News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Nuclear strike imminent

Started by Nonsensei, March 07, 2013, 10:26:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mnmelt

Quote from: "Atheon"If NK launched a nuclear strike, it would be a suicidal action by NK and its leadership. The regime would be finished and KJU would be dead.

I agree with another poster that KJU is bluffing to test the mettle of the new SK president.

Agreed
Jesus loves me but I still make him wear a condom

Nonsensei

Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?

A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.

So the better option is to wait for Maine to nuke Canada (which in this alternate world is a protectorate of China)?.
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

Davka

Quote from: "Nonsensei"
Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?

A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.

So the better option is to wait for Maine to nuke Canada (which in this alternate world is a protectorate of China)?.

If they did that, the result would be the same. They would be bombed back to the stone age, using conventional weapons. Pyongyang would cease to exist.

Nonsensei

Quote from: "Davka"
Quote from: "Nonsensei"
Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?

A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.

So the better option is to wait for Maine to nuke Canada (which in this alternate world is a protectorate of China)?.

If they did that, the result would be the same. They would be bombed back to the stone age, using conventional weapons. Pyongyang would cease to exist.

Won't matter how we take them out. No matter what, they will launch the rest of their nukes in a spite move before they go down. Once North Korea actually got nuclear weapons it was too late to do anything effective to them with conventional weapons.
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

SilentFutility

Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?

A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.

There's no point in carrying out a nuclear strike, which is pretty much the crudest weapon of all time.
Conventional weapons would work far better as you have a degree of precision with them and could actually engage military targets. The USA alone has more than enough conventional weapons to obliterate NK's entire population, let alone just their military to win a war.

Nuking the country would kill vast numbers of innocent civillians, and the fallout would likely cause deaths and extreme health problems for generations in both NK and surrounding, allied countries that we'd be trying to protect from attack by NK in the first place.

Just because a nuclear strike is the biggest, baddest weapon we've got absolutely does not mean it is the most useful.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Won't matter how we take them out. No matter what, they will launch the rest of their nukes in a spite move before they go down. Once North Korea actually got nuclear weapons it was too late to do anything effective to them with conventional weapons.
I highly doubt that they are capable of launching nuclear weapons. They've only just developed the technology to launch long-range missiles, and definitely not of the guided kind which could actually hit something they were aiming at, and they haven't developed the technology to miniaturise nuclear weapons into warheads for missiles yet, analysts don't think.

All of their military sites, let alone airbases and bases capable of launching ICBMs, are probably mapped out using satellite imagery, and anything remotely capable of launching anything or carrying anything by air at a range further than a peasant throwing a stone is likely to be struck immediately.

As for their actual military, they'd be absolutely destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Peo ... _Inventory
According to wikipedia, most of their aircraft probably aren't even fully operational, and even if they were, they're mostly old soviet MiGs which are obsolete in modern warfare as they lack radar, targeting systems, advanced warheads etc. etc. They have a few newer Mig-29s which are closer to being on par with modern fighters but even so aren't the best and they are limited in number. This is all assuming they're properly maintain as well. Most of their other military aircraft are converted civillian ones. The main problem is their dense AA-network but even so a lot of it is dated and it would cause air-casualties, not sway the course of a conflict.

They might have a huge military but it would be stranded and ineffective at anything other than charging full-speed ahead at Seoul.

Farroc

Quote from: "SilentFutility"
Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?

A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.

There's no point in carrying out a nuclear strike, which is pretty much the crudest weapon of all time.
Conventional weapons would work far better as you have a degree of precision with them and could actually engage military targets. The USA alone has more than enough conventional weapons to obliterate NK's entire population, let alone just their military to win a war.

Nuking the country would kill vast numbers of innocent civillians, and the fallout would likely cause deaths and extreme health problems for generations in both NK and surrounding, allied countries that we'd be trying to protect from attack by NK in the first place.

Just because a nuclear strike is the biggest, baddest weapon we've got absolutely does not mean it is the most useful.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Won't matter how we take them out. No matter what, they will launch the rest of their nukes in a spite move before they go down. Once North Korea actually got nuclear weapons it was too late to do anything effective to them with conventional weapons.
I highly doubt that they are capable of launching nuclear weapons. They've only just developed the technology to launch long-range missiles, and definitely not of the guided kind which could actually hit something they were aiming at, and they haven't developed the technology to miniaturise nuclear weapons into warheads for missiles yet, analysts don't think.

All of their military sites, let alone airbases and bases capable of launching ICBMs, are probably mapped out using satellite imagery, and anything remotely capable of launching anything or carrying anything by air at a range further than a peasant throwing a stone is likely to be struck immediately.

As for their actual military, they'd be absolutely destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Peo ... _Inventory
According to wikipedia, most of their aircraft probably aren't even fully operational, and even if they were, they're mostly old soviet MiGs which are obsolete in modern warfare as they lack radar, targeting systems, advanced warheads etc. etc. They have a few newer Mig-29s which are closer to being on par with modern fighters but even so aren't the best and they are limited in number. This is all assuming they're properly maintain as well. Most of their other military aircraft are converted civillian ones. The main problem is their dense AA-network but even so a lot of it is dated and it would cause air-casualties, not sway the course of a conflict.

They might have a huge military but it would be stranded and ineffective at anything other than charging full-speed ahead at Seoul.
I agree. A nuclear strike against NK would kill hundreds of innocent civilians. Not to mention animals. There are just better ways to deal with them.

Washington huh? I never thought I'd ever actually say this, but I'm glad I live in Texas!
"The idea of getting a, y\'know, syringe full of heroin and shooting it in the vein under my cock right now seems like almost a productive act." -Bill Hicks

SilentFutility

Hundreds is probably an underestimate...

AllPurposeAtheist

It's sabre rattling and little else. NK leadership isn't suicidal. They've tried the same tactic for years with relaxed restrictions and they're counting on similar results. Next will be 'We're really, really, really gonna hold our breath till we die and you'll feel guilty...'
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Nonsensei

Quote from: "SilentFutility"I highly doubt that they are capable of launching nuclear weapons. They've only just developed the technology to launch long-range missiles, and definitely not of the guided kind which could actually hit something they were aiming at, and they haven't developed the technology to miniaturise nuclear weapons into warheads for missiles yet, analysts don't think.

All of their military sites, let alone airbases and bases capable of launching ICBMs, are probably mapped out using satellite imagery, and anything remotely capable of launching anything or carrying anything by air at a range further than a peasant throwing a stone is likely to be struck immediately.

As for their actual military, they'd be absolutely destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Peo ... _Inventory
According to wikipedia, most of their aircraft probably aren't even fully operational, and even if they were, they're mostly old soviet MiGs which are obsolete in modern warfare as they lack radar, targeting systems, advanced warheads etc. etc. They have a few newer Mig-29s which are closer to being on par with modern fighters but even so aren't the best and they are limited in number. This is all assuming they're properly maintain as well. Most of their other military aircraft are converted civillian ones. The main problem is their dense AA-network but even so a lot of it is dated and it would cause air-casualties, not sway the course of a conflict.

They might have a huge military but it would be stranded and ineffective at anything other than charging full-speed ahead at Seoul.

Other countries we consider allies are well within their striking range. Any military action we take against them is taken with the resolution to sacrifice those allies. If you don't think NK will huke SK if the US attacks them then you simply don't know enough about NK.

Also I am not exactly sure what makes you think that missile interception technology is perfect, because it certainly is not. One mistake and a city gets nuked.
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

stromboli

The Pentagon's response
http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... lo.twitter

QuoteBut what about when Kim Jong-Un threatens the world with outright nuclear war? That's a new one, peninsula watchers are warning. According to current and former DOD officials, however, the answer is not as exciting as one might think.

"We are always ready to go to war on the Korean Peninsula within a matter of hours," said one former Defense Department official, who spoke to the E-Ring anonymously to discuss sensitive information.

