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.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gothmog
Why does everyone proclaim nukes ? If it is , it will be low yield tactical and delivered precise to limit the collateral damage.
"Nukes" are useless in mountainous terrain, except to destroy whats in one valley. NK is filled with thousands of valleys. And If you think conventional warfare is easy in the mountains see Afghanistan. A few Hillbilly Mujahideen have kept the uS at bay for almost twenty years now.
originally posted by: lordcomac
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.
It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.
NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.
Mean while, any number of other countries around would love to see America fall.
Russia and China both could be helping NK to that end.
originally posted by: kurthall
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.
It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.
NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.
I don't know, I am beginning to think "unlike the world has ever seen" Is being thrown around a bit much, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty big, and Pearl Harbor was not exactly small.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gothmog
Why does everyone proclaim nukes ? If it is , it will be low yield tactical and delivered precise to limit the collateral damage.
"Nukes" are useless in mountainous terrain, except to destroy whats in one valley.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: nwtrucker
Add in NK's huge number of subs
What , the few rust buckets that the Chinese purchased from the Russians they had left over from pre-Cold War ? Then China donated them to NK because they would cost too much to redo like they did with the WW2 aircraft carriers. They sure do look pretty with the new paint job . Diesel though. Easily tracked and taken out.
Old military axiom: Honor the threat.
www.globalfirepower.com...
76 'rust buckets' vs a what(?) half dozen U.S. boats that are capable of taking out ICBMs in the initial boost phase??
That 'could' very well be overconfidence....
originally posted by: alphabetaone
originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.
That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: alphabetaone
originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.
That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.
Not much else to develop ICBMs for...
originally posted by: alphabetaone
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: alphabetaone
originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.
That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.
Not much else to develop ICBMs for...
Well, with respect, the Kim family could have farted across the DMZ and caused massive casualty, they certainly and absolutely did not need and never needed ICBM's to put the South at risk. An intercontinental missile sort of loses it's lustre when you're on the same continent.
originally posted by: alphabetaone
originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.
That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: kurthall
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.
It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.
NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.
I don't know, I am beginning to think "unlike the world has ever seen" Is being thrown around a bit much, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty big, and Pearl Harbor was not exactly small.
The difference with this situation is the massive amount of artillery aimed at South Korea. If you don't take out everything NK has within maybe an hour, they will unload on SK.
Key North Korean ambassadors overseas are currently back in Pyongyang for a joint meeting, officials here said Monday, as the communist country is drawing unprecedentedly intense condemnation for its nuclear and missile programs from the international community.
"North Korea seems to be hosting what appears to be a meeting of foreign diplomatic missions' chiefs after calling its ambassadors to major countries back to Pyongyang," a government official told Yonhap News Agency.
The ongoing meeting reportedly includes Amb. Ji Jae-ryong, Amb. Ja Song-nam and Amb. Kim Hyong-jun, North Korea's top envoys to China, the United Nations and Russia, respectively.
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: nwtrucker
Add in NK's huge number of subs
What , the few rust buckets that the Chinese purchased from the Russians they had left over from pre-Cold War ? Then China donated them to NK because they would cost too much to redo like they did with the WW2 aircraft carriers. They sure do look pretty with the new paint job . Diesel though. Easily tracked and taken out.
Old military axiom: Honor the threat.
www.globalfirepower.com...
76 'rust buckets' vs a what(?) half dozen U.S. boats that are capable of taking out ICBMs in the initial boost phase??
That 'could' very well be overconfidence....
76 rust buckets that would not get the chance....
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: alphabetaone
originally posted by: nwtrucker
it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.
That depends on whether or not you take Jong-Un at his word, if so, he professed that he is only interested in attacking the US, not other countries. I would think that is likely why he threatened Guam and not 30 miles from their DMZ. If so, SK doesn't have the most at risk.
Don't forget that SK and NK are in a literal state of war still. The Korean war never ended, only an armistice was signed.
Precision might be off the table if China gets involved. Particularly if they start knocking satellites out of orbit.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.
It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.
NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker
My understanding was SK 'suspended' the deployment of the THAADS.
Who told you that?
SK will do whatever its US overlords tell it to. THADD missile systems are just the latest thorn on the Asian continent in the Chinese underbelly.
Imagine China emplacing its own anti missile 'defense' systems in Baja, "California"?
Multiple links available:
www.cnn.com...
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gothmog
Why does everyone proclaim nukes ? If it is , it will be low yield tactical and delivered precise to limit the collateral damage.
"Nukes" are useless in mountainous terrain, except to destroy whats in one valley. NK is filled with thousands of valleys. And If you think conventional warfare is easy in the mountains see Afghanistan. A few Hillbilly Mujahideen have kept the uS at bay for almost twenty years now.
Really? Then the troops are also concentrated in those valleys. This isn't the Korean War era. We'd know where their troops were deployed and 'could' use tactical nukes, MOABs, even small neutron bombs.
But EPW's are an entirely different animal and meant for targeted, precise operations
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gothmog
Why does everyone proclaim nukes ? If it is , it will be low yield tactical and delivered precise to limit the collateral damage.
"Nukes" are useless in mountainous terrain, except to destroy whats in one valley. NK is filled with thousands of valleys. And If you think conventional warfare is easy in the mountains see Afghanistan. A few Hillbilly Mujahideen have kept the uS at bay for almost twenty years now.
Really? Then the troops are also concentrated in those valleys. This isn't the Korean War era. We'd know where their troops were deployed and 'could' use tactical nukes, MOABs, even small neutron bombs.
'Nuke' Asia, huh? You think Russia and China would mind?