North Korea warns of nuclear attack on U.S.

[woolfe9998]

It's become a consistent pattern now that Republicans win the Presidency and then start wars. Why ? I think at this point the world would be much better off if US foreign policy resigned its self from the self-appointed position of world police. The results have been nothing but disastrous time and again.

Clinton's intervention in Bosnia worked out very well and saved many lives. So I think it depends. Using American military force to, say, stop a genocide in sub-Saharan Africa would be one thing. But engaging in brinkmanship with a rogue nation who has nuclear weapons? Not so much. The trouble isn't the idea of using the military. It's who is using it right now. Trump ought to be playing with Tonka Trucks, not M1 Abrams Tanks.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

You are assuming that people are rational.

They are not. Case in point, all the experts told the Japanese it was suicide to enter into war with the US in WWII, yet they did it anyway.

Wrong on both counts.

1) Japan knew it was suicide to fight the US *IF* the US was willing to fight. They gambled on us not being willing to fight. The error was in their belief on the possibility of there being a shooting war against us, not their belief that they could win one.

2) While some people are crazy, Kim whichever is in charge there now has never shown the slightest possibility that he is controlled by anything other than his own self-interest. He talks a lot, rattles a lot of sabres and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that will provoke anyone to do anything that could hurt him in any way. He's a chihuahua yapping from the safety of his hiding spot behind the couch because he knows that if he ever popped his head out the big dogs would bite it off. And it works because there are enough monumentally stupid people (not naming any names here, <cough>) who believe that while the other 1000 times he said exactly the same thing it was just talk, but that he really means it THIS time.

 

[Punter]

eh oops sry delete

 

[cyclohexane]

Wrong on both counts.

1) Japan knew it was suicide to fight the US *IF* the US was willing to fight. They gambled on us not being willing to fight. The error was in their belief on the possibility of there being a shooting war against us, not their belief that they could win one.

2) While some people are crazy, Kim whichever is in charge there now has never shown the slightest possibility that he is controlled by anything other than his own self-interest. He talks a lot, rattles a lot of sabres and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that will provoke anyone to do anything that could hurt him in any way. He's a chihuahua yapping from the safety of his hiding spot behind the couch because he knows that if he ever popped his head out the big dogs would bite it off. And it works because there are enough monumentally stupid people (not naming any names here, <cough>) who believe that while the other 1000 times he said exactly the same thing it was just talk, but that he really means it THIS time.

Again, don't be so sure you know what's going on inside other people's minds.
Nothing is "absolutely certain" as you suggested.

Japan guaranteed a war with us when they attacked Hawaii - even the admiral who led the attack recognized that they were starting something they can't handle.

 

[FIVR]

You're eleventy billion times more likely to be hit by a drunk driver in Moscow than nuked in CA.

This is different. There has never been a nuclear ICBM attack on any populated city, ever. The US itself was, at least prior to the mid 2000's, considered to be one of the most difficult targets to hit in terms of both its defenses and its distance from any hostile neighbor. That has now changed. The north koreans have demonstrated they can launch 1500kg into LEO (which is enough to get it 15,000+km), and have plans for rockets that can put the same or more weight into geosynchronous orbit. They can likely hit the west coast, the only question is will their (as far as we know) untested ablation heat shield hold and will the warhead operate after the forces of maneuver and re-entry. Nobody really, truly knows what it will look like or if it will happen. I'm unaware of anyone predicting their own death by nuclear war, but I did it in that post. i believe I live in a (less than) likely target for a north korean strike. They would strike south korea too, but they could do that with a vehicle or aircraft easily and the same with japan. missiles are only truly economical for long ranges when you have an air force available.

 

[piasabird]

The thing is no one really wants a war with North Korea. China would not benefit from war in North Korea because refugees might come flooding into China. If USA starts a war we put our soldiers all at risk that are stationed in South Korea and we also put South Korea at risk and might be attacked by China. If China and the USA go to blows both USA and China have a lot to loose. We keep paying China interest on our debt, China gives us loans every year for our debt. China sells us lots of stuff, and we buy lots of stuff. I dont see a clear winner if we have a war with China.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I don't understand how the same liberals that lambasted Trump for suggesting South Korea and/or Japan should be allowed to own nuclear weapons don't have issues with North Korea decades deep into developing a functional nuclear program. If there's one military intervention I might actually think could be good in the long run, it's bombing every piece of artillery and potential nuke-holding space that North Korea has, without warning. South Korea needs to be on board since they have the most to lose, but North Korea is a totally different animal from Iran or the other usual targets of fear.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't understand how the same liberals that lambasted Trump for suggesting South Korea and/or Japan should be allowed to own nuclear weapons don't have issues with North Korea decades deep into developing a functional nuclear program. If there's one military intervention I might actually think could be good in the long run, it's bombing every piece of artillery and potential nuke-holding space that North Korea has, without warning. South Korea needs to be on board since they have the most to lose, but North Korea is a totally different animal from Iran or the other usual targets of fear.

Most rational people, as far as I know, don't want NK to be a nuclear power. It's the porcupine problem though. That regime has spent the better part of the last half century building various forms of Gun to point at SK in preparation for the great impending war. It's really, *really* hard to stop that without turning the entire peninsula into a glass field.

 

[Thump553]

I don't understand how the same liberals that lambasted Trump for suggesting South Korea and/or Japan should be allowed to own nuclear weapons don't have issues with North Korea decades deep into developing a functional nuclear program. If there's one military intervention I might actually think could be good in the long run, it's bombing every piece of artillery and potential nuke-holding space that North Korea has, without warning. South Korea needs to be on board since they have the most to lose, but North Korea is a totally different animal from Iran or the other usual targets of fear.

Where in the world did your delusion arise that liberals "don't have issues with North Korea (SIC) decades deep into developing a functional nuclear program"? I guess either you are completely ignorant of the USA's reactions to NK's nuclear program or this is yet another right wing "alternate facts" fantasy. Fact is every US president since NK first came on the nuclear scene has done just about everything possible (short of war) to stop them-sanctions, bribes, leaning on China, etc. Nothing has worked. In fact NK has used its nuclear program to keep the rest of it's economy (somewhat) alive by the aid/bribes they received in the past for their promises to abandon the program.

Here's a link to an honest summary of the efforts over the years: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

What I, and presumably most liberals and other thinking persons, have as a problem now is this: We know what we have with NK-a paranoid, isolationist state with fledgling nuclear attack capabilities (excluding South Korea and maybe Japan, which face real danger). What's different now is the leader of the USA is also naive, thin skinned, demonstrated repeatedly he will change his "firm" policies at the proverbial drop of a hat, is actively dismantling all diplomatic resources relying instead solely upon military responses, and disregards all of our intelligence services. In short, one idiot facing off against another, each with the power to lob nukes. If we had a responsible adult as President, instead of a crazy uncle, I'd agree with the yapping kick dog analogy above-but with what we have I think the situation is a lot more dangerous than it should be.

 

[soulcougher73]

What he intended to say was if they take care of North Korea they only have to suck my left nut instead of the entire sack in the new deal.

As for what North Korea said:

Meh, same empty words month after month, don't care anymore.

I dont know why your comment reminded me of this. Still a great line if you are into the show

 

[piasabird]

South Korea is a somewhat socialist country when it comes to worker's rights. Their capital however is about 24 miles from their border, and is within artillery range of North Korea. North Korea knows this quite well. We are talking about a very small country the sized of one of our states with a fairly dense population half of which is based around Seoul, Korea (Guessing here). However, every male in Korea is required to serve in the military between the age of 18 and 30. So they are a lot more prepared to fight back than a lot of countries. They also have support from air bases in Hawaii and Japan. I served in the Military in South Korea years ago. I would not say with any authority that there are or are not tactical nuclear weapons in Korea. However, all it takes is one Ohio class nuclear submarine to kill every person in North Korea. The problem is we dont want to use such weapons unless we are attacked.

 

[IronWing]

The problem is we dont want to use such weapons unless we are attacked.

That's not actually a problem. It's a good thing, a really, really good thing.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Again, don't be so sure you know what's going on inside other people's minds.
Nothing is "absolutely certain" as you suggested.

Japan guaranteed a war with us when they attacked Hawaii - even the admiral who led the attack recognized that they were starting something they can't handle.

And again, wrong.

Japan's leadership viewed the Americans as weak and lacking in resolve and they thought we were too invested in Europe to open a double front war. They thought we'd focus on Europe and not come after them until we had dealt with Germany. And they thought that would be so far down the road that they could seize control of the western Pacific so firmly that we'd never even try. They expected us to lose our Pacific fleet and our stomach for a Pacific war all in one fell swoop. They were wrong. They never believed for a second they could win a war against us, the entire premise of the war was based on expecting to never have to fight it.Their plan was make the gains they needed, get the rubber and oil they needed from capturing a lot of southeast Asia, then hope we would let them keep it. That's not mind reading, that's history. The people who made the plans wrote them down and and many of the planners survived. We know why they did what they did because they told us why.

Yamamoto was not on board with that plan. He knew it would be an easy tactical victory and a huge strategic mistake because he didn't expect us to roll over. But it was not his call. And even so, it might actually have worked. If Midway had gone differently and we lost our carrier fleet instead of them losing theirs we might have pulled back and focused on Europe. We would not have been able to rebuild a battle-ready Pacific fleet until 1943 at the earliest and we might not have bothered. If they had that extra year to cement things in place it would have been a royal bitch to retake all that territory.

 

[FIVR]

I don't understand how the same liberals that lambasted Trump for suggesting South Korea and/or Japan should be allowed to own nuclear weapons don't have issues with North Korea decades deep into developing a functional nuclear program. If there's one military intervention I might actually think could be good in the long run, it's bombing every piece of artillery and potential nuke-holding space that North Korea has, without warning. South Korea needs to be on board since they have the most to lose, but North Korea is a totally different animal from Iran or the other usual targets of fear.

Do you have a Time machine to take us back to the early 90's?


Stupid rhetorical question, but the fact is the North Koreans have been on a quest to obtain something to defend the Kim regime from foreign invasion for over half a century. They are very, very advanced in terms of rocket propulsion, aerodynamics, and their chemical weapons program is supposedly the most extensive currently on earth. They are militarily an order of magnitude more professional and technologically capable than, for example, Iraq or even Syria. They started development of ballistic missiles back in the late 60s/early70s and already had the ability to hit Hawaii back in 2006. They've had the time since then to make anywhere between 10 and 50 warheads. Assuming their thermonuclear boosting technology still isn't perfected, they still could level much of the west coast of the US and they wouldn't even need to use rockets on south korea. They demonstrated the ability to repeatedly launch 1500kg payloads into low earth orbit, which would be enough to send a 250kg warhead around the entire world. Or a 1500kg warhead to California. Their true capabilities are much more dependent on their ability to miniaturize the warhead vs increasing rocket payload.

The current level of capability of the DPRK in a full-fledged nuclear conflict is unknown, but it is known that millions, if not tens of millions will die in even a short conflict between NK, SK, and the USA. If nukes are used, you can bet that it will be in the multiple millions.

When GHWB invaded Iraq, a country that had just been bombed (i think) for building its own reactor and had no ability to defend itself from a US invasion. Kim Jong Il watched Iraq be destroyed, and Saddam barely escape. Kim saw him be attacked again, when he was defenseless, and had already allowed inspectors into the country to find "WMD"s. He saw him dragged from his hiding hole 6 months after his country was invaded, 100,000 of his citizens were killed, and then he was put on Trial by the same people who killed those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, for "killing thousands" of those same Iraqis and then hanged on public TV. Kim will not forget what the US does to nations that do not "tow the line". Sooner or later, the US overthrows those nations. The ones who don't get overthrown? Those are the ones with nukes.