It turns out, that's the boring truth.

"No change -- routinely have AEGIS ships throughout the [area of responsibility] -- have not altered threat level and repositioned ships," said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, in an email.

That's pretty much the stock answer from most military commands following any North Korean bluster, including the purposeful mention of AEGIS ships. Those are cruisers and destroyers equipped with the AEGIS Combat System, aka missile defense. The ships are the mobile, sea-based leg of the U.S.'s defense against ballistic missiles, which is how North Korea likely would be delivering a nuclear warhead outside of its borders to nearby targets.

Inside the Pentagon, the former DOD official said typically following a North Korean threat there is a lot of "intelligence churn" to see if any movements on the ground match the rhetoric. But the U.S. military does not have to move big weapons, ships, aircraft, nor change alert levels.

"There's a difference between somebody saying we're going to nuke you, and somebody saying we're going to nuke you, and then our satellites noticing missiles on the move," said the official said.

"The thing to keep in mind with the North Korea situation is ... we are always postured as if the balloon could go up within a matter of minutes. If we actually needed to be moving big heavy things around, that would actually indicate we had some serious problems with being postured correctly."

What the military does depends on what the intelligence community actually sees.

"It depends on what has actually happened. We don't just jump up and down because somebody says something," the official said. Intelligence eyes are watching to determine "how the rhetoric is actually feeding activity, or whether the rhetoric is intended for domestic political consumption."

Case closed.

zacherystaylor

I'm no fan of North Korea; but their saber rattling plays into the hands of our saber rattlers and I ain't buying it.

They're constantly keeping the tensions up one place or another to justify the reliance on the military and the continued use of secrecy. If they really want to solve these problems they will allow many more views to be presented which is the way democracy is supposed to work. If we started by setting a better example without constantly threatening people that get out of line it might work better.

Hydra009

Quote from: "SilentFutility"I highly doubt that they are capable of launching nuclear weapons. They've only just developed the technology to launch long-range missiles, and definitely not of the guided kind which could actually hit something they were aiming at, and they haven't developed the technology to miniaturise nuclear weapons into warheads for missiles yet, analysts don't think.
Even so, there's the distinct possibility that NK would set off a nuke in a military confrontation.

QuoteAll of their military sites, let alone airbases and bases capable of launching ICBMs, are probably mapped out using satellite imagery, and anything remotely capable of launching anything or carrying anything by air at a range further than a peasant throwing a stone is likely to be struck immediately.
Although NK missile sites would undoubtedly be struck quickly, some sites are still going to have an opportunity to launch their missiles.  And although some of them would fail or be shot down, there's the distinct possibility that some of them would hit their targets.  And there is also plenty of artillery trained on Seoul.  In a military confrontation with NK, South Korea would definitely have civilian casualties, unfortunately.

Hydra009

Quote from: "stromboli"The Pentagon's response
http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... lo.twitter
Yep.  It's posturing and nothing has actually changed on the ground.  But the tense standoff remains, with either side capable of breaking that standoff at a moment's notice.

The Skeletal Atheist

North Korea is that one skinny kid on the playground who keeps on saying he has a black belt in karate and can like, totally kick your ass.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?

A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.

A non-nuclear response would be political suicide for any  Administration in power.  

While I agree with your logic that the Chinese would feel very threatened by any war on that peninsula, I'm not so sure they would involve themselves to the point of war with us -- again, that would be an economic disaster for them, as they'd see one-third of their exports die off immediately (again, assuming we could carry NATO in arguing for sanctions).  Additionally, any war between us and them would almost certainly result in our scrapping loan repayments, which could have deep consequences on their economy as well.

I do know that it would be a set of circumstances hard to suss out.

The point about fallout is a good one as well.  The prevailing winds there would carry the fallout over the Sea of Japan and perhaps as far as Japan itself -- and that would be a political shitstorm, especially after the anti-nuke feelings aroused by the tsunami-related disasters.
<insert witty aphorism here>