• China reportedly issues new warning over North Korean nuclear production
    71 replies, posted
Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/23/china-reportedly-issues-new-warning-over-north-korean-nuclear-production/[/url] [quote] Chinese nuclear experts reportedly warned the U.S. earlier this year that North Korea's nuclear arsenal is larger than previously estimated, creating a heightened security threat to the U.S. and its East Asian allies. The Wall Street Journal reported late Wednesday that by Beijing's estimate, North Korea may already have manufactured 20 nuclear warheads and is capable of producing enough weapons-grade uranium to double that amount by next year. U.S. experts have previously estimated that North Korea has between 10 and 16 nuclear weapons. [/quote] I doubt this will amount to anything.
Even if they do get those warheads airborne, that would be a death sentence for the nation if they ever launched them
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47581572]Even if they do get those warheads airborne, that would be a death sentence for the nation if they ever launched them[/QUOTE] They would cease to exist.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;47581581]They would cease to exist.[/QUOTE] And so would a good chunk of the rest of the world. Nuclear war in any capacity now would be disasterous worldwide.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47581614]And so would a good chunk of the rest of the world. Nuclear war in any capacity now would be disasterous worldwide.[/QUOTE] I'd think that someone would fuck them up before they had a chance to do anything.
The longer we laugh at North Korea, the longer we're giving them time to think of a proper plan and make the right materials. [editline]23rd April 2015[/editline] I mean of all the possible mistakes you can make in this situation, underestimation surely is the most disastrous one.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47581572]Even if they do get those warheads airborne, that would be a death sentence for the nation if they ever launched them[/QUOTE] Not if they have a sufficiently effective delivery system that can either perform retaliatory strikes against hostile nations or prevent conventional operations by their neighbors- but the goal here is not to use them. North Korea is doing the same thing as China, extending their ability to influence policy in the Far East and lessen American political dominance. China has been doing this by developing conventional military forces that can threaten US carrier groups, giving them more room to make demands without being worried that the US will directly intervene. North Korea is doing this by developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, allowing them to negotiate and make demands while being backed by nuclear armament. Neither country is developing an offensive system to conquer their neighbors, both are developing [I]political[/I] weapons that encourage the US and US allies to negotiate rather than use force. It's a bargaining chip.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47581696]Not if they have a sufficiently effective delivery system that can either perform retaliatory strikes against hostile nations or prevent conventional operations by their neighbors- but the goal here is not to use them. North Korea is doing the same thing as China, extending their ability to influence policy in the Far East and lessen American political dominance. China has been doing this by developing conventional military forces that can threaten US carrier groups, giving them more room to make demands without being worried that the US will directly intervene. North Korea is doing this by developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, allowing them to negotiate and make demands while being backed by nuclear armament. Neither country is developing an offensive system to conquer their neighbors, both are developing [I]political[/I] weapons that encourage the US and US allies to negotiate rather than use force. It's a bargaining chip.[/QUOTE] And at this point North Korea has practically eliminated any chance of regime change. There is no real way to deal with them militarily anymore because losses for any attacker would be catastrophic.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47581731]And at this point North Korea has practically eliminated any chance of regime change. There is no real way to deal with them militarily anymore because losses for any attacker would be catastrophic.[/QUOTE] How would NATO lose to North Korea? They don't even have a relevant air force.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47581614]And so would a good chunk of the rest of the world. Nuclear war in any capacity now would be disasterous worldwide.[/QUOTE] No it wouldn't. Sure, depending on target selection, millions would die, but it's not a good chunk of the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;47581748]How would NATO lose to North Korea? They don't even have a relevant air force.