North Korea says orders artillery to be combat ready, targeting U.S. bases

Originally posted by IndianaJoe
reply to post by Kram09

 

I disagree with it, but there is a reason the US would respond with devastating nuclear force. The status quo for the past 60 years has been been if someone uses a nuclear weapon that means total nuclear destruction. There is some point in sticking to the status quo of MAD... I hope and believe that cooler heads would prevail.

I don't see Obama launching a nuclear strike unless a nuke was used against American troops. Within 2 minutes of a nuke being launched against American forces we would respond with 10 times greater force. A nuke exploding in SK that doesn't hit US troops we would use conventional forces to crush little kim. Any nuclear strike against an american target would lead to a nuclear war and we wouldn't ask China's permission. It's a very very scary scenario.

Oh I think you would.....because although you might be able to destroy NK with little retaliation, IF China doesn't give you its permission then you WILL be in a M.A.D. situation.

Originally posted by ausername

On the contrary, it's more likely that he and his allies in Tehran know exactly what they are doing.

Believe me that thought crossed my mind also, even said it in another thread.

I cant see this situation just ending now, its gone too far, something will definately come to a head.

Originally posted by intrptr
The latest demonization of tiny little Korea. Provoked by the US... yes, in the link in the Op...

North Korea said on Tuesday its strategic rocket and long-range artillery units have been ordered to be combat ready, targeting U.S. military bases on Guam, Hawaii and mainland America after U.S. bombers flew sorties threatening the North.

After US bombers flew sorties "threatening" the North. Oh so the resulting statement "threatening the US" is a really a reaction to an actual provocation by the US. But never mind the actual bully, just focus on the paper tiger.

The flyovers (still in the South) came after DPRK unilaterally rejected the armistice and made triumphant propaganda film of California getting nuked.

Uh, who is 'provoking' whom? So much automatic USA-hate.

Originally posted by Gazrok
There are ZERO pros to a nuclear response, even if NK launches a nuclear attack. Whereas, on the contrary, if we responded to nukes using conventional weapons, there'd be no doubt as to who the international "good guys" are....

The pro to a nuclear response is the credibility of the deterrent, as understood in Tehran and Beijing. And Seoul and Tokyo. Extremely tough call.

Without an appropriate nuclear counteraction, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan would distrust the will of US to stand up to China. Taiwan would probably surrender, SK and Japan would probably build nuclear weapons and reduce the US alliance.

It would be a 5-20kt B61-11 used only at underground military/nuclear targets far from civilian areas. It would be fewer casualties than significant conventional bombing against industrial sites (which are in cities).

I didnt think artillery could go thousands of miles to Hawaii, unless im missing something like a missle. Im not even sure a rocket could get there. A missle yes

Originally posted by ausername

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
North Korea technology at its best.

"This one is called Donkey Kong, you have to climb the ladder here"

Donkey Kong...How dare you.....this is the lynch pin of North Korean defense, and I have proof....

This is what they're looking at:

Originally posted by mbkennel

It would be a 5-20kt B61-11 used only at underground military targets far from civilian areas.

People often forget that we have "tactical nukes" and even lower yield nuclear bunker-busters. If we need to answer nukes with nukes, it can be done without major collateral damage and fallout.

reply to post by ken10


We'd make a phone call letting China know missiles are about to drop and aren't targeted at China. We'd be at snap count while this phone call took place. Snap count will take place irrespective of the president, it would happen automatically. At this point the president will have two minutes to input launch codes and China would have two minutes to tell him not too.

During these two minutes China and Russia will decide to aim their nuclear arsenals at the US, this would be detected by NORAD. I'd assume the US would press for a joint nuclear strike and ask that missiles be turned away from the US and at NK. During this time, 100,000 other american troops will be left totally vulnerable to nuclear annihilation. The loss of these troops would hinder any potential conventional war effort dramatically and would totally expose the pacific.

If missiles remain pointed at the US the president would either decide the Chinese and Russians are bluffing or would stand down, thus leaving the US forces very open further strike. It would be a very difficult decision. Trust would begin to break down rapidly.

There is a pretty strong understanding between nuclear powers that if they get nuked they will respond with nukes. America would rationalize that its best course of action would be to protect its troops and expose its hand by launching nuclear weapons at NK and turning all missiles away from Russia and China. This would be the expected course of action between all senior advisers in each of the countries anything else would seem "fishy" and could lead to an immediate nuclear exchange.

What is scary is that a very similar situation took place in the 80's between the US and Russia because the US forgot to inform Russia (or visa versa) of a satellite launch. The only reason both sides decided not to launch was because a single missile was a total departure from the expected operating procedure. The belief by both sides that nukes would only be used to assure destruction is why no none launched in the two minute window.

reply to post by ausername


It can't be done without fallout, but if the target is sufficiently far away from other things (which installations in mountainous DPRK are) there won't be much collateral damage (other than fallout).

The biggest problem is that nuking a technical industrial site in the boondocks wouldn't stop the war. What happens if DPRK then gets really mad and launches nuke #2? Do you then vaporize Pyongyang?

DPRK stops when they think China is going to invade. China has no reason to, and all the reason to let the USA and South Korea suffer.

reply to post by Gazrok


I'm hearing a lot of ,eliminating his ability to conduct war, Can anyone here tell me how? NKorea is a "closed Society. We don't knowhis actual capabilities and we sure don't even know were all his tunnels are. The country is riddled with them. Every once in a while well discover a new one which has popped up on the wrong side of the DMZ. They have a million men each armed with a rifle, Doesn't seem like much when there running around on top but when they go under ground then you have an Island hoping campaign like WW2 (pacific) were every cave and tunnel has to be cleared.

www.globalsecurity.org...
atimes.com...

One even got within 26 miles of Seoul, set a nuke off in that baby and see what happens.

All Im saying is its hard to eliminate war fighting capabilties when they are dispersed underground in solid rock. This isn't the sand box where densities make a difference to imagery or Iran where there is a big complex seen from Space. These are tunnels deep under ground and running for miles and miles.
I think every one should spend a tour of duty on the DMZ so they can understand the enormity of the problem. If it was MANOeMANO then no doubt we would walk over them in 72 hours. But this aint a stand up fight. If we do go to war, we are going to have to do it underground mile by mile OR nuke them into Oblivion.

Works for me either way, my Dad died during the Korean war. So paybacks are a @itch

Originally posted by IknowJack
reply to post by Gazrok

 

I'm hearing a lot of ,eliminating his ability to conduct war, Can anyone here tell me how? NKorea is a "closed Society. We don't knowhis actual capabilities and we sure don't even know were all his tunnels are. The country is riddled with them. Every once in a while well discover a new one which has popped up on the wrong side of the DMZ. They have a million men each armed with a rifle, Doesn't seem like much when there running around on top but when they go under ground then you have an Island hoping campaign like WW2 (pacific) were every cave and tunnel has to be cleared.

www.globalsecurity.org...
atimes.com...

One even got within 26 miles of Seoul, set a nuke off in that baby and see what happens.

All Im saying is its hard to eliminate war fighting capabilties when they are dispersed underground in solid rock. This isn't the sand box where densities make a difference to imagery or Iran where there is a big complex seen from Space. These are tunnels deep under ground and running for miles and miles.
I think every one should spend a tour of duty on the DMZ so they can understand the enormity of the problem. If it was MANOeMANO then no doubt we would walk over them in 72 hours. But this aint a stand up fight. If we do go to war, we are going to have to do it underground mile by mile OR nuke them into Oblivion.

Works for me either way, my Dad died during the Korean war. So paybacks are a @itch

Deep tunnels can be flooded with water and truck exhaust.

reply to post by mbkennel


I said without major collateral damage and fallout, not that there would be none.

We can "vaporize" the enemy without severe damage and fallout... IF and that is a big IF the North makes the fatal mistake of launching and successfully detonating a nuke on the south, and/or particularly on any US targets.

You have to answer that kind of attack with swift and devastating power, and we have the "tactical" nukes in place to provide that swift answer if needed.

People often forget that we have "tactical nukes" and even lower yield nuclear bunker-busters. If we need to answer nukes with nukes, it can be done without major collateral damage and fallout.

Not forgetting them...but politically, we won't use them...and won't need to.

As for tunnels...there are some very nasty weapons to use against tunnels. That's the LAST place I'd want to be...the idea of my lungs being pulled out through my mouth is rather unnerving....

Also, no doubt we wouldn't see some SK and other casualties in random locations...absolutely we'd see some shelling, some smuggled in bombs, etc.

As far as eliminating the ability to make war...

Destruction of command and control centers
Destruction of war materiel

Granted, tunnel assets will cause opposition during any invasion of NK, but by then, all fighting would remain in NK's border. (other than random terror like attacks)

More than likely those tunnels will be used for surrendering and fleeing Nkorean's
imo Nkorea will be overwhelmed by technology the world has not yet seen, that will render it's electronics unusable

reply to post by ausername

If we need to answer nukes with nukes, it can be done without major collateral damage and fallout.

Really? You can hardly avoid civilian deaths using conventional weapons and you're trying to tell us using so called "tactical" nuclear weapons would somehow be different?

reply to post by mbkennel


Thats the answer! Carbon Monoxide and a bazillion gallons of liquid through thousands of miles of tunnels.....Okay.

Serious Question How do you surgically strike a dispersed war machine, underground and buried under mountains?
Answer: you don't..You put feet on the ground and fight

reply to post by Kram09


Again, I said without major collateral damage and fallout, not that there would be none.

The problem with tactical nukes is that there will still be a small portion of the blast above ground, and so, politically, I very seriously doubt this option would be used.

I think the only nuclear material we'd use in NK is DU (Depleted Uranium) mostly in bunker busters to get at the tunnels. The new MOP bombs would likely do nicely too (and were kind of designed for NK and Iran anyhow)...

Serious Question How do you surgically strike a dispersed war machine, underground and buried under mountains?
Answer: you don't..You put feet on the ground and fight

First, you cut off the above ground heads.
Next, you get rid of the above ground armor and air power.
THEN, you put feet on the ground...or better yet, after Kim and his generals are dead, let them come out and sort out for themselves who will be the new glorious leader...

reply to post by Mizzijr


Nah... people are just getting immune to the sabre-rattling. The US had to step up it's performance to keep your average American war-hawk aching for a fight.

Question...Didn't the recent sanctions target luxury items and bank accounts? If that's true, maybe the little wanker is acting up because the sanctions directly affect him and no longer just his people?