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 will test nuclear weapons!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
He needs to bring it out of the hole to move it to the border. That when the predators and the global hawks bomb them or send in GPS targets to cruise missle ships sitting of Japan. As soon as they start sending troops to the border of South Korea we will overfly them and carpet bomb the heck out of them and use SATJDMs and blow up their armor. Will fly sortie after sortie off of Japan and South Korea. until we have neutralized his ground forces.



The US would just land a 40 or 50 thousand tropps in SK and mop up and rogue NK combatants they find. That would be easy.
The big fear right now is allowing China to take NK completly. This gives China political power as the US will seem "weak" to the other asian countries and THEY will now turn to CHINA for support and protection.


Oh boy... you need some correction. (deep breath) here goes:
1. Airpower in North Korea: owing to the mountains and the weather, North Korea is easier than most places to avoid targeting by aircraft, especially when your dug in. The mountainous terrain also allows for the implacement of air defenses where they can not be attacked from exceedingly long ranges, but must be engaged at some risk to the aircraft.

2. Airpower versus armor: In Desert Storm, 2 months of bombardment still left many tanks to be destroyed by the Abrams. Airpower can not anhilate an advancing army. Airpower can only dull there edge in certain areas, or open critical vulnerabilities for a strong ground force to exploit.

3. Having to move forces into the open: You're forgetting the North Korean objective in this scenario. We aren't discussing a North Korean invasion of South Korea. We are discussing a US invasion of North Korea to remove their nuclear capability. North Korea can stay dug in and make an invasion extremely costly, although we can probably come out on top, even in the face of a Chinese intervention.

4. Air power in a nuclear standoff: If America backs North Korea into a corner, giving them nothing to lose, the airbases we operate from stand to be nuked. Any fleet we deploy in the area stands to be entirely destroyed by nuclear weapons as well. We can't expect to just bomb North Korea into submission then waltz in to accomplish our goals. You have to remember that North Korea already has the weapons. We may be able to take out NK's nukes with strikes while they are being launched, or with PAC 3 THAAD, but that's playing Russian Roulette with your allies' heads. We can't go to war with NK lightly.

5. Deployment time: We can't just miracle 1,000 aircraft to Yakota AFB and start whoopin it on tomorrow. There is some question as to North Korea's capability to totally over-run South Korean and American forces before America can reinforce in any significant numbers, and that was BEFORE we diverted forces to Iraq and Afghanistan.

6. Russian Involvement: The Chinese and Russians have wargamed in recent memory for strategic cooperation against US aggression. It is questionable rather or not Russia would commit itself fully to a war against the United States, however we must operate under the assumtion that logistical support, aircover, and possibly even nuclear retaliation from Russia could challenge a US invasion or nuclear attack on North Korea or China.

7. Chinese Domino effect: As long as we keep China out of South Korea, there is no influence on the perception of America's strength. Furthermore, North Korea is a liability. Korean pride and nationalist tendencies could (possibly) create a vietnam for china. I'm not too sure about that, but the prospect is nice. China is already powerful enough to intimidate its neighbors, so control of North Korea, without a defeat of America or taking of South Korea, is absolutely meaningless. China is more stable that North Korea anyways, so that wouldn't be so horrible.

8. Predator and global hawk are only a novelty, they mean very little to the total situation. Mentioning those may increase the perception of the forces at America's disposal, but they don't mean so much on the battlefield.


We do need to deal with North Korea before they get powerful enough to make demands, but let's not pretend it will be easy or pretty. Without the full support of Japan, South Korea, and Russia, we can't go ahead with a ground war. We NEED Russia to keep China out of this war, unless you are in he mood to start a draft, devote our whole economy to military production, and fight a tough protracted war in China.

We may very well have the secret technology to defeat North Korea, or even the ability to win with known technology. It basically depends on the quality of our intelligence on their sites, and our ability to deliver precise strikes on very short notice. They open a missile silo, their missile gets blown up. Can we do it? If there has been compitent authority in the DoD since the nuclear development, we definately could have created the capability. This needs to happen while North Korea's arsenal remains small and vulnerable.

A nuclear test doesn't mean THAT much though. We already know they've got the bomb and would use it. It's just a matter of confidence for them. If we should whoop their butt for testing we should do it just for no reason right now.




posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
The U.S. will respond in any way (hopefully) because they have NO right to go off and tell people they can not have nuclear weapons when America has the largest nuclear weapons arsenal after Russia.


Nuclear war isn't about who is right, it's about who is left. Pardon my irony, but if you keep worrying about the morality of nuclear weapons, the enemy is going to send you to hell.
I can't wait for the day when you can fight a war without anybody's feelings getting hurt.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Those are interesting points that you made vagabond. However at this point, maybe not in the past, I dont see Russia jumping in China and NKs corner. Russia and China we mustnt forget were at one point mortal enemies. And with the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia seems to be leaning more towards the west (although it could just seem that way). Regardless in alot of these discussions people speak as if the US will stand alone. Why does everybody overlook that despite recent differences with our current, inept and foolish administration, most of Europe, Canada, and many other countries are still our allies and in such a serious conflict, would likely be in our corner. Not doubting your knowledge on military issues because you seem quite versed in them, but Im sure we both know the US has a plan for this type of scenario, of course hoping it doesnt occur. And if the s*** was to hit the fan and it went nuclear globally, well then I guess all that will be left will be cockroaches and Keith Richards.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
And about the post stating the US has the largest nuke arsenal after Russia, isnt that outdated? Russia no longer has the ability to maintain the arsenal they once had, I think we now have the most, dont we?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd27
And about the post stating the US has the largest nuke arsenal after Russia, isnt that outdated? Russia no longer has the ability to maintain the arsenal they once had, I think we now have the most, dont we?


Alot of the Russian military is in tatters, however thier Strategic Rocket Forces still posses enough capacity to bounce our rubble several times over. Even 300+ plus nukes will blanket North America with enough fallout to pretty much insure life will suck for everybody



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Yeah, cant argue with that. Hopefully nuclear war never happens, its not likely, the ultimate goal of a war is to win, luckily the super nuclear powers of the world are all run by money, I dont think theyre tired of being rich. No money to be made in nuclear slag. I think ultimately China will reign in NK, well give them aid. We can only hope India or Pakistan dont fall under the control of fundamentalist psychos, or that Iran doesnt develop any weapons. Man, we got a mess to clean up.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd27
Yeah, cant argue with that. Hopefully nuclear war never happens, its not likely, the ultimate goal of a war is to win, luckily the super nuclear powers of the world are all run by money, I dont think theyre tired of being rich. No money to be made in nuclear slag. I think ultimately China will reign in NK, well give them aid. We can only hope India or Pakistan dont fall under the control of fundamentalist psychos, or that Iran doesnt develop any weapons. Man, we got a mess to clean up.


Once that Genie is out of the bottle its goint ot a *itch to get her back in



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   
That bottle aint what it used to be either. That Genie you speak of could be God knows how close to out (or out already) in Iran. I don't know if my paranoia can be trusted, but India may already be run by psychos. I've read hearsay that the Indian military is a tad cavalier about the idea nuclear warfare.

As for our allies... Germany hasn't planned on fighting outside of it's own borders since 1946. They counted on us to keep the soviets out through most of the cold war, and they'd never stick their neck out for anything that Russia and France didn't both support as well. French opinion is to heavily anti-american, and French blood is a little too yellow. Japan refuses to militarize and can't help much. Britain's military is smaller than Irans. Now I know, they may be mighty small, but they're small and mighty- they'll be a big help, but they won't make this war easy.
As for Russia: It's a toss up. If Russia thinks that American can be beaten quickly and conventionally, Su-27s and Su-30s out of Russia might contribute to a nasty surprise for our navy. If it went nuclear, Russia would hit us back.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
actually bush is the perfect man for the job you don't want a president who is scared and wont confront the evil state of N. Korea bush is fearless he will not tolerate it



i agree!
this needs to be sorted out.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Here's an excerpt from President Bush's January, 2002 State of the Union Address:

"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

And here's the entire speech - www.whitehouse.gov...

************************************************************

However, with the 6 nation talks and the PSI initiative (that I mentioned and linked in a previous post on this thread), I feel the US is working very hard to achieve results diplomatically. PSI has some teeth and was instrumental in helping persuade Libya's leadership to cease pursuit of WMD and open their facilities to inspection. Here's a link to FAQ's on PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) - www.state.gov...

If you check out the FAQ's, you'll see that eleven nations were initially agreeing to involvement in this activity when the concept was first launched on May 31st of last year. This has now grown to 60 nations and includes Russia - www.state.gov...

-and, yes, North Korea is one of the top concerns -

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: We don’t in PSI discuss the diplomatic track to the solution of North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. I think we’re all relying on the six-party talks that China has been hosting. What we talk about with respect to North Korea is its extensive history of outward proliferation activities. North Korea is one of the most extensive proliferators in the world. They’re probably the largest proliferator of ballistic missile technology and we fear that if they develop sufficient quantities of weapons grade uranium or plutonium that they, based on their history, would be prepared to sell that or actually sell weapons to other rogue states or terrorist groups. North Korea’s outward proliferation activities earn them hard currency, which in turn they use to finance their nuclear weapons program. So curtailing North Korea outward proliferation is not only positive in of itself, but it also impedes their pursuit of nuclear weapons. In addition to PSI the United States and others have engaged in extensive diplomatic activity over the past year to reduce North Korea’s sale of ballistic missile and other weapons technology. We think we’ve had some success in that regard and we think that PSI has been an important part of that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel we're trying to work this through with the neighbors of N. Korea and ask for their help, their guidance, their leadership in resolving this issue. However, we're going to be very active in attempting to stop N. Korea's export of WMD. That's where the friction points will occur - not on the Korean penninsula. How N. Korea responds and how China, S. Korea, Japan and Russia respond when these friction points happen will ultimately determine the need for military action on Korean soil.

So what does PSI have to do with N. Korea's pending nuke test? PSI and the more widely reported 6 nation talks demonstrate the reasonable and rational attmpts by the international community to stop the spread of nukes and other WMD's. It also shows the pressures being brought on N. Korea to change their ways. A N. Korean nuke test would be N. Korea's way of dropping their drawers and crapping on the 6 nation bargaining table. It would also solidify the PSI and probably convince more nations to get involved. Would a test trigger a military response? IMO, not from the US, it would just further strengthen our current approach.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Things are going to get a lot worse in that region before it gets better. Between the War on Terrorism, Iraq, Afghan, the links between Iraq's WMD and syria, links between Suadi and AlQueda, Iran saying they're making enriched Uranium, China breathing down Taiwan's neck, the USofA staging a monstorous display of naval power off Taiwan's waters, NKorea talking of Nuclear test fires in the midst of peace talks...

Wow.


Who needs Nukes to destroy peoples lives when you have so many conflicts of interest in one entire part of the world all ready to explode at the same time?

[edit on 3-7-2004 by rwsdakota]



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
tealc

Bush CAN win every war..... He commands the most powerful Military that ever strode the face of the Earth!! Lets just hope kim jong doesnt go off the deep end completely.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
The problem with the Russian military is reliability, It was hard enough for them to maintain there equipment during the cold war. Now lack of funding and instability in the economy has turned most of there hardware into a scrap pile.

The only way they could nuetralize our Navy is with one of there own. They never posessed any Carriers and most of there surface fleet is decaying peerside. Besides all of the equipment problems they would have, most of there naval bases are land locked, Kamchatka is the only one that is not.

There Air Force suffers the same fate. They would never be able to sustain an attack to cripple our Navy. Sea power is as vital as Air superiority. Control of the shipping lanes and Power Projection is the Navy's primary function, one that is unmatched by any other country.


The Soviets know this and one can only hope that N korea listens to them.....



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068

The only way they could nuetralize our Navy is with one of there own. They never posessed any Carriers and most of there surface fleet is decaying peerside. Besides all of the equipment problems they would have, most of there naval bases are land locked, Kamchatka is the only one that is not.


I have to agree. Goroskov's focus was on submarines and naval aviation. I think he accurately surmised that his goal in WWIII was to keep the US from suppling Europe. If they took Europe and keep things conventional they would never really need a blue water carrier untill they came after us. Yes reliability is a huge question. Esp when the pride of thier fleet was described by one of thier admirals as being in such bad shape it could blow up at any moment..



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068
The problem with the Russian military is reliability, It was hard enough for them to maintain there equipment during the cold war. Now lack of funding and instability in the economy has turned most of there hardware into a scrap pile.

The only way they could nuetralize our Navy is with one of there own. They never posessed any Carriers and most of there surface fleet is decaying peerside. Besides all of the equipment problems they would have, most of there naval bases are land locked, Kamchatka is the only one that is not.

There Air Force suffers the same fate. They would never be able to sustain an attack to cripple our Navy. Sea power is as vital as Air superiority. Control of the shipping lanes and Power Projection is the Navy's primary function, one that is unmatched by any other country.


The Soviet leaders used to tell their citizens that the U.S. was always threatening to invade the USSR at any time and make it a colony of the "American Empire". After the USSR collapsed in 1991, I think the Russians realized that the U.S. never had any intention of invading or occupying them -- thus they all collectively said "Screw this!" and stopped putting money and effort into an outward focused military, thus the decay you describe above.
Now the Russian military is little more than an internal police force with an Army, Navy, and Air Force. Oh, and a handful of nukes...

(Note: The other 14 countries that emerged from the collapse of the USSR in 1991 basically had the same reactions. Several, in fact -- such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Ukraine -- had been hoping to become U.S. allies for years, and finally was able to make that wish possible!)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join