[/QUOTE] I never said that's what would happen, but taking a hypothetical invasion of NK, they would be able to destroy massive numbers of NATO troops using their nuclear weapons. The cost of such an invasion, both in terms of the actual cost of lives and material lost as well as the political cost, would far outweigh any possible benefits. It is at the point now that nuclear weapons cannot even be used in defense of a conventional NK attack on the south (as has been part of the defense policy for decades) because that would provoke the north to respond in kind. The world has waited far too long in dealing with NK and now our policy in the region is beholden to the whims of their maniacal leaders to some degree or another.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;47581748]How would NATO lose to North Korea? They don't even have a relevant air force.[/QUOTE] For NATO these days (or any Western military for that matter) all you need to cause a loss is have the causalities mount up and cause a change in public opinion. Yes, militaryily, any of the G20 countries could crush NK [I]by themselves[/I], but they would lose tens of thousands to millions doing so.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;47581748]How would NATO lose to North Korea? They don't even have a relevant air force.[/QUOTE] You're not approaching this the right way. The era of full-scale industrial warfare between two nations is, to many analysts, over, because it's too costly to conduct, too mutual in its destruction, and there are more effective methods of political change between comparably-powerful nations. We can go in and stomp all over minor nations, enforcing our will militarily, because they can't really put up a fight. We can station aircraft carriers in friendly nations and project our influence to ensure that smaller nations cooperate, and no country on Earth can stand up to us on a one-on-one. So they don't try. Instead they focus on deterrence. North Korea with its relatively primitive military is not a threat; if we wanted to we could invade and force a regime change as we did in Iraq (albeit on a larger scale). But a North Korea with nuclear weapons can never be invaded. The American public that views the deaths of a few thousand boots on the ground as unacceptable losses would never, ever support sending tens of thousands of servicemen to their deaths in nuclear fire, let alone the risk of attacks against civilian populations. It's not a matter of whether we would win. Of course we would. It's a matter of whether winning is worth the cost. As long as it isn't, they have room to make demands and force us to negotiate rather than decide we're tired of their crap and invade.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47581793]I never said that's what would happen, but taking a hypothetical invasion of NK, they would be able to destroy massive numbers of NATO troops using their nuclear weapons. The cost of such an invasion, both in terms of the actual cost of lives and material lost as well as the political cost, would far outweigh any possible benefits. It is at the point now that nuclear weapons cannot even be used in defense of a conventional NK attack on the south (as has been part of the defense policy for decades) because that would provoke the north to respond in kind. The world has waited far too long in dealing with NK and now our policy in the region is beholden to the whims of their maniacal leaders to some degree or another.[/QUOTE] The disparity in nuclear weapons means the US could defeat NK reliably, but it would require at the very least a few dozen warheads and a few hundred to be near 100% sure NK can't launch a retaliatory attack.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47581614]And so would a good chunk of the rest of the world. Nuclear war in any capacity now would be disasterous worldwide.[/QUOTE] It would mostly be disasterous for military bases and major industrial and civilian targets like cities and industrial zones. Not saying nuclear weapons are not dangerous, they have a terrifying destructive power, but besides making a great big crater, look at chernobyl, and most of europe, is this a wasteland? No. Unlike what activists, hollywood movies and video games would lead you to believe, nuclear winter is a myth long debunked, the whole world is not going to be a desolate wasteland. A nuclear device is a weapon that is perceived as being too effective at doing what a weapon is supposed to do, its kills more than necessary and it would take a complete fucking idiot to start a nuclear war.
Any nuclear launch would result in the death of only people from the target country, which is unlikely because NK has been shown to be incapable of producing reliable missiles, and North Koreans themselves. Theres no way global nuclear war would come from a NK launch, 99% of the world thinks NK is nuts and no one would start nuclear war over some fatty with a napoleon complex
[QUOTE=Squad1993;47581835]Any nuclear launch would result in the death of only people from the target country, which is unlikely because NK has been shown to be incapable of producing reliable missiles, and North Koreans themselves. Theres no way global nuclear war would come from a NK launch, 99% of the world thinks NK is nuts and no one would start nuclear war over some fatty with a napoleon complex[/QUOTE] If they did anything they would be fucked. Period. We would launch everything we have at Pyongyang and other military targets and NK would be done. Well, maybe. They have attacked SK tons of times and all SK did is scold them.
dammit
[QUOTE=download;47581801]The disparity in nuclear weapons means the US could defeat NK reliably, but it would require at the very least a few dozen warheads and a few hundred to be near 100% sure NK can't launch a retaliatory attack.[/QUOTE] They don't even need to threaten a retaliatory attack on the US. They could nuke Seoul long before our missiles get there, and for us that's a problem. With their underground bunker system, we wouldn't even know for sure where their launch capacity is located, so short of total saturation of the country we have no guarantees that we could knock out their nuclear capability, let alone before it launches. On top of that, the political repercussions from not only being the first nation to unleash honest-to-god nuclear war killing millions upon millions of civilians, but also demonstrating that we don't value the concept of deterrence, would be disastrous. [QUOTE=NeverGoWest;47581829]Not saying nuclear weapons are not dangerous, they have a terrifying destructive power, but besides making a great big crater, look at chernobyl, and most of europe, is this a wasteland? No.[/QUOTE] ...What. Japan was devastated by just two nuclear weapons with a yield far lower than what's in our arsenals today and would be in shambles if we hadn't pumped money into their economy following the war. Chernobyl was a steam explosion carrying radioactive material, it has nothing to do with a discussion on the effects of nuclear weapons. A full nuclear exchange would absolutely have global effects.
[QUOTE=Squad1993;47581835]Any nuclear launch would result in the death of only people from the target country, which is unlikely because NK has been shown to be incapable of producing reliable missiles, and North Koreans themselves. Theres no way global nuclear war would come from a NK launch, 99% of the world thinks NK is nuts and no one would start nuclear war over some fatty with a napoleon complex[/QUOTE] If the North Koreans launched a nuclear missile at the US or its allies, the US would nuke North Korea, even if it fell into the sea. Why? Because the next missile might not fall into the sea. The launching of a missile shows they will use them first, and anyone in their sights who can response nuclearly, [I]will.[/I] Of course, this won't start a global nuclear war. It will only reduce North Korea's population to the five figure range.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47581860]They don't even need to threaten a retaliatory attack on the US. They could nuke Seoul long before our missiles get there, and for us that's a problem. With their underground bunker system, we wouldn't even know for sure where their launch capacity is located, so short of total saturation of the country we have no guarantees that we could knock out their nuclear capability, let alone before it launches. On top of that, the political repercussions from not only being the first nation to unleash honest-to-god nuclear war killing millions upon millions of civilians, but also demonstrating that we don't value the concept of deterrence, would be disastrous. ...What. Japan was devastated by just two nuclear weapons with a yield far lower than what's in our arsenals today and would be in shambles if we hadn't pumped money into their economy following the war. Chernobyl was a steam explosion carrying radioactive material, it has nothing to do with a discussion on the effects of nuclear weapons. A full nuclear exchange would absolutely have global effects.[/QUOTE] Don't we have anti-missile stuff all around SK that could in theory intercept whatever they launch?
[QUOTE=catbarf;47581860]They don't even need to threaten a retaliatory attack on the US. They could nuke Seoul long before our missiles get there, and for us that's a problem. With their underground bunker system, we wouldn't even know for sure where their launch capacity is located, so short of total saturation of the country we have no guarantees that we could knock out their nuclear capability, let alone before it launches. On top of that, the political repercussions from not only being the first nation to unleash honest-to-god nuclear war killing millions upon millions of civilians, but also demonstrating that we don't value the concept of deterrence, would be disastrous. [/QUOTE] The North Koreans don't have an early warning system. If they're really lucky they'll hear about the launch on Twitter before Pongyang turns into a second sun. In reality the US would use SLBMs on them so they have [I]zero[/I] warning. As for their nuclear capacity, well, we have satellites. Any tunnel large enough to be a nuclear launch site will be visible. Yes, the US will have to use a disproportional number of weapons to reliably kill the North's ability to use nuclear weapons, but they'll consider that quite acceptable to stop a North Korean nuclear launch. In reality, my biggest fear would be the North Koreans loading a nuke onto a ship and sailing it into a major Western Port. [quote]...What. Japan was devastated by just two nuclear weapons with a yield far lower than what's in our arsenals today and would be in shambles if we hadn't pumped money into their economy following the war. Chernobyl was a steam explosion carrying radioactive material, it has nothing to do with a discussion on the effects of nuclear weapons. A full nuclear exchange would absolutely have global effects. [/quote] They were devastated by being completely broke after losing a war almost totally. As for Chernobyl, he's referring to the spread of fallout.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;47581748]How would NATO lose to North Korea? They don't even have a relevant air force.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that they're allied with China.
[QUOTE=download;47581891]The North Koreans don't have an early warning system. If they're really lucky they'll hear about the launch on Twitter before Pongyang turns into a second sun. In reality the US would use SLBMs on them so they have [I]zero[/I] warning. As for their nuclear capacity, well, we have satellites. Any tunnel large enough to be a nuclear launch site will be visible. Yes, the US will have to use a disproportional number of weapons to reliably kill the North's ability to use nuclear weapons, but they'll consider that quite acceptable to stop a North Korean nuclear launch. In reality, my biggest fear would be the North Koreans loading a nuke onto a ship and sailing it into a major Western Port. They were devastated by being completely broke after losing a war almost totally. As for Chernobyl, he's referring to the spread of fallout.[/QUOTE] We have radar on the oceans dude. We know where ships are. A seaborne attack can't come blindly to the US. [editline]23rd April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;47581900]Keep in mind that they're allied with China.[/QUOTE] China tolerates them.
Remember mw2s part when Russia invaded the US? Imagine that, except it would probably be every country vs NK
Basically, we can attack them and win, but the civilian casualties will be catastrophic. Since if a war begins, North Korea is going to artillery the living shit out of Seoul and other South Korean cities.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;47581901]China tolerates them.[/QUOTE] China is their ally. If someone went and nuked Canada, we'd go to war with them, yeah? The same mindset goes for China and the DPRK.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;47581901]We have radar on the oceans dude. We know where ships are. A seaborne attack can't come blindly to the US. [/QUOTE] Hundreds of thousands of cargo ships come into the US each year. They don't search every one, they don't check if every one has the correct paper work and even then the Norks would just register their bomb ship under the Panama flag like everyone else and the Coast Guard won't bat an eyelid. Does not mean shit. [editline]24th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;47581948]China is their ally. If someone went and nuked Canada, we'd go to war with them, yeah? The same mindset goes for China and the DPRK.[/QUOTE] No it's not. The only reasons China [I]tolerates[/I] them as they provide a fleshy meaty buffer between them and the US backed South Korea. If North Korea collapses I guarantee you the Chinese would annex the country faster than you can snap your fingers hoping to beat the South and the US to it.
[QUOTE=download;47581868]If the North Koreans launched a nuclear missile at the US or its allies, the US would nuke North Korea, even if it fell into the sea. Why? Because the next missile might not fall into the sea. The launching of a missile shows they will use them first, and anyone in their sights who can response nuclearly, [I]will.[/I] Of course, this won't start a global nuclear war. It will only reduce North Korea's population to the five figure range.[/QUOTE] This is what I was going for. Couldn't really articulate because I was in class
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;47581948]China is their ally. If someone went and nuked Canada, we'd go to war with them, yeah? The same mindset goes for China and the DPRK.[/QUOTE] No they wouldn't. That would be complete economic suicide for China and pretty much an end to their country for one, and two China's stance toward NK is one of annoyed tolerance similar to the US's stance.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.