Anyone else think North Korea is taking it a little too far lately?

[Carl Sagan 2577]

Its like you're not even trying.

u kant try agunst psudointellectualism

no mattur how retarded u look u think ur write

why try this is pro strat to dealin with ppl liku e

[Skotti 2105]

guys i got some bombs lets bomb nk.

[Carl Sagan 2577]

guys i got some bombs lets bomb nk.

no joking around bro

serious shit here

In physics, radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energetic waves travel through a vacuum, or through matter-containing media that are not required for their propagation. Waves of a massive medium itself, such as water waves or sound waves, are usually not considered to be forms of "radiation" in this sense.

Two energies of radiation are commonly differentiated by the way they interact with normal chemical matter: ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. The word radiation is often colloquially used in reference to ionizing radiation (i.e., radiation having sufficient energy to ionize an atom), but the term radiation may correctly also refer to non-ionizing radiation (e.g., radio waves, heat or visible light). The particles or waves radiate (i.e., travel outward in all directions) from a source. This aspect leads to a system of measurements and physical units that are applicable to all types of radiation. Because radiation radiates through space and its energy is conserved in vacuum, the power of all types of radiation follows an inverse-square law of power with regard to distance from its source.

Both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation can be harmful to organisms and can result in changes to the natural environment. In general, however, ionizing radiation is far more harmful to living organisms per unit of energy deposited than non-ionizing radiation, since the ions that are produced by ionizing radiation, even at low radiation powers, have the potential to cause DNA damage. By contrast, most non-ionizing radiation is harmful to organisms only in proportion to the thermal energy deposited, and is conventionally considered harmless at low powers which do not produce significant temperature rise. Ultraviolet radiation in some aspects occupies a middle ground, in having some features of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Although nearly all of the ultraviolet spectrum of radiation is non-ionizing, at the same time ultraviolet radiation does far more damage to many molecules in biological systems than is accounted for by heating effects (an example is sunburn). These properties derive from ultraviolet's power to alter chemical bonds, even without having quite enough energy to ionize atoms.

The question of harm to biological systems due to low-power ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is not settled. Controversy continues about possible non-heating effects of low-power non-ionizing radiation, such as non-heating microwave and radio wave exposure. Non-ionizing radiation is usually considered to have a safe lower limit, especially as thermal radiation is unavoidable and ubiquitous. By contrast, ionizing radiation is conventionally considered to have no completely safe lower limit, although at some energy levels, new exposures do not add appreciably to background radiation. The evidence that small amounts of some types of ionizing radiation might confer a net health benefit in some situations, is called radiation hormesis.

[Lvl. 100 Latias 711]

How do you know other people don't know what they're talking about if you don't know anything about the subject?

The main reason why I posted it is because of that latvias retard saying that the radiation wouldn't be an issue.

Honestly I never said that it wouldn't be an issue, I said that it wouldn't be as bad as people think it would be. Honestly its like people don't even read what I say... and no offence but you could at least spell my name right

*Edit* Just for some clarification here is a news article about a recent report on radiation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/

Also just to finish off my point, if the NK nukes are as strong as they have stated to be (6 Kilotons) then it is a lot less than the bomb that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (16 Kilotons and 21 Kilotons respectively). It would be logical to conclude then it would have a lot less radiation fall out than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is also note worthy that the radiation accounted only for around 15-20% of the deaths and those were people who were at the site of the bombing or in the general vicinity. It is also stated that the cities were safe to live in shortly after and are both currently thriving cities with no after effects what so ever.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Lv. 100 Latias

[Joscal 339]

guys i got some bombs lets bomb nk.

no joking around bro

serious shit here

*quote wiki articles that have the word radiation in them*

You forgot the blackbody radiation equation, that technically applies to a nuke too.

[Dojima 7619]

Hi, guys, what's going on in here?

[Slavic Falange 72]

I'd say North Korea is probably a bigger problem or "danger" than Iran, the Islamic Republic being seemingly only nation that the neoconservatives in America (especially Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush types) keep hyping up as the next paper tiger with which to go to war (if it isn't Syria or the then-Iraq).

But anyways, who thinks the new guy and successor to Kim Jong-il will be better?

Edited February 10, 2013 by Slavic Falange

[Guest Fohacidal]

I'd say North Korea is probably a bigger problem or "danger" than Iran, the Islamic Republic being seemingly only nation that the neoconservatives in America (especially Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush types) keep hyping up as the next paper tiger with which to go to war (if it isn't Syria or the then-Iraq).

But anyways, who thinks the new guy and successor to Kim Jong-il will be better?

Wtf are you talking about? Apparently actually having a better ballistic missile program, connections to Hezbollah and Hamas, and having one of the most well prepared armed forces in southwest asia isnt a problem enough for you. Please oh great enlightened one, tell me how a country pinned in between a steadily westernizing China and the spearhead of American and South Korean forces in that theatre of operations is more of a problem than Iran. If NK continues on its current path of infantile behavior all it will do is starve its people and disgruntle its already under-supplied and under-maintained army even more. Dont even get me started on nukes or "flattening" Seoul because it wont happen.

As far as I am concerned, and a good majority of Sunni muslims view Iran as a cause for concern. And a good portion of Irans military is supported by religious fanatics namely the

سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی or roughly the "islamic revolutionary guard corp". What makes Iran dangerous is the stupidity of religious fanaticism and the even bigger incompetence of its leaders. Whereas NK its just as incompetent it lacks the resources or position to do anything of meaning.

[Oreo 2073]

To add on to what Latias said without quoting a giant chunk of text;

NK's nuke would disperse radiation but the fact is, it would disperse a VERY small amount over a large area, unlike Hiroshima or Chernobyl. And even in Chernobyls case, animal life has made an amazing. comeback, creating somewhat of a national park except its restricted because of radiation. There's no signs of mutations among the wildlife. Granted, there is evidence wildlife there has adapted to the radiation, surprisingly in a very short amount of time. I personally don't think we know enough about radiation and its effects on urban areas yet. I also don't believe we will ever have an all out nuclear war either, unless you have extremely incompetent leaders on both sides of the conflict.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Oreo

[Slavic Falange 72]

I'd say North Korea is probably a bigger problem or "danger" than Iran, the Islamic Republic being seemingly only nation that the neoconservatives in America (especially Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush types) keep hyping up as the next paper tiger with which to go to war (if it isn't Syria or the then-Iraq).

But anyways, who thinks the new guy and successor to Kim Jong-il will be better?

Wtf are you talking about? Apparently actually having a better ballistic missile program, connections to Hezbollah and Hamas, and having one of the most well prepared armed forces in southwest asia isnt a problem enough for you. Please oh great enlightened one, tell me how a country pinned in between a steadily westernizing China and the spearhead of American and South Korean forces in that theatre of operations is more of a problem than Iran. If NK continues on its current path of infantile behavior all it will do is starve its people and disgruntle its already under-supplied and under-maintained army even more. Dont even get me started on nukes or "flattening" Seoul because it wont happen.

As far as I am concerned, and a good majority of Sunni muslims view Iran as a cause for concern. And a good portion of Irans military is supported by religious fanatics namely the

سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی or roughly the "islamic revolutionary guard corp". What makes Iran dangerous is the stupidity of religious fanaticism and the even bigger incompetence of its leaders. Whereas NK its just as incompetent it lacks the resources or position to do anything of meaning.

Well, even if they're Shiite Islamists and Clero-Fascists, they don't have nukes and have allowed inspections, unlike their enemies Israel, the Zionists. Furthermore, the United States backs up extremists who are the opposite enemies of the Shiites, such as the murderous Islamofascist FSA fighting against Bashar al-Assad and they have supported Islamofascist theocracies and supreme leaders like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its respective Saud family as well as dictators in Pakistan.

Hezbollah and Hamas are just proxies for Syria and Iran, both (especially Syria) being puppets of Russia. Nevertheless, above all, they hate the United States for the interventionism and what they do, not for who they are (similar to Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden who attacked America on 9/11, which was made clear in his message that it was due to America's support for Zionists in Israel and not in the name of Islamofascism or the global Caliphate).

But, North Korea, unlike Iran, has the nukes and the power to kind of embroil a global conflict altogether.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Slavic Falange

[Guest Fohacidal]

I'd say North Korea is probably a bigger problem or "danger" than Iran, the Islamic Republic being seemingly only nation that the neoconservatives in America (especially Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush types) keep hyping up as the next paper tiger with which to go to war (if it isn't Syria or the then-Iraq).

But anyways, who thinks the new guy and successor to Kim Jong-il will be better?

Wtf are you talking about? Apparently actually having a better ballistic missile program, connections to Hezbollah and Hamas, and having one of the most well prepared armed forces in southwest asia isnt a problem enough for you. Please oh great enlightened one, tell me how a country pinned in between a steadily westernizing China and the spearhead of American and South Korean forces in that theatre of operations is more of a problem than Iran. If NK continues on its current path of infantile behavior all it will do is starve its people and disgruntle its already under-supplied and under-maintained army even more. Dont even get me started on nukes or "flattening" Seoul because it wont happen.

As far as I am concerned, and a good majority of Sunni muslims view Iran as a cause for concern. And a good portion of Irans military is supported by religious fanatics namely the

سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی or roughly the "islamic revolutionary guard corp". What makes Iran dangerous is the stupidity of religious fanaticism and the even bigger incompetence of its leaders. Whereas NK its just as incompetent it lacks the resources or position to do anything of meaning.

Well, even if they're Shiite Islamists and Clero-Fascists, they don't have nukes and have allowed inspections, unlike their enemies Israel, the Zionists. Furthermore, the United States backs up extremists who are the opposite enemies of the Shiites, such as the murderous Islamofascist FSA fighting against Bashar al-Assad and they have supported Islamofascist theocracies and supreme leaders like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its respective Saud family as well as dictators in Pakistan.

Hezbollah and Hamas are just proxies for Syria and Iran, both (especially Syria) being puppets of Russia. Nevertheless, above all, they hate the United States for the interventionism and what they do, not for who they are (similar to Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden who attacked America on 9/11, which was made clear in his message that it was due to America's support for Zionists in Israel and not in the name of Islamofascism or the global Caliphate).

But, North Korea, unlike Iran, has the nukes and the power to kind of embroil a global conflict altogether.

I cant take you seriously when you seem to throw around the words fascist and fascism likes its running out of fucking style. Do you even know what it means? Oh hold on, Ill let you wikipedia search that for a second so that you can come up with an answer that doesnt also end up overusing your oh so precious buzz words.

And by the way, Iran has repeatedly denied several inspections and the few that did go through a few years back were extremely limited. Iran purportedly has even more enrichment and research facilities than its has let to be publically known and its nuclear infrastructure is MUCH more capable than NK's. Just because NK has a nuke doesnt mean shit when it can only be used to damage one other country. Iran has the power by proxy (and directly if it so wishes to start a huge war) to fuck up and destabilize an entire region. Hell, they still control a good portion of oil and natural gas exports in the region not to mention they sit right on top of the persian gulf.

[pH(x) 1]

We have spent so much money on nuclear missile defense and what not, so i doubt the nuke would even make it to the U.S. or come close to it.

[Jewinator 5000 750]

I wonder if Seattle is the most at risk country in America to nuclear strike since it's the closest major city in America to NK.

I'll make a thread if one of NK's babby nukes ever go off down town and tell you guys all about it.

[Illogical 1126]

I wonder if Seattle is the most at risk country in America

most at risk country in America

country in America

country

...

[Pancake Man 507]

Dear God, what have I done.

[Jewinator 5000 750]

>illogical

>not a humongous faggot

pik 1

[Guest Fohacidal]

I wonder if Seattle is the most at risk country in America to nuclear strike since it's the closest major city in America to NK.

I'll make a thread if one of NK's babby nukes ever go off down town and tell you guys all about it.

Hawaii and the Bay Area are closer if Im not mistaken. Also you are a retard

[Jewinator 5000 750]

Seattle is 5136.254 miles from Pyongyang the bay area is 5592.341 miles. Honolulu has about 950,000 people in its metro area while Seattle has about 3.5 million.

If you define a major city as a city with a million of more people, then Seattle is indeed the closest major city to North Korea.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Seattle is 5136.254 miles from Pyongyang the bay area is 5592.341 miles. Honolulu has about 950,000 people in its metro area while Seattle has about 3.5 million.

If you define a major city as a city with a million of more people, then Seattle is indeed the closest major city to North Korea.

Considering in terms of ICBMs 500 miles is nothing, an area with double the population would pose a bigger target. I would take the Bay Area or even LA over Seattle. Also NK doesnt have the missile tech to fire something confidently enough to even hit Hawaii, let alone with a warhead on-board.

[Jewinator 5000 750]

NK hardly has any missile tech at all. It's kind of irrelevant to even discuss targets on the west coast or even the mid pacific when they can't even fire a missile out of Asia.

[Guest Fohacidal]

I wonder if Seattle is the most at risk country in America to nuclear strike since it's the closest major city in America to NK.

I'll make a thread if one of NK's babby nukes ever go off down town and tell you guys all about it.

NK hardly has any missile tech at all. It's kind of irrelevant to even discuss targets on the west coast or even the mid pacific when they can't even fire a missile out of Asia.

Just stop posting in here please

[Jewinator 5000 750]

I didn't say that Seattle was the most at risk, I said I wondered if it was. But yes, there's really not much risk to any American city, even Hawaiian ones, since the North Koreans have so little missile tech. America as a whole isn't at much risk from Korean nukes, but I was still was curious if the closest major city to Korea would be the most at risk, even if that risk is tiny.

Why are you so mad?

Edited February 19, 2013 by Jewinator 5000

[Noodle 133]

Not to mention...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/north-korea-finds-secret-unicorn-lair_n_2219289.html

[Jewinator 5000 750]

They've also claimed to have found unicorn horns in North Korea.

They're fucking crazy

[Guest Fohacidal]

I didn't say that Seattle was the most at risk, I said I wondered if it was. But yes, there's really not much risk to any American city, even Hawaiian ones, since the North Koreans have so little missile tech. America as a whole isn't at much risk from Korean nukes, but I was still was curious if the closest major city to Korea would be the most at risk, even if that risk is tiny.

Why are you so mad?

I addressed all those points and more several posts ago, you are just attempting to appear relevant and knowledgeable and come off as neither. Go away