North Korea Prepares To Nuke USA
 

This report follows North Korea's earlier threat of nuclear armageddon if the USA tries to invade it:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc...les/index.html

Guys..... if you live in the USA, I just wanted to recommend this radiation suit. It comes in all sizes and colors. Unfortunately, they didnt have an affiliate program or I could have put my referral ID in:

http://www.radshield.com/products.cfm

The other alternative is this radiation protection for your mobile phone. You'll probably die but your mobile phone will be fine.

If you buy say 200 of em, you can make a full radiation suit for yourself and it would probably be cheaper but I doubt that the North Koreans will be attacking with mobile phones:

http://www.protector.co.il/prtbroch.htm

Either way your fucked but in option two, it would be quite funny to see you on the street wearing a suit made of sewn together mobile phone covers.

n korea? BRING IT fuckers. your psycho-babble will eventually get you one large glass art piece - about the size of Pyongyang

GREAT !!!!!!!!!!!!

If they nuke the US there is really no point in me going out and looking for a job today, we are all going to die anyway !!!!!!!

think I'll have another beer !!!!!

have a nice day

I've already got my radiation protection.

<img src="http://zapatopi.net/afdb/alnose.jpg">

LOL,, trust me they will shoot down the missle before it even flys out of north korea,,

but Japan, South Korea, do have something to worry about

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world...epo.dong.2.gif

According to a North Korean defector, work on the Taepo Dong-2 began in 1987, with then-leader Kim Jong Il saying to researchers, "If we can develop this we have nothing to fear. Even the American bastards won't be able to bother us."

Estimates of the missile's range vary, and it has never been test-fired. In a December 2001 report, the CIA estimated a 10,000 km (6,200 mile) range for the two-stage version, enough to hit Alaska or Hawaii, and 15,000 km (9,300 miles), enough to hit any point in North America, for a three-stage version.

Sources: Federation of American Scientists, CIA

With what?! LOL! The missile defense system is not in place yet. And they are not going to launch just one missile. This is a concept people seem to forget. If they launch an attack, they are going to send 10, 20, 100 missiles. But only 2-3 might carry nuclear warheads. Now, wich one do you destroy? (when I say destroy, I mean with the missile defense system in place and operationnal. And that's going to take a couple of years)

North Korea will never ever nike the USA. To do so would be pointless; Within hours we would bomb them. They could hit us, but we would destroy them. That's why the USSR never bombed us.... The amount of bombs we have could destroy any country.

Ahem,, you think the US Air Superiority only has to do with jets?
we do have plenty of Air Defense missiles


the missile defense system your talking bout is a waste of money anyway,they won't stop a dirty suitcase bomb

A quarter century ago, the U.S. had a limited but real strategic defense against nuclear missiles. It was called the Safeguard ABM (anti-ballistic missile) system, and had nuclear-tipped interceptors. But it no longer exists. It was dismantled decades ago. Now we have no ballistic missile defense system. None. Yet opinion polls show that most Americans believe that if the U.S. were attacked by ballistic missiles, our military could intercept those missiles before damage occurred. The images of Patriot missiles shooting down Iraqi (Soviet) SCUD missiles during the Persian Gulf War have undoubtedly contributed to this dangerously widespread, mistaken belief. The bitter truth is that we stand completely naked and defenseless against a ballistic missile attack.

Real strategic defense in the U.S. was dealt three successive deathblows:

? First, the Defense Department irresponsibly started some ABM construction near large cities, which naturally generated public outrage.

? Second, President Nixon pushed through an inherently immoral ABM restriction treaty for his own political gain.

? Third, President Reagan started the non-nuclear Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, a technologically fraudulent fantasy aimed at co-opting the nuclear freeze movement. It failed, abysmally, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.


Why do you think they are developping a missile defense system and that Bush begged for billions of dollars ? It's because we don't have one. If not, like you said, they wouldn't give a damn about it and just use the imaginary defense system you are talking about.

But you are right, a missile defense system would be useless against suitcase bombs. But that was not my concern in the last message.


Found on another site:

What are the differences between boost-phase, midcourse, and terminal defenses?

boost-phase defense attempts to shoot down the attacking missile during the first minutes of flight (the boost phase) while the missile?s rocket motor is still burning. During this period, which lasts up to five minutes, the attacking missile is easy to locate because it is essentially a large burning gas tank. Boost-phase interceptors are appealing to many because, assuming they can be made to work, they would destroy a missile before it can release any decoys, making the job of intercepting it easier. The major difficulty with earth-based boost-phase defenses is that they must be based within several hundred miles of the enemy launch point. If they are based any farther away than that, they will not have enough time to reach the attacking missile before its rocket motor finishes burning. So if the enemy launch point is not reasonably close to international waters or the territory of a close ally, it may be impossible to build a base close enough to make a boost-phase intercept. Space-based boost-phase defenses don't face this same problem but they are years, and probably decades, away from being ready for deployment.

A midcourse defense attempts to shoots down individual warheads in space. (Once the rocket motor finishes burning, the missile ejects its warheads and any countermeasures and falls away.) This middle part of a long-range ballistic missile?s flight path generally lasts fifteen to twenty minutes. During that time, interceptor missiles could travel thousands of miles, meaning that it is practical to defend the entire United States with only one or two bases. Midcourse defenses are far more vulnerable than boost-phase defenses to decoys. In the weightless vacuum of space, even extremely light decoys would fly the same trajectory as true warheads. The NMD system that the Clinton administration proposed building, and the Bush administration is continuing to develop, is a midcourse defense.

Terminal defenses attempt to shoot down warheads during the final phase of ballistic flight after the warhead reenters the atmosphere. As a general rule, terminal defenses are poorly suited to defending a large country like the United States against long-range ballistic missiles. The terminal phase lasts only a minute or two because the warheads are traveling at extremely high rates of speed. During those few minutes, an interceptor missile could fly no more than fifty or a hundred miles. So more than one hundred defense batteries?and perhaps even two or three times that many?would be needed to defend the entire United States. That would likely be too costly to be practical.

but these guys are nuts.... as far as they are concerned we (non NK) are not even human

they are preparing thier people for nuclear war..... they have decided it is going to happen. How can anyone defend themselves against that?

At least Iraq will play politics and have some sort of self preservation instinct.

Patriot missile is not a long range missile and it has a very high kill rate most the "MISSES" that was reported was broken missiles that didn't completely explode,

shit We can even launch Jets and it can shoot down a missile just as easy, the US military has LOTS of air defense weapons,
and i speak from experience. I use to shoot these for a living
http://www.adnkronos.com/Esteri/serv...de/stinger.jpg



and whats more importantly defense is that we have working Nukes,

any attack on the US is gaurantee suicide so there wouldn't even be a point

That article read, "Last month, CIA head George Tenet told the U.S. Congress Pyongyang had an untested long-range missile that was capable of hitting the continental United States.

The Daepodong-2 rocket has a range that could reach Alaska or Hawaii or with a lighter payload, the western half of the U.S. "

Capable of hitting the US and planning on hitting the US are 2 totally different things. They never said they were going to launch at us.

And if it did happen, our missiles would intercept them far above and away from our soil. Now, if we wanted to fire back, don't you think we have more missiles capable of hitting them back? Would they be able to hit ours in the air far above and away from them? Could they do that for a bunch of missiles launched at the same time? I doubt it.

I'm more afraid of them selling the nukes to terrorists and other dictatorships with bad intent.

Oh yeah, UBL is next, we're coming to get him soon. You'll see. I just wonder what his face looks like after plastic surgery, I'm sure he had done.

I want to first point out that I don't want any nukes to be fired upon anyone - but I just hope if they are fired that they don't have shitty guidance systems.. Though, I'm sure Canada would be hit with radiation anyways.. or vice-versa... Poo.

And also, the US airforce would be airborn in about a minute loaded with nukes if any signs of missiles are detected incoming.

BAH. I don't want this shit to happen. It will be horrible.

Cheers,
Matt

That picture of the missle loooooks like my dick.

NK is just a sorry ass country that wants to make itself more of a name in the international community. I heard the prez of NK is an avid fan of 007 movies and a lot of west shit, and he even surfs the web from time to time.

This fucker is just a poser. He is causing shit because we stopped sending oil and whatnot to his country? That would have never happened if his dumbass country didnt go behind everyones back and develop secret shit they agreed NOT to.

We could easily level his bitchass country and turn that waste of space into a parking lot, complete with a McDonalds.

Problem solved. :1orglaugh

well i want to make it clear that the stinger is a short range weapon of 3-6km in range, i was just making a point

The real question is, how many long range missles does N.Korea have?

I wouldn't worry about it too much. With 8 million Korean's dead of starvation, and most of the rest in Gulags, death camps, or forced farming, I doubt if the whole nation could get enough sulfer to make a match to light the fuse...

I think thats why they are rushing to get to that standoffable stage. They are probably already there actually... to where we just can't do shit but deal with them.

What NoCarrier said about 20-30 missles with a nuke warhead in a couple of them... man.. thats scary.. because its true, because that's how it would be done I guess.

Everyone (including myself) always seems to think it would be one big ass missle coming our way with N.U.K.E painted on the side and like a scene out of a hollywood movie, one of our brave fighter pilots would sacrifice his own life and smash into it head on to save the day.

Damn you NoCarrier. You've ruined my morning :BangBang:



:)

It is kinda scary just to know that the NK can take out any part of the US. My impression so far is that the prez of NK is a bit on the insane side, which means they are unpredictable. I would hope all that 'Star Wars' technology from the 80's is still out there somewhere.

:ak47:

If there is something out there, I sure as hell hope it's better than the Star Wars technology of the '80s. That was a myth.

I used a suit like that 2 days ago :Graucho

anybody who said you can just intercept and shoot a nuke attack down is a fuckin retard :2 cents: that's all I'll add to this lol

You are right, once the warheads fly in space and get down on the united states, it's TOO LATE.

And destroying ballistic missiles at launch, it's horribly difficult.

People believe we have a system in place. WE DO NOT.

"What are the differences between boost-phase, midcourse, and terminal defenses?

boost-phase defense attempts to shoot down the attacking missile during the first minutes of flight (the boost phase) while the missile?s rocket motor is still burning. During this period, which lasts up to five minutes, the attacking missile is easy to locate because it is essentially a large burning gas tank. Boost-phase interceptors are appealing to many because, assuming they can be made to work, they would destroy a missile before it can release any decoys, making the job of intercepting it easier. The major difficulty with earth-based boost-phase defenses is that they must be based within several hundred miles of the enemy launch point. If they are based any farther away than that, they will not have enough time to reach the attacking missile before its rocket motor finishes burning. So if the enemy launch point is not reasonably close to international waters or the territory of a close ally, it may be impossible to build a base close enough to make a boost-phase intercept. Space-based boost-phase defenses don't face this same problem but they are years, and probably decades, away from being ready for deployment.

A midcourse defense attempts to shoots down individual warheads in space. (Once the rocket motor finishes burning, the missile ejects its warheads and any countermeasures and falls away.) This middle part of a long-range ballistic missile?s flight path generally lasts fifteen to twenty minutes. During that time, interceptor missiles could travel thousands of miles, meaning that it is practical to defend the entire United States with only one or two bases. Midcourse defenses are far more vulnerable than boost-phase defenses to decoys. In the weightless vacuum of space, even extremely light decoys would fly the same trajectory as true warheads. The NMD system that the Clinton administration proposed building, and the Bush administration is continuing to develop, is a midcourse defense.

