Panetta reveals US nuke strike plans on N. Korea, spurs controversy.

The ramblings of a psychopath....

US war plans against North Korea recently included the option of a nuclear strike, former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed in his memoirs, triggering major controversy.

RT Source!!!

“If North Korea moved across the border, our war plans called for the senior American general on the peninsula to take command of all US and South Korea forces and defend South Korea— including by the use of nuclear weapons, if necessary,” Panetta wrote in ‘Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace’.

Panetta added that he left the briefing with “the powerful sense that war in that region was neither hypothetical nor remote.”

Good luck selling that book...

Sounds like a warmonger's dream...

& a Human's nightmare....


What do you think ATS...
I know this is going back 4 years, but could this cause even more friction with the isolated DPRK...

Let sleeping dogs lie...
Don't poke them!!!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It also sounds like every other war plan most countries draw up and revise on a regular basis. Hell, we have a zombie apocalypse plan on the books.

We've felt "on the brink" with NK a few times a year my entire life, I can't imagine NOT having a plan like this in place considering their own nuclear ambitions.

a reply to: DuckforcoveR

Doesn't it sound stupid to you...
That to defend the South they'd nuke the North?

Not exactly looking out for their ally with that plan!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

but but but...what if...and just if...North Korea stays put...and doesn't move anywhere ? what than...?


I guess than, a false flag is in order.

a reply to: DuckforcoveR

We've felt "on the brink" with NK a few times a year my entire life

How were "we" on the brink ? please do tell...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Breaking News

North Korea threatens everybody and their brother............... AGAIN.

“If North Korea moved across the border, our war plans called for the senior American general on the peninsula to take command of all US and South Korea forces and defend South Korea— including by the use of nuclear weapons, if necessary,”

"if necessary,”

Russia, China and any other Nuclear power would use Nuclear weapons "if necessary,”

a reply to: SLAYER69

No doubt, but it shows South Korea that Panetta was looking out for number one & not the Korean Peninsula which would become a barren wasteland!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Safety tip for North Korea then

Stay in North Korea.

a reply to: SLAYER69

If not we'll turn the South into a nuclear hotspot along with the North...

Do you see where I'm going with this...

It's like using a rapid fire mini gun to hit a bullseye in a dart board...

It shows no concern for people of the South!

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Maybe I should have said "seem" to feel on the brink. It "seems" like a few times a year, every year, there are very poetic threats coming from them. You and many others may not take them seriously but in the back of millions of heads in Seoul is the thought of raining artillery. I was on of those for almost 2 years. Sure, you live your life and try not think about it, but the "on the brink" feeling was there.

I will say though, their threats and rhetoric aren't always unprovoked. Nuclear tests follow war games and missile launches follow flyovers, but it takes 2 to tango. I just don't see how Leon's book, Hollywood movies, or prime time news stories should be considered poking the dog. War games and stealth bombers, ok. Books and talking heads? Not so much.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: SLAYER69

If not we'll turn the South into a nuclear hotspot along with the North...

Do you see where I'm going with this...

It's like using a rapid fire mini gun to hit a bullseye in a dart board...

It shows no concern for people of the South!

Actually, using very small, low yield tactical nukes would not turn Korea into a "nuclear hot spot" or "barren wasteland".

More than likely the "Nuclear Option" is most likely listed as a "last resort". Considering the power of our conventional weapons that we have today, just about makes nukes obsolete, unless your intended goal is to eradicate something completely to where no one can use it for a long time.

I bet the "nuclear option" is reserved for the "if N. Korea succeeds in deploying a nuclear attack against S. Korea".

originally posted by: DuckforcoveR
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Maybe I should have said "seem" to feel on the brink. It "seems" like a few times a year, every year, there are very poetic threats coming from them. You and many others may not take them seriously but in the back of millions of heads in Seoul is the thought of raining artillery. I was on of those for almost 2 years. Sure, you live your life and try not think about it, but the "on the brink" feeling was there.

I will say though, their threats and rhetoric aren't always unprovoked. Nuclear tests follow war games and missile launches follow flyovers, but it takes 2 to tango. I just don't see how Leon's book, Hollywood movies, or prime time news stories should be considered poking the dog. War games and stealth bombers, ok. Books and talking heads? Not so much.

Yeah...I just don't see it man. It is the usual barking dog rhetoric...many nation leaders do that. You have to appear strong in front of your own people...but in reality...they would get squashed like a bug. There would be no brink, except the one North Korea would face.

It would all be over very soon, and no matter how mad they might appear to us...they know it.

What i see as a problem is that the senior Akmerican General on the peninsula would take command of all US and South Korea forces.

What this is saying is that south Korea dont have a say in the matter concerning their own nation or their own soldiers. What if South korea dont want to nucke NK? The US would still do it if they see it necessary.

A NK attack on South Korea is not an attack against the US.

Why is this so surprising? I am sure we and every other nuclear capable country has contingency plans for every possible scenario.

Additionally, the use of low-yield, tactical weapons prevents the entire peninsula from getting glassed in the unlikely situation that we deploy our nuclear arsenal.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Yes but if the US used tactical nukes on DPRK what's to stop the North from using its short and long range nuclear missiles on the South, hence turning it into a wasteland...

As you said tactical nukes are not as excessive, and therefore wouldn't hinder the North enough to stop them from flicking the protective switch & pressing the red button!

Okaaaaay...
KJU makes threats all the time.

Problem... even if we used a small Tactical Nuke....
CHINA..will jump so fast and seize control of all of the china seas...
We the U.S. Responds to NK provocation.
China feels provoked by US....

It would be a total Cluster F##k of a situation...
And let's not forget about Russian naval fleets and bombers nudging in U.S. territories...

Best solution...
Stay out of it...NK will either remain a non threatening bully..
Or fall on it's own...



ETA: I have nothing against the populace of China, Russia and the good NK people...
It's the Governments that make us misunderstand and hate one another...



ETAA: just saying. China would take out japan also even if japan does nothing... they'd go for SK U.S. bases first. Thus SK, Okinowa..
while Russia would bomb Guam...

a reply to: eriktheawful

Actually, using very small, low yield tactical nukes would not turn Korea into a "nuclear hot spot" or "barren wasteland".

No, just the US, maybe. What if China or Russia "nuked" Alaska or Baha California, even a 'little bit'?

In the "first bid" to dominate the Korean Peninsula et al, General McArthur wanted to use the bomb on the "Red Chinese Hoards" when they threatened to defeat the American gains during that "conflict". The threat of nuclear annihilation didn't stop the Chinese army then, something to bear in mind. Threatening others interest directly on their flank is not a good idea in general. Especially super powers of today. We are the thorn in Asia's side, not the other way around.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Additionally, the use of low-yield, tactical weapons

You make the bomb sound so… humanitarian.

"Its okay to nuke people as long as the bombs are smallish."

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: eriktheawful

Actually, using very small, low yield tactical nukes would not turn Korea into a "nuclear hot spot" or "barren wasteland".

No, just the US, maybe. What if China or Russia "nuked" Alaska or Baha California, even a 'little bit'?

In the "first bid" to dominate the Korean Peninsula et al, General McArthur wanted to use the bomb on the "Red Chinese Hoards" when they threatened to defeat the American gains during that "conflict". The threat of nuclear annihilation didn't stop the Chinese army then, something to bear in mind. Threatening others interest directly on their flank is not a good idea in general. Especially super powers of today. We are the thorn in Asia's side, not the other way around.

I never said it was a good idea.

I simply countered that the limited use of small tactical nukes themselves would not turn something into a barren wasteland, especially the entire area of Korea.

Look at Japan after they had two cities nuked with 20 kiloton nuclear bombs.

Now reaction to such an action that results later in a major nuclear exchange would certainly be bad.

More than likely, every single battle plan against every possible conflict will include something about nuclear weapons. By ANY country's military that has a nuclear stock pile: Us, Russia, China, India, etc, etc, etc.

In other words: why act surprised? It's something that is there, and has been there for quite a long time.