Originally posted by Saucerat
The US's nuclear capabilities are very limited. It was only designed for a first strike, that's it. The chains of command involved in launching a nuclear attack are so dependent on each other, that if one person is killed, then we're basically dead.

By the time we get prepared for launch a sencond strike, the president and other important officials will probably be dead.

Logistically, we're screwed as hell.

We do have the geographic advantage against NK, however. If both countries launched the exact same missile at the exact same time at the exact same speen, we would hit them first. Why? The rotation of the earth.

So your saying we dont have the ability to launch a strike if we are hit first????
Ever hear of subs?

America has the greatest Nuclear capabilities in the World. Your talking about chain of command, we would know immediatly who would take over if the President was killed. If you think Congress, the House, Sec. Of State, Treasury, CIA director, and so on and so on would all be killed by a nuclear strike, then well possibly.
But then we have Generals throughout the world that would take power.

Logistically we are probably more prepared than any other nation as far as Chain of Command goes.

Originally posted by Dreamz
So your saying we dont have the ability to launch a strike if we are hit first????
Ever hear of subs?

America has the greatest Nuclear capabilities in the World. Your talking about chain of command, we would know immediatly who would take over if the President was killed. If you think Congress, the House, Sec. Of State, Treasury, CIA director, and so on and so on would all be killed by a nuclear strike, then well possibly.
But then we have Generals throughout the world that would take power.

Logistically we are probably more prepared than any other nation as far as Chain of Command goes.

When I say chains of command, I'm talking about all the procedures of authorization that has to go through before a single missile can be launched. Communication can easily be disrupted if a missile hits home, killing land lines or making a huge EMP field.

I belive In the event of a nuclear first strike, the chain of command could be bypassed if there was reason to belive the chain of command were broken.

The chain of command is there to make sure that nukes arent launched but the rules of the game probably change once the genie is out of the bottle.

Places like NORAD and Space COmmand pretty much operate 24-7 looking for first strikes.

Please our nuclear arsenal is designed for a retaliatory strike. Remember the cold war. We were prepared to fire back because we knew we weren’t going to fire first. Also it would probably be more difficult to do a first strike considering the chain of command a President has to go through a chain of command for that. I guarantee you if much of the line of succession is killed in a nuclear holocaust at least one sub commander will lob couple nukes to whomever he thinks did it.

We also have tactical nukes in South Korea, that can hit every major target in the North.

What's all this about our nuclear weapon systems designed for retalitory use only? Never heard of that before. ALL missile systems are either offense or defense in design.

Offense: Pershing II, Lance, Trident, etc.
Defense:? Never heard of a defensive nuclear weapon system.


Star Wars system? Another farce. I would LOVE to believe that it would work, but chances are it won't. It was estimated that the SDI would be able to knock out of the sky 90% of ALL missiles launched at US continental targets.

What about the other 10%

NORAD would have to pick and choose which targets will be defended, (i.e. New York, or The Ford Motor Company). I hope I live in one of the areas deemed "saveworthy".

While NK might launch a missile, in all probability it would not hit. Their missile design is far behind ours, and they don't have the materials or land to repeatedly test the design of an ICBM w/o our knowledge.

They would probably just make some fish sick

I'm reading a book abou the Korean war. It's very interesting. I would think if Korea wanted to retailate against the US they would a) invade South Korea against and b) team up with China to invade Japan, or make a pact where as their invading South Korea, China doesn't invade N. Korea. This would throw the U.S. into world war.

There aren't any nukes in south korea. Unless, its something supposedly top secret.

Originally posted by gooking
There aren't any nukes in south korea. Unless, its something supposedly top secret.

Are you kidding me? We have plenty of tac nukes in AND around S. Korea. Do you REALLY think our measly little 38,000 troop contingent is what kept the north at bay for the last fifty years? Think again.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
None, between all the Navy ships with interception and counter missle batteries and the "Starwars Sats" from the Reagan years along with current classified anti-nuclear fail safes. I would find it highly unlikely that they could get one over the pond.

If a nuke could hit the US it is going to come from inside the country, not out.

unless the rushkies have something to say about that. but i doubt it.

Well lets hope it never comes down to it.
Im sure they would destroy predetermined cities, which play a major role in American economy.
NewYork could be a likely target.
Deep

Are you kidding me? We have plenty of tac nukes in AND around S. Korea. Do you REALLY think our measly little 38,000 troop contingent is what kept the north at bay for the last fifty years? Think again.

No, but they know that the u.s. would send reinforcements to the peninsula. And the south korean military isn't what it was in the 1950's, they have 650,000 active forces, better tanks, fighters, have over millions of men in the reserves. And their 707th special missions battalion and spies are known to conduct operations in north korea, sometimes delaying n.korean operations.

They also have tons of chemical and biological weapons they could throw into n.korean lines. Thousands of barrels of them.

So the u.s. is not the only country that has an army over there.

And I have never heard of the u.s. having tactical nukes there. And i've never seen one, or heard one while I over was there. Actually, I did ask them about it and they all deny there are any nukes in their country. So if their is, then I assumed it could be a conspiracy.

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by gooking]

I agree there may be nukes around the peninsula.

I have some sources that say otherwise. It always just struck me as common sense so I never really gave it much thought. Do you think our carrier groups are not nuclear armed while deployed? Including the subs?
Of course they are. As would be the long range missile batteries. I'm not saying they are trigger ready but I know they are there, just in case.

Well, thats interesting....

If there were any nukes then it may have been before my time. I'll see what I can look up.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by ADVISOR
None, between all the Navy ships with interception and counter missle batteries and the "Starwars Sats" from the Reagan years along with current classified anti-nuclear fail safes. I would find it highly unlikely that they could get one over the pond.

If a nuke could hit the US it is going to come from inside the country, not out.

Go look at the percentage of the intercepters.

They dont always work.

Also which intercepters are you talking about.

Look at their range.

It was never proven that an intercepter can stop a nuke.

Unless i am behind on that(i am not a genius so maybe it was proven but show me!)

One final comment by me. ANyone heard of the suposed End of the World Projects?? Like if the USA was on the merge of total collapse and attack by a foriegn army (invasion) or attacked by nukes and we are crippled there is suposebly a systemy in place that would launch about 100 missiles in all directions with like a ton of tiny warheads on em and hit everyone of our enemyys with a nuclear warhead? NOw thats retaliation and a good second strike weapon.