If a North Korean nuclear attack happened

[Dill]

(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?

Every country, every situation, is different--especially when compared to NK.  There is no "one way" to handle threats of verbal attacks.

We need to not think that we can control everything, that "losing China," or "losing Korea" is always some administration's fault.
There is nothing the US could have done to prevent the creation of NK, short of continuing WWII against our ally, the Soviet Union. Serious diplomacy over the last 30 years MIGHT have prevented the current crisis. We don't know for sure. Also, a failure of which ever administration led to this impasse, if one did fail, is also on the American voters who chose presidents unskilled in government and diplomacy.  We are feeling that bigtime now.

How, exactly, does the US handle verbal threats of attacks? NK was responsive to talks and sanctions during the 90s, but Clinton blew a peaceful nuclear power agreement stalling for regime change. Bush would not talk to "evil," so NK had no reason to trust our "diplomacy."  The IRaq invasion showed the US' willingness to invade whomever we want based upon fabricated intel, never mind that Iraq was already perfectly contained and adhering to post Gulf War agreements. Libya scrapped its nuke program to comply with US wishes--and the US led a bombing campaign against Gaddafi.  The clear lesson from all this is that the US "handles" threats differently from president to president, that the only way you could be SURE the US could not launch a ground invasion is to have nukes.

I don't see any scenario in which NK carries out a nuclear attack on the US without extreme provocation, like a land invasion by the US.

Their leader and ours are both unstable, given to reckless threats. It is not clear how well their advisors can control their actions. Think of the Cuban missile crisis without Kennedy or Khrushchev.  Kim Jong Un may actually have a better sense of geopolitcs, understanding that China and Russia will not sit by while the US rains "fire and fury and, frankly, power" on their doorstep. That is a two edged sword of course. They don't want Kim bringing trouble to their doorstep.

Which is why diplomacy plus sanctions are the best option right now. Kim can't strike everyone sanctioning his regime, and sanctions would bring it down more certainly than military attacks.  The US lacks leadership with any international stature right now. The question is whether people around the current president can manage the crisis. Sad that generals are the only reasonably competent diplomats on the Trump team.

[CageTheBengal]

It's not that black and white. This problem hasn't been isolated to the Trump or the Obama adminstration.

I do think the internet troll we have as our President would hold some blame for pushing him and saying things off the cuff without any advice from his aides.

[*Nately120*]

(08-09-2017, 03:05 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: It's not that black and white. This problem hasn't been isolated to the Trump or the Obama adminstration.

I do think the internet troll we have as our President would hold some blame for pushing him and saying things off the cuff without any advice from his aides.

Why blame Trump?  He's just giving the American voters what they wanted.  Our country decided that diplomacy is for wimps and foreign policy is for elitist brainiacs.  We want less bowing and more bombing.  Get on it Trump, we asked for it.

[*jason*]

(08-09-2017, 03:05 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: It's not that black and white. This problem hasn't been isolated to the Trump or the Obama adminstration.

I do think the internet troll we have as our President would hold some blame for pushing him and saying things off the cuff without any advice from his aides.

I don't know who to blame either. I find it silly and petty that we this sort of relationship with North Korea. The "Domino Effect" turned out to be bullshit. Many Americans lost their lives in a war that accomplished nothing. There's still no resolution to this? 60 years later... Nothing?

The US normalized relations with China while Mao was still alive. They began to do the same with the Soviet Union before it's collapse. Yet here we are with North Korea. What advantage is there to defending South Korea for 60 plus years?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Man, how much nicer is it to live in Ohio? We won't be the ones to experience a North Korean nuclear strike, or an Iranian nuclear strike. Plus 99.9% of people in Russia or Europe can probably only name California, New York, DC, Florida, and Texas. They'll just forget we exist and we'll be fine.

[*jason*]

(08-09-2017, 09:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Man, how much nicer is it to live in Ohio? We won't be the ones to experience a North Korean nuclear strike, or an Iranian nuclear strike. Plus 99.9% of people in Russia or Europe can probably only name California, New York, DC, Florida, and Texas. They'll just forget we exist and we'll be fine.

I don't think North Korea is going to hit anything. Iran sure as hell isn't... But if North Korea could hit Chicago it would suck pretty bad in Ohio. No? Personally I'd rather go out in an instant than deal with the radiation slowly.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-09-2017, 10:21 PM)jason Wrote: I don't think North Korea is going to hit anything. Iran sure as hell isn't... But if North Korea could hit Chicago it would suck pretty bad in Ohio. No? Personally I'd rather go out in an instant than deal with the radiation slowly.

North Korea would totally hit California if they could actually reach mainland US. Not only is it significantly closer than Chicago, but it also made Team America.






Also Hollywood made that one Seth Rogan movie that North Korea got upset about and hacked. Besides, if Chicago was hit, it would mean we'd either be okay, or have long enough to move out of the path of fallout.

[Bengalzona]

(08-09-2017, 10:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: North Korea would totally hit California if they could actually reach mainland US. Not only is it significantly closer than Chicago, but it also made Team America.






Also Hollywood made that one Seth Rogan movie that North Korea got upset about and hacked. Besides, if Chicago was hit, it would mean we'd either be okay, or have long enough to move out of the path of fallout.

It has been in the back of my mind since I moved out here 13 years ago, but I see it as more likely that a country like North Korea would try to drive a nuke across the border and detonate it in or near San Diego or Tucson at this stage of the game. Or maybe have a suicide boat dock in L.A. or San Fran.

Hmmmm. Maybe there is something to this whole wall business.

[Millhouse]

(08-09-2017, 10:21 PM)jason Wrote: I don't think North Korea is going to hit anything. Iran sure as hell isn't... But if North Korea could hit Chicago it would suck pretty bad in Ohio. No? Personally I'd rather go out in an instant than deal with the radiation slowly.

Not with their current warheads it wouldnt matter that much. They are basically the equivalent of what was dropped on Japan, which is way smaller than the warheads us and Russia could deliver. Now if their warheads hit one of the nuclear power plants in Illinois, then we got problems. Or if they someday develop ones like we have, then yeah, not good.

Part of me hopes they try to strike us either at Guam or here. Of course very little to no casualties though. I believe there is no chance of diplomacy working with fatboy over there, unlike his father, even if China brings more pressure. The world cant afford them to have a massive stockpile of nukes. Its time to end him and that regime once and for all imo. Just hope it could be done with minimum amount of life loss on our side and South Korea.

[ballsofsteel]

I was listening to Rush Limpballs yesterday and he was blaming the whole North Korean mess on Clinton and Obama. For some reason he left Bush out. Go figure.

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2017, 09:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Man, how much nicer is it to live in Ohio? We won't be the ones to experience a North Korean nuclear strike, or an Iranian nuclear strike. Plus 99.9% of people in Russia or Europe can probably only name California, New York, DC, Florida, and Texas. They'll just forget we exist and we'll be fine.

Yeah, I'm a little screwed. There used to be a site about this, wouldisurviveanuke.com. It doesn't work any longer because of Google Maps allowed usage, but while smaller strikes to DC would not be an issue, a larger one would leave my area screwed. Not to mention that we are not all that far from some other high profile targets. Also, being in a valley would mean that any fallout would settle in for the long haul.

[*jason*]

(08-09-2017, 10:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: North Korea would totally hit California if they could actually reach mainland US. Not only is it significantly closer than Chicago, but it also made Team America.






Also Hollywood made that one Seth Rogan movie that North Korea got upset about and hacked. Besides, if Chicago was hit, it would mean we'd either be okay, or have long enough to move out of the path of fallout.

All of the new talk of them hitting Guam has me thinking that they really can't hit the US mainland. A sublte admission so to speak... I could be wrong.

[Au165]

(08-10-2017, 09:47 AM)jason Wrote: All of the new talk of them hitting Guam has me thinking that they really can't hit the US mainland. A sublte admission so to speak... I could be wrong.

Maybe, it actually makes more strategical sense for them to hit Guam than a U.S. mainland target.

[GMDino]

Anyone who actually uses nuclear weapons is a madman.

Anyone.

How we deal with them will tell us if we are mad also.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-10-2017, 09:47 AM)jason Wrote: All of the new talk of them hitting Guam has me thinking that they really can't hit the US mainland. A sublte admission so to speak... I could be wrong.

What North Korea doesn't realize is that 97% of Americans probably don't even know Guam is a territory of the US. Let alone that 1/8th of Guam adults are US military veterans, a larger ratio than any US state.

Their threat carries less weight with the common folk who are ignorant of Guam.

[Dill]

(08-10-2017, 10:30 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What North Korea doesn't realize is that 97% of Americans probably don't even know Guam is a territory of the US. Let alone that 1/8th of Guam adults are US military veterans, a larger ratio than any US state.

Their threat carries less weight with the common folk who are ignorant of Guam.

Commonfolk, people who don't now much about US territories or NK, voted Trump into office. He, not they, will have the power of decision in this matter.

So the question is whether the threat carries weight for an unstable president.

[Millhouse]

(08-10-2017, 10:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: Anyone who actually uses nuclear weapons is a madman.

Anyone.

How we deal with them will tell us if we are mad also.

But if they would strike us with a nuke first we would be mad for nuking them? I think that could set a dangerous precedent by letting the world know that if you nuke us, we will not nuke back. Even Hillary has said a few times over the years she would use nukes as President if we were struck first.

[Millhouse]

(08-10-2017, 10:30 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What North Korea doesn't realize is that 97% of Americans probably don't even know Guam is a territory of the US. Let alone that 1/8th of Guam adults are US military veterans, a larger ratio than any US state.

Their threat carries less weight with the common folk who are ignorant of Guam.

Ive learned more about Guam in the last day or so than any other time lol. However I have heard of Guam from the Pacific war in WW2, which is what I knew it most from.

[Benton]

(08-09-2017, 11:31 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: It has been in the back of my mind since I moved out here 13 years ago, but I see it as more likely that a country like North Korea would try to drive a nuke across the border and detonate it in or near San Diego or Tucson at this stage of the game. Or maybe have a suicide boat dock in L.A. or San Fran.

Hmmmm. Maybe there is something to this whole wall business.

A friend of mine was an electrical guy for the Air Force a couple decades ago. He was trained to work on the launch systems for nukes (not the tech stuff, just the electrical components). W were talking one night and apparently there's a list of most likely targets to get hit. His base was one, DC two and the St Louis/SouthernIllinois/West KY area was third. I was really surprised, but he made some sense. Nuke the area where your major river transportation is and you cut down a lot of your ability to move manufacturing materials/food from the Midwest to the Northeast and down to major ports in the Gulf. 

I made a comment about us being able to shoot down a missile and he just shrugged and said "If anyone nukes us, they say you'll never see the truck driving it in."

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2017, 02:46 PM)Benton Wrote: A friend of mine was an electrical guy for the Air Force a couple decades ago. He was trained to work on the launch systems for nukes (not the tech stuff, just the electrical components). W were talking one night and apparently there's a list of most likely targets to get hit. His base was one, DC two and the St Louis/SouthernIllinois/West KY area was third. I was really surprised, but he made some sense. Nuke the area where your major river transportation is and you cut down a lot of your ability to move manufacturing materials/food from the Midwest to the Northeast and down to major ports in the Gulf. 

There is also a U-235 production facility in that region.

Edit: Was, I should say.