North Korea ends armistice?!?

[Meeker]

AP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh dear...

[??????????]

And only if Truman hadn't fired McArthur.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm shocked, I tell you! Just plain shocked!

I will reiterate my concern that this nutcase will try to go out with a literal bang when he's on his death bed.

[Joe Republic]

I was reading this just yesterday, and it made for extremely entertaining reading (although obviously I feel pity for the lives lost).  Scroll down further for information about the tunnels.

I mention this of course because North Korea has never taken the armistice very seriously.

[MaxQue]

I was reading this just yesterday, and it made for extremely entertaining reading (although obviously I feel pity for the lives lost).  Scroll down further for information about the tunnels.

I mention this of course because North Korea has never taken the armistice very seriously.

Especially than the armistice doesn't really exist. South Korea never signed the armistice.

[GMantis]

And only if Truman hadn't fired McArthur.

Yes, because nuclear war is a good thing.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I guess Obama needs to apologize more for Bush's actions; for, as we all know, we would have world peace if it weren't for Bush.

[??????????]

And only if Truman hadn't fired McArthur.

Yes, because nuclear war is a good thing.

Firstly. McArthur finished the job. Secondly, who says we aren't headed to nuclear war anyway? Nuclear war fifty years ago wouldn't have been as nasty as nuclear war today.

[Verily]

And only if Truman hadn't fired McArthur.

Yes, because nuclear war is a good thing.

Firstly. McArthur finished the job. Secondly, who says we aren't headed to nuclear war anyway? Nuclear war fifty years ago wouldn't have been as nasty as nuclear war today.

It would have been worse fifty years ago, actually. Because we would have been facing Soviet nuclear warheads, whereas even if we have nuclear war now, it will be only the relatively weak bombs tested by the DPRK.

[??????????]

And only if Truman hadn't fired McArthur.

Yes, because nuclear war is a good thing.

Firstly. McArthur finished the job. Secondly, who says we aren't headed to nuclear war anyway? Nuclear war fifty years ago wouldn't have been as nasty as nuclear war today.

It would have been worse fifty years ago, actually. Because we would have been facing Soviet nuclear warheads, whereas even if we have nuclear war now, it will be only the relatively weak bombs tested by the DPRK.

I don't think the Soviets had the capability to deliver long range or quantity of nuclear weapons very early in the 50's.

Edit : The Soviets and US were pretty much just touching on the hydrogen bomb at the time.

[ag]

One of the top Russian specialists on NK (Lankov) has thus reacted to this in his blog  (translation from Russian):

"And  thoe mountains of Korea shuddered. And the Earth screamed. And it gave out a moan: "Heeey, Yooou Theeere! In the White Hooouse! Spare Change!"

[Lief 🗽]

And only if Truman hadn't fired McArthur.

Yes, because nuclear war is a good thing.

Firstly. McArthur finished the job. Secondly, who says we aren't headed to nuclear war anyway? Nuclear war fifty years ago wouldn't have been as nasty as nuclear war today.

It would have been worse fifty years ago, actually. Because we would have been facing Soviet nuclear warheads, whereas even if we have nuclear war now, it will be only the relatively weak bombs tested by the DPRK.

I don't think the Soviets had the capability to deliver long range or quantity of nuclear weapons very early in the 50's.

Edit : The Soviets and US were pretty much just touching on the hydrogen bomb at the time.

Sure, but factor in the Soviet Union invading mainland Europe and Japan, and I'd easily take any future North Korean conflict over that.

[minionofmidas]

One of the top Russian specialists on NK (Lankov) has thus reacted to this in his blog  (translation from Russian):

"And  thoe mountains of Korea shuddered. And the Earth screamed. And it gave out a moan: "Heeey, Yooou Theeere! In the White Hooouse! Spare Change!"

Lankov is right.

[Silent Hunter]

And only if Truman hadn't fired McArthur.

Yes, because nuclear war is a good thing.

Firstly. McArthur finished the job. Secondly, who says we aren't headed to nuclear war anyway? Nuclear war fifty years ago wouldn't have been as nasty as nuclear war today.

It would have been worse fifty years ago, actually. Because we would have been facing Soviet nuclear warheads, whereas even if we have nuclear war now, it will be only the relatively weak bombs tested by the DPRK.

I don't think the Soviets had the capability to deliver long range or quantity of nuclear weapons very early in the 50's.

Edit : The Soviets and US were pretty much just touching on the hydrogen bomb at the time.

They didn't. The Tu-16 wasn't until 1954, the M-4 "Bison" not until 1955 and the R-7/SS-6 ICBM shortly after that (which was highly vulnerable). Even during Cuba, any war would have been far worse on the USSR.

[Silent Hunter]

One of the top Russian specialists on NK (Lankov) has thus reacted to this in his blog  (translation from Russian):

"And  thoe mountains of Korea shuddered. And the Earth screamed. And it gave out a moan: "Heeey, Yooou Theeere! In the White Hooouse! Spare Change!"

Ha ha! Great one!

[Beet]

Nuclear war is catastrophic in any case.

Though, China has the ability to cut off fuel supplies and open the border with North Korea at any time. They'd prefer to see a refugee crisis in Manchuria rather than nuclear war on the Korean peninsula!

[Silent Hunter]

Nuclear war is catastrophic in any case.

Definitely. I live about 15 miles from the centre of London. I'd have died in a nuclear exchange.

[GMantis]

And only if Truman hadn't fired McArthur.

Yes, because nuclear war is a good thing.

Firstly. McArthur finished the job. Secondly, who says we aren't headed to nuclear war anyway? Nuclear war fifty years ago wouldn't have been as nasty as nuclear war today.

It would have been worse fifty years ago, actually. Because we would have been facing Soviet nuclear warheads, whereas even if we have nuclear war now, it will be only the relatively weak bombs tested by the DPRK.

I don't think the Soviets had the capability to deliver long range or quantity of nuclear weapons very early in the 50's.

Edit : The Soviets and US were pretty much just touching on the hydrogen bomb at the time.

They didn't. The Tu-16 wasn't until 1954, the M-4 "Bison" not until 1955 and the R-7/SS-6 ICBM shortly after that (which was highly vulnerable). Even during Cuba, any war would have been far worse on the USSR.

Though West Europe would be affected as worse as Eastern Europe.

[dead0man]

Nuclear war is catastrophic in any case.

Definitely. I live about 15 miles from the centre of London. I'd have died in a nuclear exchange.

Actually, you would have been just fine* (unless there was something in your area worth nuking).  cite

*depending on you define "fine" and how big the nukes are of course.  The bomb in the link is twice as big as what the Topol M carries.  You'd only recieve "Light damage to all structures, and light to moderate damage to ordinary houses, will occur within this ring."  On the other hand, if London was anything like high value American targets (which I'm sure it was/is) it wasn't going to get hit with just one.  Last I heard the plan was to nuke very high level targets every 5 minutes for an hour.  Obviously that would be impossible as the Russians ability to deliver nukes would be virtually nonexistent in short order.  I don't know what direction from London you are or what the prevailing winds are....you'd certainly want to be upwind.

[Silent Hunter]

Nuclear war is catastrophic in any case.

Definitely. I live about 15 miles from the centre of London. I'd have died in a nuclear exchange.

Actually, you would have been just fine* (unless there was something in your area worth nuking).  cite

*depending on you define "fine" and how big the nukes are of course.  The bomb in the link is twice as big as what the Topol M carries.  You'd only recieve "Light damage to all structures, and light to moderate damage to ordinary houses, will occur within this ring."  On the other hand, if London was anything like high value American targets (which I'm sure it was/is) it wasn't going to get hit with just one.  Last I heard the plan was to nuke very high level targets every 5 minutes for an hour.  Obviously that would be impossible as the Russians ability to deliver nukes would be virtually nonexistent in short order.  I don't know what direction from London you are or what the prevailing winds are....you'd certainly want to be upwind.

I'm ENE from the centre of town.

Not if we're talking the full 20 MT option for the R-36M/SS-18, that's for sure.

(Edit- correcting Russian designation)

[??????????]

Yo fellas, here's your answer :

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

Awesome fun!

[dead0man]

Yo fellas, here's your answer :

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

Awesome fun!

I already dropped that link, with London as the center.  Great place to have some fun.

[Coburn In 2012]

We can all feel secure that obama will solve this problem by inviting the Korean dictator over for tea and getting him to share his feelings with us.  Maybe Oprah can help.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

We can all feel secure that obama will solve this problem by inviting the Korean dictator over for tea and getting him to share his feelings with us.  Maybe Oprah can help.

Yeah, I'm sure Obama is such an admirer of Kim! Damn, if we study his campaign, we may even find things taken to that great Korean leader...