If North Korea were to successfully carry out a nuclear strike against the United States would you consider such an event to be a failure of the Trump administration or administrations past? Or perhaps both?
In addition to this do you think the US would need to change the way it handles verbal threats of attacks from foreign enemies going forward that abondons the peaceful use of sanctions? In other words would all bets be off for you in the aftermath of a North Korean attack?
(08-07-2017, 12:13 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: If North Korea were to successfully carry out a nuclear strike against the United States would you consider such an event to be a failure of the Trump administration or administrations past? Or perhaps both?
In addition to this do you think the US would need to change the way it handles verbal threats of attacks from foreign enemies going forward that abondons the peaceful use of sanctions? In other words would all bets be off for you in the aftermath of a North Korean attack?
I'd consider a failure of every administration over the last 20 years or so. I pointed out in another thread that while we were explaining it away as just a crazy guy looking for attention, North Korea is now a year away from actually being able to do what they have been threatening for years. At some point we will need to handle this. We don't need China's help, but we need their assurance they will stay out of it. If China is out Russia won't come in either, but if China isn't out then Russia will pile on and we will have an issue. At this point all our diplomatic efforts should be put into getting China to commit to staying on the sidelines.
So are they suicidal? Launching a nuclear weapon means the end of their country.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(08-07-2017, 12:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So are they suicidal? Launching a nuclear weapon means the end of their country.
Crazy and delusional are terms we use with the Kim's quite often. If we are going to use those words then we better accept that they may take actions that lack logic.
(08-07-2017, 12:13 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: If North Korea were to successfully carry out a nuclear strike against the United States would you consider such an event to be a failure of the Trump administration or administrations past? Or perhaps both?
In addition to this do you think the US would need to change the way it handles verbal threats of attacks from foreign enemies going forward that abondons the peaceful use of sanctions? In other words would all bets be off for you in the aftermath of a North Korean attack?
I don't think anything in regard to NK can be attributed to anything Trump has done or not done. Going back 20 years, they threaten a nuclear attack on the US at least monthly. Hard to say anything in the last 6 months changes much the way the US reacts to NK.
As to the last, I would say if the US were nuked, they would have to respond with nukes. I don't think there's any diplomatic channel available after someone nukes you, it's an act of war.
Also if North Korea were to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon, even if nothing was destroyed and there is no loss of life, we tell China and Russia to mind their own business and wipe North Korea off the map. Make North Korea uninhabitable for the next 100 years.
Then announce to the world, "We are sick of this crap. Do whatever you want to each other, we don't care anymore, but leave our allies alone...don't touch them and DON'T **** WITH US! We are tired of this."
(08-07-2017, 12:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: Crazy and delusional are terms we use with the Kim's quite often. If we are going to use those words then we better accept that they may take actions that lack logic.
Delusional up to a point. We have submarines that could pretty much annihilate his whole country. We could even skip the nukes, and still wipe him out. Numbers don't really matter anymore.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
If they struck us first, then it isnt anyone's fault or a failure. It would be 100% on North Korea for using a nuclear warhead without being hit by one first. The only way to blame any president for it is to blame them for not going to war with North Korea to physically destroy their nuclear capabilities. And as we all know, there has never been a time since the Korean War when the people of the U.S. was in favor of going to war again with North Korea, especially these last 10-20 years.
But if it would happen, we would have to strike with tactical nukes to destroy them while keeping fallout to a minimum of not spreading to South Korea or Japan.
(08-07-2017, 01:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: What happens if they UNSUCCESSFULLY try? Say it goes off somewhere over the ocean?
Even with that don't we (someone) have to respond in kind or at least as heavily as possible?
If they send one our way or an allies way, and it goes off prematurely, then that is not only an act of war, but an act of nuclear war. We would have to respond in kind imo, but not launch our tactical nukes at their cities. Aim for their military centers, bunkers, possible silos, etc. Hit their military with everything we can while trying to spare their civilians if possible.
