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.
originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: hiddenNZ
I guess the same right the French, American, Russian etc etc had? None at all but they did.
originally posted by: mikell
originally posted by: face23785
The way I understand it, I don't see this happening.
There's 3 ways you could do this:
1. Fly the bomb out with a bomber and drop it at the test site you've chosen.
2. Haul it out there with your navy, set it up, move your navy out of the blast zone and detonate.
3. Launch it to the test site you've chosen on a missile.
The problem is, they lack the capability to do any of these.
1. The only plane they have that they could drop a nuclear bomb with is the Il-28, which has a maximum range of about 2200 km, and that's probably unloaded. So realistically it could only fly about 1000 km before it had to turn around and head home. If you look at a map, there's really no route this bomber could fly without violating someone else's airspace and make it out to the Pacific before they had to turn around.
2. What Navy? They've only got a handful of active vessels, logistically it just wouldn't be feasible to send them out that far to do a test.
3. Their missile technology isn't advanced enough to do this yet. They would have to launch on a ballistic trajectory, and they haven't demonstrated the ability to have the warhead survive re-entry yet.
So, unless I'm missing something here, he's just blowing smoke.
Bingo
Line 2
They have 1 bomb at a time that's it. They can't start anything without a backup plan. Unless he wants everyone there to DIE!!
Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity ofmy country by referring it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets' visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more.
originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: silo13
For now that's an empty threat, they have nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them just yet.
I would like to point out, however, that this statement from North Korea today is a direct threat:
Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity ofmy country by referring it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets' visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more.
Now you might say well the US says it will strike NK. No, the US has said we will strike NK if certain conditions were met. It's always qualified. We never say "we're definitely going to do this". On the other hand, this clown just said because of what Trump said in his speech, a NK attack on the US is "inevitable". I dunno if this idiot knows what that word means but it's basically a guarantee, a threat of a pre-emptive strike on us.
That's all the more justification to hit them now.
originally posted by: silo13
The North Korean spokesman is at the UN right now saying as much.
In a nutshell they're going to plop a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific.
This (now) is starting to get scary.
Edit to Add:
Now he's saying NK will definitely use a nuke preemptively if any sign of 'decapitation' efforts are made against NK by the USA.
originally posted by: cnoland
originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: silo13
For now that's an empty threat, they have nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them just yet.
I would like to point out, however, that this statement from North Korea today is a direct threat:
Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity ofmy country by referring it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets' visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more.
Now you might say well the US says it will strike NK. No, the US has said we will strike NK if certain conditions were met. It's always qualified. We never say "we're definitely going to do this". On the other hand, this clown just said because of what Trump said in his speech, a NK attack on the US is "inevitable". I dunno if this idiot knows what that word means but it's basically a guarantee, a threat of a pre-emptive strike on us.
That's all the more justification to hit them now.
What exactly makes you think they do not have the means to deliver a nuclear warhead??
originally posted by: Sagacity
I think open testing in the Pacific may be crossing the line. Or am I just way off?
originally posted by: cnoland
originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: silo13
For now that's an empty threat, they have nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them just yet.
I would like to point out, however, that this statement from North Korea today is a direct threat:
Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity ofmy country by referring it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets' visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more.
Now you might say well the US says it will strike NK. No, the US has said we will strike NK if certain conditions were met. It's always qualified. We never say "we're definitely going to do this". On the other hand, this clown just said because of what Trump said in his speech, a NK attack on the US is "inevitable". I dunno if this idiot knows what that word means but it's basically a guarantee, a threat of a pre-emptive strike on us.
That's all the more justification to hit them now.
What exactly makes you think they do not have the means to deliver a nuclear warhead??