is, no matter what people say, Communism is an Utopian idea that DOES NOT work.

At 10/16/03 07:58 PM, General_Patton wrote:

:The fact is, no matter what people say, Communism is an Utopian idea that DOES NOT work.

LMAO LMAO
Thats perfectly rite, but it does work for the countries that are poor though....its just the views of them that makes them to conquere stuff..

As much as i enjoy you agreeing with me... could you reword that. I really couldn't tell what you were saying at the end about conquering.

At 10/16/03 10:53 PM, General_Patton wrote: As much as i enjoy you agreeing with me... could you reword that. I really couldn't tell what you were saying at the end about conquering.

i mean like most communist is about dominant power, property n terrortory fights n stuff

how do you americans get in these messes?