North Korea orders rockets on standby to hit US bases

I think North Korea's president likes seeing his picture in the news.

He could be positioning himself for a date using media exposure.

You know, pretend to be the mad man. Chicks dig that.

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

 

Add in the entire force of NATO and Nkorea/China has a problem..
because that is what will happen if there is strike or attempted strike on the USA or any of it's partners..

edit on 29-3-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

I wouldnt bank on it. Like how NATO helped the UK in 1982.

Some here have forgotten their history lessons. During WW2, a German U-boat managed the journey from Germany to Japan- the 'long way' round. I am pretty certain, a relatively modern ex-Russian submarine could manage the paltry few miles to the US western seaboard.

True, the NK subs might not carry nukes, but they could carry Bio-Chem weapons or they could simply 'cruise' up and down the western seaboard sinking any US flagged shipping, terrorizing the sea lanes. The US Navy would then be tied up in hunting them down or at least it make them think about more protection to its fleet, thus tieing up more Naval assets - much like the War in the Atlantic for the UK during WW2. The NK subs dont have to have a high kill rate, its just the 'threat of'' them being around. This would cost the US $$$$ Billions in lost trade revenue.

reply to post by Gazrok


LOL, China doesn't bark threats like NK.. Wait for them to throw a punch?? really so we should sit back let them send a few nukes and take out Seoul..than attack?

Originally posted by Wotan
Some here have forgotten their history lessons. During WW2, a German U-boat managed the journey from Germany to Japan- the 'long way' round. I am pretty certain, a relatively modern ex-Russian submarine could manage the paltry few miles to the US western seaboard.

True, the NK subs might not carry nukes, but they could carry Bio-Chem weapons or they could simply 'cruise' up and down the western seaboard sinking any US flagged shipping, terrorizing the sea lanes. The US Navy would then be tied up in hunting them down or at least it make them think about more protection to its fleet, thus tieing up more Naval assets - much like the War in the Atlantic for the UK during WW2. The NK subs dont have to have a high kill rate, its just the 'threat of'' them being around. This would cost the US $$$$ Billions in lost trade revenue.

Yes, they did.

However, only because they would have to make long lengths of their journey on the surface and very slow speeds (max range for many is measured at only going 10 knots. That's very, very slow).

The longer a submarine spends on the surface the easier it is to detect by air, radar or now a days, satellite.

Do you really think, especially after the increase in threats that the US Navy is twiddling it's fingers, instead of maintaining our own patrols not only off our west coast, but up to Alaska and Hawaii?

The subs that NK have are not exactly the most quiet of subs either.

So while I'm not saying that one would never slip through, they would not be going up and down our west coast with impunity.

I have a very bad feeling that North Korea is gonna strike Wake Island, Johnston Atoll or Guam. Maybe even all three. So there yuh have it. Just remember you heard it here first at ATS from SheopleNation folks.

I also don't believe that Red China would care much at all if they did. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by UnBreakable


What could a boulder be in this situation? If firing at a military base is a pea shooter, then the most logical boulder would be targeting a densely populated area with a nuclear weapon.

On a side note, this is what happens when your country has too much mercury from the ocean in its diet.

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by antar
If they did lob weapons of mass destruction at US bases wouldn't that mean the US would flatten them in a single shot?

Yes, the invulnerable god-country, the US, will counter attack with a single photon torpedo, level the entire country, and then effortlessly phaser the thousands of incoming SL/ICBMs from China, then tracker beam the entire country into space.

Actually, they're "tractor" beams. If you're going to snark your way through an argument, do it right, for the love of Roddenberry! If you're offended that I'm having a bit of fun with your comment, all I can say is that snark begets snark. Serious response does, indeed, follow, starting now.

The Chinese nuclear response, assuming they went all-out, would probably consist of several hundred, not several thousand devices. That's still a hideous amount of potential damage, but let's not over-state the threat.

All of you who think the US would easily be able to "flatten" an entire country without starting a global war are naive and/or foolish.

I've been accused of a lot of things, but naivete and foolishness aren't often on the list. As has been pointed out on more America-bashing threads than I care to hyperlink, we do, indeed, have the ability to easily flatten just about any country on Earth....and in 90% of those cases, nobody outside the target's borders would give a tin defecation. Whether North Korea falls into the "nobody would care" category is open to debate.

You can all be sure that China is going to back up NK if the US tries to do anything to them. NK is probably controlled BY china, and one thing the chinese are NOT, is stupid (as many of you think all nations are save the wonderous glorious god-country of the US).

What do you think a 'client state' is for? China will back North Korea right up to the point where the cost of doing so outweighs the political benefits. At that point, they invoke plausible deniability, and walk away. As you point out, the Chinese aren't stupid, and their choice is rapidly coming down to backing a) a client state that is becoming a political liability and an economic sinkhole or b) one of their largest international trade partners. Sorry to point this out, the smart choice is "b".

Most North Koreans are starving peasants, and NK is right next to China. Any nuking would both obliterate whatever credibility the US has with the world ATM (which is almost nothing already), and also would immediately get China involved who despite the ATS armchair-generals and chest beaters assertions, would be a nightmare to behold in a fully engaged war.

Basically you would have a MAD situation.

Demographics don't matter. Whoever uncorks the nuclear genie is going to be seen as the villain of the piece. If you're so concerned about the welfare of the North Korean people, why don't you politely ask the North Korean leadership to stop overtly threatening their neighbors, spend less on their military, and work on their domestic problems? Neither South Korea nor the US is driving the situation at this point. Overt nuclear threats *have* to be taken seriously...the stakes are simply too high to assume that anyone with nukes is 'just bluffing'.

The US is EXTREMELY limited in its options if NK nukes it, or SK. Any retaliation in NBC fashion would be "suicide" for the US, and any conventional invasion would be titanically bloody due to NKs subterranean fortifications, tunnel systems, raw military power (they are NOT a trivial little back water nation like Afghanistan), and pure hate for the West. It would basically be an un-winnable war.

What you all need to figure out, is that one nation being stronger than another on paper IS NOT IN ANY WAY a guarantee of flawless victory. That seems to be the major perception though, and it is dead wrong.

edit on 3/28/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: stuff

I'll give you that..the US is limited in its options. Air launched/dropped, submarine launched, or land based. It's not a very long menu, but it's more than enough. The thing that you (and the N.K. military) seem to be missing is that nuclear wars aren't 'fought'. Those millions of troops won't be a factor, and hiding in vast, underground tunnels just saves the survivors the trouble of digging mass graves. Nuclear wars aren't about fighting another country...they're about annihilating another country. In a full-up exchange between the US and North Korea, neither country will 'win'...but only one will survive, and despite some peoples' fervent hopes, it won't be North Korea.

reply to post by Wotan


I gotta disagree with the NK sub threat as you propose it. The US navy is quite adept at sub hunting, but I think you're missing a bigger point. Shipping, crossing through the pacific is coming either to or from China.

North Korea no doubt has large asymmetric capabilities, but I'm not very worried about their subs.

Originally posted by Wotan
Some here have forgotten their history lessons. During WW2, a German U-boat managed the journey from Germany to Japan- the 'long way' round. I am pretty certain, a relatively modern ex-Russian submarine could manage the paltry few miles to the US western seaboard.

True, the NK subs might not carry nukes, but they could carry Bio-Chem weapons or they could simply 'cruise' up and down the western seaboard sinking any US flagged shipping, terrorizing the sea lanes. The US Navy would then be tied up in hunting them down or at least it make them think about more protection to its fleet, thus tieing up more Naval assets - much like the War in the Atlantic for the UK during WW2. The NK subs dont have to have a high kill rate, its just the 'threat of'' them being around. This would cost the US $$$$ Billions in lost trade revenue.

While I don't sell the North Korean military short, particularly in a conventional war, their submarines are going to be more of a theater-range threat to naval operations than an ocean-wide threat to commerce. Their submarines are old, slow, and conventionally powered. That doesn't mean they can't be dangerous, but it does mean that they are very noisy compared to more modern boats, have to spend a certain percentage of their time on or near the surface, and take a long time to get where they're needed.

If the North Koreans tried to run sub sorties near the US west coast, they'd face a ton of logistical and operational problems...they'd need some form of forward resupply, and a surprising number of their potential civilian (never mind military) targets could simply outrun them. That's assuming they could slip past the SOSUS arrays (no small feat, those were designed to detect boats orders of magnitude quieter than anything in the North Korean navy). Once it's known that they're on the prowl, they're going to be up against one of the most sophisticated ASW forces on Earth (the Russians *might* be better) in boats at least one generation behind the curve, and usually more. That's *not* a winning proposition.

If the North Koreans want to make effective use of their submarines, their best bet would be to use them in a coastal role, and hope for an occasional ambush shot at a high-value USN target.

It's been said here before through this thread, but I'll say it again...

...what they did, flying their stealths in SK, on a "drill", during some pretty tight displays of emotion, in my opinion, was reckless, taunting and antagonistic. Not to mention EXPENSIVE for all of us.

Why are we playing little immature games like this right now?

Does our government and military leaders, truly have nothing better to do? I'm thinking they are all insane...straight up, insane.

Flying those B-2's was a great move. Basically at this point NK appears to be bluffing. For weeks now they've been saying they're in war, they're targeting the US/SK, troops are in the final level of preparation, and so on. Their only options at this point are to do nothing which will erode their future negotiating strength with their typical rhetoric, or to back down. Sending B-2's says we're serious and that if they really want to fight we will. The sanctions are being enforced.

I think KJU is in a tough position here, if he backs down he looks weak which can very possibly lead to him being taken out by one of his generals, but he's likely very aware that he can't actually attack because it's a fight he's unable to win. No matter what happens, NK looks like it's about to have a regime change soon.

reply to post by Aazadan


I think that there has already been a regime change ....... The Generals (The Old Guard). Kim is just a face for the regime and someone to blame if it all goes horribly wrong for them.

I agree with the posters about the US flying stealth bombers etc in plain sight of NK. It is provocative and dangerous. When will the West learn that you have to let the Asian Nations have some leeway so they do not lose face. In over a thousand years of international diplomacy, some nations still have a lot to learn.

reply to post by Wotan


I find this conversation interesting in the way that the males will put in statistics that "our weaponry is so much better" and females will question the motives, and the betrayals in allegiances these countries - US, NATO, China, Russia, Japan, NK - might have.

There's also the possibility that tptb are using this as "look at the right hand, and don't bother seeing what the left hand is doing".

I don't trust China's and Russia's motives, but I don't trust my own country's motives USA either.

Think of the people that are basically slaves in these countries, especially NK, that don't have a chance to change their situations.

Originally posted by MushroomWig
Source

Pyongyang has ordered rocket units be put on standby to fire on US bases in the South Pacific. “The time has come to settle accounts with the US imperialists in view of the prevailing situation,” North Korean leader declared, according to state media.

Is this it? Has the time finally arrived for North Korea and the United States to enter a war against each other?

The first war since WWII involving the US that I can actually understand.

This is the very first time I've said this - I'd die fighting for my country against these tyrannical bastards.

Note: I do realize the US is largely responsible for the state of North Korea (The US dropped more bombs in the Korean War than all of the bombs dropped in WWII combined) but the Kim family and all of it's supports deserve nothing less than death for what they've done to the citizens under the shadow of their regime.

I don't think the North Korean people would resist the US military being in their homeland. They may be blinded to a large degree by their ruler(s), but they still realize the Kim family as evil psychopathic dictators.

Lets examine a couple world events and how they might affect this whole scenario. Taking on North Korea would in the first few days, be very bloody. They would blow the crap out of the border towns to the south. Seoul would likely be left in rubble, a quarter million North Korean soldiers would likely cross into South Korea, and there would be intense fighting block to block with the South Korean and American troops in constant retreat.... for a while. Then there would also be a massive influx of North Korean refugees, taking their chances while the border is open, to flee North Korea. Who and what would be the Souths targets? It could be hard to distinguish soldier from civilian at first. North Korea, might even be emboldened to fire a nuke or two at the South. The South couldn't look for much in the way of American ground reinforcements very soon, if at all, or in any effective numbers. An air war would be implemented by the US and after the initial invasion of the South, surgical strikes would certainly decimate parts of the North's infrastructure and power base. The bombing would go unabated for days and if need be, longer.
By this time the North's Army would be running very low on food and ammunition, and very likely be cut off from the North by Air bombardment that was ongoing.
What would the surrounding countries do? namely China?
Lets look at the possible response. China needs the US as a trading partner monetarily. Even a week or two without trade or even a retaliatory stop of trade would cause severe hardship and possibly manufacturing difficulties and collapses. Who has China tried to build markets as of late? South America and Africa. South America has undergone a giant drama with the death of Chavez, the market there is highly unstable, Africa's of no real source of income as most of the money has been going 'inti' Africa in the form of investments.
China is about advantage first, monetarily, and the Asian race highly keen on 'Face'. 'Face' could contribute towards choices between allowing pro American activity, or in any opposition of the US involvement's. In other words, their readiness to allow the hostilities to unfold without intervening against the South and America. There's too much to loose monetarily and in trade to oppose the US and the South, especially when North Korea has been nothing but a royal pain in their side. And refugees would also flee into the areas of the China bordering the two countries. Something that China wants no part of.
Meanwhile the US would be making quick progress in destroying much of the Norths assets and installations. But were to North Korea successfully lob a missile onto Hawaii or the mainland US or Alaska, our losses could mount. It's unlikely any would reach the mainland, but Hawaii and Japan could find themselves successful targets and incur hits.
Could nukes cause earthquake activity? The Pacific Rim shows signs of being very unstable in the region along Indonesia, Japan and the outermost Korean coast.
The length of the war cold be long, the North Koreans have a mindset that their leader is a God/deity and would be unlikely to abandon a generational mindset of such. Many would not accept 'liberation', instead would believe it a scheme of the Western 'Devils'. They have been born into the lie, and believe it fully as the basis of their lives and culture. Mindsets are difficult to change overnight.
In the end, if North Korea was liberated from their despot rulers, what would be the outcome? There would be a lot of suffering ahead recouping and rebuilding, and choosing a government if not incorporated into the Souths. Russia has been curiously quiet, and China seems to be in wait and see mode, there lies the US's opposition and players. Are they tired of North Korea enough to let America foot the bill to clean up the place? because that's basically what the whole thing is.

Originally posted by Wotan
Some here have forgotten their history lessons. During WW2, a German U-boat managed the journey from Germany to Japan- the 'long way' round. I am pretty certain, a relatively modern ex-Russian submarine could manage the paltry few miles to the US western seaboard.

True, the NK subs might not carry nukes, but they could carry Bio-Chem weapons or they could simply 'cruise' up and down the western seaboard sinking any US flagged shipping, terrorizing the sea lanes. The US Navy would then be tied up in hunting them down or at least it make them think about more protection to its fleet, thus tieing up more Naval assets - much like the War in the Atlantic for the UK during WW2. The NK subs dont have to have a high kill rate, its just the 'threat of'' them being around. This would cost the US $$$$ Billions in lost trade revenue.

The NK subs are being tracked real time by the US Navy using systems similar to the now antiquated SOSUS system and ghosted by hunter killer attack subs. Not a snowballs chance in hell they will do anything except implode the minute they do anything.

Originally posted by Pleiadianwaves
It's been said here before through this thread, but I'll say it again...

...what they did, flying their stealths in SK, on a "drill", during some pretty tight displays of emotion, in my opinion, was reckless, taunting and antagonistic. Not to mention EXPENSIVE for all of us.

Not reckless at all, actually. The fact that we *had* to take such an overt step is an indicator that our foreign policy in the region has been less than stellar for several years. I don't agree with 'taunting' or 'antagonistic' either. I'll explain below. As for the expense, USAF crews have to fly a certain number of hours per month to maintain proficiency. Those round-trip flights to South Korea and back were probably paid for out of the already-allocated budget for those hours.

Why are we playing little immature games like this right now?

Because you speak to your audience on a level they can understand. I think it was Harry S. Truman who said "When you talk to butchers, talk meat. When you talk to bakers, talk bread. When you talk to both, talk sandwiches.". Applying that principle here, when you're talking to a regime that's behaving childishly, you speak in short, simple, easy-to-understand sentences.

Does our government and military leaders, truly have nothing better to do? I'm thinking they are all insane...straight up, insane.

Actually, no. As I mentioned in a rather lengthy and acerbic post earlier, ANY threat involving the use of nuclear weapons MUST be taken seriously. What we are seeing in the Korean peninsula is a truly massive failure of foreign policy. North Korea has, for years if not decades, been allowed to bang their collective sippy cup and throw national-scale temper tantrums to get attention, and they've been rewarded with foreign aid, diplomatic concessions, and generally told by demonstration that making threats and raising h**l is the way to get what you want from the rest of the world. Now, they've graduated to the 'big leagues'. They have nuclear capability, and their latest tantrum includes a threat to use it. They've made a threat the rest of the world can't ignore, secure in the knowledge that nothing bad will ever happen to them.

Sending those B-2s over for a visit was a wake-up call to the North Korean government. They were a polite but emphatic message that "Your conduct has reached a point where we can't ignore it, and won't tolerate it, and you are *not* immune to consequences." Far from taunting them, it's a sign that we respect the threat (although that respect DOES come with a significant down side). It wasn't any more of an 'aggressive' move than putting a "Beware of Dog" sign on your fence would be.

It wasn't any more of an 'aggressive' move than putting a "Beware of Dog" sign on your fence would be.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think the analogy makes light of the situation. It was a bit more serious than that.

reply to post by HairlessApe


Sorry if I conveyed the impression that I wasn't taking this seriously...perhaps the analogy was a bad one? At least where I grew up, putting a "Beware of Dog" sign on your fence was a polite but very unequivocal way to send a message to the neighbors..."Cross this line, and there will be consequences. You have been warned, proceed accordingly". The scale is obviously much different, but the message being sent to the neighborhood is pretty much the same one, isn't it?