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.

 

North Korea to be attacked; U.S. Nuclear first strike "likely" - Trustable info?

page: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Yeah my bad I read you original post and didn't get around to reading the new post before I replied.




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Don't we have our assassins that can go in and take this guy Kim out? Would that not be more effective than a nuclear strike? Cheaper and likely less collateral damage to the poor suffering civilians there.

These poor NK people have it so bad now what they need is to be liberated by the South not destroyed in a nuclear hell. SK has some really bad a$$ robots now. Their technology advantages are enormous even if they have a smaller armed force. The economic engine of SK supports the entire region.

Japan, US, and SK should team up and send their Ninjas and off this crazy SOB for the entire planet's sake.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
There's just no way that the US would carry out a nuclear first strike, anywhere, barring some kind of grotesque Cold War redux. Neither China nor Russia would permit such an action in North Korea, and the Obama Administration would never incur the political liability for executing a first strike scenario even if they did.

I agree with the poster who observed that this reads like fan fiction. The strategic benefit of a nuclear first strike by the United States against North Korea is far outweighed by the costs. In the event of conflict, if the use of nuclear weapons were even to be authorized, I suspect it would be limited to specialized applications, such as penetrating hardened military or nuclear sites.

The idea of nuking Pyongyang is ridiculous. As much of a crock as some of us might have realized it to be, the war in Iraq was partly sold as a mission to secure WMDs. The DPRK's got WMDs, no doubt about it. But we didn't go into Baghdad with a nuclear first strike on the "assumption" that they had WMDs, and we won't go into Pyongyang that way just because we know they do.

There's no need, and it's not efficient. In terms of political capital, it would be far cheaper to respond to a North Korean act of war--nuclear or even conventional--with nuclear weapons than it would be to initiate conflict with a nuclear first strike.

We may be gearing up to use nuclear weapons in retaliation, but I cannot imagine they are to be deployed in a first strike.

Either way, it is chilling that at least nuclear attacks, if not all out nuclear war, are not a total impossibilities in the near future. The situation in Pakistan is deteriorating; it is entirely possible that fundamentalists there could gain control of a nuclear weapon. Despite our best efforts to safeguard nuclear materials cooperatively with the Russians, holes in their nuclear security still exist. North Korea has probably transferred more nuclear technology and know-how than we realize.

Funny thing is, if there was some shadow government or group, or whatever running around pulling all the strings, you'd think they'd have gotten rid of nukes a long time ago.

After all, a nuked-out planet's no good to anyone, no matter how rich or powerful.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by UFOTECH
 


The same reason we wouldn't want to do a ground assault is the reason we can't assassinate him. NK has done nothing but prepare for war for a very long time and its not a place you can just drop a seal team in and call it a day. They have set up the country for war, LIL Kimmy has surrounded himself with only the most loyal of people.

Blow them up and move on is about the only real choice if NK goes on the offensive.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Another thing to keep in mind...those damn NK tunnels...They are everywhere, its like a handmade subway system.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutShine
There's no need, and it's not efficient. In terms of political capital, it would be far cheaper to respond to a North Korean act of war--nuclear or even conventional--with nuclear weapons than it would be to initiate conflict with a nuclear first strike.


You know, I bet there were people around President Truman that said the same thing, and we all know how that turned out. If President Obama were to stand by, delay, and not take decisive action (as other Presidents have been accused of doing), and the North Korean Army were to make the first move on Seoul, you're looking at millions of people killed. Seoul is only about 60 miles from the DMZ (been there - done that). The armistice is over. The war is resumed. The trigger will be pulled, who pulls first will make all the difference in the world.

On a personal note, I would agree with a strike scenario as depicted in the OP link. Cruise missiles all along the DMZ arriving at the same time wiping out the million man army that North Korea has along the border, and then annihilation of the Capital along with bunker busters taking out hardened underground facilities.

There are over 10 Million in Seoul alone, much less the rest of South Korea. President Obama will now be faced with the same question President Truman was. The choice isn't up to us, it's now up to one man. The clock is ticking.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by whoshotJR
 


You know there were Shoguns and even Emperors in Japan that prepared for war for decades and surrounded themselves with only the most trusted and well trained men but when they became a big enough threat to the Iga and Koga clans they sent their best men or women in their and took them out.

We just don't have the stomach now days for sending our best on a likely one way mission. We would rather nuke an entire country and cause nuclear fall out to rain over half a continent instead of spending some highly trained men on a one way mission.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFOTECH
reply to post by whoshotJR
 


You know there were Shoguns and even Emperors in Japan that prepared for war for decades and surrounded themselves with only the most trusted and well trained men but when they became a big enough threat to the Iga and Koga clans they sent their best men or women in their and took them out.

We just don't have the stomach now days for sending our best on a likely one way mission. We would rather nuke an entire country and cause nuclear fall out to rain over half a continent instead of spending some highly trained men on a one way mission.


I don't think it would matter.

In my opinion he is already dead, but in the assumption that he is alive, taking KJI out alone would not be enough.

That would be like taking out the US president and hoping the entire country's direction would change. It would not happen.

KJI's generals and advisors are probably as much to blame for recent events (possibly more so) than the man himself is.

You would have to behead their entire government down to the regional controllers to enact a change of national direction.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bpg131313
 


Well I agree that its a terrible crisis and it will only get worse but, those millions in Seoul would be devastated by the chemical and biological weapons that NK would immediately rain.

Even with the highly accurate guided missiles and guided bombs there wouldnt be a chance in hell of the US taking out all the Scud sites in time.
Like I said earlier, it only takes one nerve agent laden scud to ruin your day.

"Been there-done that" - I also spent a good bit of time in Korea under USFK...Remember all the NBC training and exercises? Theres good reason for them I assure you.

The USFK is merely an effort to hold the NKs until the rest of the Pacific Command can reinforce. I assure a first strike scenario would not be pretty. But you are right that it may be better than nothing.

Its a catch 22...damn if you do damned if you dont. IMHO the only effective approach would have to come from China...which is a long shot.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by KingPen]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bpg131313
 


Thanks for your thoughts, they made me think. Ultimately, I stand by what I said, but I do have a few respectfully posed questions for you:

First: Truman was close to the end of a long war with a hard fought enemy, his decision to use nuclear weapons had somewhere in its balance the weight of hundreds of thousands of American lives that would be spared by avoiding a conventional invasion of Japan, and he arguably did not fully comprehend the downstream consequences of unleashing nuclear weaponry into the world. Isn't Obama's decision to use nuclear weapons in a first strike against the DPRK vastly different from Truman's to use them against an old foe? Isn't the decision to use nuclear weapons, particularly in a first strike, radically different what it was in 1945?

Second: Do you really think Kim would destroy Seoul right off the bat? What leverage does he have after that?

Third: If we used cruise missiles to wipe out the million man army, as you suggest, why would we need to nuke Pyongyang?

Finally: We are probably quite capable of intercepting many, if not most, of the missiles that could come out of Pyongyang, and they have enough nuclear material for somewhere between 8-16 nuclear weapons. Why would we use nuclear weapons against a country so ill-suited to make good on its posturing?

I'm not trying to be offensively contentious, and I would like to hear what you think.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Don't believe for a second that the U.S. is going to start a nuclear war against NK. As far as I'm concerned, none of the sources mentioned hold much credibility. Somebody on a blog somewhere started the rumor and the Chinese paper picked up on it. Do a google search and you'll see that this hoax has spread like wildfire with every blog out there. In the event that this wasn't a rumor it would have made it's way to every news network by now.

If you want to know what is really going on then read about it for yourself by sources that actually know what they are talking about. I don't pay attention to too much "news" that comes from the mainstream media but there are certain things that they do get right.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
No I don't think we are going to have a nuclear first strike on N.Korea.

HOWEVER; with them pulling out of the armistice, I would say the danger level of some sort of conflict is rapidly increasing. IF they have or we suspect they have nukes ready to use, then yeah you might see us use some. I posted on the other N,Korea thread some of the OPLANs for Korea. Some of you should start reading before posting.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutShine
reply to post by bpg131313
 

Finally: We are probably quite capable of intercepting many, if not most, of the missiles that could come out of Pyongyang, and they have enough nuclear material for somewhere between 8-16 nuclear weapons. Why would we use nuclear weapons against a country so ill-suited to make good on its posturing?

I'm not trying to be offensively contentious, and I would like to hear what you think.


Well you would probably be quite surprised to know that we may not be as "capable" as your think. Sure, we could get some of them...my guess, around 20%. But thats in regards to the conventional weapons.

Consider this: You've most likely read about the insurgents firing scuds into the US bases in Iraq in the early days of the war. The missile defense systems being used there are the Patriots...same as in the ROK. The difference? The insurgents have not been planning on getting through the patriots for the last 5 decades.

Further, there isnt any substantial evidence to suggest that NK has figured out how to mount a nuclear weapon on a missile. They havent made it small enough yet.

The concern would be that because NK is so strapped for cash that they may very well sell the nukes to another problematic regime or organization. Its more about non-proliferation.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by KingPen]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


I see your point but I doubt the US "needs permission" from China for anything. More like give notice.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm
reply to post by infinite
 


I see your point but I doubt the US "needs permission" from China for anything. More like give notice.




The last thing...and I do mean the LAST thing Obama wants to do is piss off China right now.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by CZBR51

North Korea to be attacked; U.S. Nuclear first strike "likely" - Trustable info?


turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com

Washington, DC (TRN) -- North Korea yesterday withdrew from the Armistice that halted the Korean War. Today, official Washington is abuzz with not so secret "Top Secret" plans for the United States to make a limited nuclear first strike to wipe out the North Korean threat in one fell swoop.

Russia has been alerted to "make plans" for radiation fallout in its eastern border area......
(visit the link for the full news article)



One simple test

Which side would benefit more by leaking/creating such Information ?

People from Iraq, don't need to respond.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
North Korea to be attacked; U.S. Nuclear first strike "likely" - Trustable info?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dunno?, but seems to me some of you are right. USA nukes NK; Israel nukes Iran.

China will keep semi-quiet (while their goods are continually rolling into the USA)
Russia will semi-allow Israel to protect their peace of the sand by destroying Iranian facilities involving the birth and enhancement of WMD Nuclear stuff.

Dallas



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
North Korea to be attacked; U.S. Nuclear first strike "likely" - Trustable info?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dunno?, but seems to me some of you are right. USA nukes NK; Israel nukes Iran.

China will keep semi-quiet (while their goods are continually rolling into the USA)
Russia will semi-allow Israel to protect their peace of the sand by destroying Iranian facilities involving the birth and enhancement of WMD Nuclear stuff.

Dallas



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Not going to happen. The only way we'd ever use nuclear weapons against the regime of North Korea would be if they invaded or bombed elsewhere, particularly South Korea or Japan. We wouldn't just use nuclear weapons against them just because they had acquired the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the intercontinental ballistic missiles to send them across the ocean. No... They would first have to provoke the US to do something with an attack of sorts.

Obama is not retarded. He knows the consequences of bombarding a nation and what would come about via the repercussions that could occur in the event that the global propaganda machine turns against the United States.

It is an interesting situation to say in the least... I wonder how this will play out.

[edit on 5/28/2009 by FadeToBlack]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join