North Korea Nuclear Warhead fitting inside it's missiles

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Artorias

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2014
2,134
1,411
136
how congress isn't making a shitstorm i don't know. i find these comments to be completely irresponsible from the POTUS. i am legitimately concerned that trump would go off and order some bullshit preemptive strike. my only hope is that the rest of the military has some sense to refuse his orders.

You don't half ass a pre-emptive strike.

We all know Trump's off his rocker, but if this shit is going down you Americans better put that trillion dollar military to use and go 200% full strike force, it will save thousands of lives if NK cant retaliate.
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,578
1,741
126
You don't half ass a pre-emptive strike.

We all know Trump's off his rocker, but if this shit is going down you Americans better put that trillion dollar military to use and go 200% full strike force, it will save thousands of lives if NK cant retaliate.

The problem is we aren't going to be able to contain tens of thousands of scud misses aimed at Seoul. It's just not going to happen. We are probably going to see millions of Koreans dead. On both sides. It's not going to play well if we strike first. I can see South Korea dismissing us as our ally if we strike first. We will get the heat for sure, and will probably be blamed for SK deaths.

Then there is the world economy and China. Last time they got involved. Would they do the same today? What about Russia? Would they take advantage that we're preoccupied in Korea. We can't be at two places at one time. Would this weaken us in the long term? The implications it might have on our economy. This war would last quite a long time. It's not going to be easy. And, if China gets involved it could get real messy. Plus, would our Ally's stand by us. Trump has pissed off many of them. Payback is a bitch.

I've always said that something nasty is going to play out. Trump is I'll suited for the world stage, and we are all going to pay for it. Sad to say.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,389
3,120
146
The problem is we aren't going to be able to contain tens of thousands of scud misses aimed at Seoul. It's just not going to happen. We are probably going to see millions of Koreans dead. On both sides. It's not going to play well if we strike first. I can see South Korea dismissing us as our ally if we strike first. We will get the heat for sure, and will probably be blamed for SK deaths.

Then there is the world economy and China. Last time they got involved. Would they do the same today? What about Russia? Would they take advantage that we're preoccupied in Korea. We can't be at two places at one time. Would this weaken us in the long term? The implications it might have on our economy. This war would last quite a long time. It's not going to be easy. And, if China gets involved it could get real messy. Plus, would our Ally's stand by us. Trump has pissed off many of them. Payback is a bitch.

I've always said that something nasty is going to play out. Trump is I'll suited for the world stage, and we are all going to pay for it. Sad to say.

North Korea does not have tens of thousands of SCUD's, they might have 1000 or so mid range missiles of all kinds combined and even less launchers. Unless you believe they would nuke Seoul, or use all their missiles at once with chemical/biological payloads, there is no way they can inflict those kinds of casualties.

North Korea is a credible threat to cause a lot of death and destruction to South Korea but they are not an existential threat to them, especially with US support. The world needs to treat them as such, not a magical boogeyman.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
North Korea does not have tens of thousands of SCUD's, they might have 1000 or so mid range missiles of all kinds combined and even less launchers. Unless you believe they would nuke Seoul, or use all their missiles at once with chemical/biological payloads, there is no way they can inflict those kinds of casualties.

North Korea is a credible threat to cause a lot of death and destruction to South Korea but they are not an existential threat to them, especially with US support. The world needs to treat them as such, not a magical boogeyman.

Agreed. If they jumped up out of their holes & charged across the DMZ they'd be annihilated. I'm sure they're well aware of it.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,218
4,446
136
my only hope is that the rest of the military has some sense to refuse his orders.

If they do that we are effectively facing a military coup in the US. That would be the end of our democracy. This is kind of a lose/lose situation. The military might set up a new democracy afterwards, but it will probably lead to a civil war as our military breaks up into factions and fights itself. With the power of our military this would be devastating.

North Korea does not have tens of thousands of SCUD's, they might have 1000 or so mid range missiles of all kinds combined and even less launchers.

What they have is lots of artillery. Artillery is cheap and highly effective against a population center. There is no effective defense except to destroy the launcher, which you can't really do until after they have fired once, and even then it has proven difficult to do if they fire and move, something they have no doubt spent a lot of time practicing.

Unless you believe they would nuke Seoul, or use all their missiles at once with chemical/biological payloads, there is no way they can inflict those kinds of casualties.

I don't know if they would waste a nuke on Seoul, as I doubt they have that many, but they would definitely nuke available military targets if they feel that their state is about to be overthrown. Our closest carrier fleet would probably be destroyed. They will use Bio/chemical/dirty weapons if they feel that they are losing, which they will be right away. Which if just a few of their artillery units fire off a few of those shells the death toll is likely to be in the tens of thousands.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,668
3,067
136
"Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!"

Trump on Twitter this morning.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,648
201
106
Trump is not going to do anything pre-emptively. If you think otherwise, you are a complete fool.
KJU is off his rocker... he is leading the "Hamas" of the Korean Peninsula, just waiting for an opportunity to retake SK by force.

When/If NK take an affirmative strike at a US territory/ally, why should we not respond in full force?
 

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
To anyone that even mention nuke as a possibility, think again. There are 10m people in there, also China, Russia, SK and Japan next to it. One miss step and you got yourself a WWIII. Right now Fat boy and orange man just comparing who has a bigger dick, Fat boy won't do anything to get himself kill now we can only hope orange man don't go crazy.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,522
759
146
Trump is not going to do anything pre-emptively. If you think otherwise, you are a complete fool.
KJU is off his rocker... he is leading the "Hamas" of the Korean Peninsula, just waiting for an opportunity to retake SK by force.

When/If NK take an affirmative strike at a US territory/ally, why should we not respond in full force?

