Support NeoGAF

[Wario64]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/06/25/news_6101437.html

Ghost Recon 2 plotline irks North Korea
Government newspaper lashes back at American "propaganda;" no word on whether Kim Jong Il enjoyed the first game.

Red Storm's upcoming mutliplatform tactical shooter Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon 2 has North Korea up in arms, according to the American military newspaper Stars and Stripes. Apparently, the North Korean government is miffed about the story line and setting of the game, wherein a North Korean general diverts food to the military, eventually taking power of the country and invading China. Players join the elite Ghost Recon force as they intervene on the behalf of China to repel the attack.

Scenes from videos of the game, debuted at this year's E3, caught North Korea's attention. “Through propaganda, entertainment and movies,” read a recent column in the Tongil Newspaper, "[Americans] have shown everyone their hatred for us. This may be just a game to them now, but a war will not be a game for them later. In war, they will only face miserable defeat and gruesome deaths.”

Such strong words did not seem to deter Christopher Allen, a designer on the Ghost Recon 2 team. “When we developed the story background, we aimed at staying away from key current or specific events while still having a reasonable setting for a conflict,” Allen wrote. “We are focusing the story on a splinter group in the North Korean military that sparks this conflict, not the entire country.”

 

[TekunoRobby]

Ok.

I hope they would atleast direct their anger at the developers themselves instead of a nebulous entity.

 

[Matt]

Apparently, the North Korean government is miffed about the story line and setting of the game, wherein a North Korean general diverts food to the military, eventually taking power of the country and invading China. Players join the elite Ghost Recon force as they intervene on the behalf of China to repel the attack.

Wow, what a ridiculously stupid storyline.

 

[TekunoRobby]

Wow, what a ridiculously stupid storyline.

That's what I thought, invading China? Yeah ok buddy.
Helping China repel the attack? Weeee!

Hell they should be happy that someone atleast thought enough of them to make a story where they have the power to invade China.

 

[explodet]

HAHAHAHAHA
Invade China?

With what? Their Ornithopters, Weather Dominator, and Veritech fighters?

 

[tenchir]

I'm surprise China didn't protest over this also. China needed American help to repel an attack from Korea?

 

[explodet]

Maybe they're still miffed at Command and Conquer: Generals to notice.

 

[Matt]

HAHAHAHAHA
Invade China?

With what? Their Ornithopters, Weather Dominator, and Veritech fighters?

I’m gonna blast you back to Protoculture, Jiang Ze-BITCH!

 

[The Faceless Master]

HAHAHAHAHA
Invade China?

With what? Their Ornithopters, Weather Dominator, and Veritech fighters?

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAAHHA

only 1:34 into saturday and i am cracking up

 

[shpankey]

This may be just a game to them now, but a war will not be a game for them later. In war, they will only face miserable defeat and gruesome deaths.

Isn't this the same speil Saddam Hussein was saying, like how badass Iraq was. I mean, right before we yanked his scared ass outta little hole in the ground. :lol

 

[Matt]

Isn't this the same spiel Saddam Hussein was saying, like how badass Iraq was. I mean, right before we yanked his scared ass outta little hole in the ground. :lol

The only difference being, North Korea is badass, and one scary mother. Scary as in, we go to war with them, we lose LA kinda scary.

 

[Ripclawe]

ooooooooooo...how did they get hold of my master plans????

 

[shpankey]

The only difference being, North Korea is badass, and one scary mother. Scary as in, we go to war with them, we lose LA kinda scary.

Please... no way in hell dude. And if by some miracle (for them) it was to happen, it would be GAME OVER as we'd nuke every major city in N. Korea and it'd be lights out, end of story, good night, go home, drive home safely. The retribution for losing a city like LA would be like none the world had ever seen. There would literally be no more N. Korea.

Again though, no fucking way they could even get a nuke off towards LA. If they did, we'd shoot it down and send 10 back to where it came from as a lesson.

 

[Shompola]

Shooting down missiles is very very hard and USA has no bullet proof way to do it. Btw how far is it from NK to LA?

 

[FightyF]

I'm surprise China didn't protest over this also. China needed American help to repel an attack from Korea?

*LOL* Good point

-edit- I'm gonna add this info to this one post, because I don't want to derail this thread with OT talk. Actually, you know what, I'll refrain...it'll just add to a discussion. It was about the Patriot Missiles (to appease anyone's curiosity).

 

[shpankey]

We shoot them down all the time in the current war. The Patriot 2 missiles. The time it would take for the Nuke to get from N. Korea to L.A. would leave enough time to send a thousand Patriot 2 missiles to try and shoot it down. Ans I believe the Patriots 2's are more than 50% succesfull in this war (the Patriot 1's sucked). I forget the % actually, but I know their pretty good actually (saved Kuwait a couple times already).

Any Nuke trying to get to LA would get easily shot down. As soon as it left on target for LA, you can bet the retribution nukes would be heading back to N Korea... and it wouldn't be pretty. It would be the shortest war in history.

Besides, this is all really stupid. N. Korea would never EVER even think about sending a Nuke to the US. They aren't that stupid. They know exactly what would happen. They'd get the shit nuked out of them and they'd all die. They're not that dilusional. Their only hope is world opinion against the US and to try and fight a traditional war on their own ground. Any kind of "Nuke" talk is silly.

No country in the world would want to have a Nuke war with the US, let aloe little N Korea who only recently came into Nuclear power (supposedly) and would more than likely only fuck it up and blow themselfs to hell.

 

[Shompola]

more than 50% accurasy isn't good enough though. Say they shoot 40 nukes and 4 hit their targets, that's shooting down 90% of them and still the result will be devastating.
That's kinda scary isn't it?

 

[shpankey]

I don't know the exact %, it's above 50 is all I was saying (it's higher though, I just don't know it - I just remember them saying it and I remember it was pretty high, I just don't know exactly).

Second, they certainly don't have 40 nukes, they'd be lucky if they had 4 actually. They only recently got some plutonium, and they certainly didn't get enough for 40 nukes.

Again though, even if they could magically get a nuke to go off in the US, they know for a fact they are dead. They know the US would retaliate with full and complete nuclear force. If N Korea opened the door by using them on us first, politically speaking, the US has every right to respond to save itself with Nuclear power in kind. And we have 100x more than we need to wipe the country off the map.

Kim Il doesn't want to die... which he would, and he KNOWS he would. Any reasonable person knows it would be over. No more N. Korea period, and I mean literally, they'd get wiped out of existence. You think they would bring that realty upon themself? No.

 

[chespace]

Any Nuke trying to get to LA would get easily shot down. As soon as it left on target for LA, you can bet the retribution nukes would be heading back to N Korea... and it wouldn't be pretty. It would be the shortest war in history.

Besides, this is all really stupid. N. Korea would never EVER even think about sending a Nuke to the US. They aren't that stupid. They know exactly what would happen. They'd get the shit nuked out of them and they'd all die. They're not that dilusional. Their only hope is world opinion against the US and to try and fight a traditional war on their own ground. Any kind of "Nuke" talk is silly.

No country in the world would want to have a Nuke war with the US, let aloe little N Korea who only recently came into Nuclear power (supposedly) and would more than likely only fuck it up and blow themselfs to hell.

i kind of agree and disagree (and off the side i'm actually kind of cracking up at this whole thread) with your assertions about north korea and a potential nuclear war. north korea isn't stupid -- they're crazy. and really, if you think about it, nuclear weapons are the ultimate equalizer. who's to say who'd come out on top? you place way too much trust in our missle defense program.

----

http://chespace.ogamo.com

 

[shpankey]

No I don't, what I'm saying is, N. Korea does not have enough Nukes to eliminate the US. The US and her allies have more than enough to end N. Korea as we know it. Even if they killed L.A. first, they couldn't survive. You think the US is just going to stand by idle? As soon as the Nukes went up from N. Korea, ours would be on their way to them.

So, say 40 goes up from N. Korea (they don't even have that many, but whatever).

4,000 Nukes could easily be headed back, from everywhere around the world.

Also, the US would knock down most of those, if not all. The Patriot 2 are very successful and battlefield proven already. But for every Nuke sent our way, we are not just sending up one missile to knock it down, you can guarantee there will be hundreds, if not thousands of missiles to try and bring them down. I like those chances way more than N. Koreas.

Again though, none of this could ever happen because they don't want to all die (which they know they would).

 

[Matt]

Umm, you’re wrong shpankey. What Patriot 2 batteries do you think we have around LA? Besides the fact that P2s aren’t designed to hit ICBMs.

And we wouldn’t nuke NK. Why? Becuse we would also be nukeing SK, Japan, China, and Russia. The simple fact is, the United States currently has NO means of stopping an ICBM from hitting our shores.

 

[shpankey]

No you wouldn't. You Nuke a city, not a country. They'd only need to Nuke the major cities in N. Korea with "tactical nukes" which are sized appropriately. Believe it or not, it's a science... they know the fallout radius etc. They actually send a specific sized Nuke to do the exact amount of damage they wish. All those other countries would go untouched.

And you honestly think we are unprotected? Just because we don't publicly speak about them, doesn't mean their not there. There are missiles set to knock down Nukes all over the country. They won't just come here uninterupted. And P2's can be used against ICBM's (a modified version).

 

[Matt]

No you wouldn't. You Nuke a city, not a country. They'd only need to Nuke the major cities in N. Korea with "tactical nukes" which are sized appropriately. Believe it or not, it's a science... they know the fallout radius etc. They actually send a specific sized Nuke to do the exact amount of damage they wish. All those other countries would go untouched.

Insanity. No way man, plus the fact that the tactical nukes you speak of are not mounted on ICBMs.

 

[shpankey]

You are pretty naive dude. Yes, we have no defense against any Nuclear launch against us. And if N. Korea sends a Nuke to L.A. the United States of America is over, we're all dead and cannot fend off the mighty nation of North Korea and their greatness. ::

 

[explodet]

*scratches head*

Well this thread took a strange turn.

 

[Matt]

You are pretty naive dude.

I’m naive? You’re the one saying that we can nuke a place without any damage to the nations around it. You’re the one saying that we could intercept ICBMs coming twards the United States. You said that NK is like Iraq.

You are incredibly wrong on all accounts. Nuclear fallout from an attack on NK WOULD most certainly spread to the surrounding countries. We have no ability to stop a ballistic missile attack on our nation. And North Korea has a military that could put up a better fight then the United States has had in the last 30 (or more) years. I’m not the naive one.

 

[shpankey]

You're right. Their Nuke would hit LA and there would be nothing we could do to stop it. 10's of millions of people would die, and we would not retaliate. That's exactly what would happen.

 

[Matt]

You are pretty naive dude. Yes, we have no defense against any Nuclear launch against us. And if N. Korea sends a Nuke to L.A. the United States of America is over, we're all dead and cannot fend off the mighty nation of North Korea and their greatness. ::

Nice edit ::

Where the hell did I say any of that? Of corse the US could defeat NK in war. That’s not the issue. You said they are like Iraq, and I’m telling you they are not.

For someone so condescending you certainly know very little.

You're right. Their Nuke would hit LA and there would be nothing we could do to stop it. 10's of millions of people would die, and we would not retaliate. That's exactly what would happen.

Who says the only way to retaliate would be Nuclear Weapons?

 

[Mooreberg]

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

 

[TekunoRobby]

Ha ha ha that's awesome. Nice turn around on the thread guys.

 

[krypt0nian]

Afghanistan - check

Iraq - check

North Korea - pending


Do they not watch the news in NK?

At this point, Canada's watching their asses. LOL

Bush is just itching to prove his global manhood again...

 

[FitzOfRage]

You’re the one saying that we can nuke a place without any damage to the nations around it.

Well we did manage to hit Japan without causing fallout deaths in Korea . We could do the reverse. Shpankey is right that we do have a host of so called tactical nuclear weapons that can have explosive power as little as 1/100 of the power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

People get a lot of their ideas about nuclear weapons from movies, which usually portray all nuclear weapons as being ridiculously overpowered devices that will destroy at least half thw world. And while some certainly fall into that category, we also have thousands of somewhat more boring devices that do much less damage that wouldn't even ensure you'd wipe out an entire major metropolitan area.

Who says the only way to retaliate would be Nuclear Weapons?

What would you want us to use, the Care Bear Stare? If any country hits the US with nuclear weapons, I don't think there's any doubt we're responding with nuclear weapons. The only question is how many other countries we're going to make sure are included in the response.

 

[Matt]

Well we did manage to hit Japan without causing fallout deaths in Korea . We could do the reverse. Shpankey is right that we do have a host of so called tactical nuclear weapons that can have explosive power as little as 1/100 of the power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

People get a lot of their ideas about nuclear weapons from movies, which usually portray all nuclear weapons as being ridiculously overpowered devices that will destroy at least half thw world. And while some certainly fall into that category, we also have thousands of somewhat more boring devices that do much less damage that wouldn't even ensure you'd wipe out an entire major metropolitan area.

Again, the nuclear weapons you’re speaking of are not mounted on ICBMs. In order to use them, we would have to get up close and personal with the North Koreans already.

Secondly, comparing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs to ones we could use on NK is a poor example. Most to those weapons fallout went out into the Pacific Ocean, where as, no matter where the fallout from our weapons goes, it will hit a country. No to mention the fact that South Korea it literary right there, right next to so-called major NK population and military centers. They would get hit.

What would you want us to use, the Care Bear Stare? If any country hits the US with nuclear weapons, I don't think there's any doubt we're responding with nuclear weapons. The only question is how many other countries we're going to make sure are included in the response.

...Now that’s the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

 

[FitzOfRage]

Again, the nuclear weapons you’re speaking of are not mounted on ICBMs. In order to use them, we would have to get up close and personal with the North Koreans already.

Secondly, comparing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs to ones we could use on NK is a poor example. Most to those weapons fallout went out into the Pacific Ocean, where as, no matter where the fallout from our weapons goes, it will hit a country. No to mention the fact that South Korea it literary right there, right next to so-called major NK population and military centers. They would get hit.

There was little fallout risk with the bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were air burst explosions. The fallout was distributed around the globe as a vapor, which has little effect over such a large area (assuming we're not firing a few thousand at a time).

...Now that’s the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Which part? The idea that we would use nuclear weapons as a response to nuclear weapons, or the idea that the deaths of millions of Americans would trigger prolonged military campaigns against multiple countires perceived as threats to the US? Is that really the stupidest thing you've ever heard?

 

[Guileless]

I think this discussion is moot for now as most analysts agree NK doesn't have the rocket technology to get a nuclear weapon to the contintental US. Of course it's pretty hard to get intelligence in a police state.

As for invading China, I doubt the storyline has NK invading in a total war to take over the country, which is obviously absurd. But it is conceivable they would make an incursion to steal some crops and kidnap people. That would be much easier than going through the DMZ.

 

[cvxfreak]

I always assumed whatever North Korea had would be pointed at Japan and perhaps South Korea - you know, countries allied with the U.S.

 

[Apharmd Battler]

This thread has some great responses............

 

[LuckyBrand]

I thought Bush's missile shield would be opening/starting in its beginning stage within the next couple years, adn then they'd keep adding capability and more #'s to it as time went on? Isnt that the case or am I totally wrong?

By the way, I think more money from our defense spending should go into a missle shield and any technologies that could do this... and I think Bush's plan of giving it to our allies was a great idea... once spread, it would be nearly impossible for any country to launch ANY ICBM against anyone..

 

[Screaming_Gremlin]

I thought Bush's missile shield would be opening/starting in its beginning stage within the next couple years, adn then they'd keep adding capability and more #'s to it as time went on? Isnt that the case or am I totally wrong?

By the way, I think more money from our defense spending should go into a missle shield and any technologies that could do this... and I think Bush's plan of giving it to our allies was a great idea... once spread, it would be nearly impossible for any country to launch ANY ICBM against anyone..

If I remember right the shield is supposed to become operational throughout this year and next. It will be pretty limited at the beginning. It will comprise of a land-based interceptors based out of Alaska, plus increased theater missile defense which includes purchasing more Patriot (PAC-3) units and increasing the effectiveness of the AEGIS system for the navy. Of course the Patriots and AEGIS do not have the ability to shoot down ICBMs (at least to my knowledge).

Truthfully, I think this is all just a stopgap measure until a more effective laser defense can be constructed. They already have the prototype of the Airborne Laser system so I imagine it isn’t too far off from active duty. Plus, there is the Tactical High Energy Laser we are constructing with Israel and I think is almost done with testing and is about to enter production to probably replace the PAC-3.

Airborne Laser

Tactical High Energy Laser

 

[CrimsonSkies]

"who's to say who'd come out on top?"

