• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

North Korea threatens US with nuclear strike!

It should be noted that we know that NK has mini subs
 
Well, you can always put it inside a football stadium...

I am not sure if NK's government would really attempt to nuke anyone (at least not directly). Kim and his minions would most likely become scorched radioactive dust in the aftermath. My personal impression is that he tries to use the nukes as a gamble, trying to avoid external interference in his little paradise. But I may be wrong.

Anyhow, USA would a possible target for North Korea. A similar deployment method could also be used in Japan, another possible (perhaps easier) target for NK.

But if some extremist (not necessarily Muslim) group grabs a nuke from NK, directly or not, the target is no longer restricted to USA territory. A "Little Boy" probably could be smuggled more easilly by truck trough Europe or Asia. And those guys like easy targets...
 
Darth Rotor said:
And these mini subs can carry an 9000 lb, dense, nuclear munition how far? :cool:

DR
Click to expand...

That information is classifed. However we know there were plans back during the 50s by the british to use an X boat to lay a nuclear device in a svoiet habour so it would appear to be posible in theory.
 
Correa Neto said:
I am not sure if NK's government would really attempt to nuke anyone (at least not directly). Kim and his minions would most likely become scorched radioactive dust in the aftermath. My personal impression is that he tries to use the nukes as a gamble, trying to avoid external interference in his little paradise. But I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

That's my guess too, and for that threat, he NEEDS ballistic missiles. Minisubs, cargo containers, etc. are fine if you want first-strike capability, but they are useless for retaliatory strikes. And that's the capability you need for the blackmail game. But the possibility of sales (either of weapons, or just weapon technology and materials) to other parties is a serious problem, and we DO need to worry about such delivery mechanisms from potential customers of North Korea.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Nuke North Korea if it happens. Use the "that's where the evidence points to" reasoning. This would require a formal change in policy. I suggest drafting a letter for the President's signature.

Dear Norkers:

If a nuke goes off anywhere in the world, we will blame you. This policy is our way of embracing the "blame the US" meme as a valid political policy mode. What's good for the goose, and all that. Our response will not be limited to conventional means. Its scale we leave to your imagination. If your bunghole puckers at this prospect, we can ship you all of the Preparation H(TM) you desire, as a valid UN approved medical supply.

You are now free to move about the planet in pursuit of random nukes.

This letter will self destruct in 30 seconds.

Yours in haste (I gotta go ride my bike)

GWB

DR
Click to expand...
hah! too funny :D

I think it should read a bit more like:

Dear Mr. IL,

Congratulations on catching up to the 20th century.

Sincerely,
The World
 
Skeptic said:
I once checked. While the president of the USA is officially the head of three or four organizations (e.g., supreme commander of the armed forces, president of the USA, and perhaps another one or two), Kim is, officially, the head of close to 1000 titles.
Click to expand...

Well, when a guy hits 11 holes in one the first time he plays golf, and on his birthday no less, I think he can handle that kind of pressure.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/kim.birthday.reut/
 
Ziggurat said:
That's my guess too, and for that threat, he NEEDS ballistic missiles. Minisubs, cargo containers, etc. are fine if you want first-strike capability, but they are useless for retaliatory strikes.
Click to expand...

Not entirelly. The US can't launch a decisive strike with no preparation, and such preparation (or a gradually escalating war) would give them time to send out Minisubs, or some such.
Also while the ability to strike a major American urban center would clearly be ideal for NK, the ability to strike Tokyo or just Soul might work almost as well. I really know very little about carriers for nuclear weapons, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that at least Soul could be reached by other and more easilly manufactured means than a missile, like perhaps a canon.
 
Kerberos said:
Not entirelly. The US can't launch a decisive strike with no preparation, and such preparation (or a gradually escalating war) would give them time to send out Minisubs, or some such.
Also while the ability to strike a major American urban center would clearly be ideal for NK, the ability to strike Tokyo or just Soul might work almost as well. I really know very little about carriers for nuclear weapons, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that at least Soul could be reached by other and more easilly manufactured means than a missile, like perhaps a canon.
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to be. There is enough conventional artillery pointed at it that it can be leveled in minutes.
 
Kerberos said:
Not entirelly. The US can't launch a decisive strike with no preparation, and such preparation (or a gradually escalating war) would give them time to send out Minisubs, or some such.
Also while the ability to strike a major American urban center would clearly be ideal for NK, the ability to strike Tokyo or just Soul might work almost as well. I really know very little about carriers for nuclear weapons, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that at least Soul could be reached by other and more easilly manufactured means than a missile, like perhaps a canon.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm no weapons expert, but I guess that a single submarine (SSBN?)would be enough to scorch North Korea... And with no visible preparation. Even using just conventional payloads, submarine-launched cruise missiles would be detected too late. I also guess NK's intelligence would have very little information on the preparation of a conventional air attack, using bombers. In all three cases above, they would be caught with their pants down.

NK probably lacks a nuclear warhead small enough to fit within an artillery shell. Sure, one could lauch bigger payloads using those huge guns like Iraq was building. But they are static, and I guess sattelite surveilance would already have detected them, if they exist in NK (oh, yeah, we can imagine some Bond-villain type underground installation, but it seems a bit unlikely).
 
Correa Neto said:
Well, I'm no weapons expert, but I guess that a single submarine (SSBN?)would be enough to scorch North Korea... And with no visible preparation. Even using just conventional payloads, submarine-launched cruise missiles would be detected too late. I also guess NK's intelligence would have very little information on the preparation of a conventional air attack, using bombers. In all three cases above, they would be caught with their pants down.
Click to expand...
SSBN's don't launch SLCM's, they tend to launch MIRV ICBM's.