Terminal defenses attempt to shoot down warheads during the final phase of ballistic flight after the warhead reenters the atmosphere. As a general rule, terminal defenses are poorly suited to defending a large country like the United States against long-range ballistic missiles. The terminal phase lasts only a minute or two because the warheads are traveling at extremely high rates of speed. During those few minutes, an interceptor missile could fly no more than fifty or a hundred miles. So more than one hundred defense batteries?and perhaps even two or three times that many?would be needed to defend the entire United States. That would likely be too costly to be practical."

and you know this because?

there weapons that shoot down airplanes and missiles,

what is Nuke a different category?

if I'm not mistaken,a ballistic missle goes into space and drops mutiple warheads...You can't shoot each individual warhead down once they've been dropped..Especially if they shoot more than 1 missle


maybe I'm wrong...but that's what I saw on the discovery channel the other day lol

You are confusing things, ballistic missiles can't be intercepted as easily as planes or cheap scud missiles. It is extremely difficult to shoot down ballistic missiles. Why do you think we are trying to build a missile defense system that will destroy the warheads in space?

LOOK, READ THIS:

"What are the differences between boost-phase, midcourse, and terminal defenses?

boost-phase defense attempts to shoot down the attacking missile during the first minutes of flight (the boost phase) while the missile?s rocket motor is still burning. During this period, which lasts up to five minutes, the attacking missile is easy to locate because it is essentially a large burning gas tank. Boost-phase interceptors are appealing to many because, assuming they can be made to work, they would destroy a missile before it can release any decoys, making the job of intercepting it easier. The major difficulty with earth-based boost-phase defenses is that they must be based within several hundred miles of the enemy launch point. If they are based any farther away than that, they will not have enough time to reach the attacking missile before its rocket motor finishes burning. So if the enemy launch point is not reasonably close to international waters or the territory of a close ally, it may be impossible to build a base close enough to make a boost-phase intercept. Space-based boost-phase defenses don't face this same problem but they are years, and probably decades, away from being ready for deployment.

A midcourse defense attempts to shoots down individual warheads in space. (Once the rocket motor finishes burning, the missile ejects its warheads and any countermeasures and falls away.) This middle part of a long-range ballistic missile?s flight path generally lasts fifteen to twenty minutes. During that time, interceptor missiles could travel thousands of miles, meaning that it is practical to defend the entire United States with only one or two bases. Midcourse defenses are far more vulnerable than boost-phase defenses to decoys. In the weightless vacuum of space, even extremely light decoys would fly the same trajectory as true warheads. The NMD system that the Clinton administration proposed building, and the Bush administration is continuing to develop, is a midcourse defense.

Terminal defenses attempt to shoot down warheads during the final phase of ballistic flight after the warhead reenters the atmosphere. As a general rule, terminal defenses are poorly suited to defending a large country like the United States against long-range ballistic missiles. The terminal phase lasts only a minute or two because the warheads are traveling at extremely high rates of speed. During those few minutes, an interceptor missile could fly no more than fifty or a hundred miles. So more than one hundred defense batteries?and perhaps even two or three times that many?would be needed to defend the entire United States. That would likely be too costly to be practical."

Better do some research man.

1. No we can't shoot down nukes like airplanes and missiles.
2. North Korea isn't afraid of dying in the fight so it doesn't matter if there is no point to it.

The air defense that the US currently have or don't have is pretty much in the same.

It's a political agenda to spend more money on the military.

I think you should stop the discussion here. You arguments and facts are going nowhere :1orglaugh

If North Korea keeps pushing a standoff, the US will just stop sending them food. We send an unbelievable amount of food to North Korea, along with a few other countries. NK is just trying to create a two theater war for the US, much llike WWII.

One US nuclear sub could eliminate all of NKs major cities and military installations. Mr. Kim knows this.

buh-bye!

If North Korea launched missiles at the US, the US missiles already aimed at North Korea from within Australia; would have already taken their nuclear payload and hit their targets in that country.

And if you ask any locals from Northern Queensland, they'll tell you that strange things have been happening in the skies for many years. They already have a basic operational version of the defense shield in place.

North Korea couldn't pull off more than one attack, just like Pearl Harbor with the Japanese, they'll do it swiftly and get away with something... but we all know how that ended up.

George Carlin said it best: "America's business is war, we're a war like people... we average one war every 10 years... so we're good at it; can't make a decent video recorder, or make a car worth a fuck, but we can bomb the shit out of your country".

Your GOD DAMN image link isn't working. :mad:

:glugglug