Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   


A super kool thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner

In a possible WWIII who do you think would be the emerging super powers?
China ( individually)
13%
 13%  [ 2 ]
US ( individually)
6%
 6%  [ 1 ]
Russia ( individually)
6%
 6%  [ 1 ]
Western Europe as a collective
6%
 6%  [ 1 ]
North Korea ( individually)
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
India ( individually)
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
The East ( China, India, North Korea)
6%
 6%  [ 1 ]
Muntant Lazer sharks
13%
 13%  [ 2 ]
Roaches
46%
 46%  [ 7 ]
Total Votes : 15

Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thedaltonius wrote:

unless iran actually aquires nuclear weapons like theyre trying to do,


They are not, at the moment, trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And if they did, it wouldn't make a big difference; they have no good delivery system. The farthest they can hit with their missiles is supposedly israel, i think.

Quote:

and establish a unified fundamentalist islamic union in the middle east like theyre trying to do.


Well, once again, it would be over before they could do anything. It would be a massacre.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
thedaltonius wrote:

unless iran actually aquires nuclear weapons like theyre trying to do,


They are not, at the moment, trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And if they did, it wouldn't make a big difference; they have no good delivery system. The farthest they can hit with their missiles is supposedly israel, i think.

Quote:

and establish a unified fundamentalist islamic union in the middle east like theyre trying to do.


Well, once again, it would be over before they could do anything. It would be a massacre.


When looking in the effectiveness of weapons. You need to consider a few things.

Population density, effective radius, initial damage, postdamage, post damage effects. Land mass of target area, geology of target terrain. There are more but I will not bore you with them.

If there was to be a nuclear war, or just plain short war with the middle east. It would be a massacre like exton said.

1. If this was nuclear, you are looking at a relatively small area per populace/country. Compared to the United States. A Few nukes would rock more socks then a few in the US. This does vary to target area, and population densitry.

2. Terrain, sadly to say, but the ME is a nuclear fiesta waiting to happen. Flat, or almost flat, sand and more sand, and very little variation. Also with winds and other conditions, fallout would spread like a motherfucker.

3. Post damage and initial damage- in alot of the area building standards are as high as US. They fall alot better, so less energy is abosrbed. ( Law of Conservation of Energy) yah it even applies to nukes.
They don't nearlly have the resources to recover from post nuclear fallout.

ehh.. I am tired.. I will stop here.. but I think you get the point..

Now all of you stop being social darwinists.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 296

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc, unfortunately there are no good numbers on what you requested, but we do know that in the past few years North Korea has spent an average of $5 billion annually on its military. In nominal terms, North Korea's GDP is not much larger; many estimates put it at $20 to $30 billion. The latter figure should automatically disqualify North Korea as a serious contender in this 'World War III.' The major players in large-scale conflicts, like world wars, are always industrially robust and populous. North Korea simply does not have the capabilities to do anything significant. For perspective, the US GDP in 2005, according to the IMF, was $12.5 trillion; the EU had something approaching $14 trillion. North Korea just can't compete.

The primary reason why North Korea would perform badly in almost any war is that it is a sociopolitically weak country. The very fact that North Korea spends so much on defense means that its population is near starvation. Wars shift national efforts towards the armies. In North Korea's case, that would mean their troops would be receiving more and more of an already marginal food supply. And who would suffer? The civilian population, those that have to produce the tanks, the aircraft, and the warships. The regime would either be overthrown or, more likely, it would decay from within. But by that point, North Korea's armies would have been destroyed on the battlefields, mostly from the epidemics and general destitution that would follow what's more of a walking skeleton than an army (and also because South Korea can rape North Korea silly; we always talk about North Korea, but South Korea has a much better army AND it is actually a strong state, with a GDP approaching $800 billion in 2005...North Korea would not stand a chance).
Back to top
Spider Jerusalem
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm going to say western eureope. I hate England. I hate war, but I'd make an exception for England. British people piss me off.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
Doc, unfortunately there are no good numbers on what you requested, but we do know that in the past few years North Korea has spent an average of $5 billion annually on its military. In nominal terms, North Korea's GDP is not much larger; many estimates put it at $20 to $30 billion. The latter figure should automatically disqualify North Korea as a serious contender in this 'World War III.' The major players in large-scale conflicts, like world wars, are always industrially robust and populous. North Korea simply does not have the capabilities to do anything significant. For perspective, the US GDP in 2005, according to the IMF, was $12.5 trillion; the EU had something approaching $14 trillion. North Korea just can't compete.

The primary reason why North Korea would perform badly in almost any war is that it is a sociopolitically weak country. The very fact that North Korea spends so much on defense means that its population is near starvation. Wars shift national efforts towards the armies. In North Korea's case, that would mean their troops would be receiving more and more of an already marginal food supply. And who would suffer? The civilian population, those that have to produce the tanks, the aircraft, and the warships. The regime would either be overthrown or, more likely, it would decay from within. But by that point, North Korea's armies would have been destroyed on the battlefields, mostly from the epidemics and general destitution that would follow what's more of a walking skeleton than an army (and also because South Korea can rape North Korea silly; we always talk about North Korea, but South Korea has a much better army AND it is actually a strong state, with a GDP approaching $800 billion in 2005...North Korea would not stand a chance).


But your looking at this along conventional lines, of a conventional country that is trading to other countries with an open market. Yah your point is valid. But we can't judge or make calls on a country by comparing it to the norm, because its not the norm. So the rules don't aply. When you have a country that so far has been completely contained they have self sufficiency. The truth is, we have no idea what happens in that country. We don't know. put them up as a ??? variable, because truthfully, no one knows.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 296

PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
North Korea is not self-sufficient at all, not by a longshot. It receives large amounts of food supplies from the international community. It also has depended on nations like China and Russia to improve its military technology. The North Korean people may be sealed off in terms of communication, but assistance from the rest of the world is absolutely requisite in keeping the government afloat, despite what Kim Jong Il would have us believe. No one doubts that North Korea is a structurally weak nation; all it has is the military, and even that's more for bluff than anything else. A wiser leader would do to well to gamble with something other than military force alone. But because of what I explained above, North Korea can't do that.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
North Korea is not self-sufficient at all, not by a longshot. It receives large amounts of food supplies from the international community. It also has depended on nations like China and Russia to improve its military technology. The North Korean people may be sealed off in terms of communication, but assistance from the rest of the world is absolutely requisite in keeping the government afloat, despite what Kim Jong Il would have us believe. No one doubts that North Korea is a structurally weak nation; all it has is the military, and even that's more for bluff than anything else. A wiser leader would do to well to gamble with something other than military force alone. But because of what I explained above, North Korea can't do that.


You really need to start quoting your sources.
Back to top
Amin
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 85
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
a new world government?
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 296

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc, your request is reasonable I suppose. After all, I don't expect you to believe everything I say just because I say it, but it goes vice-versa. The following BBC article in 2002 talked about a looming crisis in North Korea's food supply:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor.....921634.stm

There are many others like it; just search online. An article from The Atlantic magazine about some of the weaknesses that North Korea has (quite long but interesting):

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610/kaplan-korea

Finally, the statements I made above are not controversial in any way; that's why I didn't cite from anything. North Korea is a decaying, rotting state, and that's not an oversimplification.
Back to top
Kels
Newbie


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 19
Location: Konigstein, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why would India join China and North Korea?


wtf?
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites