Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

ZenOps

Members
  • Content Count

    343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About ZenOps

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I do wonder where the US tanks will go though. I can imagine there may be a few placed at the New California borders just in case there in instability from splitting the state in half.
  2. Yup, single smartest thing that North Korea ever did was build nukes. South Korea got lucky because North Korea built nukes - or the US would have already turned it into Hawaii - Where Zuckerburg buys land for hundreds of millions and then sues the natives off their land. The greatest bargaining chip in history, the nuke.
  3. The perks for being native in Canada really only extend to the chiefs. Now if you are a native Hawaiian welfare bum, you get a solid $60,590 US in benefits each year.
  4. Also: Going by the historical disregard for US nuclear fallout safety for their own population, I can imagine that the US would see dropping a nuke on North Korea resulting in loss of 1 million lives as acceptable, but also 100,000 South Koreans as acceptable as well. I mean really South Korea, the US radiated their own population - what makes you think they won't nuke yours a side effect? Its almost impossible to drop a nuke in that small an area and not have neighboring countries affected (if not increased cancer rates, and knock maybe five years off the entire population for at lea
  5. That's not how nukes are delivered - in US or Soviet style war scenarios. I can absolutely with 100% see Kim Jong modifying a Cessna for high altitude flight take out all the passenger comforts and load it up with fuel tanks, probably remotely controlled - but also having one patriotic suicide pilot as a backup that has limited ability to change course. A nuke would be strapped to it, but there would not be a bomb chute, because the nuke will *never* be dropped. It will simply try to attain as much height as possible and the nuke will go off - plane and all for as close as they dare get
  6. I'd be willing to bet blonde people have the problem just as often if not more so. Its just that its easier to see in black haired peoples.
  7. Strategically speaking, a show of force would probably be far more effective than using an actual nuke on the greater populace of the USA. One nuke launched perfectly vertically in the Gulf of Mexico and one perfectly vertically in Hudsons bay would probably be sufficient. Again, nukes don't have to be accurate at all to be considered effective, you just have to be within a few thousand miles (which is basically, anywhere) These would with absolute certainty not be interceptable, because there is no tradgectory where it falls back to earth to be intercepted, and once you have the advant
  8. I'd also say that its *not entirely impossible* that the USA would nuke a small section of the USA as a false flag. I mean really, look at the history of how many surface, sub surface and atmospheric nukes were tested on US soil. What is the difference between that and pretending that one of those lesser nukes was set by someone else? It looks like they are going to deport half of New Mexico to Mexico anyhow, so might as well get some sympathy off of it? The USA does like to use this type of tactic because they have historically been able to control the media. While North Korea has li
  9. If North Korea used nukes as a first strike, they would probably use the full compliment of sixty maybe 100 that they probably now have ready. In about a year, they will probably have enough to mini-nuke every city in the USA if they wanted to do small scale nuclear bombardment. Arguably this would be the primary scenario if Kim Jong were assassinated (maximize death say greater than 35 million nuke retaliation) The coastal cities would be relatively easy to hit if they used a LORAL type cargo ship with mobile launcher (doable today) but its not impossible that the primary goal would be
  10. As far as I know, you technically cannot shield entirely from a nuclear EMP blast. As long as its attached to the greater power grid through three prong outlets, the EMP will actually use the power lines themselves as conduits even if you say enclose your computer in a six inch lead block. Lets also remember that Starfish Prime was an *extremely* weak EMP made with 1962 nuclear technology. By now I'm sure Russia has one that is 1,000x stronger even though a 1962 EMP would probably still take out half the US power grid. Arguably, with atmospheric reflections, a singular EMP from a moder
  11. ICBM is actually not the best technology, SLBM are. Not knowing the point of origin, and having it be several minutes closer to the intended target makes it much harder to hit. I don't believe there has ever been an attempted SLBM interception, just for the simple fact you would be throwing your money away because its that much harder to hit than an ICBM.
  12. Arguably no missle defense system is adequate. Take "Starfish Prime" for example. The effects of that high altitude nuclear blast was evident a thousand miles away. So technically, if a bomb was dentonated dead center over Toronto, it would probably completely destroy every single piece of electronic equipment in New York. So, if the US does not shoot down nukes, they do it at their own peril. As well, check the fallout pattern of the 100 or so above ground nukes that the US tested in Nevada (idiots BTW) the worst of which was "Sedan". You can blame overeating on why the US has t
  13. Since when is caring for your populace important? British Imperialism was perhaps strongest during its period of serfdom (slavery) Kings and Queens of incredible power and reach.
  14. Psshh, it hit Cuba harder. They might not even be 100 billion dollars worth of damage. That being said, FEMA probably won't have enough money to give $10,000 to each applicant looking for flood damage relief - that is unless they raise the debt ceili- Oh wait its all good, just print more money.
  15. South Korea seems to be protesting US deployment of THAAD. I just wonder when the US is going to station nukes on South Korean soil, because its way more useful to have nukes than the ability to shoot down nukes if your end goal is global destruction. Is South Korea ever in the next two centuries going to be without a US military presence? Who knows. I can imagine that the US will not only shoot at North Koreans, but any South Koreans of *any* military rank to protect said nukes if they should happen to station them there. Poor South Korea, Rich North Korea. Story of every conquered
×
×
  • Create New...