League Of Evil: N.korea , Iran And Al Qaeda

[akiboy]

This is the true League of Evil which is the most dangerous threat to the U.S. North Korea recently tested their long range Taepodong 2 missile which can hit U.S soil. Startling evidence has shown that they are collaborating with Iran and working on a long range Iranian nuclear weapon called Shahab 3. If these two ' ROGUE ' countries succeed in their attempts then it won't be long before a missile strikes LA or the Golden Gate in San Francisco. Its seems that the North korean regime had commented that " We may not be able to hit the White House but we sure can hit Hollywood !! " . This is not mere speculation but a solid fact. Al Qaeda is supporter of the Iranian regime. Iran supplies oil to N.korea and in turn N.korea gives them help on their missiles. Imagine if Al Qaeda obtained such weapons thru the Iranians !! Bin Laden wont hesitate to use em aginast US Bases worldwide!! Please do think about this and tell me what you feel!!


AKshay

 

[CSM]

This is the true League of Evil which is the most dangerous threat to the U.S. North Korea recently tested their long range Taepodong 2 missile which can hit U.S soil. Startling evidence has shown that they are collaborating with Iran and working on a long range Iranian nuclear weapon called Shahab 3. If these two ' ROGUE ' countries succeed in their attempts then it won't be long before a missile strikes LA or the Golden Gate in San Francisco. Its seems that the North korean regime had commented that " We may not be able to hit the White House but we sure can hit Hollywood !! " . This is not mere speculation but a solid fact. Al Qaeda is supporter of the Iranian regime. Iran supplies oil to N.korea and in turn N.korea gives them help on their missiles. Imagine if Al Qaeda obtained such weapons thru the Iranians !! Bin Laden wont hesitate to use em aginast US Bases worldwide!! Please do think about this and tell me what you feel!!


AKshay

Actually, Iran and North Korea have been exchanging missile technology since the late 80s. The Shahab 3 has been aroound since the early 90s and was developed by n. Korea for Iran. It is a derivative of the Nodong 1/B.

These missiles certainly have a good range on them; however, what is lacking is a good guidance system. The Koreans could certainly fire this latest missile at Hollywood, but they have no way of knowing where the hell it will land. It could just as easily land in Russia or even China despite the targeted point of Hollywood.

Also, developing a nuclear bomb is one thing but developing a nuclear WARHEAD is another. Lots of engineering problems to overcome and lots of testing required to get all that working correctly. While the news stories of nukes certainly can be alarming, it is unclear that N. Korea or Iran have the technology to succesfully build long range ICBMs with nuclear capability.

Given all that, it is apparent that some critical pieces of information and material are missing for both Iran and North Korea; otherwise, they would both have the nuclear warheads and delivery systems they both want.

I personally have no idea what those pieces are. I suspect that at least some of the world's nuclear powers do...and are very clearly trying to ensure that neither Iran nor North Korea get those pieces.

As for any terrorist organization obtaining nukes...that would be bad indeed. HOWEVER, having the device is not enough.They also need the expertise to arm, target and detonate the device. That is not something that is readily obtainable from any nation especially for an individual terrorist cell. I can tell you that if any terrorist organization did manage to pull all that together, it would not take very long for the world's nations to figure out which nation gave the required technology to that terrorist cell (all nukes and their technology have certain "signatures" discernable by those who know what to look for) and then that nation would soon cease to exist....

Dirty bombs are a completely different situation.

North Korea and Iran are of concern, no doubt about it but not in the way you have presented the situation.