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

[fortyofforty]

58 minutes ago, devildog2067 said:

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.

With what weapons?  The ones we destroyed simultaneously?  Waiting for North Korea to strike, or provide a nuclear weapon to ISIS so they have clean hands isn't much better, either.

Waiting until millions of Americans die is no great solution.  Facts are facts, use them.

[fortyofforty]

Facts are pesky things.  We did nothing when Iran killed hundreds of American soldiers.  Nothing.  What does that show?  What would we do if Israel was nuked?  What would we do if Taiwan was nuked?  What would we do if South Korea was nuked?  What if a city simply was vaporized with no warning, no trace of who did it?  What if it was Los Angeles or New York or Washington?  I can guarantee there are bad actors working those calculations right now.

[AK_Stick]

2 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

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

Nuclear weapons big enough to dig out recessed fighting positions in mountain rock are not going to be “smaller weapons”

[AK_Stick]

2 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Facts are pesky things.  We did nothing when Iran killed hundreds of American soldiers.  Nothing.  What does that show?  What would we do if Israel was nuked?  What would we do if Taiwan was nuked?  What would we do if South Korea was nuked?  What if a city simply was vaporized with no warning, no trace of who did it?  What if it was Los Angeles or New York or Washington?  I can guarantee there are bad actors working those calculations right now.

 

 

Cities do do not simply get vaporized with no trace of who did it........

[devildog2067]

2 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

With what weapons?  The ones we destroyed simultaneously? 

Despite the fact that you completely ignored me when I answered your question, I will do so again. I’ll use smaller words in the hopes that you might be able to follow along.

The answer to “with what weapons” is “all that tube artillery they have been digging in along the border for the last 60 years.”

We cannot effectively destroy those weapons in a preemptive strike. Anything we dropped on the DMZ big enough to destroy them would also destroy Seoul. We cannot defend Seoul against inbound artillery shells.

Nuking Pyongyang would cause the destruction of Seoul very soon after.

[willie-pete]

A number of B-61-11's might do it with minimal/non-existent fallout.  

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, devildog2067 said:

Despite the fact that you completely ignored me when I answered your question, I will do so again. I’ll use smaller words in the hopes that you might be able to follow along.

The answer to “with what weapons” is “all that tube artillery they have been digging in along the border for the last 60 years.”

We cannot effectively destroy those weapons in a preemptive strike. Anything we dropped on the DMZ big enough to destroy them would also destroy Seoul. We cannot defend Seoul against inbound artillery shells.

Nuking Pyongyang would cause the destruction of Seoul very soon after.

Then let me spell it out for you.  I am writing this slowly because I know you can't read very fast.

Hit them with weapons.  Hit them again.  They pull it out.  Hit them again.  Destroy their command and control network up north, and hit their artillery with whatever it takes to neutralize it.  If necessary, hit their artillery with our own artillery.  Use air power.  Use sea power.  Use small nuclear warheads.  Use whatever it takes.

Clear enough?  It would seem that those who claim to have advanced degrees have the least ability to comprehend.

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, AK_Stick said:

 

 

Cities do do not simply get vaporized with no trace of who did it........

Really?  Do you think that we would launch a military strike on North Korea because there is some trace evidence that it may have provided a nuclear weapon to terrorists?  A nuclear weapon has the tendency to destroy itself.  I doubt pieces of the atomic bomb were found in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  Then, you're left with speculation and supposition.  Iran has killed hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq and we have done exactly zero in response.  Our track record is pretty poor.

[fortyofforty]

2 hours ago, AK_Stick said:

Nuclear weapons big enough to dig out recessed fighting positions in mountain rock are not going to be “smaller weapons”

Nuclear weapons that can destroy firing positions or close doors might be.

[Huaco Kid]

"Noo-koo-lar."

It's pronounced "Nuclear".

[Huaco Kid]

What about 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016?

[AK_Stick]

24 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Nuclear weapons that can destroy firing positions or close doors might be.

Nope. 

 

In order to shut down their firing positions we’d have to carpet bomb miles of positions with individual nuclear weapons capable of digging out hardened sites. 

 

Not something we could accomplish with smaller weapons unless we significantly deplete our stockpile. 

 

Not to mention we’re not going to preemptively strike with WMD’s. It simply isn’t going to happen. 

[AK_Stick]

27 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Really?  Do you think that we would launch a military strike on North Korea because there is some trace evidence that it may have provided a nuclear weapon to terrorists?  A nuclear weapon has the tendency to destroy itself.  I doubt pieces of the atomic bomb were found in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  Then, you're left with speculation and supposition.  Iran has killed hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq and we have done exactly zero in response.  Our track record is pretty poor.

 

You don’t understand enough about nuclear weapons.

 

This has caused you to formulate opinions that aren’t rational, or realistic. About scenarios you don’t comprehend. 

[devildog2067]

51 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Then let me spell it out for you.  I am writing this slowly because I know you can't read very fast.

As far as trash talk goes, that's very weak. You do understand that it all appears on the screen at once, right? It's not like if you type slowly I'm forced to read it slowly.

51 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Hit them with weapons.  Hit them again.  They pull it out.  Hit them again.  Destroy their command and control network up north, and hit their artillery with whatever it takes to neutralize it.  If necessary, hit their artillery with our own artillery.  Use air power.  Use sea power.  Use small nuclear warheads.  Use whatever it takes.

There is no way to do this without destroying Seoul. Literally none. Their artillery is dug into holes in the sides of mountainsides. Those mountains are less than a hundred miles away from Seoul. We do not possess weapons with the ability to destroy their artillery without also doing a number on Seoul. As in, it is physically not possible. That's the reason why the NKs have spent so much time digging those weapons in.

It doesn't matter how much you want the truth to be different. It is what it is. Facts are facts. We can't use precision munitions from the air to take them out. We can't use nukes to take them out without destroying what we are trying to protect. There is no way to destroy those weapons before they are fired.

51 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Clear enough?  It would seem that those who claim to have advanced degrees have the least ability to comprehend.

Funny how you start off with a statement that facts are facts, but then absolutely refuse to listen to any.

Edited December 31, 2017 by devildog2067

[devildog2067]

46 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

A nuclear weapon has the tendency to destroy itself.  I doubt pieces of the atomic bomb were found in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  Then, you're left with speculation and supposition.  

You're very wrong. Nuclear weapons leave very clear trace isotopic residue; it's very straightforward to figure out where the nuclear materials came from. Different types of nuclear enrichment technologies and different starting feedstocks leave different traces behind.

[Huaco Kid]

Were you the guy, that worked on a very big refrigerator magnet?

Underground?

I think so.

[Huaco Kid]

I've sparked plasma, in my basement.  the lights went out. for the block.

I didn't even know.

[willie-pete]

A number of these along the DMZ would tend to collapse the NK tunnels.

 

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/01/b61-12_earth-penetration/

Edited December 31, 2017 by willie-pete

[AK_Stick]

Yes. But it would take quite a few, due to the massive number of emplacements that need to be hit. 

 

 

Then theres the question of effective radius. It’s entirely possible they have more hardened targets than we have low yield penetrating nukes. 

[willie-pete]

There were 480 planned a few years ago. All you need to hit are those within range of Seoul to solve most of the problem and one weapon probably collapses multiple tunnels. The -12 is dial a yield up to 350 kT which should minimize fallout.

[fortyofforty]

11 hours ago, AK_Stick said:

Nope. 

 

In order to shut down their firing positions we’d have to carpet bomb miles of positions with individual nuclear weapons capable of digging out hardened sites. 

 

Not something we could accomplish with smaller weapons unless we significantly deplete our stockpile. 

 

Not to mention we’re not going to preemptively strike with WMD’s. It simply isn’t going to happen. 

Nope.  In order to deny firing positions we can use a multitude of weapons, including cluster munitions, nuclear weapons, MOABs, and a bunch of other things.  Once their air power has been destroyed, and their command and control network eliminated, there is less of a hurry since there is almost no likelihood that all artillery pieces are revealed simultaneously.

How many nuclear weapons are you willing to see transferred to Islamist terrorist groups for use against us?

Edited December 31, 2017 by fortyofforty

[fortyofforty]

11 hours ago, devildog2067 said:

You're very wrong. Nuclear weapons leave very clear trace isotopic residue; it's very straightforward to figure out where the nuclear materials came from. Different types of nuclear enrichment technologies and different starting feedstocks leave different traces behind.

You're wrong.  Nuclear weapons leave isotope residue.  Then you're right back in the same place.  Are you willing to start a nuclear war with North Korea because we think we see traces of isotopes that possibly or even probably came from North Korea?  Do we know with 100% certainty to the point where we are willing to condemn millions of South Koreans to death over it?

What did we do when North Korea attacked America in 1968?  What was our response?

[AK_Stick]

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Nope.  In order to deny firing positions we can use a multitude of weapons, including cluster munitions, nuclear weapons, MOABs, and a bunch of other things.  Once their air power has been destroyed, and their command and control network eliminated, there is less of a hurry since there is almost no likelihood that all artillery pieces are revealed simultaneously.

How many nuclear weapons are you willing to see transferred to Islamist terrorist groups for use against us?

And while their fighters are being destroyed, Seoul and SK is being shelled into the history books. 

 

Cluster munitions and Moab’s can not be used to defeat hardened positions.

 

NK has had nukes for a long time, and they haven’t given any up. Suggesting they’re going to start is silly. 

Edited December 31, 2017 by AK_Stick

[AK_Stick]

4 hours ago, willie-pete said:

There were 480 planned a few years ago. All you need to hit are those within range of Seoul to solve most of the problem and one weapon probably collapses multiple tunnels. The -12 is dial a yield up to 350 kT which should minimize fallout.

Minimizing fallout is good. But you’re still looking at dozens or possibly hundreds of drops. And that’s not going to be a preemptive strike. 

[willie-pete]

A B-2 can carry 16 B-61’s IIRC, a flight of B-2’s/F-22’s/F-35’s would be close to preemptive.