It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NK. Omitting the rhetoric....

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gothmog


Why does everyone proclaim nukes ? If it is , it will be low yield tactical and delivered precise to limit the collateral damage.

"Nukes" are useless in mountainous terrain, except to destroy whats in one valley. NK is filled with thousands of valleys. And If you think conventional warfare is easy in the mountains see Afghanistan. A few Hillbilly Mujahideen have kept the uS at bay for almost twenty years now.


Really? Then the troops are also concentrated in those valleys. This isn't the Korean War era. We'd know where their troops were deployed and 'could' use tactical nukes, MOABs, even small neutron bombs.




posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.

It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.

NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.



Mean while, any number of other countries around would love to see America fall.

Russia and China both could be helping NK to that end.

Russia and China see NK as a problem as well. It's one of the few things all 3 nations agree on.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.

It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.

NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.



I don't know, I am beginning to think "unlike the world has ever seen" Is being thrown around a bit much, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty big, and Pearl Harbor was not exactly small.

The difference with this situation is the massive amount of artillery aimed at South Korea. If you don't take out everything NK has within maybe an hour, they will unload on SK.

edit on 13-8-2017 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.


That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gothmog


Why does everyone proclaim nukes ? If it is , it will be low yield tactical and delivered precise to limit the collateral damage.

"Nukes" are useless in mountainous terrain, except to destroy whats in one valley.


Not if the low yield tactical nukes are delivered by way of an EPW they aren't. The only reasonable assumption for there being a high yield nuke in mountainous terrain would be for fallout destruction, in which case the mountains own weather would dictate the direction of that. But EPW's are an entirely different animal and meant for targeted, precise operations.

But so far, the only ones making nuclear statements are us Americans, thus far the North's regime has said nothing about nuclear armed attack, only AN attack. Why is it that a lot of people keep deciding to glance over this pretty important point? Far as I can tell, it's business as usual as far as NK rhetoric.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: nwtrucker




Add in NK's huge number of subs

What , the few rust buckets that the Chinese purchased from the Russians they had left over from pre-Cold War ? Then China donated them to NK because they would cost too much to redo like they did with the WW2 aircraft carriers. They sure do look pretty with the new paint job . Diesel though. Easily tracked and taken out.


Old military axiom: Honor the threat.

www.globalfirepower.com...

76 'rust buckets' vs a what(?) half dozen U.S. boats that are capable of taking out ICBMs in the initial boost phase??

That 'could' very well be overconfidence....

76 rust buckets that would not get the chance....



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.


That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.


Not much else to develop ICBMs for...



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.


That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.


Not much else to develop ICBMs for...


Well, with respect, the Kim family could have farted across the DMZ and caused massive casualty, they certainly and absolutely did not need and never needed ICBM's to put the South at risk. An intercontinental missile sort of loses it's lustre when you're on the same continent.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.


That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.


Not much else to develop ICBMs for...


Well, with respect, the Kim family could have farted across the DMZ and caused massive casualty, they certainly and absolutely did not need and never needed ICBM's to put the South at risk. An intercontinental missile sort of loses it's lustre when you're on the same continent.


It IS the U.S. that is the barrier to the north achieving their goal of unification. The ICBMs are almost a 'get out jail free' card. Seeing Saddam pulled out of a whole likely isn't lost to them. Saddam with nukes? Likely that wouldn't have happened.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.


That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.

Don't forget that SK and NK are in a literal state of war still. The Korean war never ended, only an armistice was signed.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: kurthall

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.

It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.

NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.



I don't know, I am beginning to think "unlike the world has ever seen" Is being thrown around a bit much, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty big, and Pearl Harbor was not exactly small.

The difference with this situation is the massive amount of artillery aimed at South Korea. If you don't take out everything NK has within maybe an hour, they will unload on SK.


People are nuts if they think the U.S. can take out NK in an hour.. or two.. or a week. Seoul would be absolutely pummeled within 30 minutes. If they did not evacuate ahead of time, they estimate hundreds of thousands would die. And while some Trump supporters who feel "screw everyone but the U.S." are ok with that, many aren't. If there were -any- attack, Seoul would have to be completely evacuated ahead of time. The amount of artillery pointed at that city is insane. Doing so will alert NK that an attack is imminent. What happens then?

It's not as black and white as people make it seem. If you don't give a crap about lives outside the U.S., perhaps. But otherwise.. not at all.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
North Korea recalled some of their ambassadors back to Pyongyang for a meeting. This doesn't look good:


Key North Korean ambassadors overseas are currently back in Pyongyang for a joint meeting, officials here said Monday, as the communist country is drawing unprecedentedly intense condemnation for its nuclear and missile programs from the international community.

"North Korea seems to be hosting what appears to be a meeting of foreign diplomatic missions' chiefs after calling its ambassadors to major countries back to Pyongyang," a government official told Yonhap News Agency.

The ongoing meeting reportedly includes Amb. Ji Jae-ryong, Amb. Ja Song-nam and Amb. Kim Hyong-jun, North Korea's top envoys to China, the United Nations and Russia, respectively.


Source



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: nwtrucker




Add in NK's huge number of subs

What , the few rust buckets that the Chinese purchased from the Russians they had left over from pre-Cold War ? Then China donated them to NK because they would cost too much to redo like they did with the WW2 aircraft carriers. They sure do look pretty with the new paint job . Diesel though. Easily tracked and taken out.


Old military axiom: Honor the threat.

www.globalfirepower.com...

76 'rust buckets' vs a what(?) half dozen U.S. boats that are capable of taking out ICBMs in the initial boost phase??

That 'could' very well be overconfidence....

76 rust buckets that would not get the chance....


Nk biggest problem their military would use 1500 barrels of oil a day his country produces 100. He doesn't have the fuel to take these things anywhere. That's why North Korea has brown outs they can't even keep their power plants running at full capacity. His military is useless in any combat that last's longer than 24 hrs.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.


That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.

Don't forget that SK and NK are in a literal state of war still. The Korean war never ended, only an armistice was signed.


Exactly. I wish you would join my cause and explain that here like I attempted to do here.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.

It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.

NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.

Precision might be off the table if China gets involved. Particularly if they start knocking satellites out of orbit.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker


My understanding was SK 'suspended' the deployment of the THAADS.

Who told you that?

SK will do whatever its US overlords tell it to. THADD missile systems are just the latest thorn on the Asian continent in the Chinese underbelly.

Imagine China emplacing its own anti missile 'defense' systems in Baja, "California"?


Multiple links available:

www.cnn.com...


Really Trucker? I'm surprised at you...CNN is cheerleading the disinformation. There have been multiple threads right here about the THADD, they are being emplaced , not 'disabled'.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gothmog


Why does everyone proclaim nukes ? If it is , it will be low yield tactical and delivered precise to limit the collateral damage.

"Nukes" are useless in mountainous terrain, except to destroy whats in one valley. NK is filled with thousands of valleys. And If you think conventional warfare is easy in the mountains see Afghanistan. A few Hillbilly Mujahideen have kept the uS at bay for almost twenty years now.


Really? Then the troops are also concentrated in those valleys. This isn't the Korean War era. We'd know where their troops were deployed and 'could' use tactical nukes, MOABs, even small neutron bombs.

'Nuke' Asia, huh? You think Russia and China would mind?



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


But EPW's are an entirely different animal and meant for targeted, precise operations

Nukes are nukes. If they are so effective, why haven't we used them in Afganiistam, and why do we stay there despite the losses?

Stupid is as stupid does.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gothmog


Why does everyone proclaim nukes ? If it is , it will be low yield tactical and delivered precise to limit the collateral damage.

"Nukes" are useless in mountainous terrain, except to destroy whats in one valley. NK is filled with thousands of valleys. And If you think conventional warfare is easy in the mountains see Afghanistan. A few Hillbilly Mujahideen have kept the uS at bay for almost twenty years now.


Really? Then the troops are also concentrated in those valleys. This isn't the Korean War era. We'd know where their troops were deployed and 'could' use tactical nukes, MOABs, even small neutron bombs.

'Nuke' Asia, huh? You think Russia and China would mind?


No one is going to nuke NK that would be stupid.The only way I could see that happening is if they hit the US with a nuke. Not to mention conventional bombs are much more effective in tactical situatuons. As far as NK artillery the situation is very similar to Iraq where Saddam had threatened his neighbors with suds and artillary. He said he would destroy cities within 2 hours they had removed that threat only suds hidden in the north remained. If you control the air artillary is an easy target. The key with NK would be to destroy command and control before they even knew they were under attack.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join