Politics It's Getting Close to the Point of Nuking North Korea

[AK_Stick]

1 hour ago, Silentpoet said:

It is a shitty situation, but there may not be much choice.  I am aware of how awful it will be, but how awful will a nuclear or biological strike on American soil be?  Lil kim needs killing.  Very possibly the most evil man on the planet.  But it may not yet be time to step on that cockroach.

Are you willing to condem millions of Koreans, because someone might do something bad?

 

better add UK, France, Russia and China to that list then. 

[Silentpoet]

18 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

Are you willing to condem millions of Koreans, because someone might do something bad?

 

better add UK, France, Russia and China to that list then. 

It depends on the probability of the US being hit,  I am not sure where that line is but it does exist.  It is simply the calculation you make when you choose to use deadly force.  Fortunately I have not been in a situation where I have had to choose to use deadly force, lesser levels of force were sufficient, but I have had to make that decision on a personal level before and was prepared to use deadly force.  I never said it would be an easy choice, but that it may be a choice that needs to be made soon.  I don't have access to all the information needed for an informed decision at this point.  I would not make that choice lightly, but given the appropriate information I would make that decision.

[Huaco Kid]

[Al Czervik]

Unless it is a COMPLETE surprise, NK artillery will NOT kill MILLIONs in a matter of minutes.  In a very few minutes, all of it will be gone.  That's right, all of the Seoul capable artillery will be GONE.  Those little underwater  tubes of steel carrying hot stuff will zap it all.  This is not to say that there won't be other damage that we don't want.  But, the big flashy things beat the old school powder and metal stuff real quick.  Its real hard to load an artillery gun at 150 million degrees.

[AK_Stick]

1 hour ago, Al Czervik said:

Unless it is a COMPLETE surprise, NK artillery will NOT kill MILLIONs in a matter of minutes.  In a very few minutes, all of it will be gone.  That's right, all of the Seoul capable artillery will be GONE.  Those little underwater  tubes of steel carrying hot stuff will zap it all.  This is not to say that there won't be other damage that we don't want.  But, the big flashy things beat the old school powder and metal stuff real quick.  Its real hard to load an artillery gun at 150 million degrees.

 

Absolutely incorrect. 

NK has spent decades building hardened artillery sites that are capable of pop up and retreat firing. The majority of which has presighted SK targets  all they have to do is go live  

The US is not going to preemptively go nuclear. And even if we did, a nuke that hits that artilley is going to hit SK....

It would take a lot of precision weapons and days to kill all of their artillery. 

[fortyofforty]

12 hours ago, devildog2067 said:

Never pretended to be. But I did what I did, and if you didn't, well, maybe you should be a bit more careful tossing around "we".

Nope. Nor do I care what you do. But I will guess from your response that you are not, in fact, a combat veteran. So you're not really part of the "we" when you talk about all the people "we" have killed or are going to kill.

Well, let's see. I have relatives there. My family is originally from there, and ended up on both sides of the border. My grandparents lost their ancestral land during the war. My parents grew up in the aftermath of the war. I would bet serious money that I know far more about it, from many more different perspectives, than you do.

It has nothing to do with "easy" -- it's quite literally true. The two officers responsible for partitioning Korea eyeballed it on a National Geographic map, with literally zero knowledge of the place. Things would be a lot simpler if they'd drawn the line a bit further north, someplace where the capital and major metro area of the south wasn't within artillery range of the border.

I don't hate America. I love this nation. I fought for this nation. This nation gave my father and my mother, two strangers who grew up literally hungry in the ashes of the war, the opportunity to build a new life and make a better future for their children.

Understanding history is not "hating America." We created a problem in Korea. We did it for what seemed like good reasons at the time, and the two officers (Charles Bonesteel and Dean Rusk) did the best they could with what they had, which was next to nothing. We were busy fighting the Japanese and the Germans at the time, and trying to head off what was clearly going to be a problem with the Soviets, and drawing a line down the middle of a country that didn't really matter much seemed like an easy way to solve a near term problem. But the reality is that it didn't work out so well, and we are still dealing with the repercussions of it. Not a scrap of "America-hating" in there -- just an understanding of history.

That's a laugh coming from you, given that you next say

Physics, engineering, and the limits of 1980s technology prevented the US from being 'ahead' of where we are now in missile defense. There's only so much you can do with interceptors based on chemical rockets. We're not even close to cracking the code on lasers powerful enough to shoot down missiles. We're just now building computers capable enough to run radars advanced enough to target inbound ballistic missiles in midcourse. No amount of money spent in the 1980s would have changed that. These are facts, they don't care how you feel, and your emotions don't change them no matter how much you hate Democrats.

