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 Speeds North Korea Attack Contingency

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
In light of renewed Chinese support, the Bush Administration is going forward with contingency planning for strikes on North Korea. Thereby bolstering its commitment to its allies, Japan and South Korea.
 



today.reuters.com
A Pentagon official was quoted as saying that the Defense Department was considering "various military options" for removing North Korea's nuclear program.

The Bush administration recently affirmed its commitment to both South Korea and Japan that it would use nuclear weapons to deter North Korea, another senior defense official told the newspaper.

"We will resort to whatever force levels we need to have to defend the Republic of Korea. The nuclear deterrence is in place," the official said.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The statements in support of Japan and South Korea, even to the extent of Nuclear weapons, is powerful. The statement is also an elevation in risk. We have basically created a mini Cold War situation in the region. Only problem is, you've got a little man who thinks he's a God on the other end of the table!




posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Even I will be all for it, that is what kim needs.

I believe that once US even hint that is getting ready to attack he will back off in a hurry.

His country can not possible take an attack from the US.

Let the NK people start to move in masses to the Chinese border.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Or, The Evil Regime falls. I can see the South Korean's and International community rushing in aid supplies to the starving North Korean's. A reunification along the lines of East & West Germany. Isn't it exciting to think positively for a moment?

On the other hand, Kim decides he's not going down without using some nukes. Therefore, our nuclear pledge is called in...........



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
If actually does have nukes that he can launch do you really think we can take out all his silos fast enough before he can launch them? Come on think about it.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
If actually does have nukes that he can launch do you really think we can take out all his silos fast enough before he can launch them? Come on think about it.



No, and that's why things will really get nasty, now that we have promised nuclear retaliation!



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
If actually does have nukes that he can launch do you really think we can take out all his silos fast enough before he can launch them? Come on think about it.


That is not the scenario we should be worried about, never will happen IMO.

I can see a paranoid, desperate and perhaps departing Kim Jong Ill, who would think nothing of handing over nuclear warheads, or bombs to Iran, Syria, and almost any terrorist organization.

In that scenario.. we could face a real threat of "terrorist type" nuclear attacks in any US, or UK city.

Just food for thought.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Well, I do not think any of them would make it to a target on the US land itself. HOWEVER, I am sure they could take out Guam, maybe even Hawaii?



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
whats to say that they are even in silos at all?



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

In that scenario.. we could face a real threat of "terrorist type" nuclear attacks in any US, or UK city.

Just food for thought.


Awww...Why do we have to get dragged into this one?

We'd get proper buggered with just one nuke in the UK.

I don't mean to sound like a wet flannel, but we're already stretched and copping loads of flack for what we're doing already.

Personally, although I am sure the US support is appreciated, it's about time those nations deal with their own backyard. Japan and SK are hardly weak nations (on the contrary), so maybe they should be the one's issuing the threats and what not..



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   

posted by UM_Gazz
I can see a paranoid, desperate and perhaps departing Kim Jong Ill, who would think nothing of handing over nuclear warheads, or bombs to Iran, Syria, and almost any terrorist organization.



Here's a link to a related story. I know, some here will play shoot the messenger, but this is a book review.

www.worldnetdaily.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Think about were the military is right now, we are in Afghanistan and Iraq...do we really need to be messing with North Korea with our military spread out? Also how would China react to something like that since they backed North Korea correct?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Well, I do not think any of them would make it to a target on the US land itself. HOWEVER, I am sure they could take out Guam, maybe even Hawaii?


I am not so sure about that. With the shoddy state of security at our seaports and the ease with which cargo speeds through security from incoming planes at our airports, I worry very much about nuclear materials being smuggled into our country. God willing, it will not happen but I still get chills thinkng of what "could" happen.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I imagine that the idea is not to invaded NK, after all is nothing in that country that can serve any purpose to the profiteers of war in the US and is not resources with any monetary value like the middle east and oil.

But bombing targets as the nuclear plants should be a successful mission.


I am all for it.


[edit on 4-11-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I imagine that the idea is not to invaded NK, after all is nothing in that country that can serve any purposed to the profiteers of war in the US and is not resources with any monetary value like the middle east and oil.

But bombing targets as the nuclear plants should be a successful mission.


I am all for it.


That don't sound like you Margy, "I'm all for it." Bombing North Korea could cause massive American casualties.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
If anyone has seen the movie "behind enemy lines 2",the scenario they use makes sense. The u.s and south korea plan a massive pre-emptive strike against n.korea to destroy its nuke tipped missile. They hit all of korea's known nuke facilites,and take out their air power within hours. They also try to destroy as much of n. koreas arty as they can before sending in the troops.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

That don't sound like you Margy, "I'm all for it." Bombing North Korea could cause massive American casualties.


How can cause massive casualties when bombing strategic places are done without any troops in the area.

US doesn't have to invade NK.

And to tell you the truth I don't believe what kim is proclaiming.

I think that a visual taste or our might will be enough to stop him we got the capabilities and the resources and we are the best.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

How can cause massive casualties when bombing strategic places are done without any troops in the area.


Well we still have thousands of troops next door to NK, while NK has a 1.2 million man army.


US doesn't have to invade NK.


Wouldn't matter, NK may not be able to touch our aircraft and ships. But Kim can still send the army south where our troops are at.


And to tell you the truth I don't believe what kim is proclaiming.


Thats great.


I think that a visual taste or our might will be enough to stop him we got the capabilities and the resources and we are the best.


Hehe, nothing goes exactly as planned in any wars.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Deltaboy, I can not believe that you are losing faith on our might.

You know I don't, does that sounds funny . . . because I am so negative when it comes to Iraq?

Well, I never have doubt the might of our military and our technology and what we are capable of doing.

Yes Delta our might is bigger that what you have seen in pre war Iraq. Remember that the objective in Iraq pre-war were achieved in time and in the frame that was planned.

With minimum casualties or you forgot that?

We are the best what we have failed is on playing police because our troops are fighters no peace keepers.


US will have no problem bombing and making a death area on the border with NK, anything moving can be bombed in that area, so the so called million army will turn into nothing if constant bombing of the area on the border with SK is done.


Meanwhile US can take any area where they have their military equipment and facilities and taking their nuclear plants would be a breeze.

We can do it and we are capable.



[edit on 4-11-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Wouldn't matter, NK may not be able to touch our aircraft and ships. But Kim can still send the army south where our troops are at.


No troops will be sent south to the NK/SK border. The area surrounding the borders are mountain passes with more land mines per square inch than lil' Kim has soldiers. It's impassable. I think with some strategic planning we could take out both of Kim's nukes!



Hehe, nothing goes exactly as planned in any wars.


Then you're familiar with the saying "no plan survives first contact with the enemy'?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Oh gosh, one more thing. The US has "contingency plans" to strike Iceland too. We have a plan to blow up every country on this planet, it is a little worrisome that we're reiterating a nuclear back up though, that's not good!




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join