North Korea threatens US with nuclear strike as American warships approach
75 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52093153]2) North Korea serves as a buffer between China and South Korea, which is a key ally to the United States and it's foothold on the Asian continent. A reunified Korean state would dissolve this buffer and put American influence right on China's doorstep.[/QUOTE]
I remember reading something where the author argued that a united Korea would actually reduce American influence in the area because with NK gone one of the major reasons for the US to have military forces stationed in the region would also be gone.
[QUOTE=download;52093019]You can't hide nuclear infrastructure. The US knows exactly what their long-range capabilities are.
I wasn't even discussing whether a first strike was a good idea or not, simply commenting on how quickly it would end and who would win.[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt it would end as quickly as assumed, and the army generally isn't stupid enough to know "exactly" their capabilities. the potential damage too is largely unknown as well, and given we're dealing with a highly secretive and badly run state there's a lot that could go wrong
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52093469]I seriously doubt it would end as quickly as assumed, and the army generally isn't stupid enough to know "exactly" their capabilities. the potential damage too is largely unknown as well, and given we're dealing with a highly secretive and badly run state there's a lot that could go wrong[/QUOTE]
ICBMs are obvious from space. And, if you're talking about a first strike, you'd hit their airbases as well.
The US could do this with a very high level of reliability.
[QUOTE=download;52093510]ICBMs are obvious from space. And, if you're talking about a first strike, you'd hit their airbases as well.
The US could do this with a very high level of reliability.[/QUOTE]
has anything like this happened before, especially when we're dealing with a state that could actually cause some serious damage (to south korea at least)? even a single city being flattened could spell disaster on a major scale on the order of many lives being ruined, job losses, market crashes, recessions, etc
given that north korea is a nuclear-armed state they have the potential to do a great deal of damage and i think even the US isn't arrogant enough to assume that they'd get everything all in one go
Wow, a sea attack? What the fuck US. It's commonplace intelligence that the sea is the only place you should fear a NK nuclear attack :downs:
NK will likely crumble in under five years. A lot of the generals probably will do something out of fear seeing as their leader executed his own uncle with a mortar and insists on taking risks.
[QUOTE=Redeaux;52094712]NK will likely crumble in under five years. A lot of the generals probably will do something out of fear seeing as their leader executed his own uncle with a mortar and insists on taking risks.[/QUOTE]
people have been saying north korea is on the verge of collapse since the 1990s
[QUOTE=Redeaux;52094712]NK will likely crumble in under five years. A lot of the generals probably will do something out of fear seeing as their leader executed his own uncle with a mortar and insists on taking risks.[/QUOTE]
We're possibly beyond "hands over ears and hope the problem goes away" territory here.
do they mean a polonium tipped umbrella attack in washington?
Can't wait for Trump to lead the charge against NK and then slam the door on the Chinese and South Korean governments when the ensuing refugee crisis unfolds.
[QUOTE=DepDirkson;52092744]So hypothetically speaking if NK actually had the ability to strike the US with a nuclear launch, would we be able to intercept?[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that the information is classified but over here in the navy we have the [url=http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sm-2/]SM-2[/url]. I've seen enough launches and talked to enough Fire Controlmen to know that we have the capability to shoot down a missile with another missile.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52092312]NK is pissed because China pulled out Coal Trade with NK, instead now trading with US
[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-northkorea-coal-exclusive-idUSKBN17D0D8"]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-northkorea-coal-exclusive-idUSKBN17D0D8[/URL][/QUOTE]
It finally seems like China has fucking had it with NK
[QUOTE=Hardpoint Nomad;52095426]I'm pretty sure that the information is classified but over here in the navy we have the [url=http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sm-2/]SM-2[/url]. I've seen enough launches and talked to enough Fire Controlmen to know that we have the capability to shoot down a missile with another missile.[/QUOTE]
SM-2 is for anti-ship missiles and occasionally surface targets, it's the SM-3 which is designed for ballistic missiles. An SM-3 would only be useful against an ICBM in its terminal phase though, it can't get high enough to shoot one down before that; GBIs can though, and the US has about 40 of them in Alaska which is pretty much directly inline with the flight path of an ICBM from Korea to the US.
Would still take a fool to not take the threat seriously, but in a worst case scenario then, assuming they actually have the capability to reach the US, a nuclear strike that North Korea might reasonably be able to conduct would very likely be defendable against, yes.
Maybe it would be good to deal with this now before that threat holds any weight.
NK modernized in past decade lot of communication infrastructure
all key areas and long range communication done via own optical cable network
anything important doesn't go over wireless or metal wires as long and as much as possible
nodes were also hardened to be EMP/MW attack resistant and moved deep underground
makes very hard for any electronics espionage or jamming / frying or conventional bombing ...
attack on NK might look like piece of cake but it may not end well for conventional ground operations
you will technically need either way to remove all the leadership
yet with someone alive with will-to-talk and take-over
or extensive long range and air bombing campaign going as long as possible
until the other side gives up or cease to exist in terms of military and state power
or usage of extreme powerful weapons (conventional equivalent of tactical nukes)
[QUOTE=hippowombat;52095218]Can't wait for Trump to lead the charge against NK and then slam the door on the Chinese and South Korean governments when the ensuing refugee crisis unfolds.[/QUOTE]
Considering the consequences of the current refugee crisis helped him win his presidency, maybe he can secure his second term with another refugee crisis! :v:
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52095859]Considering the consequences of the current refugee crisis helped him win his presidency, maybe he can secure his second term with another refugee crisis! :v:[/QUOTE]
Sporked the Norks and closed the gate.. Very effective election pitch.
[QUOTE=OvB;52092838]North Korea having offensive nuclear capabilities would be a pretty easy bluff to call. If they're still popping off test nukes underground it means they probably don't have the microization tech to put them on missiles. Not to mention anything past a certain range would require that plus re-entry vehicles, plus reliable launch vehicles that can carry it.
NK keeps testing tiny nukes that barely register on the seismic scale. Makes me assume they trying to aim for thermonuclear bombs, and what they've been testing are primaries for them.
North Korea couldn't nuke the US mainland if we donated​ the warheads to them.
/Armchair general.[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't need to, if they can create a thermonuclear bomb then they can create one so large they could wipe out the Korean peninsula.
Imagine them packing a 300 megaton nuke onto a freight train and sending it towards South Korea.
So, I've been thinking...
If we (or anyone) nuked Pyongyang, wouldn't there be a bit of nuclear fallout on South Korea or China? It just doesn't seem like a viable option.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52096577]So, I've been thinking...
If we (or anyone) nuked Pyongyang, wouldn't there be a bit of nuclear fallout on South Korea or China? It just doesn't seem like a viable option.[/QUOTE]
Depends on the size.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52096577]So, I've been thinking...
If we (or anyone) nuked Pyongyang, wouldn't there be a bit of nuclear fallout on South Korea or China? It just doesn't seem like a viable option.[/QUOTE]
I really really doubt we'll actually use nukes on North Korea, there's 0 need to it's just over kill and will cause insurmountable civillian casualties.
[QUOTE=Claxx;52096684]I really really doubt we'll actually use nukes on North Korea, there's 0 need to it's just over kill and will cause insurmountable civillian casualties.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki"]Some people have said the same about Japan in WW2[/URL], not exactly the same situation but still something to consider. Totally unnecessary by some accounts but happened nonetheless.
[QUOTE=Claxx;52096684]I really really doubt we'll actually use nukes on North Korea, there's 0 need to it's just over kill and will cause insurmountable civillian casualties.[/QUOTE]
Well considering how Trump stated that we should use our nuclear arsenal more and launched dozens of missiles at a Syrian airfield just because his daughter was upset, I think we should be a [I]little[/I] concerned.
[QUOTE=Redeaux;52094712]NK will likely crumble in under five years. A lot of the generals probably will do something out of fear seeing as their leader executed his own uncle with a mortar and insists on taking risks.[/QUOTE]
The whole "killing people with mortars or flame throwers or torn by wild dogs" thing is just a PR move as far as I know. It's far more likely that all these bizarre executions were actually just done by firing squad. The top generals of the kingdom would know that, I'm sure.
[QUOTE=hippowombat;52096770][URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki"]Some people have said the same about Japan in WW2[/URL], not exactly the same situation but still something to consider. Totally unnecessary by some accounts but happened nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
That was the first use of nuclear weapons in combat. There was bound to be some debate before the weapons were fully understood and MAD was established.
There'd be no debate these days. We just don't use nukes.
Regardless of your opinion on whether or not military intervention should take place, the longer you wait, the more realistic the threat of nuclear retaliation becomes.
[editline]13th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=hippowombat;52096770][URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki"]Some people have said the same about Japan in WW2[/URL], not exactly the same situation but still something to consider. Totally unnecessary by some accounts but happened nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
North Korea is too close to too many allies for us to ever use nuclear weapons there. Civilian mass casualty aside.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52093153]
1) North Korea is stable. It's under a dictatorial rule and many of its citizens live in appalling conditions, but this doesn't really matter to China. If the whole thing came crumbling down there would very soon be a massive refugee crisis right on China's door step. The current middle east refugee crisis doesn't even compare to a situation where the government of North Korea simply disintegrates, either by war or internal factions. For this alone China has a lot of motivation to keep North Korea on two feet.
2) North Korea serves as a buffer between China and South Korea, which is a key ally to the United States and it's foothold on the Asian continent. A reunified Korean state would dissolve this buffer and put American influence right on China's doorstep. [/QUOTE]
Both good points. I think even for china the first wouldn't be worth the trouble because they could just absorb the population or even land mass, but the second is absolutely a solid reason. Although still not worth going to war with the entire world over. I can't imagine that russia wants anything to do with them anymore.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52097282]Both good points. I think even for china the first wouldn't be worth the trouble because they could just absorb the population or even land mass, but the second is absolutely a solid reason. Although still not worth going to war with the entire world over. I can't imagine that russia wants anything to do with them anymore.[/QUOTE]
China absorbing North Korea would be a massive blow to their economy as well as regional infrastructure. Just because China is physically large and has a large population doesn't mean it can easily just incorporate whole nations like that into itself.
[QUOTE=OvB;52097269]Regardless of your opinion on whether or not military intervention should take place, the longer you wait, the more realistic the threat of nuclear retaliation becomes.
[editline]13th April 2017[/editline]
North Korea is too close to too many allies for us to ever use nuclear weapons there. Civilian mass casualty aside.[/QUOTE]
Also, realistically, most of the goals that can be accomplished by a nuke can be accomplished by conventional weaponry. A nuke is more useful as a massive "fuck off" device.
[QUOTE=OvB;52097269]
North Korea is too close to too many allies for us to ever use nuclear weapons there. Civilian mass casualty aside.[/QUOTE]
How so? The risk of a nuclear attack from North Korea would outweigh the negligible risk from fallout from a few dozen nuclear weapons.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.