'Willing' doesn't have much to do with it. As you point out, that's the situation we are in. The real question is, what price are we willing to inflict on Korea in order to change the situation? Are we willing to cause the deaths of 15 or 20 million Koreans? Even if the war (which there's no way North Korea could win) only lasted an hour, there'd be at least 10 million dead in Seoul. There'd be at least 5-10 million more deaths in the widespread famine and social breakdown in North Korea right after, with the regime gone. Are we willing to kill that many people in order to not be threatened? We didn't kill that many Soviets, and they had enough nukes pointed at us to make the rubble bounce, why would we kill that many Koreans? We are being threatened by terrorist groups, why aren't we willing to nuke Yemen flat in order to end that threat if we would kill that many Koreans? What's the difference?  

We managed to end the Soviet threat, without the use of force, through economic growth. We've ended Communism in China the same way -- they are in some ways more capitalist than we are. Heck, we ended poverty in South Korea that way and now LG and Samsung sell us TVs. America has always done better in the end by exporting goods, knowledge and prosperity than by fighting wars. 

My experience is that those who feel so insecure that they need to come on the internet and brag about what they supposedly did are far less impressive in actuality.  If your facts can't stand on their own, that merely exposes the deficiency in your intellect.

I suppose you believe nobody died in order for us to end the Soviet threat.  And the Communist Party still rules China.

We have tried for decades to end the North Korean dictatorship using peaceful means.  The dictator doesn't care if his people starve.  They've been starving for fifty years.  The dictator doesn't care if his people are cold.  They've been cold for fifty years.  You call Kim "crazy" and that is the real difference.  If he is "crazy" as you say, he might decide he doesn't care if he launches a missile or two at Hawai'i or Guam or Japan.  Maybe you don't, either.  Hard to tell from an American-hating former Marine.

[fortyofforty]

There is one reason I mentioned using nuclear weapons on North Korea.  One.  We cannot allow North Korea to respond in force against South Korea.  That requires a massive nuclear strike, taking out command and control networks and systems, and as many weapons systems as we can hit.  All at once.

Some America-haters don't care if North Korea sells anthrax to terrorist groups.  Some don't care if North Korea partners with Iran to develop nuclear-tipped ICBMs.  Some don't care if North Korea partners with any and all of the other America-haters around the world.  What a wonderful world the America-haters imagine.

I for one don't want to live in that world.

[fortyofforty]

America-haters are seemingly happy we are so far from being able to shoot down even one ICBM or its warheads.  They must be thrilled that they were able to obstruct and stonewall anti-ballistic missile research for decades.  And now the America-haters gleefully point out that we are far from being able to do so.  Amazing.  Simply amazing.  We can be held hostage by one madman with even one missile.  Well done, America-haters.

[fortyofforty]

8 hours ago, Al Czervik said:

Unless it is a COMPLETE surprise, NK artillery will NOT kill MILLIONs in a matter of minutes.  In a very few minutes, all of it will be gone.  That's right, all of the Seoul capable artillery will be GONE.  Those little underwater  tubes of steel carrying hot stuff will zap it all.  This is not to say that there won't be other damage that we don't want.  But, the big flashy things beat the old school powder and metal stuff real quick.  Its real hard to load an artillery gun at 150 million degrees.

The simple-minded don't realize that is the only viable threat, and the only threat that will force China to act.  Unless and until China thinks that is coming, it will continue to play games.  After all, Chinese Communists and North Korean Communists fought and died together, and share a common adversary today.

[willie-pete]

This seems to be a well-reasoned analysis of China's potential involvement.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-could-wage-bloody-war-120900486.html

[devildog2067]

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

My experience is that those who feel so insecure that they need to come on the internet and brag about what they supposedly did are far less impressive in actuality..

You literally asked about my experience. When I give you an answer you say I'm bragging. It would be an amusingly attempt to trap me if it wasn't so painfully inept.

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

If your facts can't stand on their own, that merely exposes the deficiency in your intellect.

You haven't disputed any of my facts. You're wrong about missile defense, you're wrong about geopolitics, and you're wrong about how to deal with Korea.

Nor have you answered what is the only question that really matters here: how many Koreans are you willing to kill in order to change the current situation?

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

 I suppose you believe nobody died in order for us to end the Soviet threat.  And the Communist Party still rules China..

Even you can't be this stupid. The Korean War was fought to end the Soviet threat. So was Vietnam. Those wars killed something on order of 5 million ish people.

Those were the big ones, and they together over the course of nearly two decades killed fewer people altogether than North Korea can kill in the first 30 minutes of the next war. Are you willing to cause that level of destruction in order to kill Kim Jong Un? 

And the ruling part of China calls itself Communist, to be sure, but they've been good little capitalists for 30 years now. That's a fact, no matter how you feel about it.

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

We have tried for decades to end the North Korean dictatorship using peaceful means.

No, we haven't. We've been fighting the Cold War. Korea is a sideshow, it's only started to matter recently as their missile technology has improved.

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

The dictator doesn't care if his people starve.  They've been starving for fifty years.

No, they haven't. North Korea was far more prosperous than the South when the countries were divided. That's why the Soviets were ok with getting the less populous half. Food insecurity has really only been an issue since the late 90s. (Those pesky facts again!)

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

You call Kim "crazy" and that is the real difference.  If he is "crazy" as you say, he might decide he doesn't care if he launches a missile or two at Hawai'i or Guam or Japan. 

He's "crazy" in the sense that he's an evil sociopath, but I don't think he's insane in the sense that he doesn't understand the consequences of actions. He wants to stay in power. He'll do whatever he can in order to do so. It's not in his self interest to nuke Hawai'i or Guam or Japan, only to threaten. He's most likely to push the button if he sees his world coming to an end.

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Maybe you don't, either.  Hard to tell from an American-hating former Marine.

I wore the uniform of this nation and I fought for this nation. I chose to raise my kids here despite having a very good opportunity to leave (I did my PhD in Switzerland, and was offered a job there). You post dumb things on the internet. The facts stand for themselves; I don't hate America and your continuing to assert that I do only serves to further make you look stupid.

[devildog2067]

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

After all, Chinese Communists and North Korean Communists fought and died together, and share a common adversary today.

American GIs and Russian troops fought and died together, back in the mid 1940s, and share a common adversary today. That doesn't even begin to make us friends. The Chinese really wish the North Koreans would go away. North Korea is embarrassing for them. They're just not willing to kill them all to do so, or to look weak on the world stage.

[devildog2067]

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

America-haters are seemingly happy we are so far from being able to shoot down even one ICBM or its warheads.  They must be thrilled that they were able to obstruct and stonewall anti-ballistic missile research for decades.  And now the America-haters gleefully point out that we are far from being able to do so.  Amazing.  Simply amazing.  We can be held hostage by one madman with even one missile.  Well done, America-haters.

No amount of your idiotic, insane ranting can change the fact that shooting down ICBMs is very difficult and that we never have had -- still don't, really -- the technology to do so. No amount of money spent at any point in recent history could possibly change that. It's required advances in phased array radars, computing technology, interceptor technology, all kinds of things that were actually driven by development in the commercial sector and have come back to the defense community.

That's just a fact, your feelings don't matter. Nothing we could possibly have done during the Reagan presidency would have given us a viable anti-missile technology now. It took the internet and personal computing and the smartphone revolution to create the technology we needed.

[devildog2067]

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

There is one reason I mentioned using nuclear weapons on North Korea.  One.  We cannot allow North Korea to respond in force against South Korea.  That requires a massive nuclear strike, taking out command and control networks and systems, and as many weapons systems as we can hit.  All at once.

Your reason makes no sense. What you are saying is, "we cannot allow North Korea to kill a lot of South Koreans, so we are going to do something that results in the deaths of a huge number of South Koreans." A massive nuclear strike to take out the weapons systems threatening Seoul would nuke Seoul.

[fortyofforty]

2 hours ago, devildog2067 said:

Your reason makes no sense. What you are saying is, "we cannot allow North Korea to kill a lot of South Koreans, so we are going to do something that results in the deaths of a huge number of South Koreans." A massive nuclear strike to take out the weapons systems threatening Seoul would nuke Seoul.

That depends on the type of nuclear weapons used near the South Korean border.  A nuclear missile strike on Pyongyang doesn't mean the destruction of South Korea.  Your reasoning is fallacious, once again.

[fortyofforty]

2 hours ago, devildog2067 said:

No amount of your idiotic, insane ranting can change the fact that shooting down ICBMs is very difficult and that we never have had -- still don't, really -- the technology to do so. No amount of money spent at any point in recent history could possibly change that. It's required advances in phased array radars, computing technology, interceptor technology, all kinds of things that were actually driven by development in the commercial sector and have come back to the defense community.

That's just a fact, your feelings don't matter. Nothing we could possibly have done during the Reagan presidency would have given us a viable anti-missile technology now. It took the internet and personal computing and the smartphone revolution to create the technology we needed.

No amount of America-hating rhetoric can change the fact that obstruction of research efforts starting in the 1970s and ramping up in the 1980s has led us to the point where we are far behind where we should be in our capability to shoot down ICBMs.

That's just a fact, and your hurt feelings don't matter.  You are making things up since you truly have no idea where we would be today had we fully invested our efforts in anti-missile technology three or four decades ago.  Technology (our strong suit) has a way of surprising you.

[fortyofforty]

2 hours ago, devildog2067 said:

American GIs and Russian troops fought and died together, back in the mid 1940s, and share a common adversary today. That doesn't even begin to make us friends. The Chinese really wish the North Koreans would go away. North Korea is embarrassing for them. They're just not willing to kill them all to do so, or to look weak on the world stage.

American GIs didn't fight and die together, unless there is a specific battle of which I am unaware.  We shared a common foe, but were not fighting shoulder to shoulder, unless that was your supersecret Marine Corps service.  China is happy we are spending so much time and effort worrying about North Korea instead of countering China in the Pacific.  North Korea is quite useful for them.

[fortyofforty]

3 hours ago, devildog2067 said:

You literally asked about my experience. When I give you an answer you say I'm bragging. It would be an amusingly attempt to trap me if it wasn't so painfully inept.

You haven't disputed any of my facts. You're wrong about missile defense, you're wrong about geopolitics, and you're wrong about how to deal with Korea.

Nor have you answered what is the only question that really matters here: how many Koreans are you willing to kill in order to change the current situation?

Even you can't be this stupid. The Korean War was fought to end the Soviet threat. So was Vietnam. Those wars killed something on order of 5 million ish people.

Those were the big ones, and they together over the course of nearly two decades killed fewer people altogether than North Korea can kill in the first 30 minutes of the next war. Are you willing to cause that level of destruction in order to kill Kim Jong Un? 

And the ruling part of China calls itself Communist, to be sure, but they've been good little capitalists for 30 years now. That's a fact, no matter how you feel about it.

No, we haven't. We've been fighting the Cold War. Korea is a sideshow, it's only started to matter recently as their missile technology has improved.

No, they haven't. North Korea was far more prosperous than the South when the countries were divided. That's why the Soviets were ok with getting the less populous half. Food insecurity has really only been an issue since the late 90s. (Those pesky facts again!)

He's "crazy" in the sense that he's an evil sociopath, but I don't think he's insane in the sense that he doesn't understand the consequences of actions. He wants to stay in power. He'll do whatever he can in order to do so. It's not in his self interest to nuke Hawai'i or Guam or Japan, only to threaten. He's most likely to push the button if he sees his world coming to an end.

I wore the uniform of this nation and I fought for this nation. I chose to raise my kids here despite having a very good opportunity to leave (I did my PhD in Switzerland, and was offered a job there). You post dumb things on the internet. The facts stand for themselves; I don't hate America and your continuing to assert that I do only serves to further make you look stupid.

I fought and continue to fight for this nation.  I have faced more dangerous situations than almost every veteran, in the service of my country.  So, keep up your America-hating rhetoric if it makes you feel better.  It is of no consequence and only reveals your deepest feelings which are, evidently, anti-American.  You might be pro-Switzerland, then, but obviously not pro-America.

[fortyofforty]

Even Wikipedia can be useful, to expose pompous idiocy:

Quote

Most North Koreans had experienced nutritional deprivation long before the mid-1990s.

 

[AK_Stick]

51 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

That depends on the type of nuclear weapons used near the South Korean border.  A nuclear missile strike on Pyongyang doesn't mean the destruction of South Korea.  Your reasoning is fallacious, once again.

 

Actually, yes that would trigger a full scale bombardment of SK.....

[devildog2067]

49 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

That depends on the type of nuclear weapons used near the South Korean border.  A nuclear missile strike on Pyongyang doesn't mean the destruction of South Korea.  Your reasoning is fallacious, once again.

Nope. I’m right here and you are not. Plain and simple fact.

If we nuke Pyongyang, the NK artillery at the border will shoot a whole bunch of rounds at the world’s fourth largest (ish, depends how you count) metro area. 60% of the ROK population lives there. Killing half of them and destroying their homes and livelihoods would effectively destroy South Korea.

If we try to strike the artillery as well, we will be lighting off nukes right next door to Seoul. That’s not really any better.

There is no way to attack North Korea without having them kill millions of South Koreans. That’s a fact. Facts are facts, use them.

[devildog2067]

52 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

No amount of America-hating rhetoric can change the fact that obstruction of research efforts starting in the 1970s and ramping up in the 1980s has led us to the point where we are far behind where we should be in our capability to shoot down ICBMs.

That's just a fact 

No, it's really not. Your saying it doesn't make it true.

There are fundamental limitations -- physics and engineering limitations -- on the use of interceptors launched on chemical rockets to shoot down ICBMs. We are just now getting to where we have computing technology fast enough to solve that problem in real time. No amount of money we might have spent in the 1970s or 1980s would change that. The thing that drove advances in computing technology was use by consumers. That's how technology development usually works; the government may fund the initial research but the real progress is made when the technology is commercialized and market forces take over. We saw it with computers. We saw it with satellite telecommunications. We're seeing it now with space launch. Nothing the government could have done in the 1980s would have put us in a better position to shoot down ICBMs now. Physics is physics.

52 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

 You are making things up since you truly have no idea where we would be today had we fully invested our efforts in anti-missile technology three or four decades ago.  Technology (our strong suit) has a way of surprising you.

Actually, this is what I do for a living. I'm quite literally, right now working on product development strategy for ballistic missile defense for a couple of US defense primes. Before that I was a physicist and I did my PhD on different kinds of computational algorithms. I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about here.

We stopped investing in the Strategic Defense Initiative because the technologies being studied (lasers, particle beams) were nowhere near being ready to deploy. We aren't anywhere close to having a strategic-grade directed energy weapon even today, even after another couple of decades of research (laser research didn't stop with the end of SDI -- there are lots of industrial applications for lasers). We stopped because scientists said it didn't make any sense. The facts were, and are, the facts.

[fortyofforty]

37 minutes ago, devildog2067 said:

No, it's really not. Your saying it doesn't make it true.

There are fundamental limitations -- physics and engineering limitations -- on the use of interceptors launched on chemical rockets to shoot down ICBMs. We are just now getting to where we have computing technology fast enough to solve that problem in real time. No amount of money we might have spent in the 1970s or 1980s would change that. The thing that drove advances in computing technology was use by consumers. That's how technology development usually works; the government may fund the initial research but the real progress is made when the technology is commercialized and market forces take over. We saw it with computers. We saw it with satellite telecommunications. We're seeing it now with space launch. Nothing the government could have done in the 1980s would have put us in a better position to shoot down ICBMs now. Physics is physics.

Actually, this is what I do for a living. I'm quite literally, right now working on product development strategy for ballistic missile defense for a couple of US defense primes. Before that I was a physicist and I did my PhD on different kinds of computational algorithms. I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about here.

We stopped investing in the Strategic Defense Initiative because the technologies being studied (lasers, particle beams) were nowhere near being ready to deploy. We aren't anywhere close to having a strategic-grade directed energy weapon even today, even after another couple of decades of research (laser research didn't stop with the end of SDI -- there are lots of industrial applications for lasers). We stopped because scientists said it didn't make any sense. The facts were, and are, the facts.

Actually, you truly have no idea where we'd be today in terms of missile defense if we had gone full speed ahead three and four decades ago.  You claiming you do does not make it so.  You believing you do does not make it so.  You continually claiming you do does not make it so.

Many claimed just a few short years ago that we would never be able to shoot a missile out of the air.  Many claimed just a few short years ago that it was impossible to shoot down a missile in flight.  Yet, it is routine now.  But, of course, facts like that are meaningless to an expert like you.

We sharply curtailed research into SDI because Congress fought it tooth and nail.  Some programs were pursued behind the backs of Congressional critics.  And the refrain always was that we had no hope of shooting down hundreds of Soviet missiles bearing in on the United States.  The idea of a nation like North Korea or Iran possessing nuclear or biological tipped ICBMs was out of the realm of the critics' imagination.  Yet, here we are.

North Korea has the technological drive but lacks funds.  Iran has the funds but not the technological ability.  Terrorist groups have the desire but not the means.  Go ahead and throw those three into a pot and see what develops.  I can guarantee it won't end well for the United States or our allies.  Keep that head firmly planted where you can't see the sun and pretend such threats don't exist.  It won't change reality, but it makes you feel better about your unwillingness to act when you need to act.

[fortyofforty]

Stealth technology was not driven by consumer projects.  The government expressed a desire and the free market responded.  It doesn't always work as you claim, no matter your level of claimed expertise.

[fortyofforty]

58 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

 

Actually, yes that would trigger a full scale bombardment of SK.....

With what weapons?  The ones that were destroyed along the border with smaller nuclear weapons?  This is no limited pinprick that is needed.