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.

 

U.S. Nuclear Retaliatory Response

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
But NK might counter attack :

That would be suicide for them.

At max 10 vs. 10,000


question is...do they care?




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Any nuclear war will be MAD=Mutually Assured Destruction.

Read that thread properly, you'll find that NK has delivery mechanisms to make their nukes reach the US while the latter is still working on the development of a credible BMD.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
North Korea is no where near assuring MAD. At best they could reach the U.S. west coast, but they couldn't touch New York, Washington, Chicago, and many other major U.S. cities.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I agree, DPRK is nowehere near MAD status. They lack proven delivery systems, likely lack the technology to make warheads to fit on those unrpoven systems, and even if they get all that worked out 10-15 (small) nuclear detonations would not even be enough to einterely destroy the Southern California pupulation centers- let alone the rest of the US.

The US would obviously not be happy or unharmed - but it would most certainly survive...



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
What are some of you people thinking??? Did you go to public schools and get the standard education?? The standard Fear mantra.??

First strike options have been on the table since these weapons were invented. They just dont make most of them public. What do you think they come up with in these think tanks paid for by the Government???

Have some of you been watching to much of the Redskins /Cowboys Cheerleaders. Fear Factor , American Idol, The apprentice...you know Important stuff in our lives!!!

First strike options are not new ..our government has had them in planning folders for over 50 years.

Suggest if you people want to live in fear...of first strike or nuclear options..that you research the Israeli "Sampson Option" or "Sampson Complex" verses their former "Masada Complex." If you need a eye opener this is it. Remember now ..with the Yom Kippur War ...Isreal was removing and arming her nuclear arsenel and reading them for use and would have used them...definitely. You people need to think broader than your individual fears. I am not saying not to be afraid...but that some of you have no idea how close it has come from other nations. Very provincial in thinking.

There are plans in folders to attack Mexico..Canada..central America as well as other senerios..ready to go.

You determine how much fear and trembling you want to govern your lives. But I suggest you broaden your horizons some more. North Korea is nothing new here.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Israel was in a different situation.. they were under the grave dranger of being COMPLETELY over run.. We're talking loss of sovereignity here.. Not some territorial war being fought 1000s of mles from their hoemland..
How can you even possibly compare that to a nuclear retaliatory response by the US vis a vis NK (and Iran)..
US does not perceive loss of sovereignity in any scenario except global nuclear holocaust...
And that is not the case with Iran and NK..
Iran I doubt will EVER launch a nuke at the US UNLESS the US invades on one of its "righteous warrior" escapades.. And if they do use nukes.. they'll most definitely be smuggled into continental USA and used on major impact locations(populated cities etc etc..)
I didn't know NK had the range to hit the west coast of the US..

And I don't think Iran and/or NK have warheads with yields more than a few tens of kilotons..
Where did 500kt come from??!!



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
North Korea is no where near assuring MAD. At best they could reach the U.S. west coast, but they couldn't touch New York, Washington, Chicago, and many other major U.S. cities.


Yeah they'll hit San Jose, LA,etc and wipe out the whole of california.

Are you saying the US wont mind this ? Is this insignificant ?

Will the US risk its most important state getting destroyed to go fight some useless third rate communist nation and establish democracy there ?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
And I don't think Iran and/or NK have warheads with yields more than a few tens of kilotons..
Where did 500kt come from??!!




Quite true, these countries are only capable of building a very basic atomic weapon based on designs 50+ years old.
A 500 kt weapon is impossible for them to build, this would require knowledge of thermonuclear weapons design. Even then they couldn't produce enough tritium and deuterium for even one weapon.

They could maybe ( a big maybe ) build a boosted fission weapon by burning tritium in the center of the bomb, doubling its power. However this is probab;y still beyond their technical capability



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Dear all,

I have to say that any nuclear strike on Iran or NK by the US except in response to a nuclear strike on the ConUS would be the worst foriegn relations disaster of all time.

There is no justification at all.

Should the US wish to disarm the NKs or Iranians of their nukes then from a purely "getting the job done" standpoint the use of nukes would be stupid and pointless. The use of conventional weapons will do a much better job.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by djohnsto77
North Korea is no where near assuring MAD. At best they could reach the U.S. west coast, but they couldn't touch New York, Washington, Chicago, and many other major U.S. cities.


Yeah they'll hit San Jose, LA,etc and wipe out the whole of california.

Are you saying the US wont mind this ? Is this insignificant ?

Will the US risk its most important state getting destroyed to go fight some useless third rate communist nation and establish democracy there ?


Didn't we do that back in during the Korean War?



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Daedalus3
And I don't think Iran and/or NK have warheads with yields more than a few tens of kilotons..
Where did 500kt come from??!!




Quite true, these countries are only capable of building a very basic atomic weapon based on designs 50+ years old.
A 500 kt weapon is impossible for them to build, this would require knowledge of thermonuclear weapons design. Even then they couldn't produce enough tritium and deuterium for even one weapon.

They could maybe ( a big maybe ) build a boosted fission weapon by burning tritium in the center of the bomb, doubling its power. However this is probab;y still beyond their technical capability


typo - my fault - 1 too many 0`s!!


www.johnstonsarchive.net...

you all might want to have a read - even 4 hits would have national effects.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Yeah they'll hit San Jose, LA,etc and wipe out the whole of california.


You are overstimating the power of nuclear weapons. Even a very large (10 MT) warhead would not kill more than half of the Los Angeles area, it is doubtful the DPRK could deliver anything more than 10 kt (that's 1000 times smaller). 10-15 of these couldn't even destroy souther california, let alone all of the state (a 10kt weapon has a lethal radius of only a few miles even in flat terrain - which California is not).

There is a difference between a painful strike and destruction ....

I would be willing to bet that Kim Jong Il would not be willing to trade a few million americans for himself and his country.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Any attack on the U.S. including Alaska and Hawaii and even unincorporated territories would DEMAND a nuclear response.

I would also support a nuclear response if NK attacked Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or other U.S. ally in the region. Likewise for Iran, if they attacked Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Israel, I think that would require a nuclear response from the U.S.

I doubt NK has the ability to reach the U.S., and if they did it might be one or two missiles that would be so off target, they'd probably hit Canada or farmland or something...but it is a real risk.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
over the years ..unbeknownst to most Americans..the threat to Israel is the threat to America.

When the Israelis were about to be overun ...the US Airforce was in the process of converting its F102 air interceptor force..in Iceland with then brand new F4E Phantom models from the factory at McDonald Douglas. At that time Iceland and Alaska were the most active air intercept area that the United State had with which to deal..regularly. These aging F102s were already twenty plus years olde. Iceland got 10 year olde model of F4Cs from some training base in Arizona..to make do and the Israelis got the brand new F4E models. This was done to prevent the Nuclear strike ....which would have happened if we had not re equipped the Israelis. The concern was in how this war would snowball.
We sent much more than F4E Phantoms to Israel. Much more. And we continue to do this ..with some equipment though the Israelis have themselves built up thier defense industry since..in certain arenas.
The spin off of what has happened in Iraq...the fall of Libya in certain areas of influence..the Syrain/Lebanon ..events have only strengthened the Israeli position. Lets not also leave out the passing on of Arafat. It is going to continue with other events and strengthen the Israeli position.
The Chinese want and need oil to secure their industrialization...the Koreans are right next door. These are for now..."wild cards". Where are they going to go to get oil to feed their machine.?? Throw in Muslim nations who dont like us,including asian muslims, and have a long standing hatred for the Israelis...how does the wild card look now.??
These are not individual isolated events. They are related politically/economically.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
DJ,


Originally posted by djohnsto77
I would also support a nuclear response if NK attacked Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or other U.S. ally in the region. Likewise for Iran, if they attacked Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Israel, I think that would require a nuclear response from the U.S.


You are just itching to nuke someone aintcha?

If the US were to use nukes in any case other than in retaliation for an attack on the CONUS it would be a massive overreaction.

The use of nuclear weapons is only logical to those of an unbalanced psychological state. No matter what the circumstances.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
North Korea won't attack anyone, if anyone is going to attack, it is as usual going to be the US in pre-emption against an exaggerated threat. North Korea is if you ask me a lot like the USSR: they won't fire or go to war except through proxies - which in case of NK are not existing - as they know the consequences. The threat of NK selling nukes to terrorists are launching a missile towards the US is but mere political propaganda used to pump billions into SDI and related military programs.

[edit on 21-6-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Well, any response would be based on the effects of the attack that triggered it. My guess is that the first line of retaliation/counterattack would be a B-61 or B-83, or an AGM-86B Nuclear Tipped cruise missile deliverd by either a B-2 Spirit, or a B-52. Then again, who knows!



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I doubt the US is NK target, NK is more than likely to target seoul and japan rather than the US, closer and eaiser to target but they use them it would only be a last shot before the collaspe



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

I didn't know NK had the range to hit the west coast of the US..


We assume since some of their missiles might have the range to tech the West coast. But these missiles have never been tested of proven to be a reliable delivery system for a nuke warhead.

Besides, you think we would not know that N. Korea was about to send a ballistic missile to the west coat. That thing would be taken out on the launch pad before it even gets airborne.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
From what I understand, Bush already has a full drawn-out plan of retaliation at the detonation of ANY nuclear weapon on ANY area from North Korea. He already has plans to declare war on them if this happens. (And he is the man we let lead our nation...) I read an article on this a bit back, I'll see if I can find it, but I'm pretty sure that would be the response of the U.S., as far as our government goes.


Slick Willy aka Bubba Clinton had plans to drop 30 nukes on North Korea, he even had bombers carry out practice drops.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join