Dude, if your first part is true, then there's no reason for Kim to attack until he has bolstered nuclear missile capability. He then could try to extort ridiculous concessions.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,572
7,823
136
The balance of peace in the nuclear age is a lot more fragile than people realize.

The issue here is not whether you know Trump will try a nuclear wag the dog, or whether Kim Jong Un is actually considering nuking Guam. The point here is instability.

Wars are very often not planned events, or, at best, they are half assed plans. Nobody wanted the First World War; it was a cascade of events and bad decisions that led to Europe trying to slit its own throat. The Falklands War was a case of two countries failing to understand the actual policy of the other. The First Gulf War happened because Saddam Hussein was inadvertently given the impression the USA would not seek to liberate Kuwait. I could go on and on.

All levels of uncertainly when it comes to nuclear war are unacceptable. The consequences of a mistake aren't just bad, they're catastrophic to our species. That is why, during the Cold War, the lines were quite clearly drawn between NATO and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact; this is our side and this is your side, and if you cross the line, God help us all. The Soviets were not going to invade West Germany when they knew the result would be nuclear war, and vice versa. I'm not discounting the terrible human toll of the proxy wars fought outside Europe, but the peace was kept there, and the missile kept in the silos, by virtue of the fact that it was very clear to both sides what the other side's policy was.

What Trump has done, stupidly, is make American policy unclear. Is he going to attack North Korea for threatening? He said he would, but now he's not. Is he willing to go to the mattresses if Russia attacks a NATO member? Up until January 20, 2017, it was clear that the USSR/Russia attacking a NATO country was suicide; now, maybe not so much. I'm not saying I know Putin wants to invade Poland, but the thing is that in 2015 Vladimir Putin, who is not dumb, knew doing that would result in a devastating retaliation and the likely annihilation of his country. Now, well, he's not so sure, is he? And if Trump's not possessed of a great understanding of the value of making the tripwires clear, it's very likely he doesn't get what OTHER countries' tripwires are, and would be surprised that China might take offense to an attack on North Korea. Of course I am sure the adults in the room are trying to get that across to him, but he doesn't listen to things he doesn't like to hear.

Trump, like many idiots, believes he's playing a game of deals and winning and losing where being unpredictable is a virtue, and pulling off an unexpected move leads to winning. War and peace are not games, and history bears out that unpredictability leads to tragedy.

The difference now is that in 1914, when some loser from the sticks committed a murder that started a fire no one could put out, about sixteen million people died. If a mistake is made today, billions of people could die.
 
Reactions: SMOGZINN

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,572
7,823
136
"Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!"

Trump on Twitter this morning.

What I really would like to see is some of the saner world leaders put these two indolent spoiled brats with bad hairdos into an enclosure like say a sandbox where they could whack each other about the head with plastic shovels, throw sand and tantrums while the rest of us get on with life.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Dude, if your first part is true, then there's no reason for Kim to attack until he has bolstered nuclear missile capability. He then could try to extort ridiculous concessions.

There is no winning first strike scenario for the DPRK. It's an imaginary & empty threat. I'm sure they realize that.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,218
4,446
136
The balance of peace in the nuclear age is a lot more fragile than people realize.
...
The difference now is that in 1914, when some loser from the sticks committed a murder that started a fire no one could put out, about sixteen million people died. If a mistake is made today, billions of people could die.

Brilliantly said.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
Just know that trump can't do shit without Congress and at this point I don't think even the Republican controlled Congress has an appetite for starting another war based on the dictator like whims of our president.
I would not be so trusting of these corrupt and controlled politicians (who act like they truly control the show).

The Western powers are thirsting for more conflicts and more wars. They are looking to create more enemies and won't stop it seems.

I mean, if these Western countries spent 5% of the funds allocated to military spending on food/shelter, how many physical problems of this world would go away?

But NO. They want you to fear, be scared and hate your fellow man.
 

Oric

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
888
61
91
Most simulations point out around 30,000 civilian deaths at Seoul, not millions. That is equal to 7.6 earthquake loss
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,389
3,120
146
What they have is lots of artillery. Artillery is cheap and highly effective against a population center. There is no effective defense except to destroy the launcher, which you can't really do until after they have fired once, and even then it has proven difficult to do if they fire and move, something they have no doubt spent a lot of time practicing.

99% of their artillery cannot hit Seoul, not even the suburbs. Only the missiles and rocket assisted artillery can.

Artillery isn't that effective against population centres anyways, aside from making the city a terrible place to live. People were still living in frickin Stalingrad during the siege. Counterbattery fire and precision munitions are projected to degrade North Korean artillery at anywhere from 7-13% a day, rendering them ineffective in a few weeks.

Add to that their significant dud rate, equipment breakdowns, etc, the artillery threat is way overblown in the media. NK can make Seoul a really shitty place to be for a few weeks. If they use their WMD it could be very ugly.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,389
3,120
146
I don't know if they would waste a nuke on Seoul, as I doubt they have that many, but they would definitely nuke available military targets if they feel that their state is about to be overthrown. Our closest carrier fleet would probably be destroyed. They will use Bio/chemical/dirty weapons if they feel that they are losing, which they will be right away. Which if just a few of their artillery units fire off a few of those shells the death toll is likely to be in the tens of thousands.

Nuking a carrier group is just crazy talk. They might not be able to hit Seoul, they absolutely can't hit a moving carrier group they they can't even likely locate in the first place. Chemical weapons also don't tend to produce huge casualties, they dissipate quickly and tend to be more of an annoyance. And again, no credible delivery method to get enough on target. Biological, again a lot of delivery problems.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,532
27,835
136
I mean, if these Western countries spent 5% of the funds allocated to military spending on food/shelter, how many physical problems of this world would go away?
As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. has reduced military spending by 60% over the past 50 years. We should be living in an earthly paradise.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |