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

[fortyofforty]

4 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

 

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

Which Administration has stated a policy of allowing North Korea to possess nuclear weapons?  Specifically, which one or ones?  Please cite the stated policy, or admit you are lying.

[tsmo1066]

16 minutes 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.

You are the one who was wrong, not the rest of us. Your argument claiming we can take out NK's nuclear "launch sites" pre-emptively was flat-out, demonstrably FALSE. The only truism proven here is that you know not of what you speak.

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by tsmo1066

[fortyofforty]

ISIS hits us with a dirty bomb with nuclear material probably provided by North Korea, minimal death and destruction.

ISIS uses anthrax or VX or other such weapons, probably provided by North Korea.  Hundreds killed, mass panic.  

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

[fortyofforty]

3 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

You are the one who was wrong, not the rest of us. Your argument claiming we can take out NK's nuclear "launch sites" pre-emptively was flat-out, demonstrably FALSE. The only truism proven here is that you know not of what you speak.

 

Spouting off louder and louder doesn't make what you claim any more true.  So, keep pretending that you have demonstrated that we can't take out North Korea's nuclear missile launch sites right now, since you all forget that it cannot mount a nuclear warhead on a mobile ICBM.  I'll remain in reality.

[fortyofforty]

Here's a photo of you guys.  You can be proud you're famous.

[AK_Stick]

The irony of claiming that spouting off louder doesn't make your argument true, when you're arguing against fact, and misquoting the very articles you use as "proof"

[tsmo1066]

Just now, fortyofforty said:

Spouting off louder and louder doesn't make what you claim any more true. 

No, but linking specific references proving that North Korea's ICBMs are, in fact, fully mobile and capable of being launched from anywhere very much DOES prove you to be flat-out wrong.

You will simply have to deal with that.

[AK_Stick]

He'll remain in reality.

 

Reality where national policy is "massive retaliation to prevent NK from developing nuclear weapons"

 

And evacuating Seoul "to the south" "with busses" are realistic options.

[fortyofforty]

12 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

The irony of claiming that spouting off louder doesn't make your argument true, when you're arguing against fact, and misquoting the very articles you use as "proof"

Again, I have stated accurately what is our national policy.  You have provided nothing.  Please quote our stated national policy, where it says North Korea will be allowed to keep nuclear weapons.  Just one quote from a former President or Secretary of State.  Just one.

[fortyofforty]

9 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

He'll remain in reality.

 

Reality where national policy is "massive retaliation to prevent NK from developing nuclear weapons"

 

And evacuating Seoul "to the south" "with busses" are realistic options.

Who stated "massive retaliation to prevent NK from developing nuclear weapons"?  Post the original quote.

[fortyofforty]

13 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

No, but linking specific references proving that North Korea's ICBMs are, in fact, fully mobile and capable of being launched from anywhere very much DOES prove you to be flat-out wrong.

You will simply have to deal with that.

But understanding that NK does not currently possess nuclear warheads capable of being launched from ICBMs is fundamental, something that escapes your limited intellect.

[SC Tiger]

On 12/29/2017 at 7:26 PM, TeaDub said:

I don't see a preemptive nuclear strike on NK as a viable or good option. In response to the use of WMD by them? Absolutely.

NK has had the ability to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, for years. It has not happened. Why? Because Kim knows that his cushy lifestyle would end shortly thereafter. Like it or not, the world is becoming a more dangerous place. I'm pretty surprised that nuclear weapon technology has taken so long to spread. Are we going to make parking lots of every country that makes threats but actually DOES nothing?

My solution is to put financial pressure on China. Real pressure. Make them either take out Kim or have his economy completely crumble. While I don't have quite the ties to SK as @devildog2067, my wife was born and raised in the south. Her family is still there. I tend to follow the news from that side of the world.

Another problem with ballistic nukes in NK is the fact that China or Russia may flip out, think they are headed for THEM, and start shooting back.  I would guess that's why the USS Georgia (I think) is there.  She's an older Ohio class that uses cruise missiles with nukes.  Different launch profile (I think that's the right term).  Doesn't come out like something that would be going towards China or Russia.

On 12/30/2017 at 7:52 PM, willie-pete said:

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

What the hell is that?

On 12/30/2017 at 11:59 PM, willie-pete said:

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/

Oh.  Okay.  Those look like fun.

 

I think the way this NK thing is gonna go is either LUFF is gonna back down, or if it does hit the fan, it will be a case where NK hits first and then gets absolutely annihilated.  Pre-emptive strike is ruled out by the arty near Seoul.  But if it goes live then all bets are off and may as well turn Pyongyang into a parking lot.  Use the big boys to destroy anywhere air cover could come from and then try to deal with the arty.

 

My belief is that if NK does open up that arty near the border, then hold nothing back.  Hit Pyongyang with everything available and absolutely demolish it.  Demolish every military target hard and fast and ruthlessly.  Every military base, every missile launch point, every naval station - absolutely everything.  Hope like hell you can take out enough that someone will figure out that shelling SK is pointless.  I don't know.

 

If this goes live a shitload of people are going to die.  Gotta accept that.  My understanding (admittedly limited) of the NK artillery network in the mountains is that it isn't enough to destroy Seoul but is enough to really put a hurt on it.

[AK_Stick]

On 1/2/2018 at 6:15 PM, fortyofforty said:

Yep.  I've stated it above.  Do you agree?  You, personally.  Massive retaliation if NK develops nuclear weapons, as our clearly stated national policy?  Based on facts, of course.

25 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Who stated "massive retaliation to prevent NK from developing nuclear weapons"?  Post the original quote.

You mean this one?

[fortyofforty]

41 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

You mean this one?

Yes, our stated policy.  Do you agree with that statement or not?  Do you agree with our national policy or not?

[fortyofforty]

On 1/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, fortyofforty said:

Let me give it a try.

It is the government's policy not to allow a nuclear armed North Korea.  It is the government's policy not to allow North Korea to develop missiles that can strike the United States with nuclear warheads.

Yes, that's about it.  That's how your answers work.  This is pretty easy.

Here are the predicate statements.

[willie-pete]

2 hours 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.

That was not true in my operational unit. We had classified briefings every alert which included what was going on in the world that might effect us, what new weapons the Soviets had just tested and their capabilities. Hell, I even knew where my particular " surprise package " would end up and what the effect would be.

[tsmo1066]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

But understanding that NK does not currently possess nuclear warheads capable of being launched from ICBMs is fundamental, something that escapes your limited intellect.

Irrelevant and a dodge. You asserted that we could pre-emptively hit North Korea's "launch sites" successfully in order to prevent an attack against Hawaii, California, etc.

You were wrong. Deal with it.

[fortyofforty]

4 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

Irrelevant and a dodge. You asserted that we could pre-emptively hit North Korea's "launch sites" successfully in order to prevent an attack against Hawaii, California, etc.

You were wrong. Deal with it.

Perfectly relevant.  We can hit its launch sites.  It CANNOT hit us with nuclear armed ICBMs RIGHT NOW.  Exactly as I stated.  Do you claim otherwise?  Do you want to wait while it continues to work up to where it can do so?  Then, wait while it perfects mobile ICBMs that can deliver nuclear warheads?

You are wrong.  Deal with it and move on.

[fortyofforty]

12 minutes ago, willie-pete said:

That was not true in my operational unit. We had classified briefings every alert which included what was going on in the world that might effect us, what new weapons the Soviets had just tested and their capabilities. Hell, I even knew where my particular " surprise package " would end up and what the effect would be.

I have seen that operational units do not receive all the intelligence possessed by higher echelon intelligence units.  There is simply no "need to know" such information, especially with units that are near front lines.  They need to know how to deliver their own weapons, quickly and efficiently.  They don't need to know about the details of enemy weapons platforms.  That's a fact.  Sorry if you can't see it.

[willie-pete]

17 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

I have seen that operational units do not receive all the intelligence possessed by higher echelon intelligence units.  There is simply no "need to know" such information, especially with units that are near front lines.  They need to know how to deliver their own weapons, quickly and efficiently.  They don't need to know about the details of enemy weapons platforms.  That's a fact.  Sorry if you can't see it.

We may not have needed it , but we sure got it.  OTOH, we all had TS-Crypto clearances, so we probably got more info than most other operational units from the in house EWO guys.

[willie-pete]

27 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Perfectly relevant.  We can hit its launch sites.  It CANNOT hit us with nuclear armed ICBMs RIGHT NOW.  Exactly as I stated.  Do you claim otherwise?  Do you want to wait while it continues to work up to where it can do so?  Then, wait while it perfects mobile ICBMs that can deliver nuclear warheads?

You are wrong.  Deal with it and move on.

We CANNOT hit their launch site if all they have to do is pull off the road and launch.  That was the whole idea for the Peacekeeper Rail Garrison.

[tsmo1066]

39 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

We can hit its launch sites. 

No we cannot, because he doesn't have any. The only fixed "launch sites" he uses for ICBMs are for testing. In the real SHTF, his KN-14s and KN-20s operate off of mobile launchers that can be hidden, moved, and can launch from anywhere.

You do not understand that which you are arguing.

Edited January 4, 2018 by tsmo1066

[AK_Stick]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

Yes, our stated policy.  Do you agree with that statement or not?  Do you agree with our national policy or not?

That's neither our stated policy nor what the question was.

 

You asked who stated that quote. I proved it was you.

[tsmo1066]

11 minutes ago, willie-pete said:

We CANNOT hit their launch site if all they have to do is pull off the road and launch.  That was the whole idea for the Peacekeeper Rail Garrison.

As well as our Ohio Class submarines.

[willie-pete]

1 hour ago, tsmo1066 said:

As well as our Ohio Class submarines.

Yep, but subs weren't as much fun as trains.