Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → boom
boom
2005-02-10, 5:25 PM #1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1410047,00.html


But then, this information coming from the country that publishes claims that it's leader can beat tiger woods at golf.
The music industry is a cruel and shallow money trench where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.
2005-02-10, 5:26 PM #2
Those Krazy Koreans.

We're dead.
"Jayne, this is something the Captain has to do for himself"

"N-No it's not!"

"Oh."
2005-02-10, 5:35 PM #3
What a bunch of 3 year olds...
Got a permanent feather in my cap;
Got a stretch to my stride;
a stroll to my step;
2005-02-10, 5:38 PM #4
Quote:
Originally posted by Glyde Bane
Those Krazy Koreans.

We're dead.
if n. korea does anything, the us will turn them into a radioactive ocean
2005-02-10, 5:39 PM #5
Same goes for the millions of innocent people who are AROUND nk. It will be a large radioactive ocean more than the size of north korea, with a bunch of other oceans of green goo here and there because nk decided to fire at someone.
"Jayne, this is something the Captain has to do for himself"

"N-No it's not!"

"Oh."
2005-02-10, 5:49 PM #6
/me runs a google map search on North Korea

Humph, not coming up. Must not exist. So much for that.
2005-02-10, 5:51 PM #7
"We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the [North]."

What a bunch of morons...
As soon as they try something, there will be nothing left of their country.
2005-02-10, 6:02 PM #8
Not quite. There will be nothing left of their government. I doubt we'll be killing millions of innocent civilians over a stupid move by a communist government.
Little angel go away
Come again some other day
Devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say
2005-02-10, 6:10 PM #9
Quote:
Originally posted by Trigger Happy Chewie
What a bunch of morons...
As soon as they try something, there will be nothing left of their country.


As far as the North Koreans are concerned, the U.S. is just wanting to attack them, but they're save as long as they have nuclear missiles to wave around.

And the truth is, without nuclear missiles, N. Korea would be much more likely to come under attack by the United States and/or other countries.
2005-02-10, 7:12 PM #10
Some one need to tell them that they're a few decades late.
Pissed Off?
2005-02-10, 7:16 PM #11
Meanwhile, the U.S. is secretly building weapons of mass destruction.
"When it's time for this planet to die, you'll understand that you know absolutely nothing." — Bugenhagen
2005-02-10, 7:20 PM #12
Quote:
Originally posted by Master Tonberry
Meanwhile, the U.S. is secretly building weapons of mass destruction.


Don't they already have thousands of those?
The music industry is a cruel and shallow money trench where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.
2005-02-10, 7:43 PM #13
Great, it's the ****ing Cold War all over again.
2005-02-10, 7:48 PM #14
Quote:
Originally posted by Cool Matty
/me runs a google map search on North Korea

Humph, not coming up. Must not exist. So much for that.
Just like Poland on a MS map ;)
May the mass times acceleration be with you.
2005-02-10, 8:15 PM #15
And remember pre-emptive strike is okay now too.
Aquapark - Untitled JK Arena Level - Prism CTF
2005-02-10, 9:42 PM #16
Quote:
Originally posted by JediHunter_X
Great, it's the ****ing Cold War all over again.

Don't you realize that it hasn't REALLY ended!
"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!" Anyone who recognizes this quote is awsome.
2005-02-10, 9:46 PM #17
Nathan says:
STUPID NORTH KOREA
Porsche says:
Yes, they are...
Nathan says:
*Nuke* *Crash.* *Giant poisonous mushroom that we force down their throats* *NK has no time to react* *NK becomes part of SK* *The 'cold' war is over because there are no more north koreans who hate democracy* *yay*
Porsche says:
Napoleon/ YESSSSSS....../Napoleon

And there was much rejoicing. Yaaayyy...
"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!" Anyone who recognizes this quote is awsome.
2005-02-10, 9:56 PM #18
The North Korean government are a bunch of stupid children running around with powerful toys...
The man in black fled across the desert, and the Gunslinger followed...
2005-02-10, 9:57 PM #19
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth Slaw
Just like Poland on a MS map ;)


you would think that a two colour maqp would be easy to change so it includes poland. (ie. it is still missing in XP.)