What would be the purpose of SLCM's if you are bringing it with ICBM'? The NK's have no BMD.

DR
 
Heck, I'm no weapons buff... That's why I placed the "?" after the acronym...

Basically I said I think a single sub capable of launching missiles with nuclear (multi) warheads could devastate NK with no early warning.

And as an alternative, submarine launched cruise missiles with coventional warheads would most likely be detected by the large "BOOOOOMs". If another type of sub has to be used, well, OK. My point is that USA could launch a major attack (nuclear or conventionsl) against MK without showing signs if its intention.
 
Correa Neto said:
My point is that USA could launch a major attack (nuclear or conventionsl) against MK without showing signs if its intention.
Click to expand...
To what end?

China was the enabling force that made North Korea possible. China has been NK's guarantor of continued existence for 50 years. China holds the key to turning on or off the flow of food and materiel that keeps NK from complete collapse.

Why does the US achieve by attacking NK? Nothing, politically, particularly as South Korea is not interested in starting a fight.

DR
 
Kerberos said:
Not entirelly. The US can't launch a decisive strike with no preparation, and such preparation (or a gradually escalating war) would give them time to send out Minisubs, or some such.
Click to expand...

It's true that we cannot launch a decisive strike without preparation, but it's also true that they cannot know if we're preparing for a strike, or just freaking them out. Suppose, for example, they not that our B2 fleet just got sent to Okinawa. Do they take that as a sign that we're about to strike, and launch their minisubs? What if we take no action against them directly, but start hunting their minisubs? What do they do then? They risk losing not only their minisubs, but also their precious nukes.

Ballistic missile-launched nukes offer a deterent capability that no other form of delivery they have can possibly match.
 
geni said:
Doesn't need to be. There is enough conventional artillery pointed at it that it can be leveled in minutes.
Click to expand...

Not true. They can pound it quite hard, and kill a lot of people and do a lot of damage, but they cannot level it with conventional artillery.

Not to mention, it's not even clear how functional all that artillery is, if they even have sufficient amunition deployed to maintain a barrage for long (paranoid dictators often don't want their armed forces fully armed, lest they try a coup), how capable most of those soldiers really are, or whether they'll even stay at their posts once the bullets start flying. Not to mention, if we struck first, they'd lose a lot of that artillery before it could even start to fire back, and if they spend all their time firing at Seoul, they're not going to be able to take out OUR artillery while it picks them off.
 
Uhm.. It was regarding Kerberos's post (see below).

Not entirelly. The US can't launch a decisive strike with no preparation, and such preparation (or a gradually escalating war) would give them time to send out Minisubs, or some such.
Click to expand...

So, the actual point is that NK's rulers must keep this in mind while playing their their cards in the game. The wrong move and they become cinders (radioactive or not). No chance for fighting back or revenge.
 
Correa Neto said:
Uhm.. It was regarding Kerberos's post (see below).



So, the actual point is that NK's rulers must keep this in mind while playing their their cards in the game. The wrong move and they become cinders (radioactive or not). No chance for fighting back or revenge.
Click to expand...
The NK's have been digging tunnels for 50+ years, and underground bunkers. They may be bad guys, but they are not stupid.

DR
 
marksman said:
Russia and China would never agree to a policy like that. Heck, France might not even agree to a policy like that. I know you are both critics of Bush's "go it alone" diplomacy. I doubt you are serious that America should publicly declare it's intention to level two nations in case a third entity should detonate a nuke in a Western city.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's the only way to get the message across -- don't let it happen to begin with. You think the tornado of Afghanistan/Iraq was bad, imagine a US city blowing up. And the worst case scenario is these are rogue nukes from Russia or China.

Then what? Well, if their nukes are gonna get on the black market and blow up our cities anyway...


How would the world respond if the organization claiming responsiblity for the bombing could not be directly traced to NK, Iran, Pakistan or any nation that might be thought to supply them with nukes. What if they claimed to have received the nuke on the black market, implying they got it from someone in the former Soviet Union? How are we to respond?

China and the Russians will not abide a policy in which America threatens to blow up any nation that feasibly has the ability to nuke a city.
Click to expand...

"ability to" falls by the wayside if it turns into "actually happened".

And what will China and Russia do? Threaten nuclear war with the US because the US is threatening to melt NK because they are threatening the US? They will do no such thing if it comes to that, but this is also a threat to help them help NK see the light. The issues are so big, cold-war-by-proxy is not allowed in the nuclear arena.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not true. They can pound it quite hard, and kill a lot of people and do a lot of damage, but they cannot level it with conventional artillery.

Not to mention, it's not even clear how functional all that artillery is, if they even have sufficient amunition deployed to maintain a barrage for long (paranoid dictators often don't want their armed forces fully armed, lest they try a coup), how capable most of those soldiers really are, or whether they'll even stay at their posts once the bullets start flying. Not to mention, if we struck first, they'd lose a lot of that artillery before it could even start to fire back, and if they spend all their time firing at Seoul, they're not going to be able to take out OUR artillery while it picks them off.
Click to expand...


I'm sure the US has a number of daisycutters and MOABs sitting ready to blast a huge dead zone within hours if necessary. Any artillary that's shooting at any kind of regular basis is an easy target. And anything that's shooting sporadically isn't doing much damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom