4 ms·

I'm guessing that you don't have children. And no, your plan isn't as good as any other; its just one that suits your own fatalistic attitude toward the risks i

I'm guessing that you don't have children. And no, your plan isn't as good as any other; its just one that suits your own fatalistic attitude toward the risks involved.

cantrip 9y ago
Yeah I think it's one of the worst reactions you could have. Without any indication of how bad the attack actually is, you should really assume the best and set yourself up to be able to survive. What if it's a conventional bombing, or you're not directly in the blast zone? Or if the nuke fails to detonate? The immediate aftermath if the most important time. While he's futzing around with Youtube and getting drunk the more intelligent people are coming up with a plan to live. Whether it's getting the fuck out of there or stockpiling water or climbing into a storm drain, almost anything is better than sending emails and jamming away to cliche songs.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  >What if it's a conventional bombing, or you're not directly in the blast zone? Or if the nuke fails to detonate? Yeah, this has been the most frustrating thing reading all of these accounts. A "ballistic missile" does not necessarily have a nuclear warhead. I don't see anyone correcting this and it seems like an important thing to know.
  - joejerryronnie 9y ago
    Yes, but in the minutes you have between warning and impact, how do you make this assessment? I think most people's immediate thoughts after the warning was North Korea and Nuke.
    - cookiecaper 9y ago
      It's not that you need to know definitively, you just need to understand that there is a strong possibility that the warhead is non-nuclear and therefore a strong possibility that the worst-case doomsday scenario won't happen even if the attack is real. This is apparently really important for people to understand, since so many commenters are saying they'd just wait to die since they assume a nuclear attack is not survivable. Few people would make this assumption about non-nuclear weaponry, so they should know that missile attack is not necessarily synonymous with nuclear weapon.
      - bahmboo 9y ago
        Actually there is about a 0% chance of a conventional ballistic missile attack on the US. If that. South Korea and Japan, yes, followed by a fire storm not seen since WW2.
  - bahmboo 9y ago
    Context. It's hard to explain to people who didn't go through it. The word "threat" didn't even register. There is no other information to evaluate except the message and the dprk situation. No one is going to launch a conventional ballistic warhead into Pearl Harbor. The ONLY conclusion you can come to in the minute after you just got the info is some serious nuclear stuff is about to go down (but please let it not). The head of our (US) armed forces has been saber rattling for months. The risk of miscalculation is off the charts. Also there was no indication who sent the message (state, fed, ?). You are also in a surreal stunned state. Then you start looking for shelter and yes monitor twitter. Honestly I'm surprised people didn't freak out more and get hurt.
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    Not all ballistic missiles are nuclear, but anyone throwing one will expect that the recipients will assume it's nuclear and be likely to respond in kind and not wait to find out which. So who would want to launch a ballistic missile without a nuclear payload, if the response is probably nuclear? The US has tried to build conventional missiles for fast global strike capability but it's somewhat complicated by the Russians being unable to distinguish them from nuclear ballistic missiles...
  - Bluestrike2 9y ago
    No country is going to risk that for two reasons in the current global context. First, everyone will assume the payload is nuclear. Once the launch is detected, literally no one is going to even consider for a single moment that the missile might have a conventional payload. All actions, responses, and threat assessments are going to treat it as a nuke. If you're going to launch ICBMs at people, you might as well mount a nuke to it because the rest of the nuclear club is going to respond as if you had. Second, the alert was for Hawaii. Given their isolation (they're over 7,500km from Korea), that means the missile is an ICBM. The Hwasong-15[0] can carry an estimated ~1,000kg payload, though it's unknown if it could do so for its full range.[1] That's tiny for a warhead. Mounting it on an ICBM, even if your country doesn't get blown to hell after launch, would just be a waste of money. The same goes for SLBMs as well. The only exception would be for precision strikes, but that's not really relevant to NK. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15 1. http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-longest-missile-test-yet http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-longest-missile-test-...
rdiddly 9y ago
Unless you're saying this person is worth less than you, then the plan suited to them is indeed as good as the one suited to you. A few popular assumptions that aren't necessarily true: Living is always better than dying. Your actions have an effect on the outcome. You can do it. People should always do what they should. It matters.
- hateduser2 9y ago
  Why do you call those things assumptions? That says more about you than the people you claim are assuming these things.
  - tambienben 9y ago
    They can be assumptions because life is complex & sometimes people tell themselves convenient lies to make themselves feel better. It depends on the circumstances.
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      Perhaps the convenient lies are the opposite?
      - tambienben 9y ago
        Like I said, it really depends on the circumstances. Sometimes having control over your fight-or-flight reaction is better for you, personally, given your value system, than say trampeling fellow coworkers in a panic on your way out the door. Don't judge too harshly people who don't share your starry-eyed view of the world. Let them have their peace if they're so resolved.
  - rdiddly 9y ago
    What's your point?
    - hateduser2 9y ago
FooHentai 9y ago
"I have decided that if I'm ever about to crash my car I will unclip my seatbelt and steer violently to the side. My plan is as good as any other plan"
- rabidrat 9y ago
  More like, "if I find out that the airplane is about to crash in a few minutes, I will unclip my seatbelt and roam around the cabin". You have control over your car, you have no control over the airplane or the bomb.

I'm guessing that you don't have children. And no, your plan isn't as good as any other; its just one that suits your own fatalistic attitude toward the risks involved.

cantrip 9y ago

Yeah I think it's one of the worst reactions you could have. Without any indication of how bad the attack actually is, you should really assume the best and set yourself up to be able to survive. What if it's a conventional bombing, or you're not directly in the blast zone? Or if the nuke fails to detonate? The immediate aftermath if the most important time. While he's futzing around with Youtube and getting drunk the more intelligent people are coming up with a plan to live. Whether it's getting the fuck out of there or stockpiling water or climbing into a storm drain, almost anything is better than sending emails and jamming away to cliche songs.

cookiecaper 9y ago
>What if it's a conventional bombing, or you're not directly in the blast zone? Or if the nuke fails to detonate? Yeah, this has been the most frustrating thing reading all of these accounts. A "ballistic missile" does not necessarily have a nuclear warhead. I don't see anyone correcting this and it seems like an important thing to know.
- joejerryronnie 9y ago
  Yes, but in the minutes you have between warning and impact, how do you make this assessment? I think most people's immediate thoughts after the warning was North Korea and Nuke.
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    It's not that you need to know definitively, you just need to understand that there is a strong possibility that the warhead is non-nuclear and therefore a strong possibility that the worst-case doomsday scenario won't happen even if the attack is real. This is apparently really important for people to understand, since so many commenters are saying they'd just wait to die since they assume a nuclear attack is not survivable. Few people would make this assumption about non-nuclear weaponry, so they should know that missile attack is not necessarily synonymous with nuclear weapon.
    - bahmboo 9y ago
      Actually there is about a 0% chance of a conventional ballistic missile attack on the US. If that. South Korea and Japan, yes, followed by a fire storm not seen since WW2.
- bahmboo 9y ago
  Context. It's hard to explain to people who didn't go through it. The word "threat" didn't even register. There is no other information to evaluate except the message and the dprk situation. No one is going to launch a conventional ballistic warhead into Pearl Harbor. The ONLY conclusion you can come to in the minute after you just got the info is some serious nuclear stuff is about to go down (but please let it not). The head of our (US) armed forces has been saber rattling for months. The risk of miscalculation is off the charts. Also there was no indication who sent the message (state, fed, ?). You are also in a surreal stunned state. Then you start looking for shelter and yes monitor twitter. Honestly I'm surprised people didn't freak out more and get hurt.
- roywiggins 9y ago
  Not all ballistic missiles are nuclear, but anyone throwing one will expect that the recipients will assume it's nuclear and be likely to respond in kind and not wait to find out which. So who would want to launch a ballistic missile without a nuclear payload, if the response is probably nuclear? The US has tried to build conventional missiles for fast global strike capability but it's somewhat complicated by the Russians being unable to distinguish them from nuclear ballistic missiles...
- Bluestrike2 9y ago
  No country is going to risk that for two reasons in the current global context. First, everyone will assume the payload is nuclear. Once the launch is detected, literally no one is going to even consider for a single moment that the missile might have a conventional payload. All actions, responses, and threat assessments are going to treat it as a nuke. If you're going to launch ICBMs at people, you might as well mount a nuke to it because the rest of the nuclear club is going to respond as if you had. Second, the alert was for Hawaii. Given their isolation (they're over 7,500km from Korea), that means the missile is an ICBM. The Hwasong-15[0] can carry an estimated ~1,000kg payload, though it's unknown if it could do so for its full range.[1] That's tiny for a warhead. Mounting it on an ICBM, even if your country doesn't get blown to hell after launch, would just be a waste of money. The same goes for SLBMs as well. The only exception would be for precision strikes, but that's not really relevant to NK. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15 1. http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-longest-missile-test-yet http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-longest-missile-test-...

rdiddly 9y ago

Unless you're saying this person is worth less than you, then the plan suited to them is indeed as good as the one suited to you. A few popular assumptions that aren't necessarily true: Living is always better than dying. Your actions have an effect on the outcome. You can do it. People should always do what they should. It matters.

hateduser2 9y ago
Why do you call those things assumptions? That says more about you than the people you claim are assuming these things.
- tambienben 9y ago
  They can be assumptions because life is complex & sometimes people tell themselves convenient lies to make themselves feel better. It depends on the circumstances.
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    Perhaps the convenient lies are the opposite?
    - tambienben 9y ago
      Like I said, it really depends on the circumstances. Sometimes having control over your fight-or-flight reaction is better for you, personally, given your value system, than say trampeling fellow coworkers in a panic on your way out the door. Don't judge too harshly people who don't share your starry-eyed view of the world. Let them have their peace if they're so resolved.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  What's your point?
  - hateduser2 9y ago

FooHentai 9y ago

"I have decided that if I'm ever about to crash my car I will unclip my seatbelt and steer violently to the side. My plan is as good as any other plan"

rabidrat 9y ago
More like, "if I find out that the airplane is about to crash in a few minutes, I will unclip my seatbelt and roam around the cabin". You have control over your car, you have no control over the airplane or the bomb.