That's the funniest thing I've read on this forum ever. A war between the US and North Korea?

 

[Discharger]

Matt said: Again, the nuclear weapons you’re speaking of are not mounted on ICBMs. In order to use them, we would have to get up close and personal with the North Koreans already.

Closer than ICBM range for sure, but these tactical nukes are very easily mounted on cruise missiles which can be fired from a safe distance away and with that properly programmed flight path are very difficult to find until they reach the target. Rest assured, it would not be difficult to hit north korea with nukes without hitting the nearby countries. Not saying this is going to happen, just saying it's not as difficult as you make it out to be.

 

[Gek54]

For someone so condescending you certainly know very little.

HA HA. Im glad Im not the only one who sees this.

 

[shpankey]

You confuse condescention with just thinking I'm right. I don't look down on anyone, nor do I try. But if he thinks we are going to not respond in kind to a nuclear attack on L.A., I believe he's wrong. That's my opinion.

And Gek, you're always looking for a chance to knock me down a peg. It's starting to get old. We went through this last time, where you took another opportunity in a thread you wasn't involved in to insult all of Oklahoma just because I'm from there. You still are holding resentment from a long time ago when you didn't like my opinion about what the greatest simulation racer was. Really dude, let it go already.

P.S. What happened to that PM you sent me? Guess that didn't last long. :/

 

[tenchir]

shpankey is right about American policy toward nuclear weapon.... ever heard of the doctrine MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction)?

http://www.fact-index.com/m/mu/mutual_assured_destruction_1.html

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is the doctrine of a situation in which any use of nuclear weapons by either of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. The doctrine assumes that each side has enough weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is that the battle would escalate to the point where each side brought about the other's total and assured destruction - and, potentially, those of allies as well.

You can bet if any country(Korea for example) launch a nuclear attack on America, every other countries will either be against Korea or just won't aid them at all when America strikes back. Why give a pissed off USA more targets to nuke?

 

[Belfast]

Please... no way in hell dude. And if by some miracle (for them) it was to happen, it would be GAME OVER as we'd nuke every major city in N. Korea and it'd be lights out, end of story, good night, go home, drive home safely. The retribution for losing a city like LA would be like none the world had ever seen. There would literally be no more N. Korea.

Again though, no fucking way they could even get a nuke off towards LA. If they did, we'd shoot it down and send 10 back to where it came from as a lesson.

Right. Nuke North Korea, let the winds take the radioactive material across the Sea of Japan and kill anyone who can make a decent video game? Are western developers really this desperate?!

 

[tenchir]

Right. Nuke North Korea, let the winds take the radioactive material across the Sea of Japan and kill anyone who can make a decent video game? Are western developers really this desperate?!

I am pretty sure America don't use dirty bombs anymore(H-Bomb on Hiroshima). Like shpankey said before, there are tactical nukes(those nukes are "clean") that can be deployed by stealth bombers(with advance targeting system). Unless Korea somehow have a radar tracking system that rivals USA, I don't think they have a chance.

Edit: My knowledge on nukes is pretty limited. Are the H-Bombs that are dropped on Japan "dirty bombs"?

Edit: Oooh, you're being sarcastic. Doh.

 

[Tellaerin]

Aha! The original Xbox controller was designed to fit North Korean hands!

 

[Matt]

Closer than ICBM range for sure, but these tactical nukes are very easily mounted on cruise missiles which can be fired from a safe distance away and with that properly programmed flight path are very difficult to find until they reach the target. Rest assured, it would not be difficult to hit north korea with nukes without hitting the nearby countries. Not saying this is going to happen, just saying it's not as difficult as you make it out to be.

We could definitely put Tactical Nukes on cruise missiles - I wasn’t talking about them. But again, if we drop enough nuclear weaponry on NK, some of it will infect the countries surrounding it, no matter how careful we may (or may not) be.

Of course I’ve heard of MAD, but that’s an outdated Cold-War concept. This is a new world we live in.

 

[Culex]

Sorry guys, but the Patriot 2 missle system is big joke. Not only does it not work, its shot down our own aircraft (and 2 Candadians in the past year, mind you), detected imaginary fighters and completely missed out on dumby rockets during testing. If another country shot ICBM's at us, we'd all be toast. Defense shield my ass!