06-26-2009, 07:03 PM
|
#59
|
|
Camaro Fanatic
Drives: 2000 Z28
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Auburn, WA
Posts: 1,808
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianRocky
And the second row of seats is Japan. Any nuclear attack on Korea will lead to massive death by radiation poisoning in Japan.
Japan is directly West of North Korea and the wind flows East/West.
correct, but thats only referring to the weapons system that I worked on. Id be willing to bet we have more in our arsenal than just the trident system...most of which we'll probably never learn of, unless unless of course they get used.(hopefully we dont have to)
And the third row of seats is the USA.
It is the next land mass and radiation poisoning will effect the US as well.
Don't be so sure the US would even respond with Nukes even if the NK's used them.
Wrong again even if you're talking about the trident system...cant go into specifics...but I know what the full scale after effects would be.
First off all, they have no delivery system that is reliable, and their Nukes would be low yield, so they end up being the dying charge of a wounded animal.
Do you have any definitive proof of this? (referring to their nukes?) we all know their long range delivery capabilities are subpar... but as far as the potential yield of their weapons I can't agree or disagree.
Why would the US use the Nukes if it would do as much damaged to the USA as it did to NK as in food, water and human health issues?
Why would the US use the Nukes when conventional weapons would do the job as well, without the radiation issues?
Refer to my second response
Now, you may not care about this point (why would I not care about this point?), but even if the NK's used Nukes, and the US retaliated by "Blowing them back into the Dark Ages", the US will become an international pariah.
If the NKs use Nukes, you can bet the USA and the rest of the world will respond with devastating force.
One of the reasons is so that the Iranians, the Taliban, and every other Terrorist out there knows that the penalty for using them on the US or its Allys is something that is so prohibitive in cost that no one will consider using them again.
|
Without risking a one way trip to Levenworth, or worse...Trust me "Devastating force" isn't the "deterrent" that keeps Nukes from being launched at the US. Id love to debate further, but getting in trouble to prove a point isn't worth it.
Last edited by TFord; 06-26-2009 at 10:32 PM.
|
|
|