North Korea's nukes

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by pjohns, Jan 5, 2017.

  1. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Kim Jong-un (of North Korea) has been fervidly pursuing nuclear weapons. In fact, he very recently announced that the rogue nation has now acquired them.

    Just a couple of days ago, Charles Krauthammer--on Fox News--had a rather trenchant observation, I believe.

    He suggested that there are only three possible responses to this:

    Response #1: Launch a pre-emptive war. Although this may, superficially, seem like a decent option, the fact is that Kim Jong-un would almost certainly respond by invading South Korea; and that would provoke a response from Washington. Put another way, we would almost immediately be embroiled in a land war on the Asian peninsula--complete with (many) American casualties.

    Response #: Do nothing. In other words, just hope that our ABM system works as advertised.

    But if it does not, Los Angeles and San Francisco might soon be reduced to cinders.

    Response #3: Announce that we look favorably upon Japan's pursuit of nuclear weapons. This might just alarm the leaders in China--which, of course, is North Korea's client--and thereby provoke them into doing something, to rein in their puppet.

    Of the three options, Option #3 does not seem to have a downside.

    But what do others think?
     
  2. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What makes you think Kim would even survive the first onslaught?

    Even if Kim did survive unscathed, what makes you think he would be able to exercise command and control over his military forces?

    How do you even know the North Korean military would fight?

    Given the fact that North Korea would be effectively blockaded and its logistics in total disarray, how long do you think North Korea could sustain a conflict?

    That assumes that North Korean delivery systems work as intended, are accurate and that their nuclear weapons work as intended.

    The down-side would be that North Korea may attempt a pre-emptive strike on Japan to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons.
     
  3. Cdnpoli

    Cdnpoli Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    6,013
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the Jong Un family are American puppets that spy on the Russians and Chinese. Why do you think the US hadn't done anything before they had nukes?
     
  4. EMTdaniel86

    EMTdaniel86 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    9,380
    Likes Received:
    4,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don’t think he has any many nuclear weapons as he says he does. I think he has the most 3 maybe 4 low yield warheads. The 2nd and IMO the most part of a nuclear weapon is the delivery vehicle. There is no way in hell they have something that can reach mainland US.
    I believe because of the infrastructure that you need to have in order to have a nuclear weapons program. And I really don’t see how NK can have that infrastructure.
     
  5. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is possible, I suppose, that he would not.

    But would you really be entirely sanguine about taking such a chance?

    Again: Would you feel comfortable in assuming that he would not?

    Same question as above.

    Why do you suppose that they would be "blockaded"?

    Presumably, they could "sustain [such] a conflict" for long enough to cause many American casualties.

    Once more: Would you feel entirely comfortable in betting that they would not?

    Not if we were to make such an announcement before the North Koreans perfect their nuclear weapons, and miniaturize them, so as to fit the warheads on missiles.
     
  6. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you want peace in the region, then eliminating the North Korean dictatorship is key.

    Kim is not a military commander. He wouldn't know what to do sitting in the ruble of his kingdom.

    Why do you not know how to read maps?

    Two to three carrier battle groups and at least one amphibious assault group would be parked off the coasts of North Korea.


    Why do you not understand that the US would move to gain air superiority before committing troops to a ground war?

    First, let's be real: you don't even understand miniaturization.

    Second, miniaturization isn't necessary in order for North Korea to mount nuclear warheads on missile systems.

    Finally, allowing or assisting Japan in the quest for nuclear weapons would make the US a hypocrite regarding its current policies and stance on non-proliferation.
     
  7. straight ahead

    straight ahead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,647
    Likes Received:
    6,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Me shoot lockett!

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If I were the POTUS, I would be speaking quietly to the Chinese and the Russians. I would tell them in the gravest possible terms that if the N. Koreans develop the capability to fire nuclear armed missiles to Hawaii, Alaska, or the mainland U.S., we will preemptively destroy them overnight using every asset we possess. Every asset, overnight.

    I would suggest that they do something about N. Korea, particularly the Chinese who are Kim's biggest benefactor. Maybe they could invite him to China for a big Communist celebration or something, but his jet would malfunction or something. Maybe he would choke on his food ... whatever.

    I would suggest that, after FattyFatty is gone, N. Korea could remain communist and under their sphere of influence, but that it could at least be sane and peaceful. I would suggest that it is time for the grown-ups to assert control before we have to do what we have to do.

    My two cents ... :oldman:
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  9. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This sounds perilously close to the view that the end justifies the means--which is a principle that I totally reject, whether in politics or anything else.

    In fact, it is downright Machiavellian.

    At first, I was confused, since the ruble is the Russian unit of currency.

    I am guessing, however, that you probably meant rubble.

    The fallacy that you have just committed is known, officially, as the petitio principii fallacy (or question begging): You have included the conclusion (i.e. that I do not know "how to read maps") within the question.

    Do you really think that we could accomplish this without provoking a war before we were entirely ready for it?

    You are committing the same fallacy again.

    In any case, our having established "air superiority" would not at all vitiate the near certainty that North Korea would launch a land invasion into the South--thereby drawing in American ground troops.

    So I ask again: Do you really think that the American people would support our engaging in a ground war on the Asian peninsula?

    It is probably not a very good debating tactic to insult the intelligence of one's opponent.

    Who ever said anything about our "assisting" Japan with its quest for nuclear weapons?

    And who are we, anyway, to say whether another sovereign nation may do this or that, as regarding its national security?

    As for the doctrine of "non-proliferation," that is a joke, anyway. (Within a generation--or two generations, at the most--I would seriously doubt that there will be even one developed nation that does not possess nuclear weapons. But so what?)
     
  10. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But it's the US who holds the hypocritical position. Why was "Regime Change" effected in Yugoslavia, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan and a current attempt at "Regime Change" in Syria and Yemen, but not North Korea?

    Well, apparently you don't know how to read maps, or you'd know that North Korea has a coast-line on its East and West, which would be occupied by US Naval Forces, creating a blockade to prevent supplies from reaching North Korea via seaports.


    Yes, having been in Panama and Iraq, the US certainly could.


    The US has two amphibious assault groups. Why would North Korea invade South Korea while allowing the Marines to land in the rear area on the East and West Coasts of North Korea?

    I get that strategy is beyond your understanding.

    To eliminate a brutal dictator with "WMD" who constantly threatened the US and its Allies, the people would support a war.

    Where would Japan test its spherical implosion devices? On Japanese soil?

    You might want to look at a map of Japan.

    When the National Security of a nation-State interferes with the National Security of the US or its Allies, then the US does have that right.

    The Scandinavian Kingdoms are not going to waste money developing nuclear weapons, when they're already under the US/NATO shield.
     
  11. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just say that if they ever use one that we will kill everthing in North Korea, including the bugs and every plant. The land will be as barren as the moon.
     
  12. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you want peace in the region, then eliminating the North Vietnam dictatorship is key.
    Two to three carrier battle groups and at least one amphibious assault group would be parked off the coasts of North Vietnam.
    Why do you not understand that the US would move to gain air superiority before committing troops to a ground war?


    Hmmm, sounds all too familiar and all too easy.
     
  13. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps there is, indeed, some "hypocri[sy] involved here, on the part of the US government.

    But that does not mean that I would endorse this action.

    In any case, this amounts to a tu quoque fallacy.

    Which would amount to an act of war.

    Please, let us not tap dance around this fact.

    North Korea--complete with a maniacal "leader"--is not Panama or Iraq.

    As I mentioned previously--and I will try just this one more time, before ignoring you entirely--insults are really not a good basis for a productive discussion.

    Then we probably shall never agree here.

    The US is now war-weary; so probably nothing, short of an actual invasion of American soil (as happened, say, at Pearl Harbor, in 1941) would create widespread support for a war, in my opinion--whatever the nascent threat.

    Well, certainly not in the US--or in any other sovereign nation, either.

    Since I do not believe in "International Law" (that is truly a joke, in my opinion), I would say that the US does have a "right" to strike another country whenever it wishes--and for whatever reason.

    But I seriously doubt that it would do so, short of widespread American support for such an action.

    I am not at all certain about that.

    But even if that were true--and if my statement was, therefore, technically incorrect--I would think that most of the developed countries of the world, at least, would possess nuclear weapons within a generation or two.

    And it is not something that I look upon with dread, in the slightest...
     
  14. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Option#4~ Assasination
     
  15. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US already effected "Regime Change" in Iraq on the basis that Iraq possessed "WMD". The US has repeatedly asserted that Syria has "WMD" and is currently attempting to effect "Regime Change" by arming, supplying and training rebels to overthrow the Assad Government,

    To not effect "Regime Change" in North Korea with its dictatorial leadership who possesses at least several nuclear weapons and constantly threatens to use "WMD" is hypocritical.

    North Korea is free to file a protest with the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly or act in any other way it feels appropriate.

    Right, which makes the US position even more hypocritical.

    It would be easier if you just admitted that you're strategically-challenged.

    Not to worry, plenty of federal employees in the Alphabet Agencies, Intelligence Community, Defense Department and State Department got your back.

    North Korea tested two devices with yields approximately 2 kilotons. Assuming those where the intended yields, such devices would have used only 4.5 kg of weapons grade Plutonium each.

    Such devices would be as small as 9" in diameter and ~13" in length/height, weighing only ~52 pounds....which could easily be concealed in back-pack and walked across the porous US southern border with Mexico.

    Then that limits Japan to developing Uranium-based warheads only using gun-designs (which don't require testing), and further effectively limits Japan's delivery capabilities to air only.

    The US would be neutering a maniacal leader who possesses Plutonium-based nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them.

    I am.

    The cost to develop, maintain, secure and operate a nuclear weapons infrastructure by the Scandinavian Kingdoms would detract from their Social Welfare Programs.

    You can rest assured that you're wrong.
     
  16. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The comparisons are not valid, since the US refused to take the war to North Vietnam. If the US had fought Germany the way it fought North Vietnam, you'd still be fighting WW II or have long since given up and withdrawn. Successful resolution of any military conflict requires Friendly Forces to close with and destroy Threat Forces, not dance around them.

    You also ignore the fact that the North Vietnamese were willing to fight, while there is some question as whether or not North Korean units would obey orders and deploy. For all you know, North Korean military units might march on the capital to seize power.
     
  17. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And when China and Russia come back and say "Any attack on North Korea with nuclear weapons will be considered an attack on us", what would you do then?
     
  18. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    51,206
    Likes Received:
    37,552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conventional bombing will do the same thing just takes a few extra load is all ;)
     
  19. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Response #2 we still maintain overwhelming nuclear superiority, forget MAD.
     
  20. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's a Fisher-Price forum elsewhere on the web.
     
  21. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And when the North Koreans respond with a massed nerve gas strike against Soeul and cities in Japan?
     
  22. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We tried to bomb the crap out of them before launching a ground invasion. It didn't work.
    http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/operation-rolling-thunder
    During the Vietnam War (1954-75), as part of the strategic bombing campaign known as Operation Rolling Thunder, U.S. military aircraft attacked targets throughout North Vietnam from March 1965 to October 1968. This massive bombardment was intended to put military pressure on North Vietnam’s Communist leaders and reduce their capacity to wage war against the U.S.-supported government of South Vietnam.


    The Korean war of the 1950's didn't work out too well either.

    That's what the hawks thought would happen when we liberated the Iraqis from their despotic leader.
     
  23. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The entire world carpet bombs them and there's no more north korea.
     
  24. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet hundreds of thousands of Japanese and South Koreans would still be dead over a war of choice.
     
  25. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You asked the question. I just answered it and told you what would happen.
     

Share This Page