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

[tsmo1066]

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

What type of nuclear response?  What do you mean, "on the table"?  How sure do you have to be and what in North Korea do you hit?

Nuclear response. It's self-explanatory. A limited or full scale nuclear attack should NK nuke one of our cities. By "on the table" that means exactly what it says. It would be an option. The US has TITANIC conventional capabilities, and taking out "Lil Kim" may not even require nukes should he get stupid enough to take out one of our cities.

As for targets and "what to hit", that is a military question and is up to our intelligence agencies and armed forces. Also playing into it would be considerations for our allies in the region, who may be impacted by fallout, EMP effects, etc.

As for "how sure do you have to be", nuclear weapons have fingerprints. It's easy enough to tell whether the weapon used against the US was of North Korean make.

Edited January 4, 2018 by tsmo1066

[tsmo1066]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

Because we can hit North Korea's missile launch sites far from Seoul and knock out missiles and missile launch sites far easier than artillery launch sites.  North Korea is still using liquid fueled rockets, but is developing solid fuel rockets.  Do you know why?

 

How does hitting their launch sites help? It's a bit late to do so after he launches weapons against America, which is the threat. You are also operating under the myth that it requires a missile to nuke a city. Taking out Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu or any other coastal target is as easy as loading a weapon onto a fishing trawler, submarine or third-party container ship and sailing it into a harbor. In a world where 7 out of 8 drug shipments slip past our Federal agencies it's not much of a trick to pull off. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by tsmo1066

[fortyofforty]

7 hours ago, tsmo1066 said:

Nuclear response. It's self-explanatory. A limited or full scale nuclear attack should NK nuke one of our cities. By "on the table" that means exactly what it says. It would be an option. The US has TITANIC conventional capabilities, and taking out "Lil Kim" may not even require nukes should he get stupid enough to take out one of our cities.

As for targets and "what to hit", that is a military question and is up to our intelligence agencies and armed forces. Also playing into it would be considerations for our allies in the region, who may be impacted by fallout, EMP effects, etc.

As for "how sure do you have to be", nuclear weapons have fingerprints. It's easy enough to tell whether the weapon used against the US was of North Korean make.

Wrong.  You claim it is "self=explanatory" when you can't answer a direct question.  One nuclear weapon brings an immediate North Korean strike on Seoul.  Millions dead, following the exchange.

Things you claim are "easy enough" are certainly not.  Iran and North Korea are cooperating right now.  They can share information and expertise very easily.  NK could provide help to terrorist groups without actually delivering a finished nuclear weapon.

So, add another couple of wrinkles, since you moved a step or two down the road.  I'm waiting about a mile down it, but you might eventually arrive.

NK provides some nuclear material that ISIS uses to make a dirty bomb.  ISIS hits us with a dirty bomb, minimal death and destruction.

ISIS uses anthrax or VX or other such weapons.  Hundreds killed, mass panic.  We were told often that the anthrax used during the postal attacks was weaponized, and just had to come from Iraq.  Was it true?  Was it easily traced?

So, are you willing to kill millions of Koreans over what ISIS does?

[fortyofforty]

7 hours ago, tsmo1066 said:

 

How does hitting their launch sites help? It's a bit late to do so after he launches weapons against America, which is the threat. You are also operating under the myth that it requires a missile to nuke a city. Taking out Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu or any other coastal target is as easy as loading a weapon onto a fishing trawler, submarine or third-party container ship and sailing it into a harbor. In a world where 7 out of 8 drug shipments slip past our Federal agencies it's not much of a trick to pull off. 

It's self-explanatory.  You hit them before the missiles are launched.

You are operating under the myth that it is easy to trace the origin of weapons back to their source, or that there even is one source for weapons that can be pieced together from components of many origins.  You hit North Korea, you hit Iran, you hit Venezuela, you hit Lebanon, you hit Yemen, you hit Pakistan...

You are also living in the fantasyland that nuclear material isn't floating around, enough to create dirty bombs, from various origins.  Medical waste and power plants provide great sources of material for those with the will.  NK could simply facilitate the acquisition by a terrorist group.

It's not much of a trick to change the signature enough to obscure the origin, enough that the international community, including millions of South Koreans and Japanese, wouldn't be willing to live with the consequences of a nuclear attack by the United States.

[tsmo1066]

2 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

It's self-explanatory.  You hit them before the missiles are launched.

You are operating under the myth that it is easy to trace the origin of weapons back to their source, or that there even is one source for weapons that can be pieced together from components of many origins.  You hit North Korea, you hit Iran, you hit Venezuela, you hit Lebanon, you hit Yemen, you hit Pakistan...

You are also living in the fantasyland that nuclear material isn't floating around, enough to create dirty bombs, from various origins.  Medical waste and power plants provide great sources of material for those with the will.  NK could simply facilitate the acquisition by a terrorist group.

It's not much of a trick to change the signature enough to obscure the origin, enough that the international community, including millions of South Koreans and Japanese, wouldn't be willing to live with the consequences of a nuclear attack by the United States.

 You are wrong on every count.

1) You are back to the failed argument that a pre-emptive strike would work. It WON'T, and that has been pounded home ad-nauseum. 

2) It very much IS easy to trace the origin of a nuclear weapon back to its source. Your ignorance is showing. Each nuclear weapon employs distinctive grades of fissile materials, these materials leave behind a radiation signature that can be analyzed to tell how the materials were processed, their specific grade and other information which tells analysts what sort of nuke was used and where its fissile materials were made.

3) We are not talking about nukes that were "made from several different origins" and are instead talking about a North Korean nuke being sold to terrorists. The scenario that you yourself laid out was one of North Korea selling a nuke to terrorists, not one of terrorists cobbling a nuke together from multiple disparate sources. You are trying to move the goalposts, and it ain't working.

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by tsmo1066

[tsmo1066]

2 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Wrong.  You claim it is "self=explanatory" when you can't answer a direct question.

That is simply untrue. I answered your question directly, completely and honestly. You simply cannot handle that fact and are now pretending otherwise.

[fortyofforty]

11 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

That is simply untrue. I answered your question directly, completely and honestly. You simply cannot handle that fact and are now pretending otherwise.

Wrong.  There is a big difference between a limited nuclear strike and a full-scale nuclear strike, as you should know.  Saying some catchphrase like "it's self-explanatory" does not make it so.  That's why I continually have to demand clarification for your "self-explanatory" drivel.

[fortyofforty]

13 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

 You are wrong on every count.

1) You are back to the failed argument that a pre-emptive strike would work. It WON'T, and that has been pounded home ad-nauseum. 

2) It very much IS easy to trace the origin of a nuclear weapon back to its source. Your ignorance is showing. Each nuclear weapon employs distinctive grades of fissile materials, these materials leave behind a radiation signature that can be analyzed to tell how the materials were processed, their specific grade and other information which tells analysts what sort of nuke was used and where its fissile materials were made.

3) We are not talking about nukes that were "made from several different origins" and are instead talking about a North Korean nuke being sold to terrorists. The scenario that you yourself laid out was one of North Korea selling a nuke to terrorists, not one of terrorists cobbling a nuke together from multiple disparate sources. You are trying to move the goalposts, and it ain't working.

 

False.

1)  Because you say a pre-emotive strike won't work does not make it true.  You might truly believe what you write, but it is false.

2)  It is not always easy to trace the origin of radioactive material back to its source.  And even if it were traced back, I am still waiting for you to answer whether you would be willing to kill millions of Koreans over a dirty bomb or some other attack carried out by ISIS, not by North Korea.

3)  North Korea doesn't have to sell anything to anybody.  They could easily supply technology to Iran, or assistance to a terrorist group, that is then able to construct a dirty bomb or even a functioning nuclear weapon.  The question remains, as above.  Would be willing to kill millions of Koreans over a dirty bomb or some other attack carried out by ISIS, not by North Korea.

So, again I await your answers.  Eventually I'll get it out of you.

[willie-pete]

The lauch from mobile launchers for the most part; there are no "launch sites". They can pull off  road and launch.

 

[devildog2067]

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

False.

1)  Because you say a pre-emotive strike won't work does not make it true.  You might truly believe what you write, but it is false.

This one goes both ways. You now have 4 people, with a range of different relevant experience, who are all telling you that it won't work and refuting specifically the points you are making. You are wrong, no two ways about it. Saying things like "do whatever it takes" doesn't make it possible.

To be very specific: there is currently no way to execute a pre-emptive strike on the NK artillery emplaced at the border that will take it out before it can fire, except using weapons large enough that they will make Seoul uninhabitable. We do not have the capability to do so. No one does. 

[fortyofforty]

2 minutes ago, devildog2067 said:

This one goes both ways. You now have 4 people, with a range of different relevant experience, who are all telling you that it won't work and refuting specifically the points you are making. You are wrong, no two ways about it. Saying things like "do whatever it takes" doesn't make it possible.

To be very specific: there is currently no way to execute a pre-emptive strike on the NK artillery emplaced at the border that will take it out before it can fire, except using weapons large enough that they will make Seoul uninhabitable. We do not have the capability to do so. No one does. 

Again, four anonymous internet "Experts" with a range of different experience counts for very little, honestly.

You might believe something is true.  That doesn't make it so.  It goes both ways.

The point about the artillery is why I recommended evacuating Seoul, or at least starting the evacuation.

If you can read, you'll see I was speaking about first strike capability to take out ICBMs before they can be prepared and launched at the United States.  If you think we cannot do so, you have a very shallow understanding of nuclear capability or the accuracy of our nuclear arsenal.  Will is another matter, but capability should be beyond dispute.

[fortyofforty]

Waiting for North Korea to perfect a small nuclear warhead to mount on an ICBM seems less and less like a good idea, based on the views of the "experts" here, doesn't it?

[tsmo1066]

30 minutes ago, willie-pete said:

The lauch from mobile launchers for the most part; there are no "launch sites". They can pull off  road and launch.

 

 

Says who? I mean, you're just an old Air Force missile jock who did this stuff for a freaking living, and I'm nothing but an old MLRS Launcher Chief. What the hell would either of us know about missiles or rocket launchers?

Edited January 4, 2018 by tsmo1066

[fortyofforty]

Those are SCUD-er images, in any case.

[fortyofforty]

But what would I know?  

[fortyofforty]

Still dancing around my question, aren't we?

For one example, North Korea exported uranium haxafluoride years ago.  Has it stopped?  Are we sure?  How sure are we, as sure as we were about Iraq's WMDs?  And if a terrorist group uses some of that material for a dirty bomb, are you willing to kill millions of Koreans over it?

[tsmo1066]

30 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Those are SCUD-er images, in any case.

 

Those are just example photos, but you already knew that.

Below, North Korea's KN-14 and KN-20 ICBMs (KN-20 at bottom). Note the MOBILE LAUNCHERS. The KN-14 can hit Hawaii and the KN-20 can allegedly reach California.

tagon-confirms-new-north-korean-icbm/

 

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/hwasong-14/

Edited January 4, 2018 by tsmo1066

[tsmo1066]

9 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

But what would I know?  

Very little.

[fortyofforty]

20 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

Very little.

Did you finally find some appropriate photographs, then, instead of stupid wrong ones to "prove" your point.  

[AK_Stick]

1 minute ago, fortyofforty said:

Did you finally find some appropriate photographs, then, instead of stupid wrong ones to "prove" your point.  

Big talk from the guy who got national policy wrong in the very articles he posted as proof of said policy.....

 

[tsmo1066]

2 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Did you finally find some appropriate photographs, then, instead of stupid wrong ones to "prove" your point.  

Sorry that it hurts you so much, but your argument that North Korea has "launch sites" that we can just take out pre-emptively in order to neutralize their ICBM threat was WRONG. Fact is, their ICBMs are mobile and can fire from anywhere.

You know nothing of the topic you are arguing.

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by tsmo1066

[fortyofforty]

It is clear what we learned long ago in my profession.  Those in operational units in the field had little knowledge of overall strategy or equipment outside their immediate realm of expertise.  It is a point proven again and again here.  Thanks to all of you for reinforcing that truism.

[AK_Stick]

1 minute ago, fortyofforty said:

It is clear what we learned long ago in my profession.  Those in operational units in the field had little knowledge of overall strategy or equipment outside their immediate realm of expertise.  It is a point proven again and again here.  Thanks to all of you for reinforcing that truism.

And what profession was that?

[fortyofforty]

1 minute ago, AK_Stick said:

Big talk from the guy who got national policy wrong in the very articles he posted as proof of said policy.....

 

Still claiming it is not national policy that North Korea will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, then?  Care to post an article in which our national policy is articulated as allowing NK to possess nuclear weapons or do you simply want to keep posting nonsense while shucking and jiving?  Clearly, you've chosen shucking and jiving.

[AK_Stick]

12 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Still claiming it is not national policy that North Korea will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, then?  Care to post an article in which our national policy is articulated as allowing NK to possess nuclear weapons or do you simply want to keep posting nonsense while shucking and jiving?  Clearly, you've chosen shucking and jiving.

 

Claiming our national policy is to not allow them to get or develop something they currently have is a self defeating argument

 

 

What was the profession you're claiming? Obviously not military from your post history.....

Edited January 4, 2018 by AK_Stick