PDA

View Full Version : So Who Will Get Nuked First...?


SteyrAUG
10-09-2006, 14:59
North Korea isn't the true wild card.

I think it's safe to assume that Iran has been with NK every step of the way and if they don't currently have a nuclear weapon (courtesy of NK) they will be provided with a proven design and materials.

I think it is just a matter of time before Iran marries a NK nuke to an Iranian missile delivery system.

I don't think they will exercise any restraint whatsoever and will use it without provocation.

Will they hit the US? Obvious target but probably the most difficult for them.

Will they hit Israel. A very likely target and only moderately difficult to attack.

Or will they hit their old enemy Iraq? Doesn't seem as obvious but if they can kill Americans and attack the "new democracy" we are trying to build it would satisfy much of their agenda.
Webmaster
10-09-2006, 15:20
North Korea isn't the true wild card.

I think it's safe to assume that Iran has been with NK every step of the way and if they don't currently have a nuclear weapon (courtesy of NK) they will be provided with a proven design and materials.

I think it is just a matter of time before Iran marries a NK nuke to an Iranian missile delivery system.

I don't think they will exercise any restraint whatsoever and will use it without provocation.

Will they hit the US? Obvious target but probably the most difficult for them.

Will they hit Israel. A very likely target and only moderately difficult to attack.

Or will they hit their old enemy Iraq? Doesn't seem as obvious but if they can kill Americans and attack the "new democracy" we are trying to build it would satisfy much of their agenda.
I would think it would be Tel Aviv. Easily within range of their missles and the seat of Israel's government.
Erik
10-09-2006, 15:33
Israel is easier to hit successfully. If having a success is important for PR reasons, they're more apt to do what they are more certain they can do.

We're probably a juicier target but it would be harder to hit us effectively, especially on a first try.

I'm not convinced of the link, though. Might be true, maybe not.

More likely that N. Korea will use tests to show their capability and demand some sort of concessions as opposed to actually nuking a target.

Also, more likely that Iran, if they want to be effective with their destruction (as opposed to making an international statement), would put a nuke on a boat and sail it into someone's harbor or hand off the weapon to an agent they trust like Hizbollah to smuggle in somewhere.

Somehow, I see the N. Koreans as trying to make a statement that they are capable, to demand respect internationally.

I see Iran in one of two ways: either trying to show to their populace (not so much the world at large) that the religious regime is indeed effective or destructive enough to try to hit Israel and show the Islamic world that they are doing their part.

If they hit Israel they may face a revoultion within their own country. Most of the population in Iran has long since had enough of these clowns and this could be the last straw.

Also, if they hit Israel with a nuke, the land they're (ostensibly) trying to win back for the Palestinians would be totally worthless for 1,000 years or so.

So, and I pray to God that I'm not wrong, I don't think either country is apt to nuke someone specifically, just to get the capability in an effort to get respect from various audiences.
Abbax8
10-09-2006, 15:37
If they nuke Israel, Israel will use its nukes in retaliation. This could lead to a knee jerk reaction from other Muslim countries that would lead to a very bad situation.

Peace

Denis
SteyrAUG
10-09-2006, 16:01
More likely that N. Korea will use tests to show their capability and demand some sort of concessions as opposed to actually nuking a target.



Without a doubt NK expects to be rewarded for causing problems as they have been in the past. This is why I really don't see NK as the real nuclear threat. They understand MAD as much as the Soviets did.

Radical Muslim states are another matter.
starkjudo
10-09-2006, 16:30
Without a doubt NK expects to be rewarded for causing problems as they have been in the past. This is why I really don't see NK as the real nuclear threat. They understand MAD as much as the Soviets did.

Radical Muslim states are another matter.

I think there is a distinction between NK and the old USSR. While both are/were nominally communist, there was always the sense that there was a committee governing the Soviets and the power never completely rested in the hands of one. With NK, we've got a dynastic dictator who gives the public appearance of no checks on his power. Whether he or radical Muslim states are a greater threat, is still open to debate.
Erik
10-09-2006, 16:35
N. Korea may be more stable. They want to impress the world (as screwy as they may be), not die for a cause, if that makes any sense.
noofus
10-09-2006, 16:37
Amadinejad might be psycho but he isnt stupid.

If he nukes Tel Aviv, Tehran will become a sheet of glass faster than he can say Allau Akbar.


Isreal is believed to have about 200 nukes sitting on warheads, and they neither confirm nor deny their existance.
Erik
10-09-2006, 16:39
Israel doesn't even need nukes. Enough Mk. 84s like in Osirak and the Iranians will get the point.
SteyrAUG
10-09-2006, 16:41
Amadinejad might be psycho but he isnt stupid.

If he nukes Tel Aviv, Tehran will become a sheet of glass faster than he can say Allau Akbar.


Isreal is believed to have about 200 nukes sitting on warheads, and they neither confirm nor deny their existance.

mar‧tyr  /ˈmɑrtər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mahr-ter] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.
noofus
10-09-2006, 16:43
mar?tyr? /?m?rt?r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mahr-ter] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.


But in this case I doubt he will subject his entire population to become martyrs with him.

I could be wrong though, of course...
Jeff C.
10-09-2006, 18:19
Krazy Kim is jealous, paranoid, and possessive. He is a taker. I don't see him giving much up to Iran. I also don't think he really understands MAD, as he does not have enough nukes to totally destroy ANYBODY.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that he is more likely to drop a nuke on Japan - by accident.

Jeff Cook
G-Force
10-09-2006, 19:21
I think the North Koreans will drop a Nuke on themselves accidentally.

I also think that Iran will be destroyed by Israel preemtively.
AllanJGAnderson
10-09-2006, 21:50
I think the North Koreans will drop a Nuke on themselves accidentally.

I also think that Iran will be destroyed by Israel preemtively.


Ahhh, in a perfect world. . . (dreamy look into space and a deep sigh)
R. Johnson
10-09-2006, 22:18
Two words... Glass Tabletop :rocket: