Originally posted by blobby
i live in uk but am curious, would usa launch nukes back if no nukes got through to usa.

depends on how they attacked. if they launch at the US directly they could wipe out california and the western seaboard. but if they came in over the north pole they could probally hit new york or washington dc

Originally posted by nathraq
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".

would "responsive" be good enough for ya?

If the attacked? The cities that would most likely be destroyed would be Washington, D.C. (Obviously the White House/Senate/Congress)

L.A. (Los Angeles), because of all the economical things that go on there, and if movie stars we're killed, it would bring down U.S. morale probably.

New York, because of the Stock Market/Wall Street/ etc etc economical reasons.

Maybe San Francisco, because it also had important ports for ships and trading embargoes.

-wD

L.A. (Los Angeles), because of all the economical things that go on there, and if movie stars we're killed, it would bring down U.S. morale probably

I hope so, I cant stand many celebs.
Too much money for people who barely deserve it.
Deep

Whoever is making the non-sensical claims that the US cannot retalliate against a first strike has forgotten the following:

with out land based nukes in US there is the following capability left;

nukes in other countries,
B1 and B2 bombers,
nuclear subs,
aircraft carriers,
and not least of all nukes of allies.

sorry but I pity the fool that dares to strike the US.

even if every silo or land based launch in ANY area of the US went down, the amount of fire power left is more than enough to take out ANYONE.

Originally posted by THENEO
Whoever is making the non-sensical claims that the US cannot retalliate against a first strike has forgotten the following:

with out land based nukes in US there is the following capability left;

nukes in other countries,
B1 and B2 bombers,
nuclear subs,
aircraft carriers,
and not least of all nukes of allies.

sorry but I pity the fool that dares to strike the US.

even if every silo or land based launch in ANY area of the US went down, the amount of fire power left is more than enough to take out ANYONE.

and If Russian attacks US then it will be Russia who takes out US and US takes out Russia!

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

All I can say is that there ARE Tactical nukes in South Korea. Let me see: after "special" weapons training at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama,those soldiers had a choice to go to Europe. The choices of countries were: Germany, Italy,Turkey or Greece. On the other side of the world, the only choice was South Korea. Those were the places where people with those MOS's were stationed abroad. DO the Math.

North Korea

Nuclear. In December 2002, North Korea announced its intention to
resume operation of nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, which had been
frozen under the terms of the 1994 US-North Korea Agreed Framework.
IAEA seals and monitoring equipment were removed and disabled, and
IAEA inspectors expelled from the country.

On 10 January 2003, North Korea announced its intention to withdraw
from the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT
Treaty). In late February 2003, North Korea restarted its 5 Mwe
reactor which could produce spent fuel rods containing plutonium.

In late April 2003, North Korea told US officials that it possessed
nuclear weapons, and signaled its intent to reprocess the 1994 canned
spent fuel for more nuclear weapons. On 9 June, North Korea openly
threatened to build a nuclear deterrent force. We continued to
monitor and assess North Korea's nuclear weapons efforts.

Ballistic Missile. North Korea also has continued procurement of raw
materials and components for its extensive ballistic missile programs
from various foreign sources. In the first half of 2003, North Korea
continued to abide by its voluntary moratorium on flight tests
adopted in 1998, but announced it may reconsider its September 2002
offer to extend the moratorium beyond 2003.

The multiple-stage Taepo Dong-2—capable of reaching parts of the
United States with a nuclear weapon-sized payload—may be ready for
flight-testing. North Korea is nearly self-sufficient in developing
and producing ballistic missiles, and has demonstrated a willingness
to sell complete systems and components that have enabled other
states to acquire longer range capabilities earlier than would
otherwise have been possible and to acquire the basis for domestic
development efforts.

Chemical. North Korea is not a party to the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC). During the reporting period, Pyongyang continued to
acquire dual-use chemicals that could potentially be used to support
Pyongyang's long-standing chemical warfare program. North Korea's
chemical warfare capabilities included the ability to produce bulk
quantities of nerve, blister, choking and blood agent, using its
sizeable, although aging, chemical industry. North Korea possesses a
stockpile of unknown size of these agents and weapons, which it could
employ in a variety of delivery means.

Biological. North Korea has acceded to the Biological and Toxin
Weapons Convention, but nonetheless has pursued biological warfare
(BW) capabilities since the 1960s. Pyongyang acquired dual-use
biotechnical equipment, supplies, and reagents that could be used to
support North Korea's BW efforts. As of the first half of 2003, North
Korea was believed to have possessed a munitions production
infrastructure that would have allowed it to weaponize BW agents, and
may have such weapons available for use.

Originally posted by gooking

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]

Mabye not tactical nukes, but you can bet there are a few subs with a big load of nukes ready and waiting just in case!

if n.Korea launched nukes at usa what citys would be destroyed

None....

1. They wouldn't have more nukes than we could knock out with countermeasures...

2. If we are talking current status, using optimism on the side of the NKs...they could hit in Alaska, or along the western seaboard, and Hawaii...(current intel suggests that they do not have missiles with sufficient range, so we're even stretching here) They would be either jammed, destroyed in space using HELs, or Boeing based HELs, or modified versions of the Patriot that are still highly classified.

If no nukes got through, the response would be a full conventional counter-strike that would totally eradicate the NKs ability to wage war... This would be a combination of air power and cruise missiles, using land forces only for containment... Naval power would be limited to destrying enemy naval vessels, and launching of aircraft and cruise missiles.'

If we used strictly conventional weapons (with a few nasty ones, like the MOAB and other bunker busters...) we'd keep the neighbors happy....

All it takes is a few subs and carriers, and the US has nukes in any part of the world.... Not to mention, ICBM capability from the US mainland....

That is all it takes, so there is no need to have nukes in south korea, as long as the u.s. fleet has them.


Even if they have a defense against it, it is still scary.

[Edited on 2-12-2003 by gooking]

Qouted by Gooking

And if the knowledge of nukes in south korea is so widely spread, then i'm sure some of the south koreans would be protesting by now (not because of n.korea, but because of domestic affairs).

There were protests at a certain army depot in Germany, almost annually. The Greens would show up, the MP's would close and lock the gates, and the protesters would stay outside the gates all day, chanting about the "chemical" weapons that they believed were stored there.

Guess what? There were absolutely NO chemical weapons there. If they knew what was actually at that depot, they would have rioted.

The "special" people I was referring to were the ones with the MOS 55G in the army. Look up that MOS, then you'll know what I mean.

How do I know?

I was there.

Yes, okay that was true, but what I was saying is that it would be kinda hard not knowing there are nukes in their country. The one of the reason is if the koreans think they know there are nukes, then of course they would protest eventually (or at least complain) and I would hear about it. But there were no such protest, the closest thing being that they protested against where to dump the nuclear waste (the nuclear reactor, not weapons).


If there is nukes, then I don't know how I didn't know about it.

So your a nuclear weapons technician, did you actually worked on nuclear weapons in south korea during/after 1994?


[Edited on 2-12-2003 by gooking]

[Edited on 2-12-2003 by gooking]

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.

Sadly, this is all bull#. There are no technologies that can effectively stop nuclear weapons mid-flight. It is nearly impossible.

As with with the US, nuclear weapons are kept as a deterent against possible attacks from other countries. I would believe if a nuclear weapon were launched from North Korea it may be shot down, there is just too many sensing devices and satellites that would probably detect the launch as it comes off the pad.

If for some reason a part of the US or an ally is hit by the weapon, I believe the use of tactical nuclear weapons may be in order to limit fallout and radioactivity. Targets of military interest would be the ones that would be nuked.

Thermonuclear weapons are a "last resort" type of weapon only to be used when

1) Someone hits you with one
2) No other alternatives are feasible.

well IMO, no cities would be destroyed. LA and its surrounding areas will stain some damage, but nothing major.