BTW, I do think that the U.S. would do a nuclear retaliation. The government is too quick acting for its own good.
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)------@%
2005-02-11, 5:47 AM #20
We wouldn't retaliate nuclearly. We'd just send tons of bombs (non-nuclear) to attack them.

And we may be quick to react, but that's because we know we need to do something soon. I couldn't see the president launching a nuke in a knee-jerk reaction, though.
D E A T H
2005-02-11, 10:28 AM #21
This should be easy to take care of. Just get the government to get keyhole to take 3-inch resolution imagery of NK, let people have free access for a few months, and offer a big reward for any one who finds them. Step two: send some guided missiles in and take them out. Step three, jam NK's air waves with people taunting Kim Jong Il.

Once Key hole gets the world covered with high res imagery, no government will be able to hide anything. This is going to rock!

In reality, though, what are they going to do to us? The worst they could to do us would be to nuke SK. They have no high tech delivery systems. Let China deal with it. Why do we have to deal with every idiot who throws his weight around?
2005-02-11, 10:41 AM #22
We used nukes in WW2 which killed thousands and thousands of innocent lives. What makes you think we wouldn't do it again? Especially if we were nuked first?! Sorry, but you lot are waaaay too naive.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-02-11, 11:12 AM #23
Uh, we used atomic weaponry, not anywhere near the power of the nuclear warheads we have today, and while it did kill thousands of innocent people, it was to end a WORLD WAR.

Something tells me retaliating to a nuke != ending world war. Could just be me.

:rolleyes:
D E A T H
2005-02-11, 11:36 AM #24
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
Something tells me retaliating to a nuke != ending world war. Could just be me.


You're absolutely correct. Nuclear conflict would be far deadlier than any world war.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-02-11, 4:58 PM #25
Quote:
Originally posted by Freelancer
You're absolutely correct. Nuclear conflict would be far deadlier than any world war.


Which is why I think our president would be like "Let's just wait a minute with the nukes here..."

Especially when, as far as we know, NK can't have more than a handful (albeit quite enough to cause catastrophic damage, using more would only heighten said damage)
D E A T H
2005-02-11, 6:37 PM #26
Quote:
Originally posted by alpha1
you would think that a two colour maqp would be easy to change so it includes poland. (ie. it is still missing in XP.)

BTW, I do think that the U.S. would do a nuclear retaliation. The government is too quick acting for its own good.


Your face is too quick-acting for its own good.
2005-02-11, 6:42 PM #27
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
Uh, we used atomic weaponry, not anywhere near the power of the nuclear warheads we have today, and while it did kill thousands of innocent people, it was to end a WORLD WAR.

Something tells me retaliating to a nuke != ending world war. Could just be me.

:rolleyes:


techinicaly, any bomb will use an atomic reaction. An explosion is caused by chemical reactions on the atomic level.

BTW, nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons, no matter what the power of the warhead is.
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)------@%
2005-02-11, 6:47 PM #28
Hahahah. Do you realize what you just said? For your sake, I hope not.

Atomic reactions, in the field of weaponry, are reactions that include the splitting or combining of atoms, or more accurately, atoms' nuclei. Chemical reactions have to do with the combining or splitting of molecules, which are collections of atoms. COMPLETELY different thing, and the energy in the former reaction is...insanely...INSANELY more abundant.

Nuclear weapons may be nuclear weapons, but as technology has become more sophisticated, they've increased in power greatly. From kilotonnage to megatonnage, and in turn, will release more nuclear waste...which is a big, big problem if one were to go off today.
D E A T H
2005-02-11, 6:52 PM #29
ummm, the reaction in which the nuclei is split is a nuclear reaction. An atomic reaction is any reaction that takes place on the atomic level.

And, you do realise that if the U.S. never plans to use its nukes, they would only have a small amount. Why would they need all those WMDs of their own if they were never going to use them.
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)------@%
2005-02-11, 7:02 PM #30
Two words: Cold War

Also--Atomic and nuclear are interchangeable (for this matter)

Atomic and Chemical, etc, are not.
D E A T H
2005-02-11, 7:05 PM #31
in nuclear physics:

atomic reaction != nuclear reaction.
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)------@%
2005-02-11, 7:24 PM #32
*sigh*

That's not the argument. But if you want to start to side track, make a thread. Until then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb . For all intensive purposes, atomic, in this scenario, means the same as nuclear...like I said.

The argument is whether the US will respond to a NK attack with nuclear weapons (and all rational, reasonable knowledge tells me our President is not that stupid)
D E A T H
2005-02-11, 7:28 PM #33
something on wikipedia that is by the geral public != statement from a nuclear physisict (sp?)
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)------@%
2005-02-11, 7:31 PM #34
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
*sigh*

That's not the argument. But if you want to start to side track, make a thread. Until then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb . For all intensive purposes, atomic, in this scenario, means the same as nuclear...like I said.

The argument is whether the US will respond to a NK attack with nuclear weapons (and all rational, reasonable knowledge tells me our President is not that stupid)


also

Quote:
In the wiki definition.

Fission bombs derive their power from nuclear fission, where heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium) split into lighter elements when bombarded by neutrons (producing more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, triggering a nuclear chain reaction). These are historically called atom bombs or A-bombs, though this name is not precise due to the fact that chemical reactions release energy from atomic bonds too, and fusion is no less atomic than fission. Despite this possible confusion, the term atom bomb has still been generally accepted to refer specifically to nuclear weapons, and most commonly to pure fission devices.


it even says on there that a-bomb is not an accurate term.
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)------@%
2005-02-11, 7:46 PM #35
Freelancer, there were bombing campaigns through out WW2 that were far deadlier than both Atomic Bombs combined. The fireboming of Tokyo kill 100,000 within 2 days, while the nuclear blast at Hiroshima only kill about 60,000 over 4 months (according the the stats I found after a quick google search). Granted, warheads today are much more powerful than they were then, but it doesnt take Nuclear Conflict to kill thousands of innocent people.
2005-02-11, 8:00 PM #36
Alpha1, your point is complete crap. NOONE CARES IF OTHER BOMBS ARE ON AN ATOMIC LEVEL ALSO! The point is an atom bomb, nuke whatever you want to call goes "boom" rather well. It doesnt matter if tnt is the same, its such a trivial matter that your just making yourself look idiotic.

o.0
2005-02-11, 8:01 PM #37
Quote:
Originally posted by DSettahr
Freelancer, there were bombing campaigns through out WW2 that were far deadlier than both Atomic Bombs combined.


Definitely... Don't forget Feb. 13, 1945 - the combined bomber offensive against Dresden. 135,000 dead in one night, after firestorms ripped through the city, demolishing 80% of it... :(
The man in black fled across the desert, and the Gunslinger followed...
2005-02-11, 8:02 PM #38
Quote:
Originally posted by alpha1
something on wikipedia that is by the geral public != statement from a nuclear physisict (sp?)


Something by a person who cannot even spell physicist != a believable statement.

Plus, you aren't a nuclear physicist.

:p

And quit arguing just for the sake of arguing. Everyone understand an atomic reaction to be a nuclear one, stop fighting it.
2005-02-11, 8:30 PM #39
Thing is we don't have to strike with nukes, we have much more efficient non-nuke bombs like MoaB (Mother of all Bombs) that could be dropped. If we had to, we could probably bomb them quicker than they could make themselves a threat even if they do have a nuclear bomb. That's all assumption though, just things have changed quite a bit since we've used nukes on Japan.
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"
2005-02-11, 9:14 PM #40
Quote:
Originally posted by Flexor
...publishes claims that it's leader can beat tiger woods at golf.

Seriously? That's awesome! I love North Korea!

Seriously, how cool would it be if Dubya had the balls to talk smack about athletes in other countries? If he did that before November, I would have voted for him.
It's not the side effects of cocaine, so then I'm thinking that it must be love

↑ Up to the top!