I absolutely would hate to use nukes on them, but the cost of our guys & gals lives fighting a conventional war against them simply isnt worth it.
The simple fact is that no U.S. President has had an answer for North Korea. And that is exactly what China wants.
The Korean War never officially ended. There was no armistice or peace treaty. Only a ceasefire, which has sort of held to this day. It is a shame really, because we had the North Koreans beat. But then China attacked because we were too close to their border (they probably would have attacked anyway just because we entered the North), and our general public and political sentiment at the time was that we didn't want to tangle with China in a land war. To be sure, it wasn't just the Chinese. There was also a concern that the Soviets would get involved (actually, they did get involved to a limited degree) or could take advantage of the prolonged war to invade other places such as Western Europe. We retreated from the North to make the peace.
I suppose one could look at the facts and say that we should have done something about North Korea way back when. But North Korea has never been the real problem here. The problem is China and us not wanting to face China. The problem is also Putin's Russia, which would seek to take advantage of the situation. Something to consider as well: China and Russia both border North Korea, and both hardly seem to be very bothered by the North Koreans developing nuclear weapons or ICBM's. That is because they are pretty certain those weapons aren't aimed at them. Think about that for a minute.
You see, Russia and China are used to living next to countries which have nuclear weapons. They are next to each other and China is also next to India and Pakistan. Both countries have "no first use" policies.
BTW - Some people have the misconception that the U.S. will only use nuclear weapons if someone uses them on us first. That has never been our policy. We are the only country to have used them in combat and we are the only country to threaten to use them. We threatened Hanoi in 1954 as the French were being defeated at Dien Bien Phu in order to negotiate a peace. We also threatened to use them in 1953 to bring the Chinese and North Koreans to the peace table. Our main strategy to defeat the Soviets in the event of an invasion of West Germany was to nuke Fulda Gap with short-range nukes. And we were pretty open about that. Our official policy has been and continues to be that we reserve the right to use them first.
(08-07-2017, 06:08 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The simple fact is that no U.S. President has had an answer for North Korea. And that is exactly what China wants.
The Korean War never officially ended. There was no armistice or peace treaty. Only a ceasefire, which has sort of held to this day. It is a shame really, because we had the North Koreans beat. But then China attacked because we were too close to their border (they probably would have attacked anyway just because we entered the North), and our general public and political sentiment at the time was that we didn't want to tangle with China in a land war. To be sure, it wasn't just the Chinese. There was also a concern that the Soviets would get involved (actually, they did get involved to a limited degree) or could take advantage of the prolonged war to invade other places such as Western Europe. We retreated from the North to make the peace.
I suppose one could look at the facts and say that we should have done something about North Korea way back when. But North Korea has never been the real problem here. The problem is China and us not wanting to face China. The problem is also Putin's Russia, which would seek to take advantage of the situation. Something to consider as well: China and Russia both border North Korea, and both hardly seem to be very bothered by the North Koreans developing nuclear weapons or ICBM's. That is because they are pretty certain those weapons aren't aimed at them. Think about that for a minute.
You see, Russia and China are used to living next to countries which have nuclear weapons. They are next to each other and China is also next to India and Pakistan. Both countries have "no first use" policies.
BTW - Some people have the misconception that the U.S. will only use nuclear weapons if someone uses them on us first. That has never been our policy. We are the only country to have used them in combat and we are the only country to threaten to use them. We threatened Hanoi in 1954 as the French were being defeated at Dien Bien Phu in order to negotiate a peace. We also threatened to use them in 1953 to bring the Chinese and North Koreans to the peace table. Our main strategy to defeat the Soviets in the event of an invasion of West Germany was to nuke Fulda Gap with short-range nukes. And we were pretty open about that. Our official policy has been and continues to be that we reserve the right to use them first.
Does South korea have a military? How about japan?
Sure would be nice if they stepped to the plate. Bust out some kind of shock and awe campagin and avoid the use of nukes. Have the UN step in and pick up the pieces.
