Screw the Wii, lets talk nuclear bombs!

m0ds · Mon 09/10/2006 21:54:17

There is a lot of talk about the pending success of the Nintendo Wii, but as of today

NORTH KOREA MIGHT BE A NUCLEAR SUPER POWER! Shit! Is this bad!?

Is it something we should worry about or should we just banter on about whether a fucking console will be "good" or "crap" because it's got a dumb name, less processing power than its rivals and a stupid hand-held remote controller that would be more suited to a shape shifting matress?

Someone said when Kim Yong-il kicks it he'll probably give the order to nuke somewhere, does todays news mean that statement could be a reality?

I'm just eager to know what others think about North Korea setting us up the bomb, but if not, you're more than welcome to continue talking about the Wii... :p

Articles in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6034873.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2340405.stm

LimpingFish · Mon 09/10/2006 21:56:33

I'd rather talk about the Wii.

Real world stuff scares me. :'(

Domino · Mon 09/10/2006 21:58:02

For those who have a hatred towards Nintendo, maybe North Korea can fly a nuke into their headquarters. BOOM!!! No more Nintendo, no more Mario.

m0ds · Mon 09/10/2006 21:59:04

Cool, but you LIVE in the real world dude, not a freakin' console

Though I'm sure a lot of people genuinly think they do!

If you get blown up your Wii isn't going to save you. In fact, it's just going to melt all over you and ruin your shirt. But then for that matter, you're also going to melt all over IT! :p

Tuomas · Mon 09/10/2006 21:59:34

Quote from: m0ds on Mon 09/10/2006 21:54:17
Shit! Is this bad!?

Well, duh...
No seriously, on the other hand it's a good thing. I hate the shitty feeling of only a few nations that are basically making us do what we want, and I find it good that this international tension is stabilised even a bit. On the other hand though only countries that are making nuclear weapons secretly are full of maniacs, just like that one there. Well, there's reasonable people there too, but we all know the drill, and I don't mean the household tool.

Then again, in my opinion, thre's no reasen to be afraid of a nuclear strike. At least within Ã,Â the next 50 years, no grounds, just a hunch...

but yes I'm bored of the Wii talk

Evil · Mon 09/10/2006 22:02:49

The Wii IS the nuclear bomb. Just an innocent game of pong and BLAMMO!

LimpingFish · Mon 09/10/2006 22:03:33

I'm sure that North Korea is high on America's list of countries to "Liberate".

Newklear boms are bad, y'all!

Sam. · Mon 09/10/2006 22:53:55

What exactly can talking about it achieve? It's not like anyone really thinks that crazy dictators with nuclear weapons is a great idea, it's that noone can do anything about it.

Helm · Mon 09/10/2006 22:57:16

nobody but

m0ds · Mon 09/10/2006 22:59:05

lol - well I totally trust those guys!

MrColossal · Mon 09/10/2006 23:45:29

Quote from: Tuomas on Mon 09/10/2006 21:59:34
[Then again, in my opinion, thre's no reasen to be afraid of a nuclear strike. At least within Ã,Â the next 50 years, no grounds, just a hunch...

North Korea is poor, selling nuclear bombs makes a lot of money. I can think of some people who'd like to buy a nuclear bomb.

Las Naranjas · Tue 10/10/2006 00:26:33

It's a great asset for making a deal. Libya gave up a weapons program that didn't exist and got lucrative oil deals and had sanctions dropped against it, if North Korea has genuine weapons to give up, they'll probably get a free car in the deal as well. After all, if you simply don't have a weapons program, and then deny that there is one, and then have observers come in to prove you don't have one, you end up being invaded.

modgeulator · Tue 10/10/2006 00:34:42

I wonder if Kim Jong-il is just overcompensating for the size of his Wii?

Raggit · Tue 10/10/2006 00:38:03

America can't just sit around 'n wait fer the terr'ists who hate us for our freedom to drop the biggun on us! We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud! We've gotta fight 'em there so we do not have to fight 'em here, and so we can keep our freedom of speech and proceed to ban flag burning!

Babar · Tue 10/10/2006 00:51:30

I'm assuming N.K. actually has nuclear power. In which case, fighting it would be the stupidest thing anyone could do. Things will go on as before, except N.K. will have nuclear power. And get great deals.

...I hope.

Domino · Tue 10/10/2006 00:58:27

I suggest everbody start building Bomb Shelters and stocking up on non-perishable foods, like canned soup and ravioli. Hopefully some of us will be playing the Wii run on a generator until the nuclear winter ends and we are safe to come out of our holes.

Will there be a Mittens after World War III? I am hoping that most of our members here don't become flesh eating zombies due to the massive radiation given off one of those nukes. Please pray for humanity.

EagerMind · Tue 10/10/2006 04:37:01

A few things to keep in mind here:

1. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any 3rd-party confirmation yet that North Korea has actually done what it claims.

2. If they actually detonated a weapon, they're still far from actually having a useable missile. First, the weapon is most likely too big and bulky to be fit into a missile. And second, when they conducted missile tests earlier this summer, their prototype exploded seconds after take-off.

3. If they ever do get nuclear missiles, they'll probably be pointed at the U.S., since Kim thinks we're arming up to invade him. So everyone else can relax and keep playing their video games.

In short: while this is obviously bad news, I don't think there's no reason to panic. Hopefully international pressure will keep him in line. Unfortunately, Kim Jong Il is very unpredictable, and I think he grows only more defiant as pressure mounts against him. But other than dramatic posturing, I'm not quite sure there's anything he can do about it .... yet.

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Tue 10/10/2006 00:26:33It's a great asset for making a deal. Libya gave up a weapons program that didn't exist and got lucrative oil deals and had sanctions dropped against it, if North Korea has genuine weapons to give up, they'll probably get a free car in the deal as well. After all, if you simply don't have a weapons program, and then deny that there is one, and then have observers come in to prove you don't have one, you end up being invaded.

First off, Libya did have an operational weapons program, and (in additional to Iran and North Korea) had even received equipment through Pakistan's black market. However, they weren't anywhere close to having a functioning weapon.

Second, Iraq was less than honest - and in fact deliberately deceptive - about the state of their weapons program. The inspectors eventually gave up because they weren't able to conduct inspections to their satisfacation. Not that I'm condoning America's invasion, but the truth is that nobody knew what kind of weapons Iraq had until after they were invaded.

Quote from: Zooty on Mon 09/10/2006 22:53:55What exactly can talking about it achieve? It's not like anyone really thinks that crazy dictators with nuclear weapons is a great idea, it's that noone can do anything about it.

Uh, perhaps to stay informed about important world events? Or maybe because our governments might try to do something about it, and it would be nice to know enough to make an informed decision about whether or not I agree with what they're doing? Or maybe because, if I decide it bothers me enough, I can find out how I can do something about it?

Kweepa · Tue 10/10/2006 06:09:48

Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 10/10/2006 04:37:01
1. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any 3rd-party confirmation yet that North Korea has actually done what it claims.

Errr... Japan, Australia, Russia, the USA, &c have confirmed it.
http://news.google.com/news?q=confirmation+of+korean+nuclear+test

Quote
3. If they ever do get nuclear missiles, they'll probably be pointed at the U.S., since Kim thinks we're arming up to invade him. So everyone else can relax and keep playing their video games.

Oh, well, that's all right then

As long as you believe they'll be pointed at the USA, rather than the countries all around NK that their conventional weapons are pointed at. See for example the section "Preventing North Korean Retaliation" in
http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm

Quote
Second, Iraq was less than honest - and in fact deliberately deceptive - about the state of their weapons program.

Really? They maintained that there weren't weapons, and so far there's no evidence to the contrary. And there was intel corroborating their story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749_page2.shtml

Quote
The inspectors eventually gave up because they weren't able to conduct inspections to their satisfaction.

No, they had to leave because the UN determined they wouldn't be safe since the coalition of the willing was about to start an invasion.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6502&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect

Quote
Not that I'm condoning America's invasion, but the truth is that nobody knew what kind of weapons Iraq had until after they were invaded.

And now...?

Nine Toes · Tue 10/10/2006 08:21:33

EDIT: Nothing. Nevermind.

Nacho · Tue 10/10/2006 11:40:24

I think they should give a better use to such a nice building the UN is. Maybe doing a huge sex shop or something. Avoiding NK to get nukes is probably the most important issue they have dealt with in 60 years, and they did nothing

Let' s be serious, the dicators let their citizens die by hungry, someone honestly thinks that a sanction here and there is going to make them change their mind? The local Hitler is not going to say "Oh, 4 guys voted in NY that I can' t invade Bananastan! I think I am going to retreat!" if the resollution is not followed by a serious threat of military action...Also, if one the US are decided to attack, they are going to do, no matter if UN agrees or not, as seen in Iraq.

I can' t honestly think in which is the reason to give the UN a status of "police of the world". The non gouvernamental actions they do, like UNESCO, and the work with medical aid, famines and refugees, for instance, is perfect... But threatening dictators with making resolutions is completelly ridiculous because nobody respects them. It' s like sending a police to arrest the local mob band with a wristle...

Surelly some military actions went terribly wrong, but even if the percentage of success is less than 10 %, they should go for it, since making something wrong is better than doing nothing. Somalia went bad? Well... Lesson learned, we will allow them to kill till extermination in Darfur. How cool we are.

NK is small and poor, it should have been (militarily talking) easy to invade it 10 years ago, but now it seems a pretty difficult bet. It' s amazing how people in this thread uses Iraq as an example of a mistake. Was it a mistake? Probably, but the mistake was not attacking Korea instead of Iraq, not "no attacking", as these posts seem to suggest.

-You attacked Iraq and they were no weapons! Ha, ha!
-Well, yes... Then you say that the attack should have been justified if there have been weapons?
-I guess so, yes...
-But now we know there are weapons in North Korea... If you were able to go back to 1997, knowing what you know now, would you have attacked North Korea?
-No!!! South Korea rocks! Kill that Bush, Kim Jong Il!!! Har Har!

The worst of all is than the invasion of Iran is even less remote, since the territory and the population are bigger than in NK. So, the result is probably going to be that a criminal which denies the existance of Israel is going to have nukes. Maybe there could have been possible to make a serious negotiation if Ahmadinejad had fresh on his memory the example of a invassion in NK, but now everything is lost. And the possibility of giving nukes to HizbullÃ¡ or Al QuaedaÃ,Â is not impossible.

Aaaah! How I'd like to be pacifist! That would mean that my country haven' t been put by Al Zawahiri as a territori to be recovered by Islam, besides with Palestine. Maybe it should be easier to be Pacifist if I were Finish? Mmmm...

How great examples we are going to see of what a high percentage of "pacifists" really are...

"Nuclear? No thanks! Keeping stability by threats of preventive attacks, by overwhelming military power, or nukes is bad!!! Well... If Iran investigate, then nuclear energy is cool, because the poor guys need clean electricity, you know? And if North Korea has the nukes, great, then it won' t be attacked by Japan, or South Korea, of the Imperialist Yankee devil... yes, I hate the americans, and now leave me alone, I gotta go to the Nike factory, I' ve seen a pair of Levi' s that will look terrific with my pink Ipod and my Motorola Peeble... Come on! don' t put in front of my Mustang, I might ruing my "Snakes on a plane" sticker if I crash with you..."