Panetta reveals US nuke strike plans on N. Korea, spurs controversy.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: eriktheawful

In the "first bid" to dominate the Korean Peninsula et al, General McArthur wanted to use the bomb on the "Red Chinese Hoards" when they threatened to defeat the American gains during that "conflict".

Yet

It never happened.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Look at Japan after they had two cities nuked with 20 kiloton nuclear bombs.

Japan was essentially finished when we did that. US nukes were the only ones in town at that time.

More than likely, every single battle plan against every possible conflict will include something about nuclear weapons.

As a "last resort". Or final one? Things are far different today. I can't imagine the concern on those monitoring the region that would follow the seismic and satellite sensor readings when bombs start too detonate over or on North Korea. Even one, "smallish" kind.

To them it would be seen as prelude. Do you think they will reach for the hot phone or the switch first?

Just exploring eventualities…

I don't think Pain-netta's stance is any more that SOP posturing. "If you do this we'll do that". All nations do it, like you said. As well, every weapons system that was ever invented has been used to its fullest extent… eventually.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Yet

It never happened.

Yet…

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

If North Korea want to be big boys and be a Nuclear power and play with nukes then they have to play by big boy rules IE MAD, use nukes and expect to be nuked back.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: DuckforcoveR

Doesn't it sound stupid to you...
That to defend the South they'd nuke the North?

Not exactly looking out for their ally with that plan!

No its not stupid.

If North Korea start using nukes first the the only response is to nuke back. Thats how Nuclear weapons work.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: SLAYER69

If not we'll turn the South into a nuclear hotspot along with the North...

Do you see where I'm going with this...

It's like using a rapid fire mini gun to hit a bullseye in a dart board...

It shows no concern for people of the South!

If the USA starts useing nukes on North Korea then likely North Korea has already started using its WMD first.

North Korea has enough Chemical and Biological weapons alone to make the south a living hell hole. So id worry about there WMD first before worrying about the USA use of WMD's.

originally posted by: eriktheawful


Look at Japan after they had two cities nuked with 20 kiloton nuclear bombs.

Well Japan already knew the war was lost and teetering on the edge of surrender.

a reply to: intrptr

Well since WW2, the US has taken the position of "No First Strike" when it comes to nukes.

Of course, like I said, conventional weapons of today have just as much destructive power in a lot of cases as smaller nuclear weapons.

If N. Korea get's nuked, it will be because they struck first (with nukes). However, even then that might not happen, as again, we have conventional weapons that can not only take out easily any nuclear facility, but completely level any major city.

a reply to: intrptr

Would you prefer in that scenario we vaporize the entire populace?

a reply to: crazyewok

If North Korea start using nukes first the the only response is to nuke back. Thats how Nuclear weapons work.

In movies, maybe.MAD has never been tried, because everyone knows it won't "work". Neither have little ones been utilized because everyone knows that would be MADness.

Now, all we need is a MADman.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SLAYER69

Yet…

Well if the ghost of General McArthur is still advocating their use then I suspect the Ghost of President Truman would still be overriding it.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So do they take back the Peace Prize from Obama now? LOL

a reply to: SLAYER69

Well if the ghost of General McArthur is still advocating their use then I suspect the Ghost of President Truman would still be overriding it.

I wonder what the inventors of the Maxim machine gun and TNT might say about that? Hiram Maxim and Alfred Nobel both thought their inventions would be so terrible as to convince the powers that be to "end all war". Nobel gave himself a "Peace Prize" for that one.

In fact the opposite became true. The warmongers thought they could utilize those very inventions to win wars. WWI resulted. The parallels today are inescapable. We wage wars at will because we think we have the biggest stick, right? That "ultimately" we can win because of the threat of nukes? Sort of MADdening, isn't it?

Our most recent Presider got a "Peace Prize", too. That is quite literally, insane.

a reply to: intrptr

Nobel never said that about TNT, he created the foundation in reposne to people calling him the 'merchant of death' in regards his other inventions and ownership of the Bofors Armaments factory.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: intrptr

Would you prefer in that scenario we vaporize the entire populace?

I prefer that no one get vaporized, "glassed" or "depleted" inany way. Especially for "Humanitarian" reasons.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: intrptr

Nobel never said that about TNT, he created the foundation in reposne to people calling him the 'merchant of death' in regards his other inventions and ownership of the Bofors Armaments factory.

Nasty things facts

a reply to: intrptr

Like any of us do want that to occur?

This entire thread is about hypothetical contingency plans, not some bloodthirsty quest to deploy the United States nuclear arsenal.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: intrptr

Nobel never said that about TNT, he created the foundation in reposne to people calling him the 'merchant of death' in regards his other inventions and ownership of the Bofors Armaments factory.

Okay, whatever. The point I made to Slayer was their ghosts probably regret how their inventions turned out. Like most reasonable people that participate in war regret that.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: eriktheawful

Yes but if the US used tactical nukes on DPRK what's to stop the North from using its short and long range nuclear missiles on the South, hence turning it into a wasteland...

As you said tactical nukes are not as excessive, and therefore wouldn't hinder the North enough to stop them from flicking the protective switch & pressing the red button!

that would be aegis destroyers and cruisers equiped with SM3 theater defense missiles.

also if the north did decide to go to war the intelligence signature would be obvious three days to several weeks before they crossed the Line of Departure.

when i first deployed to Korea the war plans was for the 2nd ID and most of the eighth army to either die in place (blocking force) or perform a fighting retreat down to Pusan to buy time for forces from okinawa, alaska and several other places to relieve and then advance. essentially we were to be sacrificed to buy time. this was similar to the start of the original korean war.

by the time i had my last tour in korea the plans had changed drastically due to advances in our own TTP and equipment and in the matured capability of the ROKA. the new plan was to bum rush north korea the instant we detected unmistakable signatures of a north korean offense. the plan was essentially to blast through pyongyang and be on the chinese border within 72 hours of the start of hostilities.

all of the hardened artillery and rocket sites would be gone within hours. we know where they are to the nearest centimeter and we have precision attack munitions that can go right through the blast doors and ventilation shafts of all of them. they spent billions on them and it is all for nothing. they thought they were impervious and now they aren't.
all of our front line units can be out of the garrisons and in the initial battle positions or alternates in less than 1 hour.

i much prefer the new plan "kicking their asses in 72 hours" to the old plan of "dying in place to buy time."

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This entire thread is about hypothetical contingency plans, not some bloodthirsty quest to deploy the United States nuclear arsenal.

Oh yah? Thats how wars begin maybe, with "contingency plans". The first thing to be thrown out are the contingency "plans".

People that "plan" war are misguided. They think they can play the war game, just a little bit.