Its like letting a stupid fat kid next door sit there with a gun aimed at you and his finger on the trigger. Sooner or later you have to grow a pair and do something.
(08-07-2017, 06:08 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The simple fact is that no U.S. President has had an answer for North Korea. And that is exactly what China wants.
The Korean War never officially ended. There was no armistice or peace treaty. Only a ceasefire, which has sort of held to this day. It is a shame really, because we had the North Koreans beat. But then China attacked because we were too close to their border (they probably would have attacked anyway just because we entered the North), and our general public and political sentiment at the time was that we didn't want to tangle with China in a land war. To be sure, it wasn't just the Chinese. There was also a concern that the Soviets would get involved (actually, they did get involved to a limited degree) or could take advantage of the prolonged war to invade other places such as Western Europe. We retreated from the North to make the peace.
I suppose one could look at the facts and say that we should have done something about North Korea way back when. But North Korea has never been the real problem here. The problem is China and us not wanting to face China. The problem is also Putin's Russia, which would seek to take advantage of the situation. Something to consider as well: China and Russia both border North Korea, and both hardly seem to be very bothered by the North Koreans developing nuclear weapons or ICBM's. That is because they are pretty certain those weapons aren't aimed at them. Think about that for a minute.
You see, Russia and China are used to living next to countries which have nuclear weapons. They are next to each other and China is also next to India and Pakistan. Both countries have "no first use" policies.
BTW - Some people have the misconception that the U.S. will only use nuclear weapons if someone uses them on us first. That has never been our policy. We are the only country to have used them in combat and we are the only country to threaten to use them. We threatened Hanoi in 1954 as the French were being defeated at Dien Bien Phu in order to negotiate a peace. We also threatened to use them in 1953 to bring the Chinese and North Koreans to the peace table. Our main strategy to defeat the Soviets in the event of an invasion of West Germany was to nuke Fulda Gap with short-range nukes. And we were pretty open about that. Our official policy has been and continues to be that we reserve the right to use them first.
Even worse yet, I was reading that NK is building diplomatic alliances with Iran, whom their likely getting their Nuke Tech from. Btw, did you read about Russia's new air weaponry? Their jets are equipped with laser that knocks out the guidance system of missiles.
Oh, and what administration would be to blame? None, all on the aggressor. Let 'em have it, with both barrels, going forward.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(08-07-2017, 06:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Even worse yet, I was reading that NK is building diplomatic alliances with Iran, whom their likely getting their Nuke Tech from. Btw, did you read about Russia's new air weaponry? Their jets are equipped with laser that knocks out the guidance system of missiles.
Oh, and what administration would be to blame? None, all on the aggressor. Let 'em have it, with both barrels, going forward.
It wouldn't be worth the price, but if NK actually hit the US with a nuke or any other kind of missile attack, it would accomplish what now seems impossible. It would unite the people of this country to a degree that it hasn't been in decades. I'd venture to say moreso even than 911. Not only would most of the American public approve of aggression in return, we'd demand it and quick.
(08-07-2017, 06:52 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Does South korea have a military? How about japan?
Sure would be nice if they stepped to the plate. Bust out some kind of shock and awe campagin and avoid the use of nukes. Have the UN step in and pick up the pieces.
Its like letting a stupid fat kid next door sit there with a gun aimed at you and his finger on the trigger. Sooner or later you have to grow a pair and do something.
Honestly I don't thin the Japanese have much of a military at all. They mostly depend on us and have since WWII. We dismantled their military after that. I have heard they are ramping it back up, though if I'm not mistaken.
(08-07-2017, 08:02 PM)samhain Wrote: Honestly I don't thin the Japanese have much of a military at all. They mostly depend on us and have since WWII. We dismantled their military after that. I have heard they are ramping it back up, though if I'm not mistaken.
And it wouldn't take the Japanese long to assemble a tremendous force. Their entire culture is based on honor and discipline. I had a couple of Japanese friends in college. One, in particular, Tomoo. Tomoo or (Tom, as he liked to be called) was a Mathematics major. He told me that when he was young, he was very mediocre in math. His father would make him do calisthenics, and whip him with a cane, just for wrong answers on his homework. Tom went on to not only graduate with his Bachelors in Math, but went on to eventually get his Ph. D. in Mathematics. He really enjoyed music. When I would drop by his dorm room, he would have some crazy high beat music playing on his electronic keyboard. His face would be all aglow. He pulled out a note book with an entire page of calculations on it. He said, actually, this song is that equation in musical form.
Now, if Tom could rise to the talent level that he has, with just an "average" intelligence. How do you think the best and brightest perform in the Japanese culture? I think that if the Japanese ever went military, they would have a formidable force in very little time.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(08-07-2017, 06:52 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Does South korea have a military? How about japan?
Sure would be nice if they stepped to the plate. Bust out some kind of shock and awe campagin and avoid the use of nukes. Have the UN step in and pick up the pieces.
Its like letting a stupid fat kid next door sit there with a gun aimed at you and his finger on the trigger. Sooner or later you have to grow a pair and do something.
The unfortunate reality of North Korea is that there is no "shock and awe" campaign that could invade the country and get to the those nukes before one or more was used, and there is no doubt that the North Koreans would use them if they felt their existence were threatened. Even by the United States. The hilly and mountainous terrain makes a campaign similar to the Iraq Invasion totally impossible there. Even the Iraq Invasion took 6 weeks. We could take North Korean, barring a Chinese intervention. But it would take more along the range of 3 to 6 months.
South Korea has a pretty powerful army, air force and navy. At 675,000 active personnel, the ROK military is one of the largest militaries in the world. They are reported to have upwards of 3 million reservists (however, I'm not sure that their idea of a reservist is the same as ours). Their active Army is well trained and professional (BTW- many people are not aware that ROK contributed over three divisions of troops to South Vietnam during the Vietnam War). Their Air Force fields approximately 450 aircraft, including F-15's. Their Navy is small, but fields numerous advanced destroyers and submarines.
South Korea is not a country to be trifled with. But it should be noted that their military is totally geared for regional action only, primarily defense (i.e. they aren't geared to project much power outside of the Korean Peninsula). They have enough power to defend themselves against the hyper-militarized North Koreans and to probably even defeat them in a war IF no outside powers intervened. Unfortunately, the Koreas are all about outside powers being involved. So that scenario is totally hypothetical. Even in that hypothetical situation, a ROK invasion of the North would take years, not months.
Japan sought to get by with minimal armed forces for several years following World War II. But in 1954, they realized that that was not possible (primarily because of the threat of North Korea. So they created the JSDF (Japan Self-Defense Forces). It is a small, combined force armed forces with approximately 250,000 active personnel and 50,000 reservists. Despite their size, they are higly professional and field some of the most advanced technologies outside of the U.S. But they are totally self-defense oriented and cannot project power outside of Japan. In a future Korean conflict, they would not be sending troops to the peninsula.
I can see your point about the stupid fat kid scenario. But the thing to also consider is that this stupid fat kid has two stupid fat adults (China and Russia) standing behind him with rocket launchers. That's why South Korea looks to us, Rambo, to stand behind them.
BTW - Japan is doing some very advanced work on anti-ballistic missile defenses.
"North Korea has taken a major step forward in realizing its goal of becoming a nuclear power, according to a Washington Post report on a confidential US intelligence assessment that concludes Pyongyang has developed a nuclear warhead capable of fitting inside its missiles. "
As I said standing around doing nothing is not an option anymore. We need to push China to stand down through any means necessary, including flat our bribery. Russia won't back them by themselves, so with China agreeing to stay on the sidelines we can take care of this. I disagree that a coordinated strike can't incapacitate their nuclear capabilities preemptively. The country is basically the size of Alabama, we can take out enough known and suspected instillation to limit the possibilities and trust that anything they have left can't reach us, or won't make it pass our missile defense systems.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
