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.

 

Should the US Preempt North Korea's Nuclear Weapons

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Your speaking of America as it rules the world. "Should the US Preempt North Korea's Nuclear Weapons" the U.S. doesnt own the world, and the president as no right to do anything to North Korea. Let him first destroy his nuclear technology, and weapons! Then you speak about North Korea!




posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The idea of preemption is flawed in two ways. First, it in fact decreases the stability by destroying the relatively predictable status quo (Iraq anyone?). Second, where do you stop? How many more countries are you going to preempt? How come you are not preempting China?

North Korea is simply not a threat. If anything, send the aid and try to mellow it down a little. I'm sure it'll happen with time.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
N. Korea not a threat? There are a lot of south Koreans who would dissagree with you.

But I guess those tens of thousands of artillery pieces aimed south are there for positive relations


Same with that million+ man armed forces


And I guess he was sending a hello message to Japan by firing a new long range missle capable of delivering nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons over their land


Get real dude, he is a nut case



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Back to the topic though, there is one reason we can not preempt Korea:

We believe they already have nukes in their arsenal. That means he woould nuke the south or japan or both if we did.

If we were going to do it it should have been done 10 years ago.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I think people here are over exaggerating the threat from North Korea, there is no threat and the only missiles North Korea will ever likely to fire are at incoming US Warplanes!

I agree with earlier sentiments, 'pre-emptive' strikes do not work and it only diminishes political support. Something the US & UK wouldn't be lacking if they had gone all the way with the UN, but there we go history is history.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Back to the topic though, there is one reason we can not preempt Korea:
We believe they already have nukes in their arsenal. That means he woould nuke the south or japan or both if we did.
If we were going to do it it should have been done 10 years ago.


If we could find out were the missiles are (A big if) and perhaps have several Ageis class ships with the SM-2 Block IV's maybe we can provide a partial defence. But your right, it may be way too risk. I wonder if we hit the facilities and decapate Kim at the same time? Not much chance either. We were not able to get Hussein that way.........



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
North Korea is simply not a threat. If anything, send the aid and try to mellow it down a little. I'm sure it'll happen with time.


Do you really believe that? Send him aid? Is that how you treat a child that has thrown a tantrum? No, Kim had his chances, Kim is making threats, and Kim is a psycopath. You don't throw a T-Bone to a rabid dog. You put the dog down.....



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
The best way would be to rid the outer skirt missle facilites first to shorten Crazy Kim's reach. Then armed UCAVs could be used to target the nuclear facilities. The problem inherent in this plan is coordination. If theNorth Koreans figure one of either thier missle sites or nuke factories is being attacked, to them all are being attacked. Does anyone know of the radar capabilities of the NK's will UCAVs like the X-47 be able to penetrate undetected?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
The best way would be to rid the outer skirt missle facilites first to shorten Crazy Kim's reach. Then armed UCAVs could be used to target the nuclear facilities. The problem inherent in this plan is coordination. If theNorth Koreans figure one of either thier missle sites or nuke factories is being attacked, to them all are being attacked. Does anyone know of the radar capabilities of the NK's will UCAVs like the X-47 be able to penetrate undetected?


Do you take account of over ten thousand canons able to reach Soul and risking millions South Koreans? Considering the underground facility built over the past decades, it is impossible to take out all of those conventional power.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
The best way would be to rid the outer skirt missle facilites first to shorten Crazy Kim's reach. Then armed UCAVs could be used to target the nuclear facilities. The problem inherent in this plan is coordination. If theNorth Koreans figure one of either thier missle sites or nuke factories is being attacked, to them all are being attacked. Does anyone know of the radar capabilities of the NK's will UCAVs like the X-47 be able to penetrate undetected?


Both the X-45 and X-47 are stealthy, but are still in Dem/Val testing. Id but my money on B-2's with offshore jamming support for the costal defence batteries



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Yes but the B-2s will be smaller in number. A coordinated robotic force of the UCAVs(if the attack comes when they are in procurement) might be better. Then again right now, b-2s, f-22 and f-117 will be the best choice. I just hope we get the x-45 and x-47 in business soon.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
Yes but the B-2s will be smaller in number. A coordinated robotic force of the UCAVs(if the attack comes when they are in procurement) might be better. Then again right now, b-2s, f-22 and f-117 will be the best choice. I just hope we get the x-45 and x-47 in business soon.


Its comming, they just tested them in formation for the first time. You send a swarm of drones ahead of the manned strike force, for SEAD and highly defended targets, then you let a bunch loiter for targets of oppurtunity.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Just before this little worshipping fest of US tech and what you could do or would do if you decide to 'go'.......

.....perhaps a few minutes reflection on how in a far more favourable situation all this potential proved to be woefully far of the mark in finding out what was what and what was where, didn't it?

Iraq holds no lessons for anyone, does it not?

......I mean we're only talking about an unprovoked solely American (cos you can bet after Iraq you are on your own where ever you imagine going next whether it be NK, Iran or Syria) attack on a country we all think has nuclear weaponry which sits next to nuclear equipped China and Russia.....not to mention the effect one or two or more nuclear hits on Japan might have were they to lash out.

Wake up and have less coffee guys.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
Yes but the B-2s will be smaller in number. A coordinated robotic force of the UCAVs(if the attack comes when they are in procurement) might be better. Then again right now, b-2s, f-22 and f-117 will be the best choice. I just hope we get the x-45 and x-47 in business soon.

I found you are no better than our teenager WestPoint23.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng

Originally posted by TACHYON
Yes but the B-2s will be smaller in number. A coordinated robotic force of the UCAVs(if the attack comes when they are in procurement) might be better. Then again right now, b-2s, f-22 and f-117 will be the best choice. I just hope we get the x-45 and x-47 in business soon.

I found you are no better than our teenager WestPoint23.


zcheng, I am an adult, I dont know about you (our resident SAR WARS expert), but I am well versed in US military technology, at least sufficient for such debates and I am well aware of capabilities of what we can and cannot do. You never provide backup for any of your rantings. All my theories are realistic. Man it sure does suck that the PLA has you as their military advisor.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
zcheng, I am an adult, I dont know about you (our resident SAR WARS expert), but I am well versed in US military technology, at least sufficient for such debates and I am well aware of capabilities of what we can and cannot do. You never provide backup for any of your rantings. All my theories are realistic. Man it sure does suck that the PLA has you as their military advisor.


If you are offended, please accept my apology. Sorry.

I am just pointing out the formidable power of NK conventional weapons, and the great loss it can inflict on the Soul, with possible loss of 1 million South Korean. You have to discuss and understand those potential when engaging in hostility. I am omitting NK capability to hit Japan and US bases like in Okinawa.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
zcheng if you are worried about our ability to defend against artillerey look at this video:

www.st.northropgrumman.com...#



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
zcheng if you are worried about our ability to defend against artillerey look at this video:

www.st.northropgrumman.com...#


You sure you can defend 10,000 canons fired at the same time? Are you kidding?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng

Originally posted by TACHYON
zcheng if you are worried about our ability to defend against artillerey look at this video:

www.st.northropgrumman.com...#


You sure you can defend 10,000 canons fired at the same time? Are you kidding?


With hundreds of the units put it, it will defend key installation areas. Im not saying all, but it will defenitely soften their ability. I can picture many of these units around tactical positions.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON

Originally posted by zcheng
[You sure you can defend 10,000 canons fired at the same time? Are you kidding?


With hundreds of the units put it, it will defend key installation areas. Im not saying all, but it will defenitely soften their ability. I can picture many of these units around tactical positions.


Don't forget that a good defence is also a good offence. No doubt some nbut not all of those guns are in known areas, the number of 10,000 will get cut down a little bit. That may be added as part of any premeptive strike as well.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join