Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

and neither will you

 

They can use the nukes on the few survivors and still get their reward. I hate to say it, but I don't think there are any virgins left, so there are going to be quite a few disappointed martyrs.

 

An all out, end of the world type thing seems unlikely. Of course forever is a long, long time. Who knows who will have the bomb in a hundred years or who they will aim it at. But for the present the country I worry about is Pakistan. Who knows who will control that country a year from now? N Korea has no one to attack, they want the bomb so we can't invade them. They could have saved a lot of money and just put up a "NO OIL HERE" sign.

 

Tell that to the crew of the Cheonan.
The 12 million + citizens of Seoul might disagree with you too.
North Korea has threatened South Korea, USA and Japan with their nuclear weapons,more than once.. All 3 countries are within their range or atleast have targets within range.


Having "the bomb" is more of an excuse to invade them than not having one.

 

Does that only counts for North Korea or for every nation with nuclear weapons?

 

North Korea says a lot of things, doesn't mean they'll actually do it. It's doubted they even have the technology to successfully deliver a warhead.

 

Are you serious? North Korea has had the technology to deliver warheads to Seoul an Japan since 1993 "Nodong1". The US became a potential target in 2006 "Taepodong2".
It's estimated North Korea will be capable of delivering a 200-kilogram warhead to the U.S. mainland by 2015.

 

You can't just put a nuclear weapon on a missile, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Not to mention the taepodong 2 isn't considered operational as every test has failed. The nuclear bomb they set off was weaker than the one we dropped on hiroshima, that's how advanced their technology is after 40 years.

 

.. and this guys gonna blow up the world.. i hope sarah palin blows them up first. that's our next president you know, right?

 

I'm sure Kim Jong is aware of this.

North Korea tested a Taepodong-1 in August 1998, firing a missile over northern Japan.

North Korea is very persistent/dedicated they will get it right.

Little Boy was an untested design, that worked out quite well.

Little Boy had a Blast yield 13-18 kilo ton

US estimates for the 2009 NK nuke test were a "few kilo tons" Russian estimates were 10-20 kilo tons.

40 years? Their first nuclear test was in 2006..

 

They've had a nuclear program since the 1960's though and have just managed to make it to 1945.

As for Little boy, the physics was the only important part of that that was important, they only had enough U-235 for one bomb and were so certain it would work just went for it. Can't do that with a missile or plane. But a lumbering North Korean bomber heading for the border would be shot down the second it crossed it. They have no delivery system that will currently work.

Also they're insane, not suicidal.

 

Nuclear Program and Nuclear Weapons Program are 2 different subjects,

Their Nuclear program of the 60's were designed, built and supplied by the Soviets. And i hardly doubt they were "dated" for their time.

NK is also limited in their Fissile Material, they too just might have to go for it.

Taepodong1 and Musudan are both operational and in service.

 

A delivery system can be as small as a suite case. Im sure thats not hard to deliver.

 

We can all just hope for the best, that should be good enough.

 

In the end it all boils down to who the people can be conned into electing as their leader, or who they will allow to impose rule over them. Nuclear weapons are not a great deterrent in preventing the overthrow of a government from within, and as smaller and smaller nations with less stable governments acquire nuclear weapons, all it might take is for the government to be overthrown by a terrorist group who only wants access to the nuclear arsenal and not the nation. Launch and leave. Only time will provide the answer, and living on a small planet with a population growth that at some point will exceed what it can sustain, who knows what response might be seen necessary in the future. I think the neutron bomb would be a better choice for population control. Of course they no longer exist? A better question might be asked, "Will the worlds population inevitably have to be reduced?"

 

survival of the fittest

 

That's always true, with the proper definition of fittest in relation to the survivor(s).

 

after nuclear war, and all thats left is an earth with blown up buildings, THEN people will look to god, and question their acts. by that time i think itll be too late.

 

While people may ask questions of their God, it becomes obvious that the answers are of their own making. Try asking a difficult question of a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, and a Muslim religious leader and see if they all receive the same answer from the "one and the same?" God. Probably best to leave religion out of any discussion as it is another topic entirely.

 

i am not talkin about religion. i am talking about god. no matter if you believe in religion or not there is still a god.