It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
a reply to: Kandinsky
Oh no doubt the task would be much harder, but we are Americans. We are problem solvers.
This issue could easily be handled with the most minimal amount of bloodshed. That is of coarse if your not looking to profit from another war.
originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Metallicus
The protection of Seoul is the main priority. If the North's artillery isn't almost instantly destroyed then Seoul will be destroyed. If the artillery wasn't entrenched in mountains, a massive air assault with fighters and bombers, or even conventional cruise missiles would suffice. But they are entrenched in heavily fortified locations.
Therefore, South Korea and U.S. are discussing the use of tactical nukes, mostly B-61 special weapons. They can be delivered by F-16 and F-15 fighters. Those could disable the artillery.
They were removed from South Korea during the G.H.Bush administration.
Source: Mattis: Use of tactical nuclear weapons discussed with South Korea
Here's the rub: Tactical nukes are still nukes. Use of nukes is nuclear war. Neither China nor Russia will be likely to go along with U.S. use of nukes on their continent. It is likely that a preemptive strike by U.S. will result in nuclear war with China and Russia.