240, when did North Korea fire ICBMs at America?

[240 is Back]

I think you are so full of fucking shit - that you are doing anything to cover yor ass off of the beating you have been taking the last 2 months. 

I see.  We'll label this an "attack the messenger" post.

Don't forget your door prize!

[Kazan]

120 dude, you are all over the map. Have you been checked for multiple personality disorder?

[doison]

I dunno.  4+ years ago, they successfully set off a nuclear weapon.

I'm guessing at the very least, they have the ability to do that again.  

To me, that's not acceptable.  however, some appeasers think bribing them to not nuke us is the way to go.  I am of the ilk that you can't negotiate with terrorists.

(Remember....they can't even guarantee a successful launch of their long range missiles...which can't reach any major US cities anyway...)

The "nuclear" bomb in 2006 was a pipsqueak fission reaction that was less than a kiloton in yield.  The estimates on its yield go as low as 550 tons...

Disregarding the difficulties in enriching Uranium, and the fact that even the NEWLY released information on North Korea's enrichment program indicates that they have a MAXIMUM capability of producing about ONE minimal payload worth of weapons grade U235 a year, the "bomb" in 2006 was a couple of Kilotons at BEST...which would have to be loaded onto missiles with high failure rates at launch and without the capabilities of ever even making it to major American cities if used to attack us....  

The bombs we dropped in 1945 had explosive yields of 12,500 and 22,000 tons.

Tsar Bomb tested by Russia was half of what was originally a 100,000,000 Ton yield.  
See the difference?  550 vs. 100,000,000?  
So you don't have to go search for a calculator, that means it would take close to 200,000 North Korean "bombs" to equal ONE SINGLE full-strength Tsar bomb.  
At an enrichment rate of 1 bomb per year with the new findings, that means that they'll have a stockpile equal to that SINGLE bomb in the year 202010....


The fucking 2006 "bomb" explosion wasn't a "chest thumping" by North Korea.  It was a RELIEF to Nuclear Engineers and Physicists who weren't sure of their capabilities.  
You don't "test" a bomb with 1 kiloton of yield.  If you can only produce 1k of fissionable Uranium for testing purposes, then you don't have megatons sitting back at home.  
Considering the yield-to-weight ratio they probably got out of the thing, they took every drop of U235 they had and crossed their fingers for a chain reaction.
(For reference, the Trinity "test" was over 20,000 tons in yield....65 years ago)



The US has 15 or so GBU-43/B's at 165 tons of guaranteed to launch successfully and reach their target yield that would clear out every major North Korean military base WITHOUT USING NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY before Kim Jong Fever's "Tinkering Tom" crashes into the ocean somewhere.  

Unless Russia wants to see MAD play out, they could send out 11 or so FOABs at 44 tons a piece (NON-NUCLEAR) to hit any other selected targets they'd like before the North Korean commanding officers get the news that their "bomb's" only fatality was a beluga whale somewhere in the Pacific.  

*In case you didn't catch it....the yield of 11 FOABS is ~575 tons...MORE than the North Korean "nuclear" bomb....and decidedly non-nuclear in payload.  

[Grape Ape]

sorry, I got it wrong.  They fired missiles which our agencies confirm could have reached US soil.  They failed before they hit our soil.  

I guess on 911, if the bad guys had crashed the planes into the ground before they hit the towers, we could have avoided all those flag pins and wars, right guys?  

So you're standing by the point it was a failed attack?  A planned attack against US soil?  Or was it a test?

[240 is Back]

(Remember....they can't even guarantee a successful launch of their long range missiles...which can't reach any major US cities anyway...)

The "nuclear" bomb in 2006 was a pipsqueak fission reaction that was less than a kiloton in yield.  The estimates on its yield go as low as 550 tons...

Cool.   So as long as their missiles would only be able to stike minor targets - smaller US cities - it's cool?

And as long as it would only be a SMALL nuke blast - only killing  a few thousand instead of tens of thousands - that's cool too?

Look - if they threaten us, and they have any WMD capable of reaching any US soil - their asses gotta go.  But that's just me.  I'm no pacifist.

[240 is Back]

So you're standing by the point it was a failed attack?

I'm standing by the fact that a nation with proven nuke capability - that made threats at us - fired missiles in our direction on our nation's birthday.

Any nation that does this - they need a little boot in the ass.

[Grape Ape]

I'm standing by the fact that a nation with proven nuke capability - that made threats at us - fired missiles in our direction on our nation's birthday.

Any nation that does this - they need a little boot in the ass.

Fine.  But that's not what was expressed on the G&O and started this thread.

The did not attack us.  They did not fire a missile at Hawaii.

I demand a retraction.   

[240 is Back]

The did not attack us.  They did not fire a missile at Hawaii.
I demand a retraction.   

you are correct.  I apologize. My peace offering...

[doison]

Cool.   So as long as their missiles would only be able to stike minor targets - smaller US cities - it's cool?

And as long as it would only be a SMALL nuke blast - only killing  a few thousand instead of tens of thousands - that's cool too?

Look - if they threaten us, and they have any WMD capable of reaching any US soil - their asses gotta go.  But that's just me.  I'm no pacifist.

Did you read my post?  
Do you understand ANYTHING about nuclear weapon technology?  

I usually let you waddle around here and spout off at the mouth with whatever jibberish you feel like typing down, but I have to let you know that you're a fucking moron on this one.  

Do you know anything about nuclear physics?  Weapons?  Technology?  
You don't, because if you did, you'd realize that how absurd you are with this shit.  

Supposing that they could produce another "1 kiloton" FISSION bomb that didn't fail at launch....and actually reached the MAXIMUM THEORETICALLY ATTAINABLE DISTANCE and fell off the coast of Alaska.  

What is the damage?  
What is the initial damage of a 1 kiloton yield? (or likely less than that)
What is the "fall out?"


You don't know those answers, because if you did, you'd realize they're not a viable nuclear threat on their own, won't be for a long time, and shut the fuck up and go back to writing 2,000 word dissertations of progressive praise and pandering before ending it with a "I'm not saying I agree with it, but the repubs did it too.  Sarah Palin." to make sure everyone knows you "toe the line."


Are you freaked the fuck out by their non-nuclear weapons capabilities?  Because it's certainly much more of a legitimate threat than their nuclear capabilities. 

[Grape Ape]

you are correct.  I apologize. My peace offering...

Accepted!  Feel free to make more incorrect statements and peace offerings in the future!

[Cohibia]

I think you are so full of fucking shit - that you are doing anything to cover yor ass off of the beating you have been taking the last 2 months. 

240- please have mercy on him. Obama is 3333456 only answer. 

[240 is Back]

Are you freaked the fuck out by their non-nuclear weapons capabilities?  Because it's certainly much more of a legitimate threat than their nuclear capabilities.  

Sorry.  Any threat is too much of a threat.  Even if it's only a "small" nuke.  If they suitcase that shit, that means thousands of dead Americans.  I'm not down with that.

And if you allow them to build small nukes, they will continue to evolve until they have large nukes.

My standards are simple - any nation that fires missiles toward us, makes threats, and sets off a nuke of any size - they're certainly a threat worthy of the Bush doctrine.










in what respect, Charlie?

[Soul Crusher]

240- please have mercy on him. Obama is 3333456 only answer. 

Remind us again why you have to post under a gimmick account 

[Soul Crusher]

Sorry.  Any threat is too much of a threat.  Even if it's only a "small" nuke.  If they suitcase that shit, that means thousands of dead Americans.  I'm not down with that.

And if you allow them to build small nukes, they will continue to evolve until they have large nukes.

My standards are simple - any nation that fires missiles toward us, makes threats, and sets off a nuke of any size - they're certainly a threat worthy of the Bush doctrine.










in what respect, Charlie?

You are complety obsessed with Sarah.   You are almost pathological.  The woman is not a governor, not a senator not a president, not a mayor, or anyone having any power over your life. 

Why did you bring her in to this?   

[Cohibia]

Sorry.  Any threat is too much of a threat.  Even if it's only a "small" nuke.  If they suitcase that shit, that means thousands of dead Americans.  I'm not down with that.

And if you allow them to build small nukes, they will continue to evolve until they have large nukes.

My standards are simple - any nation that fires missiles toward us, makes threats, and sets off a nuke of any size - they're certainly a threat worthy of the Bush doctrine.


in what respect, Charlie?

but but but....what if they fight back?  

[Grape Ape]

240- please have mercy on him. Obama is 3333456 only answer. 

If these boards really are moderated, blatant trolls like this one need to be banned.

[doison]

Cool.   So as long as their missiles would only be able to stike minor targets - smaller US cities - it's cool?

And as long as it would only be a SMALL nuke blast - only killing  a few thousand instead of tens of thousands - that's cool too?

Look - if they threaten us, and they have any WMD capable of reaching any US soil - their asses gotta go.  But that's just me.  I'm no pacifist.

Who else has to go then?  Because there isn't a developed country out there that doesn't have a 550 ton launch ready payload.  Who do we leave out?  

Should we start with the country that has an enrichment rate to produce a maximum (brand fucking new estimates) of one fission bomb a year?
Even though they don't have a viable long range missile program?  
Even though the "tests" you've talked about for four fucking years showed only that they can't guarantee failure-free first phase?  That they can't guarantee the midcourse rockets?  That they can't guarantee accuracy on any of them?  
Even though MOST analysts don't believe they even have the capabilities to reach the American coast even IF they make it through boost, midcourse, and their GPS actually works?  


You hear "nuclear" and you think some crazy shit happens.  Hold a fucking geiger counter up while you're sitting at your computer.  
Better yet, hold one up next to your grandma's old china.  
Even better, hold it up while you're going through an airport scanner.

Or even better....hold it up out in the middle of fucking nowhere...watch it tick from the radiation.  


You don't know what it means to "test" a 1 kiloton warhead.  
If you did, you'd know how the enrichment of Uranium works.
If you knew that, you'd know that you don't fucking test at 1 kiloton yield unless you can't fucking produce U235 at any effective rate and it's taken you so long to produce that tiny amount that you're not even sure if the U235 you made 20 years ago is going to be worth a damn anymore.  

The fucking Trinity test was 20 kiloton, in 1945 when no one had any fucking clue how to properly enrich Uranium, or if Plutonium was the better choice, or if the fucking idea would even work.  

1945, no clue in the world, and they pumped out over 20 kilotons in the desert....in a few years....from fucking scratch.

It ain't the "knowledge."  Any physics major in the world could tell you how the process of making U235 works.  Any grad student focusing on Nuclear physics could write an entire novel on that SINGLE subject.  Any Nuclear Engineer could probably tell you half a dozen variations, thousands of cost effective changes, and even more theoretical possibilities for both.  


The problem is, it's fucking hard to make U235.  It's fucking expensive too...especially on a $5 billion annual military budget.  

All you do by "testing" a 1 kiloton yield fission bomb is let the world know that you're not even fucking close to enriching uranium at a rate to be a viable threat to fucking Tuva.  
All that did was let everyone know that they do not have a nuclear arsenal, cannot produce a nuclear arsenal, and will not have those capabilities for some time.

It let everyone (who doesn't hear "nuclear" and associate it with some kind of sorcery or magic) know that they are likely to call up Seoul and ask to be friends again before they achieve any kind of modern fusion bomb technologies that would make them a legitimate nuclear threat on the world scale.  

[doison]

Sorry.  Any threat is too much of a threat.  Even if it's only a "small" nuke.  If they suitcase that shit, that means thousands of dead Americans.  I'm not down with that.

And if you allow them to build small nukes, they will continue to evolve until they have large nukes.

My standards are simple - any nation that fires missiles toward us, makes threats, and sets off a nuke of any size - they're certainly a threat worthy of the Bush doctrine.

You have countries with unstable governments sitting on 10,000,000,000 tons or more of nuclear yield that would actually hit their target, and you're creaming your pants over North korea being able to produce 500 tons of yield a year?  

Do you not see the difference?  


Since you obviously don't, North Korea could spend the next year working on a bomb that would do a bit less damage than the first day of "shock and awe" did....to a few whales off the Pacific coast.....wait another 13 months and do it again (they wouldn't have that option)....or some goat herder named Pavlic could end up at the right place and the right time in a government upheaval and have his oxen haul away a single nuclear warhead that would take North Korea 200,000 YEARS to produce at their current rate.

A group of tribesman yielding yak femurs and carrying goat-skin shields could do more damage to the typical Alaskan town than North Korea could by way of ICBM nuclear attack.

[Soul Crusher]

Doison = great posts. 

[Cy Tolliver]

I've seen you consistently make this claim over the years yet I can't think of any time that you've actually provided proof of said claim of yours.

Nothing comes up on a quick google search either so please enlighten me.

If I remember right, it was July 4, 2007 or 2008...

[tonymctones]

So they fired AT Hawaii...trying to hit the US with a missile attack...but failed to make the distance? 
Why doesn't ANY report on the issue say that? 

I took a shit towards China this morning.  It failed to make the distance too. 
Did I now officially attempt a turd-missile attack on China?

AHAHHAHAHHAKLJSHDKLJASL:KHAHFHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA HHAHH

LMFAO

ahhahaha one of the best posts ive read LOL classic

[Fury]

Damn, Doison dropping the hammer all over this thread. Great posts.