North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Wnderer » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:56 pm UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:
Wnderer wrote:Now we are sending in an aircraft carrier. What are we prepared to do if North Korea shoots at our aircraft carrier?


Given the amount of protection a carrier typically has, I'd imagine anything attempting to shoot at the carrier would result in the threat being obliterated quickly. More interesting question: from what I've heard China is not happy with the carrier group, what do we do if China starts threatening/firing at the carrier group.


Start paying a lot more for sneakers.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Triangle_Man » Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:05 pm UTC

Well, I've been in a mild state of terror since this morning. What options do we have (aside from an invasion) to deal with this situation?
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Oregonaut » Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:21 pm UTC

Believe it or not, ignoring the problem will help it. We are giving them enough attention to show that we noticed their tantrum, China *will* expend diplomatic effort to get their dysfunctional neighbor calmed down, SK will rattle the sabers, then go back to status quo.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

Rackum
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Rackum » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:00 pm UTC

The carrier is not in response to the current situation (at least that's what we're saying). This was originally a part of the exercise and it's only an issue because China has requested that we not put a carrier there and we haven't before, but this time we're basically telling them to suck it up and deal with it.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:20 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:Believe it or not, ignoring the problem will help it. We are giving them enough attention to show that we noticed their tantrum, China *will* expend diplomatic effort to get their dysfunctional neighbor calmed down, SK will rattle the sabers, then go back to status quo.


Yeah. NK needs to flex their muscles every now and then to show their oppressed people that their government is keeping them safe from the invisible vampire ghosts that occupy the rest of the world. You know, to keep them from dwelling on their REAL problems, like the government.

It sucks that assassination is not an option, though. I wonder what would happen to them if suddenly the whole royal family just, whoops, died.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Vaniver » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:51 pm UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:It sucks that assassination is not an option, though. I wonder what would happen to them if suddenly the whole royal family just, whoops, died.
Power vacuums are one of the only things less pleasant than oppressive tyrants.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Brooklynxman » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:57 pm UTC

I'm aware China wouldn't, but I thought it was an interesting thought about what we would do if they did.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Diadem » Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:01 am UTC

I doubt NK can sink that carrier group, but I'm kind of curious what would happen if they did. Would the US respond with force? Will China allow this? Sinking a carrier group is a very clear casus belli, noone in the international community will dispute that. But with millions of South Korean lives at stake, war is still not an easy choice.

Two other questions: So far we have kind of assumed that NK started this incident. But they claim that SK fired first. Is it entirely outside the realm of possibility that they might be speaking the truth in this case? I certainly don't trust them, but I don't particularly trust our side to be honest either. And while NK seems to need to flex its muscles on occasion, so does SK.

Secondly: What are the possibilities for a regime change in NK? Bribe a few generals, and stage a coup by someone who is not necessarily less ruthless but at least saner and less interested in what happens outside of his borders.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
PhoenixEnigma
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:11 am UTC
Location: Sasquatchawan, Canada
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby PhoenixEnigma » Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:12 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:It sucks that assassination is not an option, though. I wonder what would happen to them if suddenly the whole royal family just, whoops, died.
I think part of the problem is that we just don't know. Kim Jong-il may, in name, be the complete and absolute ruler of North Korea, but there has been some suggestion that the military (and therefore, the top generals) have considerable influence, and may be rather more trigger happy. North Korea is really, really opaque, which makes it hard to have any kind of understanding of internal dynamics. Without that understanding, assassinating the leader is a lot like shooting blindly at a bomb and hoping you disarm it rather than detonating it.
"Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work." -Elon Musk
Shivahn wrote:I am a motherfucking sorceror.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:13 am UTC

Diadem wrote:I doubt NK can sink that carrier group, but I'm kind of curious what would happen if they did. Would the US respond with force? Will China allow this? Sinking a carrier group is a very clear casus belli, noone in the international community will dispute that. But with millions of South Korean lives at stake, war is still not an easy choice.


They can't sink it.



Diadem wrote:Two other questions: So far we have kind of assumed that NK started this incident. But they claim that SK fired first. Is it entirely outside the realm of possibility that they might be speaking the truth in this case? I certainly don't trust them, but I don't particularly trust our side to be honest either. And while NK seems to need to flex its muscles on occasion, so does SK.


No. The reason the island was attacked was because of military exercises, which IIRC were already submitted to NK for "approval" beforehand. Well, to be honest, it's becase NK is a crazy child who has to prove he's the biggest bully, but the military exercises were a handy excuse.

Diadem wrote:Secondly: What are the possibilities for a regime change in NK? Bribe a few generals, and stage a coup by someone who is not necessarily less ruthless but at least saner and less interested in what happens outside of his borders.


Because that's worked out so well throughout history. See Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Vaniver wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:It sucks that assassination is not an option, though. I wonder what would happen to them if suddenly the whole royal family just, whoops, died.
Power vacuums are one of the only things less pleasant than oppressive tyrants.


(and PhoenixEnigma, you ninja) Kind of my point. The whole family is whacko, but assassinations never really turn out good. I just wish there was a way to remove the family peacefully enough.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Ortus
Fluffy
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:09 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Ortus » Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:51 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:
Oregonaut wrote:Believe it or not, ignoring the problem will help it. We are giving them enough attention to show that we noticed their tantrum, China *will* expend diplomatic effort to get their dysfunctional neighbor calmed down, SK will rattle the sabers, then go back to status quo.


Yeah. NK needs to flex their muscles every now and then to show their oppressed people that their government is keeping them safe from the invisible vampire ghosts that occupy the rest of the world. You know, to keep them from dwelling on their REAL problems, like the government.

It sucks that assassination is not an option, though. I wonder what would happen to them if suddenly the whole royal family just, whoops, died.




I've contemplated that idea quite often, actually. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think forcing a 'revolution' in that quick a manner would really benefit the people of NK. Any time I try and think that scenario out, I come to the conclusion that the assassin would have to be one of a particular political charisma and would then have to lead the country to victory.
roband wrote:Face, yes. Chest, probably. Pubic area, maybe. Scrotum, not a fucking chance.

User avatar
PhatPhungus
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby PhatPhungus » Thu Nov 25, 2010 3:20 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:It sucks that assassination is not an option, though. I wonder what would happen to them if suddenly the whole royal family just, whoops, died.
Power vacuums are one of the only things less pleasant than oppressive tyrants.


In most cases I would agree, but not after the description of the prison camps there. In the immediate sense, a power vacuum might be worse, but it's probably the only way to get a regime change. Not that there would necessarily be someone better if we assassinated the ruling family.
__________
_____
__
_

User avatar
SWGlassPit
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SWGlassPit » Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:52 am UTC

I think assassinating the ruling family would only embolden the military, leading to junta rule.
Up in space is a laboratory the size of a football field zipping along at 7 km/s. It's my job to keep it safe.
Image
Erdös number: 5

User avatar
Dangermouse
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:32 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Dangermouse » Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:33 am UTC

PhoenixEnigma wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:It sucks that assassination is not an option, though. I wonder what would happen to them if suddenly the whole royal family just, whoops, died.
I think part of the problem is that we just don't know. Kim Jong-il may, in name, be the complete and absolute ruler of North Korea, but there has been some suggestion that the military (and therefore, the top generals) have considerable influence, and may be rather more trigger happy. North Korea is really, really opaque, which makes it hard to have any kind of understanding of internal dynamics. Without that understanding, assassinating the leader is a lot like shooting blindly at a bomb and hoping you disarm it rather than detonating it.



If NK attacked a US carrier group, we would be at war. No questions; the political pressure to retaliate would be overwhelming in the US


EDIT:

quoted the wrong person there. still, the point stands

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Brooklynxman » Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:50 am UTC

Not to mention to do so would be epically stupid because should either of the 2 A4W reactors in the Washington crack in the Yellow Sea it would be a Chernobyl level disaster that would not only irradiate North Korean soil, it would hit China too, and China would flip out (note: we may have issues with Seoul being wiped off the map, China not so much, especially if radiation is floating up on their shore and sterilizing the Yellow Sea).

