North Korean train wreck

Jocko said:


Funny you should say that... I was thinking nuclear accident.
Click to expand...

An interesting thought. However, given the location of the explosion I'd have to think not (right on the border of China). That is assuming NK and China aren't in nuclear cahoots. 3000 does seem a bit high for gas + train explosion, unless they were located around some kind of highly populated slum.

Edit: Spelling. Must proof read!
 
Jocko said:


Funny you should say that... I was thinking nuclear accident.

If 3,000 dead and injured is indeed accurate, I'd like to know what those trains were carrying (initially they said gasoline - now it's a little more vague) and just how fast they were going to detonate enough tankers to create that high a body count.

The more I think about it, the fishier it sounds.
Click to expand...

A tankerload of NGL (natural gas liquid) would make quite a big boom. If the tank cars rupture, allowing the liquid to gassify, when an ignition source is found, the explosion of the air/fuel mixture would be several times larger than the "Daisycutter" bomb.

I could see 3000 dead as a result, if this happened in a populated area.
 
3000 does seem a bit high for gas + train explosion, unless they were located around some kind of highly populated slum.
Click to expand...

And don't forget we're talking about North Korean tankers here. They're probably made out of aluminum foil and duct tape (crappy duct tape too. You know the stuff that tears easy and won't stick if gets a little dust on it?). Ever see that picture of the hydrogen powered bus in China with the Hindenburg balloon on top? That's what I'm thinking here.
 
has anyone used the "3000 dead and over $80 worth of damage" joke yet?

I wouldn't. That's in poor taste.
 
bozothedeathmachine said:


An interesting thought. However, given the location of the explosion I'd have to think not (right on the border of China). That is assuming NK and China aren't in nuclear cahoots. 3000 does seem a bit high for gas + train explosion, unless they were located around some kind of highly populated slum.

Edit: Spelling. Must proof read!
Click to expand...

The article said it happened at a Train Station..

3,000 At a train station ( a' la commuter type during rush hour ) doesn't seem like a huge number...
 
phildonnia said:
Has anyone been inside the hell-hole cloister that is North Korea to see if it really was a train wreck? 'Cause my very first totally unsubstantiated paranoid thought was "Hmm, surplus population management?".
Click to expand...
Manufactured energy crisis was my thought.
 
I have it on good authority. Well made and well maintained Korean anti-imperalist trains did not explode. 3,000 fighters in the war against American imperalism self-detoneated out of love and admiration for the Great Leader and Son of the 21st Century Kim Il Jong. In short, this was a blow by the peace loving Korean people against American running-dog facists.
Click to expand...

The first response of the North Koreans was to cut off the international phone lines so they could control the flow of information about the incident. Any country that would do that is going to put so much spin on the story that the earth's angular momentum will be in danger.

Only in this forum would a train-wreck thread be derailed. I'm now waiting for the "Plane with 500 people captured by terorrists" thread to be hijacked.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that, but I implore all of you to never start a thread arguing the merits of beating a dead horse.
 
There is this quote from the AP story to suggest that lots of people would have been on the train:

The communist country's infrastructure is dilapidated and accident-prone. Its passenger cars are usually packed with people, and defectors say trains are seldom punctual and frequently break down.

My first thought wasn't nuclear accident but was there an attempted coup. The article indicated that Kim Il Jong traveled that rail earlier. Although with North Korea, it is all speculation. My guess is though, intell satellites might be able to determine some things.
 
seayakin said:
There is this quote from the AP story to suggest that lots of people would have been on the train:

The communist country's infrastructure is dilapidated and accident-prone. Its passenger cars are usually packed with people, and defectors say trains are seldom punctual and frequently break down.

My first thought wasn't nuclear accident but was there an attempted coup. The article indicated that Kim Il Jong traveled that rail earlier. Although with North Korea, it is all speculation. My guess is though, intell satellites might be able to determine some things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what are the chances of any intel satellites being focussed on North Korea?

Oh... Never mind...
 
headscratcher4 said:
I have it on good authority. Well made and well maintained Korean anti-imperalist trains did not explode. 3,000 fighters in the war against American imperalism self-detoneated out of love and admiration for the Great Leader and Son of the 21st Century Kim Il Jong. In short, this was a blow by the peace loving Korean people against American running-dog facists.
Click to expand...


Agreed- but if this were a criminal act perpetrated by im-pig-alist American infiltrators, the only solution is to execute 3,000 more civilians at random, for their failure to prevent this attack. A strong message must be sent to those peoples who would fail our great nation in such a way.
 
Since we seem to have passed the tragedy+time=comedy barrier, I just realized how misleading the thread's title is.

I mean, come on. A train wreck in North Korea? That could mean their economy, their society, their leadership... an actual train wreck is probably the last thing I would have thought of.
 
Jocko said:
Since we seem to have passed the tragedy+time=comedy barrier, I just realized how misleading the thread's title is.

I mean, come on. A train wreck in North Korea? That could mean their economy, their society, their leadership... an actual train wreck is probably the last thing I would have thought of.
Click to expand...

One wonders they have trains at all.

Of course, when it comes to having technology one isn't ready to handle, NK is not alone: in the end of the 19th century, the Abyssinian king in Africa heard of a new method of executing criminals, the electric chair.

He ordered three from the US, but only when they arrived was he informed that for best results they will require electricity, which, at the time, Abyssinia lacked. So he threw out two of them and used the third as his throne.
 
Incidents like this have started wars. They may claim that American spies caused this, and create an excuse to "retaliate" with their nukes.


I hope not, cause they prossibly could be offended at stuff I went and said.


I was right though. I ain't taking nothing back.
 
There has been speculation that this was an assasination attempts. Kim only ever travels by train, if he has to travel a long distance, and he apparently went through there shortly before the accident.

From the sound of it, 3,000 is not going to be near the real toll.
 
a_unique_person said:
There has been speculation that this was an assasination attempts. Kim only ever travels by train, if he has to travel a long distance, and he apparently went through there shortly before the accident.
Click to expand...

I believe it happened 9 hours later.
 
It's not as bad as that, apparently - clk is a good guesser.

Although 1,850 households were completely destroyed, and another 6350 partially destroyed (!), somehow "only" 54 people were killed. In fairness, Korean officials say that it's too soon to give accurate figures, which is pretty reasonable considering everything within a 160 metre radius was destroyed (including several 3 and 4 storey buildings).

It was an incident involving rail trucks carrying explosives, apparently. Must have been quite a sight.
 
shemp said:
I think I have a hard time believing either of these numbers, 3,000 or 54. The former is rampant speculation, and the latter sounds like a coverup. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

I think the 54 is just the number of dead they have definitely been able to confirm - it came from the Red Cross, I believe. For the rest, they don't have any idea yet, but they are certainly expecting it to be a lot higher. I think the final answer must surely be "Lots", with that much destruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom