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.

 

US Military Option, How Will It Happen?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

WHAT is THIS CHICKEN LITTLE crap about NUKES being used anyway?
He can BURY one or hide a surface detonation at best. UNLESS a MIG 23 variant can get one TAPPED on to the wing .




posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

The nukes arent even nk made.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

No that sub was no surprise and was closely followed the whole time with a usa ssn locked on it with weapons staged the entire time. We got a crap load of intel and data on chinas subs capabilities from that one.
edit on 8-10-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I have no idea how the US would attack NK without a massive retaliation from NK in return.

I guess the initial attack would start with cruisemissiles that would target early warning radars and communications. I dont think the US have the capasity target thousends of artilliry pieces in one go. They dont have enough jets or bombers to do that safely. NK would still have a very capable and working airdefence.
Then there are NK missile systems that have to be located and hit. I honestly dont think the US have the capasity present to prevent a attack from turning into a major mess🤔



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66


A limited attack targeting nuclear + offensive capabilities only coupled with the threat of total annihilation if the North attempts to retaliate in any way. With their offensive capabilities destroyed/heavily degraded, we simply blockade the country and wait for it to collapse. If this wasn't clean enough, the threat of complete destruction would deter them from undertaking such a frivolous response.

Their nuclear capability isn't assured/credible, and they don't have enough to wipe anyone out. If they were lucky, a few missiles could get through defenses which may or may not even land anywhere near their targets. Needless to say such a war would be disastrous, and a very bad thing. Sadly I do not see any better way out, because NK has made it very clear that it won't give up the nuclear weapons. Of course there is always the option of traditional deterrence, but the results of that could be far more disastrous if we made a miscalculation. It would almost assuredly start a global nuclear arms race, as the world witnessed the U.S. acquiesce to unlawful acquisition of nuclear weapons. Every nation would want the ability to ensure its government's survival.

Would be nice if China marched on Pyongyang and freed its citizens, but that is probably wishful thinking.

NOTE: By total annihilation, I am referring to its government/military. Counter-value type strategic nuclear strikes are of course reserved for second-strike type actions only.
edit on 10/8/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns

There is nothing wrong with being "left-leaning" but communism and its various incarnations have been proven as failed systems of government that only lead to the oppression of millions. By itself, it doesn't make someone unpatriotic - that only happens when that individual advocates the subversion of the U.S. Constitution or overthrow of the lawfully installed government to further that ideology. Communism, particularly is a problem because it uses covert action and subversion as a means of advancing itself (former KGB guy: Bezmanov) Youtube

Additionally, being "alt-left" doesn't by itself demonstrate disdain for America and its way of life. However, those who engage in political violence (aka terrorism) and suppression of free speech and dissent (also through violence) are unpatriotic. Again, this comes down to your actions and not specifically ideology.

The North Korean government is a dictatorship that looks out for itself and a very small handful of elite at the expense of the entire country.


What I was trying to impart was - that historically when a nation wants to build up domestic support for military action, the propagation of fear and anger against "the other" is either encouraged or left unchecked (ie, slippery slopes etc).


Side note: Remember the days when anyone left-leaning were viewed with suspicion by family, friends, neighbours, co-workers, officials? The same can be said on the other side of the spectrum - (ie, Soviets against various anti-communists)

I hope this makes sense. My brain is addled as of late!



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: auroraaus


Aurora, my apologies that made much more sense after rereading what you had originally written. Unfortunately it does appear that a certain narrative becomes prevalent as a pretext to military action, and I agree that it is to drum up support for whatever issue is at hand.

I do indeed remember those days, and lumping people into such groups is both wrong and highly inaccurate. Part of what makes the US a great place to live is having the freedom to choose your religion/politics/beliefs and really anything else you want. In my opinion, no specific ideology is implicitly "bad" as long as people don't try to use it as an excuse to commit illegal or dangerous acts. Even when someone of a certain demographic does commit illegal/subversive/dangerous acts, it shouldn't/doesn't (IMHO) reflect on the entire demographic because people are responsible for their own actions.

It seems that in these times it is all too easy to forget these things, and get wrapped up in the heat of political discourse. Only nowadays, discourse is more like a knock-down drag-out fight than a civil discussion between brothers/sisters (American to American - all Americans). It just feels as if there are forces out there preying on this division, using it to divide our strongest and most important national assets: the people of this nation.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain that, and I appreciate the information/input!



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

You've summed up what I was trying to say more eloquently!

It's a worrying sign of the times, not just USA-wise but globally. More so worrying when millions of lives are at stake in any potential military action with NK.

I think we should be mindful of that, and mindful that those in power/behind the curtains manipulate people and events to their own end, for $$$$ in the weapons/defense industries and to consolidate their power.



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Yesterday, Kim Jong promoted his sister to Princess Lea status.



SEOUL (Reuters) - The promotion of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s 28-year-old sister to the country’s top decision-making body is a sign he is strengthening his position by drawing his most important people closer to the center of power, experts and officials say.
Source: www.reuters.com...

I think Kim feels the noose tightening. The May 2017 assassination attempt failed. He knows that we won't stop, and is grooming his sister as successor.



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Yesterday, Kim Jong promoted his sister to Princess Lea status.



SEOUL (Reuters) - The promotion of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s 28-year-old sister to the country’s top decision-making body is a sign he is strengthening his position by drawing his most important people closer to the center of power, experts and officials say.
Source: www.reuters.com...

I think Kim feels the noose tightening. The May 2017 assassination attempt failed. He knows that we won't stop, and is grooming his sister as successor.


It doesn't really matter who is in charge, whether it be Lil' Kim or his sister. Even if she were to take over, which I highly doubt he'd allow, we should take her out if she continues the same nonsense as her brother.

From one dictator to another. Smh.



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dianajune

Would it not be ironic if NK came to the US and take out Trumph😂😂



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: dianajune

Would it not be ironic if NK came to the US and take out Trumph😂😂






It wouldn't surprise me if Kim is trying to do this. I hope not. One would hope that our Potus has better security than the White House had during the Obama Administration.



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
There is a difference between "sanctions don't work" and "sanctions to this point haven't worked". People keep parroting that comment.. sanctions don't work! But.. they might. They have just been too lenient. Now that some actually halfway hard-hitting sanctions are in place, and China seems to be cutting NK off, they may actually work. But they don't work instantly. They take some time before they are felt.

Nuclear strike is ridiculous, no way they would seriously consider this. I don't know what your OP sources are.. but I doubt they are anything from actual intelligence sources in the military.

Also saying China would do nothing is a ridiculous comment. You know this how? Especially considering when China themselves said they would defend NK if we preemptively strike. China does not consider the tests thus far to be anything worthy of a first-strike by the U.S. - so our hands currently are tied.



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: airforce47
The PRC and the Russian Federation are not going to retaliate against the US and its allies for a preemptive strike against the DPRK.


This is the part the WW3 fetishists are in serious denial about. Russia and China simply aren't going to start a full-scale war in which they (along with us) will be devastated over an insignificant minor affiliate like NK.


originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU
a reply to: airforce47




You blow up Kim Jong Un and most of his general staff with a single preemptive nuclear strike. You then demand the DPRK cease all offensive military actions or face immediate total nuclear annihilation and you mean it.


That sounds like a terrible idea!!!

You guys use nukes on anybody, and you can count on losing a LOT of support!
It would affect the entire world, using nukes is a crime against ALL humanity!!
If the USA where to use nukes, i hope and think the rest of the world will impose those same sanctions North Korea are facing, on the states, it is an act of war against humanity to do such a thing!!


This is, in fact, not true. Keep in mind we wouldn't be using 20 megaton strategic nuclear weapons, we'd be using low-yield tactical nukes. A limited nuclear strike in NK would most directly effect NK of course, and China and South Korea, maybe Japan and Russia depending on exactly what we used and the wind conditions. However, the radiation levels that reach them would be low, and some studies would be done in the following 10 years about how we increased cancer rates for people in that region by like 4% or something. We'd set up some fund to pay bribery money to the victims and their families, and the news agencies would do a "10 years later", "20 years later", etc special every decade for the next 50 years. In the rest of the world, the increase in radiation levels would be negligible, like getting 1/10th of a dental x-ray. Sounds like you've been getting all your info from environmentalist propaganda pamphlets.

As far as the consequences for the US, most countries simply can't afford to cut off economic ties with the US. Why do you think that hasn't been done already with all the other shenanigans we've pulled the last few decades? Some countries will pass some token "sanctions" and the UN will chastise us with a meaningless resolution of condemnation, and that will be about it as far as sanctions. The most pronounced effects would be behind the scenes in how our allies and enemies re-evaluate their strategic thinking in any issues that involve them and us. Maybe China would cut trade with us, but in the long run that would actually be good for our economy because it would force us to manufacture our own # again instead of importing everything.

All that being said, I don't think we would use nuclear weapons to strike NK if we did strike them. No, not even with Trump at the helm.


originally posted by: wantsome
A preemptive strike on NK is going to make them throw their hands in the air and give up. They have a 2 million man army and if assets aren't in place to deal with that army we're up the creek. If the US starts moving assets around NK will see it coming a mile away.


They have a large army on paper, but in practice it's never all active at any given time. And when it's not active, it's malnourished and ill-equipped. If they were to activate all of them at once, most of them would still be ill-equipped. The rest of the population aren't even allowed to own firearms, and most of them couldn't afford one anyway. It's not as big a problem as you think.


originally posted by: fleabit
There is a difference between "sanctions don't work" and "sanctions to this point haven't worked". People keep parroting that comment.. sanctions don't work! But.. they might. They have just been too lenient. Now that some actually halfway hard-hitting sanctions are in place, and China seems to be cutting NK off, they may actually work. But they don't work instantly. They take some time before they are felt.


The problem is that that ship has sailed already. No matter what sanctions we put in place now, he's never going to give up his nukes voluntarily. Clinton, Bush and Obama pretty much screwed us out of any peaceful options.
edit on 9 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: fiverx313

To finish an ONGOING war ?
You are missing a few facts.


what ongoing war is that?



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: fiverx313


The Korean war. They are correct in saying the Korean war is still ongoing, as it ended in a cease-fire as opposed to an actual peace treaty. A state of war has existed for decades, which is why a "new" war wouldn't have to be declared. The executive could resume this war at any point, which is likely why it has rejected peace treaties over the years.



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: fiverx313

The one you missed in 1950 that we are currently fighting but an EPICLY violated cease fire that you are scared of, silly ,we can no longer afford it now by a long strategy, at military cost from ANY rogue state and there IS no peaceful country in a declared enemy we are at war with.
I was EMPLOYED there for a year as a forward scout in a divisional recon unit.

edit on 9-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You said they are poorly armed in North Korea. Their armed forces have more guns than the United States military has. The estimated number of firearms the North Korean military has is 6,200,000. Their police are estimated to have 245,000 firearms. Civilian ownership legal and illicit is estimated at 130,000 firearms. gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/north-korea They are malnourished and have an outdated out gunned air force and navy, but they do have more guns and artillery.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

THANK you Iran...damn SUBS.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Tomcat1970

Human wave assaults against the first Cav?




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join