Speaking of, I suddenly see why China might not want that particular carrier there. If I recall we still have one or two conventionally powered carriers, though I don't know if any are close to the Pacific theater so meh.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:05 am UTC

Whilst I can see nothing good coming of having two PWR's on a sinking/exploding ship, I think you're exagerating a lot there.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:46 am UTC

I think a decent number of submarines with reactors on board have sunk, some after accidents in the reactor itself and some as result of other explosions.

EDIT: and Wikipedia actually has a page on sunken nuclear submarines. The Thresher in particular is not that far way from land, although its reactor is a factor 10 smaller than those of a carrier. Some of those Soviet submarines have a power output not too far from Nimitz carriers.
United States

* Thresher (SSN-593), the first submarine in its class, sank April 10, 1963 during deep-diving trials after flooding, loss of propulsion, and an attempt to blow the emergency ballast tanks failed, causing it to exceed crush depth. All 129 men on board perished. Location: 50 km east of Cape Cod.
* Scorpion (SSN-589), a Skipjack-class submarine, sank May 22, 1968, cause unknown. It has been widely speculated that the Scorpion may have succumbed to a torpedo mishap. All 99 men died. Location: 740 km (400 nmi) southwest of the Azores.

USSR

* K-27: The only Project 645 submarine, equipped with a liquid metal cooled reactor, was irreparably damaged by a reactor accident (control rod failure) May 24, 1968. 9 were killed in the reactor accident. After shutting down the reactor and sealing the compartment, the Soviet Navy scuttled her in the Kara Sea on September 6, 1982[1].
* K-8: A Project 627 November class submarine was lost April 11, 1970 while being towed in rough seas following a fire on board. The vessel was initially evacuated, but 52 reembarked for the towing operation. All hands on board were lost (52), while 73 crewmen survived on the rescue vessel.[1] Location: Bay of Biscay, 490 km northwest of Spain in the North Atlantic Ocean.
* K-219: A Project 667A Yankee I class sub was damaged in a missile explosion October 3, 1986, then sank suddenly while being towed after all crew had transferred off. 6 crew members were killed. Location: 950 km east of Bermuda in the North Atlantic Ocean.
* K-278 Komsomolets: The only Mike-class sub built sank due to a raging fire April 7, 1989. All but 5 evacuated prior to sinking. 42 were killed, many from smoke inhalation and exposure to the cold waters of the Barents Sea.

Russian Federation

* K-141 Kursk: The Oscar II class sub sank August 12, 2000 after an explosion on board. See Russian submarine Kursk explosion. All 118 men on board were lost. Location: Barents Sea.
* K-159: The hulk of the decommissioned Soviet-era November class submarine sank August 28, 2003 when a storm ripped away the pontoons necessary to keep it afloat under tow. 9 men perished in the accident. Location: Barents Sea.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:14 pm UTC

Duban wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting this "we'd only intervene to protect our assets" idea from. The US has strong ties to S. Korea and has stated explicitly that we would support the South if a war were to break out. Sure we have military bases, that's nice, but N. Korea is the primary reason why we have bases there.

You have it backwards. North Korea exists primarily because the US has military bases on the peninsula. The military presence was there before the DPRK existed, and the situation is so tense because the US has had nuclear weapons positioned on the Parallel since the fifties. But, yes, the US would retaliate in the event of military action but it's because they'd want to maintain their interests in the region: if they didn't, they'd pack up their toys and go home, like the Europeans did in the forties and fifties.

jestingrabbit wrote:Have a look at the countries that border China: Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kygyzstan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, and, last but not least, North Korea. Excluding members of the commonwealth of independent states, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Bhutan, they are (nominally) far left, authoritarian regimes. As far as I can see, if they can push a neighbor towards that style of government, they do it. Nepal is a good recent example. If there was a railway to Bhutan with a few more tonnes of load tolerance, it would likely have gone the way of Tibet a long time ago imo.

It seems to me they see it as being in their interests to have puppet states under the thumb of authoritarian regimes as neighbors. That's their deal. I don't think that they'll be cool with the DPRK amalgamating with the ROK. I think they want a nice buffer between themselves and anyone they don't control.

You're implying China somehow engineered those countries towards communism, when they all had their own communist movements before the communists were even in power in China. I think you're imagining Chinese agency in these affairs, and it's notable that although China is always outspoken they've never been the ones responsible for veto'ing unification talks. All it is China doesn't want is the conflict breaking out again, because that would mean North Korean refugees flooding their country and destabilizing the population.

jestingrabbit wrote:I'm not saying that China is best buds with all those countries, but I think they believe that they know what to expect from them, and know how to handle them. The Sino-Vietnamese war was essentially businesslike, they had a short, conventional conflict. They knew what they could expect. Especially now that there are no other major communist powers around, they have the whip hand against those states.

Regardless, North Korea is definitely a client state, and is a geographical buffer between china and countries that are well within the US sphere of influence. They're not just going to walk away from that.

No, it really isn't. North Korea historically sourced its aid and took general direction from the Soviet Union, not from China. Since the 90s, it has sourced most of its aid from South Korea. And it is plainly evident China does not dictate the DPRK: China loves the status quo, and North Korea regularly threatens it. Never mind that the essence of North Korean nationalism is founded on the concept of radical independence and isolation.

SummerGlauFan wrote:They can't sink it.

No aircraft-carrier can withstand a constant barrage of missiles, which is why defense is often built around stealth. The DPRK can but they won't, because they don't want a war. Argentina invaded the Falklands because they could get away with it (even though they lost the war they were never at war with Britain), not because they wanted to go to war with Britain or anyone else. The DPRK will do what it can get away with to assert itself and no more.

SummerGlauFan wrote:No. The reason the island was attacked was because of military exercises, which IIRC were already submitted to NK for "approval" beforehand. Well, to be honest, it's becase NK is a crazy child who has to prove he's the biggest bully, but the military exercises were a handy excuse.

North Korea is the smallest bully under threat from a lot of much larger, better equipped bullies. They have to act crazy to be treated as a genuine threat. That's not the same as being crazy.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:23 pm UTC

I wonder how the US (or any other country) should react if someone decided to practice invasion exercises with live artillery 10 miles from its borders.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SlyReaper » Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:32 pm UTC

They were military exercises, nobody said anything about invasion exercises.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:09 pm UTC

It's a yearly exercise to practice the amphibious landing of several divisions of troops, supported by naval fire and air support, practiced as close to North Korea as possible. Of course it's an invasion exercise.

North Korea claims part of the water there (without much ground I think), so South Korea holds a massive exercise there every year to show that they control the waters.

In terms of bar-fights, North Korea is the sad figure who mutters "sucker" into his beer when South Korea walks by. So every year, SK reacts by the country-level equivalent of standing very close, flexing their muscles and asking "Did you say something? Huh? Thought so." And every year, North Korea backs down, mumbles something about harassment, but doesn't do anything.

This year, for whatever reason, North Korea responded by the equivalent of a push and saying "Yeah, I said sucker". South Korea gave the obligatory push back, and now they are watching each other. If they starts throwing punches, they will continue until one is in the hospital, and they may be carrying knives too.
Last edited by Zamfir on Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:15 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I wonder how the US (or any other country) should react if someone decided to practice invasion exercises with live artillery 10 miles from its borders.

And how would the US react if a non-aligned country parked an aircraft carrier just outside their waters?

(We already know how they reacted to a neighbour being armed with nuclear weapons, as the forces on South Korea's border are.)
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Thu Nov 25, 2010 3:10 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I wonder how the US (or any other country) should react if someone decided to practice invasion exercises with live artillery 10 miles from its borders.


Time for the Canadian war machine to open one of it's evil eyes? :P
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Brooklynxman » Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:06 pm UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
Zamfir wrote:I wonder how the US (or any other country) should react if someone decided to practice invasion exercises with live artillery 10 miles from its borders.

And how would the US react if a non-aligned country parked an aircraft carrier just outside their waters?

(We already know how they reacted to a neighbour being armed with nuclear weapons, as the forces on South Korea's border are.)


To be fair, that was part of a larger conflict that could have easily lead to the elimination of the human race (I won't flatter myself and say the end of all life, but it could easily put the Permian–Triassic extinction event to shame). The Cuban missiles were placed there as first strike weapons, and that was made clear as day.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:To be fair, that was part of a larger conflict that could have easily lead to the elimination of the human race (I won't flatter myself and say the end of all life, but it could easily put the Permian–Triassic extinction event to shame). The Cuban missiles were placed there as first strike weapons, and that was made clear as day.

Unlike missiles in Turkey?

Duban
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Duban » Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:17 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Brooklynxman wrote:To be fair, that was part of a larger conflict that could have easily lead to the elimination of the human race (I won't flatter myself and say the end of all life, but it could easily put the Permian–Triassic extinction event to shame). The Cuban missiles were placed there as first strike weapons, and that was made clear as day.

Unlike missiles in Turkey?

Lol, yeah I was thinking the same thing but wasn't going to say anything. Despite having such a warm reputation JFK did so much to extend the cold war and raise tensions between the US and USSR.
It is not the gods I fear. No, It is those who claim to speak for them that concern me.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Diadem » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:11 pm UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:To be fair, that was part of a larger conflict that could have easily lead to the elimination of the human race (I won't flatter myself and say the end of all life, but it could easily put the Permian–Triassic extinction event to shame). The Cuban missiles were placed there as first strike weapons, and that was made clear as day.

You severely overestimate human ability if you think that. Even detonating all our nuclear weapons and power stations simultaniously wouldn't begin to come close to approaching the same general area as even a minor extinction event. Let alone the PT extinction event.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SlyReaper » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:31 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Brooklynxman wrote:To be fair, that was part of a larger conflict that could have easily lead to the elimination of the human race (I won't flatter myself and say the end of all life, but it could easily put the Permian–Triassic extinction event to shame). The Cuban missiles were placed there as first strike weapons, and that was made clear as day.

You severely overestimate human ability if you think that. Even detonating all our nuclear weapons and power stations simultaniously wouldn't begin to come close to approaching the same general area as even a minor extinction event. Let alone the PT extinction event.

I thought human activity as it is right now is considered to be a fairly major extinction event? It's just not humans that are going extinct.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Triangle_Man » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:59 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
Diadem wrote:
Brooklynxman wrote:To be fair, that was part of a larger conflict that could have easily lead to the elimination of the human race (I won't flatter myself and say the end of all life, but it could easily put the Permian–Triassic extinction event to shame). The Cuban missiles were placed there as first strike weapons, and that was made clear as day.

You severely overestimate human ability if you think that. Even detonating all our nuclear weapons and power stations simultaniously wouldn't begin to come close to approaching the same general area as even a minor extinction event. Let alone the PT extinction event.

I thought human activity as it is right now is considered to be a fairly major extinction event? It's just not humans that are going extinct.


I believe that our activites on the planet are threatening many major species, either through altering their enviroments too quickly for them to adapt to hunting them for body parts. So your statement is quite correct...

Can someone with expertise in biology please elaborate on this?
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Brooklynxman » Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:16 pm UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
Diadem wrote:
Brooklynxman wrote:To be fair, that was part of a larger conflict that could have easily lead to the elimination of the human race (I won't flatter myself and say the end of all life, but it could easily put the Permian–Triassic extinction event to shame). The Cuban missiles were placed there as first strike weapons, and that was made clear as day.

You severely overestimate human ability if you think that. Even detonating all our nuclear weapons and power stations simultaniously wouldn't begin to come close to approaching the same general area as even a minor extinction event. Let alone the PT extinction event.

I thought human activity as it is right now is considered to be a fairly major extinction event? It's just not humans that are going extinct.


I believe that our activites on the planet are threatening many major species, either through altering their enviroments too quickly for them to adapt to hunting them for body parts. So your statement is quite correct...

Can someone with expertise in biology please elaborate on this?


So wait, you don't believe in global warming then? Sure, on their own they wouldn't, but the fallout radiation, dust kick up, and various other side effects would be a trigger for larger climate change, which, in addition to nuclear power plants going off and leaking radiation (I am assuming some idiot up top has a plan to target them in the event of a nuclear war) would render large sections of the earth highly radioactive.

