• NK Tests Loading Anthrax Onto ICBMs, Report Says
    43 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;52994642]A nuclear response would be incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE] Potentially, but given the immense civilian cost that this would induce I'd imagine that nothing short of incinerating Pyongyang and any other military target would be considered a sufficient response to eliminate the DPRK as a threat. The US and its allies have far more conventional non-nuclear munititions which if dropped in such quantity (and with strategic precision) would do enough damage.
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;52994642]A nuclear response would be incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE] Your suggestion to an unprovoked biological warfare strike by a crazed dictatorship would be?
snip why am i too late too often these days
[QUOTE=Revenge282;52994666]Your suggestion to an unprovoked biological warfare strike by a crazed dictatorship would be?[/QUOTE] Conventional ballistic missile strikes. Using nukes immediately puts things on a whole other level. The second you turn that key you open the floodgates for any other usage of nukes in anger. Escalation does not defuse things. We have enough ordnance in the Western world to flatten North Korea's military power without using nukes [B]and[/B] without risking loss of soldier's lives. [editline]21st December 2017[/editline] A lot of people seem to have this disconcerting view that China, SK, and Japan would be totally cool with a nuclear explosion going off within miles of their coastlines. Even in the face of a biological attack there would be supremely bad consequences for the US for using a nuclear weapon in retaliation. Short of NK launching nukes first, there's no way the US would be seen as anything but the villain for using nuclear weapons in escalation.
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;52994642]A nuclear response would be incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Chris Morris;52994769]A lot of people seem to have this disconcerting view that China, SK, and Japan would be totally cool with a nuclear explosion going off within miles of their coastlines. Even in the face of a biological attack there would be supremely bad consequences for the US for using a nuclear weapon in retaliation. Short of NK launching nukes first, there's no way the US would be seen as anything but the villain for using nuclear weapons in escalation.[/QUOTE] Unprovoked sarin and anthrax attacks justifies an immediate strategic response, it doesn't have to be nuclear but it must heavy and with extreme prejudice. At that point we won't give a fuck about what Russia / China think, they've spent decades building up an unstable country that has unleashed a WMD on an non threatening ally. We're done pussy footing around and if they want to fight over it they'll be fighting against a good chunk of the western world too with nothing to gain. We've drawn a line in the sand. Refusing to defend it will put our military foothold in Asia to an end as SK and Japan will not see us as a dependable ally.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;52994837]Unprovoked sarin and anthrax attacks justifies an immediate strategic response, it doesn't have to be nuclear but it must heavy and with extreme prejudice. At that point we won't give a fuck about what Russia / China think, they've spent decades building up an unstable country that has unleashed a WMD on an non threatening ally. We're done pussy footing around and if they want to fight over it they'll be fighting against a good chunk of the western world too with nothing to gain. We've drawn a line in the sand. Refusing to defend it will put our military foothold in Asia to an end as SK and Japan will not see us as a dependable ally.[/QUOTE] I'm not against a retaliatory strike, I'm against a [B]nuclear[/B] retaliatory strike. Pound Pyongyang into ashes if you wish, but don't turn it into the one-way street that nukes will. [editline]21st December 2017[/editline] Once that first mushroom cloud goes up, the world's on borrowed time.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52993954]I've got four warheads aimed at me for that chart, that's a little scary.[/QUOTE] I live near L.A, so if it ever happened, I am basically screwed.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52993454]^ Damn thats a lotta nukes aimed at cleveland, we don't even have any military stuff. I mean columbus only gets 3 bombs, wth they have all the fancy roads and all the highways of ohio go through there, and one for toledo just because, jokes on them though nobody lives there anyways.[/QUOTE] You think that's weird? Look at the black dot in Texas just east of New Mexico. If I'm not mistaken, that looks like it'd hit Muleshoe, TX. As of 2016 its population was 5,158. There's [I]fucking nothing there[/I]. At least in Clovis we have a fucking airforce base.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52997473]You think that's weird? Look at the block dot in Texas just east of New Mexico. If I'm not mistaken, that looks like it'd hit Muleshoe, TX. As of 2016 its population was 5,158. There's [I]fucking nothing there[/I]. At least in Clovis we have a fucking airforce base.[/QUOTE] Maybe theres like a really nice bridge there or a cactus that they think was an icbm silo
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52997473]You think that's weird? Look at the block dot in Texas just east of New Mexico. If I'm not mistaken, that looks like it'd hit Muleshoe, TX. As of 2016 its population was 5,158. There's [I]fucking nothing there[/I]. At least in Clovis we have a fucking airforce base.[/QUOTE] There's a coal power plant there which might be worth taking out if you're gonna drop 2000 nukes.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52997473]You think that's weird? Look at the block dot in Texas just east of New Mexico. If I'm not mistaken, that looks like it'd hit Muleshoe, TX. As of 2016 its population was 5,158. There's [I]fucking nothing there[/I]. At least in Clovis we have a fucking airforce base.[/QUOTE] Fallout drift. Strikes on more strategically defendable and viable targets will be intercepted, whereas strikes on less important ones will not. [editline]22nd December 2017[/editline] Most of the collateral from nuclear weapons comes from fallout.
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;52998536]Fallout drift. Strikes on more strategically defendable and viable targets will be intercepted, whereas strikes on less important ones will not. [editline]22nd December 2017[/editline] Most of the collateral from nuclear weapons comes from fallout.[/QUOTE] Most of our winds come from the north or the west, though...
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;52993436]death is everywhere[/QUOTE] holy fuck i'm basically dead
[QUOTE=Quark:;52992731]Those two incidents are literally [I]the only two cases[/I] in our human history where Nuclear Weapons were used in time of war, inflicting almost [I]exclusively[/I] civilian casualties.[/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia]At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan, and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated. Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit. The city was defended by five batteries of 7-cm and 8-cm (2.8 and 3.1 inch) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, an estimated 40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city. The city was also a communications center, a key port for shipping and an assembly area for troops. It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns. The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry. Although an important industrial city, Nagasaki had been spared from firebombing because its geography made it difficult to locate at night with AN/APQ-13 radar.[/quote] They were targeted for being military or industrial strongholds. Before the bombings, we dropped leaflets warning citizens and urging them to leave. Many disregarded it as propaganda, or were loyal enough to take their chances, and refused to leave. Another reason for the bombing was that Truman could not justify the projected million+ American casualties from a land invasion of Japan whilst holding out on a weapon that could have the war without us ever having to set foot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.