Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NK, and Iran. The ace up their sleeve.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   
What if they really do have an idea to take on the US that they think is workable?

What if NK and iran launch their attack at the exact same time? There has been information that they have been collaborating. What if they also plan on collaborating on initiating war too. The US could take each one individually, but trying to take on both in a full scale war would be straining things.

Iran would be attacking Israel, while invading other territories.
NK would be going for SK.

If the hammer dropped in both countries at the exact same second, what position would the US be in?

Combine that with a possible sea launched nuke strike, or conventional/terrorist strikes on several targets in the US.

By the time the US got it’s command and control system settled down, and launched countermeasures the damage they could do would be extreme.

We would be in a bad position before we even got started.

Trying to guard the ConUS while fighting two full scale conflicts, and keeping china from taking advantage of the situation with Taiwan.




posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Well I'd tend to believe we here in the Continental USA wouldn't have any issues unless China an Russia decided a Sneak Attack but I don't think any Red Dawn situation will ever happen. The Top 3 need each other to much to obliterate one another.
As far as fighting two wars with Iran and NK simultaneously, I believe it could be done... We have the 7th fleet close to Korea and I believe the 5th is by Iran still. Not to mention all the Subs and NATO air bases in proximity to both country's... I think if our military gets the green light for no holds barred warfare then it'll still be a Nasty Conflict because NK will go chemical/bio/nuke and it'll take a while for the Dust/gas to settle but The US government will still be intact and I don't think the same would be said for either of those 2 countries.
Go Joe!



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


One could hope they'd manage to destroy Israel before they got smacked up themselves.
A mighty blow to the US imperialist army wouldn't be bad either. The time of telling the world what to do and who to trade with in what currency is over.
The perfect storm would be a coinciding super volcano erupting in the US at the same time.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Yes well OP try to keep in mind that the Americans are not alone. But even if they had to go at it alone they would win tho they may have to implement the draft.

The Allies would win hands down. And even if Russia and China got into the war full scale it would only prolong the war and stall victory for the Allies. But China and Russia would not commit troops.


-Alien



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


I some how dont see that happening, the world would have to grow a set first.
Iran, Russia, China: "US and Israel best not get involved in Syria or we will destroy them"
Israel :'i launched a missile"
US "I am the FSA"
Iran, Russia, China "lets shake our fists and make a new line in the sand"



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

I think that is the thing no one, even media, wants to openly speculate about. Yeah. North Korea and Iran have cooperated extensively. I got a ton of stuff on that while making my recent 3pt Korea series but it wouldn't have fit there without being absurdly drifting around topics.

It's disturbing because it IS what makes Kim's behavior logical. If he drew short straw to be the guy to take the U.S.'s first direct focus as a distraction or split of forces we literally can't afford to split anymore, then we're about to get one of those surprises they write a chapter in war history books about. Not a pleasant one, by any means.

The thing that makes it remotely plausible is that Obama is, very generally speaking, a weak foreign policy President. He goes along to get along and the US hasn't had one do that since 1979. It's not about how we see Obama but how everyone else does. Some may think this is their best and perhaps only shot to make that kind of move.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I am not saying that they would win. I am just saying that they may “think” they have a plan that can win.

Remember, you perception of the situation will greatly depend on which end of the situation you are perceiving it from.

If they think that the US will to fight is low, they may think that if they can inflict enough pain on the US heartland to make the US retreat to save it’s self, while leaving it’s allies to fend for themselves.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


oops sorry!
edit on 31-3-2013 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
You have raised an intersting point.

The troops would be spread out Very Thin. Very Thin Indeed.

Now, let us introduce a New Variable. . ..

What IF . .. The American Public decided to Revolt because of the current government policies.

That would make for one hell of a mess.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

It wouldn't be about winning, IMO. Iran doesn't want us defeated. They don't really care either way. WE care. They don't. They care about us being over THERE. North Korea just kinda hates everyone who isn't North Korean but they can make alliances and they have a few.

All they have to do is force the current political climate to 'see' it's too painful in political and direct costs to remain in their neighborhoods. Prior to the current crop in Washington, I'd have laughed at the very notion of such a thing. Now? Have you looked around recently? (shivers) ... We ain't in Kansas anymore, Toto.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Iran really doesn’t care about much of anything besides destroying Israel at this point. Iran does not even care about committing suicide as long as they take out Israel. They see their own destruction in the completion of that goal as “acceptable”.

The North Koreans could have a plan that will take advantage of the opportunity such a situation would present.

While the US power is tied up in Iran, then you can start a long slugfest at home, without the US being able to deliver a full power punch back at you.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewsWorthy
Well I'd tend to believe we here in the Continental USA wouldn't have any issues unless China an Russia



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
What if all Americans stop their damn annoying stupid paranoia and resist selling their souls (again) to the PTB for once… including OP?

What if US stop making enemies all the time…(no one will ask for their friendship anyway).
edit on 31-3-2013 by amkia because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2013 by amkia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

If you mean nuking Israel, I disagree. I even wrote a thread about it. Israel is too small. FAR too small. Unless Iran is just fine with obliterating the Dome of the Rock and every other High Holy site of the Islamic religion along with everything else, because dropping nukes means it all goes up.



Besides, Iran has much bigger issues in staying alive itself. If Syria falls, it's suddenly a VERY lonely place on Earth for a Shia nation. In fact, it's a minority of 1. That's 1 more than Saudi Arabia and the Sunni see as acceptable to exist in the same world as they inhabit.

Games within games and the war within the war. It's like an onion and it's what keeps everything hopping with surprises. I do share your feeling about a surprise being at least possible in more than just one nation turning hot at the same time and totally by surprise to our intelligence. I mean I know US Intelligence is never wrong and all...
This would be the BIG one to screw up on though, wouldn't it?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

It wouldn't be about winning, IMO. Iran doesn't want us defeated. They don't really care either way. WE care. They don't. They care about us being over THERE. North Korea just kinda hates everyone who isn't North Korean but they can make alliances and they have a few.

All they have to do is force the current political climate to 'see' it's too painful in political and direct costs to remain in their neighborhoods. Prior to the current crop in Washington, I'd have laughed at the very notion of such a thing. Now? Have you looked around recently? (shivers) ... We ain't in Kansas anymore, Toto.


I agree with you here this would be a good strategy for ridding themselves of the Allies in their hood. How would they go about making it painful is the question. Because drawing blood would only enrage the American populous, and that would be all the American government would need to raise hell.

The OP situation would be a logistical nightmare but keep in mind the Allied forces are so massive they would probably be better off splitting and in fact would probably be obliged to.

Nothing new either. Remember the Americans fought both Japan and Germany on two separate fronts and two different oceans simultaneously and won on both sides.


-Alien



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

If you mean nuking Israel, I disagree. I even wrote a thread about it. Israel is too small. FAR too small. Unless Iran is just fine with obliterating the Dome of the Rock and every other High Holy site of the Islamic religion along with everything else, because dropping nukes means it all goes up.



The same ones that stock mosques full of weapons? The same ones that shoot from mosques knowing that it may cause return fire and destruction of that mosque?
You got to use their logic.

It depends of if they already consider it as a violated building because of the Israeli influence over the area.

They may be willing to see it destroyed so they can build a bigger “clean” worshiping site after Israel is gone.

They mainly use the desecration rule as a tool against other people. They do not let themselves be bothered by it as much as long as the desecration will further the goals of Islam..



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Another twist in this situation that just hit me after reading another post in this forum. He mentioned an article about NK and backpack nukes.

People kept saying that those explosions in NK were fizzles because it wasn’t in the 10KT+ range. What if those underground explosions in NK were not fizzles? What if they were test of 6 to 10kt backpack nukes.

Lets say that several have already been smuggled into the US. What would the US population do if a nuke started going off every couple days in a major city?

And the discussion I had on another thread about setting it off at an optimum height above ground to produce the optimum results.

Just take an elevator ride to the top of a skyscraper in the heart of the city. There is several buildings in many of America’s largest cities that have the 600 to 1000 foot height required to produce the optimum ground effects from a 6 to 10kt weapon.

The US could launch a nuke strike against both countries but it would not make the bombs stop going of over here every couple days.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


The United States drew away from and lost the ability to fight a two front war, in two separate theaters at the same time, MANY years ago. Actually by deliberate policy shift to that "lighter, more maneuverable" Army. Rumsfeld's push for a more adaptive military. Whatever that was supposed to mean. What it means now is we have a bunch to fight one theater and perhaps even multiple campaigns, although that didn't work so hot for Iraq and Afghanistan running at once.

That's the other problem though. Even Bush didn't have the inner whatever it takes, to fight to win. Obama absolutely doesn't have it. Clinton ran like a rabbit when the U.S. got bloodied in Mogadishu. So, it's been quite some time now since the U.S. Military HAS been allowed to do what they're trained to do and not try and be cop, social worker and relief worker all rolled into one. 1991, really ...Although even THAT was made for TV with the snappy little "100 hour war" on the button. I think Bush thought that would score him a buzz phrase for his legacy when it just made him look a fool.

Hmmm.. Come to think of it... When WAS the last time since World War II? It probably WAS Korea to be realistic. Vietnam was as political as war can ever come....so Korea would be the last. What are the odds Obama breaks allllll that tradition to fight to win THIS one, IF we got suckered, and the Continental U.S. was absolutely not at risk ..and it was made clear to him, it never would be? I'll bet..he'd consider what I'd never have thought I'd see possible. General pull back. He could even peddle it as a budget cutting move.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

You'd have to show where he could acquire man portable nukes. The real ones were never that small anyway. It took two guys and they represented a long development process to get there. That's not a logical leap from his first successful (maybe 2nd..) test. If another country gave him one (Russia had the same we did) then why wait till now? Why him? They could have dropped one in Hizbollah's lap or another group. One made there will ID that way anyway, so it's not like we won't know. (The tech on how they do that is way over my head but they can).

There is more than one way to "kill" a western power though ...and it needn't even kill anyone. Not directly anyway. That's the other scary version. Where is that rogue satellite they launched again?

Military might and realistically probably would survive a very high altitude EMP blast....but nothing else would. Insta-Barney Rubble until outside areas or nations could help replace everything cooked off.

Those make really small pops too. Afterall, the blast force isn't the the point, right?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

You'd have to show where he could acquire man portable nukes. The real ones were never that small anyway.

en.wikipedia.org...

They are not suitcase size, but they are about the size of a large backpack, and have a yield in the same range as North Korea’s tests


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
If another country gave him one (Russia had the same we did) then why wait till now?


There was mention about several man portable nukes missing a long while ago. They would be too old to use today. The highly enriched fuel decays too quickly. But NK may have gotten a hold of one and reverse engineered it to make their own. (Like they do everything else)

They would take less fissile material per device, so they could produce more units with the material they have.

There is two materials that can be used. Plutonium and enriched uranium.
Iran is going the uranium route.
NK has went the plutonium route.

Because of that, Iran would be using a gun type nuke.
NK would be using an implosion type nuke.

The gun type uranium bomb looks like a long pipe, and it does not require any complicated high speed firing system.

The plutonium bomb looks like the metal ball with connections located all around it. it requires a high accuracy high speed firing system to fire all the charges at the exact same time to produce an implosion event.

That is why NK would have to do more testing to achieve reliability. While Iran would only have to have one test done (if that) to know that their configuration would work.

They normally think a terrorist deployed backpack nuke would be the gun type because of it’s ease of triggering. But with the miniaturization of technology, I honestly would not be surprised if NK has perfected a usable implosion based backpack bomb.

A good sized gun type nuke would fit into a tall backpack pretty good. A lot better than it would fit into a suitcase. An implosion type would fit a bulkily backpack better. But both would do a world of hurt to a city.
edit on 31-3-2013 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join