Suggestion: We get back on topic now.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Triangle_Man » Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:19 am UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:
Triangle_Man wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
Diadem wrote:
Brooklynxman wrote:To be fair, that was part of a larger conflict that could have easily lead to the elimination of the human race (I won't flatter myself and say the end of all life, but it could easily put the Permian–Triassic extinction event to shame). The Cuban missiles were placed there as first strike weapons, and that was made clear as day.

You severely overestimate human ability if you think that. Even detonating all our nuclear weapons and power stations simultaniously wouldn't begin to come close to approaching the same general area as even a minor extinction event. Let alone the PT extinction event.

I thought human activity as it is right now is considered to be a fairly major extinction event? It's just not humans that are going extinct.


I believe that our activites on the planet are threatening many major species, either through altering their enviroments too quickly for them to adapt to hunting them for body parts. So your statement is quite correct...

Can someone with expertise in biology please elaborate on this?


So wait, you don't believe in global warming then? Sure, on their own they wouldn't, but the fallout radiation, dust kick up, and various other side effects would be a trigger for larger climate change, which, in addition to nuclear power plants going off and leaking radiation (I am assuming some idiot up top has a plan to target them in the event of a nuclear war) would render large sections of the earth highly radioactive.

Suggestion: We get back on topic now.


I do believe in Global Warming, thank you very much.

So let's see what the latest news on the issue is and oh shit we're in trouble now.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Hawknc » Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:26 am UTC

Did you expect much else? They can't really say "our attack did minimal damage and really served no purpose except to fulfill the peoples' wish for a retaliation", especially since they've had criticisms levelled at them about how they handled it.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Brooklynxman » Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:34 am UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:
Brooklynxman wrote:
Triangle_Man wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
Diadem wrote:
Brooklynxman wrote:To be fair, that was part of a larger conflict that could have easily lead to the elimination of the human race (I won't flatter myself and say the end of all life, but it could easily put the Permian–Triassic extinction event to shame). The Cuban missiles were placed there as first strike weapons, and that was made clear as day.

You severely overestimate human ability if you think that. Even detonating all our nuclear weapons and power stations simultaniously wouldn't begin to come close to approaching the same general area as even a minor extinction event. Let alone the PT extinction event.

I thought human activity as it is right now is considered to be a fairly major extinction event? It's just not humans that are going extinct.


I believe that our activites on the planet are threatening many major species, either through altering their enviroments too quickly for them to adapt to hunting them for body parts. So your statement is quite correct...

Can someone with expertise in biology please elaborate on this?


So wait, you don't believe in global warming then? Sure, on their own they wouldn't, but the fallout radiation, dust kick up, and various other side effects would be a trigger for larger climate change, which, in addition to nuclear power plants going off and leaking radiation (I am assuming some idiot up top has a plan to target them in the event of a nuclear war) would render large sections of the earth highly radioactive.

Suggestion: We get back on topic now.


I do believe in Global Warming, thank you very much.

So let's see what the latest news on the issue is and oh shit we're in trouble now.


Sorry. Was tring to to hit the original reply to me and must have misquoted. My bad.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

Arete
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:13 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Arete » Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:06 am UTC

Anyone who mentioned "nuclear weapons" in this thread needs to 'get a fucking clue'.

OPLAN for NK/SK theatre

Obviously, NK has threatened unacceptable civilian casualties ("collateral damage" for the gung-ho) using non-nuclear weaponry to the three major civilian centres within artillery reach (populations: 100k, 220k, outskirts Seoul)

That's the kicker - civilian deaths on a mass scale (even without chemical/biological artillery shells).



Again. Get a fucking clue.


This is getting embarrassing.


Triangle_Man wrote:Can someone with expertise in biology please elaborate on this?




1/6 extinction rate of all mammals - this qualifies as a major extinction event Here, randomly chosen mad person's links - actually all check out as legitimate sources


This isn't to mention oceans, which are even worse [Will an Ecology MA do for you? PhD is in something else]. And yes, when The discovery channel start covering it you should worry.

User avatar
Internetmeme
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:16 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Internetmeme » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:14 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
Zamfir wrote:I wonder how the US (or any other country) should react if someone decided to practice invasion exercises with live artillery 10 miles from its borders.

And how would the US react if a non-aligned country parked an aircraft carrier just outside their waters?


We'd escort them out of the way with the military because of the Monroe Doctrine, which basically we gave out in 1823 telling Europe to get the fuck off of this hemisphere.
3 major points (and the Roosevelt Corollary)
1. No new colonies in the Western Hemisphere
2. Interference in the Western Hemisphere is an act of aggression and requires our intervention (The President at the time of the Falklands conflict gave England permission)
3. We stay out of Europe's wars and don't touch their colonies here
Roosevelt Corollary: We get to intervene in Latin America and shit (because they got up to their eyeballs in debt to Europe and said they couldn't pay it off, so we took control of a couple nations' customs houses and stuff and made them pay it off)

EDIT:
Also, I want to ask this: Are they trying to start a fucking war?
Spoiler:

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Le1bn1z » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:55 pm UTC

Internetmeme wrote:
Pez Dispens3r wrote:
Zamfir wrote:I wonder how the US (or any other country) should react if someone decided to practice invasion exercises with live artillery 10 miles from its borders.

And how would the US react if a non-aligned country parked an aircraft carrier just outside their waters?


We'd escort them out of the way with the military because of the Monroe Doctrine, which basically we gave out in 1823 telling Europe to get the fuck off of this hemisphere.
3 major points (and the Roosevelt Corollary)
1. No new colonies in the Western Hemisphere
2. Interference in the Western Hemisphere is an act of aggression and requires our intervention (The President at the time of the Falklands conflict gave England permission)
3. We stay out of Europe's wars and don't touch their colonies here
Roosevelt Corollary: We get to intervene in Latin America and shit (because they got up to their eyeballs in debt to Europe and said they couldn't pay it off, so we took control of a couple nations' customs houses and stuff and made them pay it off)


Errrmmm.... you know, if that's true, than that whole Monroe Doctine didn't get a whole lot of respect or actual attention paid to it. Mostly it seems to be occassionally whipped out when convenient, but generally its ignored.

America tracked Soviet subs and ships near the USA throughout the Cold War. There's been a whole lot of European attention and clashes in the Americas since then, and America only gets involved really when it thinks there's a smash-and-grab opportunity involved.

Funnily enough, Asian Countries have occassionally tried to enforce their own versions of the Monroe doctrine. Japan formulated one prior to WWII, and China looks headed that direction now.

As a note of caution, however, NATO war games have shown that a cunning electric-sub captain has decent chances of bagging an American carrier. They're just so damn difficult to track. The closer you get to North Korea, the smaller the sub they can send out, the easier it is to get lucky.

I still think the funniest thing about all this was that just a year ago there were huge Korean and Japanese protests to kick American troops out of their countries because, meh, who needs 'em there anyway.

Just think. If America had only just shrugged and said "okey dokey" this wouldn't even be America's problem. South Korea could sit down with the Kims and China and have a rational discussion about their future, on topics like "Just how much are we your bitch now?"
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby sje46 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:57 am UTC

General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
Gellert1984
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:07 pm UTC
Location: South Wales UK

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Gellert1984 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:43 am UTC

So now all we need is an armed response from NK (and you know thats gonna happen) and NATO/US forces get dragged into another war, wonderful.
The only time I question the right to Free Speech is when I watch Fox News, probably due to the fact that I don't think they really believe in it. -Elisa Scaldaferri

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Triangle_Man » Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:12 am UTC

This war is going to go hot, very quickly.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
PhoenixEnigma
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:11 am UTC
Location: Sasquatchawan, Canada
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby PhoenixEnigma » Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:19 am UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:This war is going to go hot, very quickly.
I disagree. If this turns into a full scale war, there won't be any winners, and both sides know this. I think we've already discussed several of the reasons S Korea doesn't want to turn this into a shooting war. From the N Korea side, they don't really have anything to gain, and starting a war when a US carrier group just showed up to the party would be somewhere between "bad timing" and "incredibly stupid."
"Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work." -Elon Musk
Shivahn wrote:I am a motherfucking sorceror.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests