So, what can they do to N. Korea if they really had one? Invade, or a pre emptive strike? Ha! They are already on the serious manure list for most everything, what else practically can they do about it? What "sanctions" are even left of any importance that aren't already beng imposed?
I think that "total" economic sanctions would be effective. This means absolutely nothing in or out--no food, no medicine--nothing. Despite complete self-reliance being Dear Leader's wet dream, the NK regime would collapse. However, Russia and China would never go along with it; the westerners would be wracked with guilt about millions (more) NKans starving to death; and the NK generals might obliterate Seoul in the regime's death throes.
Oh and bombing campaigns typically kill in the thousands at most (the most imfamous, the firebombing of Tokyo killed an estimated 100,000 a far cry from your 5,000,000.)
Seoul, South Korea, has a population of 23,000,000 people. It would be hit by several HUNDRED THOUSAND artillery shells on the first day of the war alone and probably by a couple of nukes to boot. Then there's the rest of South Korea. Do the math, brainiac; 5M casualties may be optimistic. BTW, less than half of all "casualties" are actually killed. Of course, with millions of people in need of medical treatment, millions would die waiting.
Indeed, the first-world democracies should get rid of all of their nuclear weapons so that only the cheating psychotic genocidal third-world dictatorships will have them. Then all of humanity can live in peaceful harmony.
Why wouldn't a guy with this much capability just jump into a Ph.D. program? He'd make the 30-year-old Ph.D. grads look like chumps when he finishes before 20.
Basically, the standard of living for most of modern western society is now so high that most of us are living like (or better than) the aristrocracy of the not very distant past.
Even the poorest people in the first world have a much higher standard of living than the aristrocracy of 100 years ago. Strangely, however, they still want more.
We can't even stop weapons in our prisons, and we will NEVER be able to stop deadly weapons on airplanes.
We can't ever hope to stop street crime either, so we should just disband our police departments. I'm sure things would be just fine.
the ONLY way to make technically fragile public transit work is to promote an atmosphere where people do not want to attack us
Acting weakly and withdrawing after every attack is the surest way to guarantee future attacks. If the West were to completely withdraw from the Middle East tommorrow, the peace in our time would be very short-lived.
It's interesting that no one seems to point out that the North Korean nuclear program was all about the peaceful generation of electric power. Or so the NK government claimed. Strangely, NK is still dark at night.
A dictatorship has zero legitimacy. Therefore, Iran is not a country at all. One of the main problems with the UN is that it pretends that these regimes are legitimate and it protects their continued existence.
Once the US learns live with that, maybe the Iranians will get over their hatred of the US
Islamic radicals + Nuclear weapsons = Peace for all. I think there is something wrong with your math. If the Nazis had nukes, the world would still be glowing. Islamic radicals are the 21st-century Nazis, only with religious furvor.
The only thing that is going to stop Islamic terrorists from nuking western cities is a US invasion of Iran in the next three years, but I fear that this isn't going to happen. The US doesn't even need to stay; only to reduce the country to rubble, remove everything nuclear, and leave, saying "Next time, we won't be quite so polite". There will be a next time, but it won't be nuclear.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that "total" economic sanctions would be effective. This means absolutely nothing in or out--no food, no medicine--nothing. Despite complete self-reliance being Dear Leader's wet dream, the NK regime would collapse. However, Russia and China would never go along with it; the westerners would be wracked with guilt about millions (more) NKans starving to death; and the NK generals might obliterate Seoul in the regime's death throes.
Why would anybody do that when you've already done it for them?
Or 30,000 pornos. He could get those on pay-per-view also.
What is the multiplication factor if you count corpses in developing countries as trash?
Swing-state Florida will be the first to flood. Thereafter, the state will be shown as blue on all maps, not just electoral ones.
Seoul, South Korea, has a population of 23,000,000 people. It would be hit by several HUNDRED THOUSAND artillery shells on the first day of the war alone and probably by a couple of nukes to boot. Then there's the rest of South Korea. Do the math, brainiac; 5M casualties may be optimistic. BTW, less than half of all "casualties" are actually killed. Of course, with millions of people in need of medical treatment, millions would die waiting.
He has killed two million of his own people. That makes him genocidal in my book. He seems to really hate North Koreans.
Indeed, the first-world democracies should get rid of all of their nuclear weapons so that only the cheating psychotic genocidal third-world dictatorships will have them. Then all of humanity can live in peaceful harmony.
I'd estimate 5,000,000 on the first day. Or are you only counting US casualties?
That might actually mean something if The Democratic People's Bullshit Dictatorship wasn't run by the whim of a genocidal psychopath.
However, a sensible player in SCO's position would have mucked their bluff after IBM re-raised them all-in.
I think you misspelled "figureheading".
Why wouldn't a guy with this much capability just jump into a Ph.D. program? He'd make the 30-year-old Ph.D. grads look like chumps when he finishes before 20.
Even the poorest people in the first world have a much higher standard of living than the aristrocracy of 100 years ago. Strangely, however, they still want more.
I wonder what they do on the 73rd day of eternity.
So clearly they are targeting the right guy!
You mean that country where an attack by Islamic radicals of the same type as the London transit bomers was foiled recently?
Words that you will never hear at the UN Security Council: "What does Canada think of this?"
We can't ever hope to stop street crime either, so we should just disband our police departments. I'm sure things would be just fine.
His cyber-dream should be more like "Hey, sexy mama. Wanna kill all humans?"
It's interesting that no one seems to point out that the North Korean nuclear program was all about the peaceful generation of electric power. Or so the NK government claimed. Strangely, NK is still dark at night.
Sounds like Japan thought they were dealing with Europeans.
Of course. Hezbollah will be using tactical nukes against Israel five years down the road.
Yeah, the US had some bizarre theory that Islamic radicals were bad news. Don't know why.
A dictatorship has zero legitimacy. Therefore, Iran is not a country at all. One of the main problems with the UN is that it pretends that these regimes are legitimate and it protects their continued existence.
Islamic radicals + Nuclear weapsons = Peace for all. I think there is something wrong with your math. If the Nazis had nukes, the world would still be glowing. Islamic radicals are the 21st-century Nazis, only with religious furvor.
The only thing that is going to stop Islamic terrorists from nuking western cities is a US invasion of Iran in the next three years, but I fear that this isn't going to happen. The US doesn't even need to stay; only to reduce the country to rubble, remove everything nuclear, and leave, saying "Next time, we won't be quite so polite". There will be a next time, but it won't be nuclear.