North Korea says it may test hydrogen bomb in Pacific

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's not that simple to "just take out" their nuclear capabilities. NK is far more advanced than countries like Afghanistan, that we've been parading around in for the last decade.

Any attack on North Korea is going to cost at minimum 35 million lives, and potentially up to 50 million depending on how many in North Korea we have to actually kill. It will also destroy South Korea, which isn't something the South Koreans want. Do they not get a say in this?

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The news we get out of NK is conflicting at best,more of MSM BS,for all we know Kim may have the ability to destroy a garbage truck,makes you wonder what the real truth is

What we do know, is that nukes aside, NK has enough artillery pointed at SK to level all of Seoul and everything else along the northern border. That's 25 million people. That's the price of admission to a shooting war with North Korea: 25 million innocents before we can do anything. Then North Korea itself has a population of 25 million who are brainwashed, with 6.5 million of those who are in their military and will go down shooting. The terrain itself is heavily fortified, and difficult to move in. It would be a long and bloody process to win such a war.

Even if we did win, and that's a big if, North Korea has little infrastructure, no economy, and a population that doesn't have any competitive job skills. Governing it and making it self sustaining would cost trillions out of our own economy.

If NK did test ah hydrogen bomb, the EMP would knock out electrical and electronic systems in dozens of countries. Maybe take out a few weather satellites as well.

a reply to: Aazadan

As much as I agree with your post, is it wise to wait until his capabilities can do much worse than that, as it stands its still is a waiting game for him to make the first strike.

Horrible situation, I can`t see all this ending well at the moment.

I don't get it


detonating a hydrogen bomb in the pacific would cause a massive tsunami


how is that a "test"?

originally posted by: njord
I don't get it


detonating a hydrogen bomb in the pacific would cause a massive tsunami


how is that a "test"?

Um to see if it goes boom then it works, is this a trick question? did i pass?

originally posted by: gps777
a reply to: Aazadan

As much as I agree with your post, is it wise to wait until his capabilities can do much worse than that, as it stands its still is a waiting game for him to make the first strike.

Horrible situation, I can`t see all this ending well at the moment.

It's a difficult question, there's not really a good answer to it either, because the least bad option is the one that goes against US long term interests. The problem is that there's not really a good military solution to North Korea. That leaves economic and diplomatic solutions only and we've already seen those fail many times.

I actually think we need a long term solution of attempting to modernize and open up North Korea through markets. Get rid of the sanctions, and start doing what we can to bring corporations, or at least global products into their country. That would challenge their national ideology of Juche (I think that's what it's called at least), which is basically one of extreme self reliance on a national level.

I think that a strategy of opening the country up to trade, and getting them addicted to having a nice economy and better products would modernize them. It would also bring them into the global network where nations can't freely attack each other, because everyone is interdependent for goods. Basically, market access has worked so far everywhere that it's been tried, and I think it's an option we should consider for North Korea, essentially a soft touch rather than the hard touch of sanctions and war rhetoric.

But, that's a long term strategy. In the short term, I think we need to let NK know in no uncertain terms that we'll fight back if they start anything, but as long as they don't actually shoot at us or our allies we're going to leave them alone... which is basically just more of the same.

a reply to: Aazadan

I am not sure without being a commander and a high ranking one, you could possibly know the options the military has.

It's a whole lot of speculation. Including SK being destroyed.

Unless you know all the assets and classified info on weapons systems it's truly impossible to know the actual outcome.

Evangelicals are advising the WH. They believe the Rapture is imminent. Like this weekend. Trump and his regime believe they will not have to endure the wrath of a nuclear war they provoked. They don't care.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Aazadan

I am not sure without being a commander and a high ranking one, you could possibly know the options the military has.

It's a whole lot of speculation. Including SK being destroyed.

Unless you know all the assets and classified info on weapons systems it's truly impossible to know the actual outcome.

The artillery NK has pointed at SK is rather public information.

As far as weapons systems go... maybe, but advanced weapons aren't going to do much. Look at how much trouble we're having with Afghanistan. North Korea has even more hostile terrain, a population that's even more against us, and more advanced technology. If we can't even handle Afghanistan, and we've been trying for 15 years... then what exactly are we supposed to do in North Korea? New weapon systems won't fix that problem.

Never mind the fact that our military is currently tooled for desert fighting, and it will take years, maybe a decade to get it tooled properly for the North Korean climate, in order to operate optimally.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Evangelicals are advising the WH. They believe the Rapture is imminent. Like this weekend. Trump and his regime believe they will not have to endure the wrath of a nuclear war they provoked. They don't care.

It's worse than that. A large contingent of Evangelicals actually believe we can and should start a nuclear war. They don't think it will cause the rapture, but they do believe that God will protect America and prevent any nukes from striking us.

a reply to: gps777

I was mistaken

apparently underwater nuclear blasts don't cause tsunamis

originally posted by: MOMof3
Evangelicals are advising the WH. They believe the Rapture is imminent. Like this weekend. Trump and his regime believe they will not have to endure the wrath of a nuclear war they provoked. They don't care.

I don`t know what to make of your post? is this your opinion or do you have a source to this about the Evangelicals?

Also are you saying the WH will provoke a nuclear war this weekend because they don`t care?

a reply to: njord

News to me, I would have expected some sort of massive waves created. It was just your "how is that a test" question that had me scratching my head on.

a reply to: Aazadan

Again all speculation.


So you know we don't have assets in place for an emergency we keep silent for the emergency?

You believe we don't have have weapons systems we wouldn't use unless there is an emergency?

Do you think perhaps we have the ability to alter their guidance systems?

As you said we are well aware of the artillery they have...pre emptive targeting? Particle weapons can travel pretty quickly.

Are you sure China has no assets in place and we can strike a deal for an anexing after the destruction of the regime.

I mean you could very much be right but I don't think without being a military commander with access to the strategy and assets you could possibly say.

originally posted by: luthier
You believe we don't have have weapons systems we wouldn't use unless there is an emergency?

We do, I just think it's highly unlikely that we have weapon systems that can dramatically alter the balance of power in Korea. I'm sure we have some secret planes, maybe a new bomb or two, perhaps some automated systems. In a real war, they would come out. None of that though alters the issue that there's a bunch of fortified artillery in North Korea that we cannot do anything about. North Korea effectively has second strike capabilities, and that means that there would be a lot of dead in the initial exchange, no matter how decisive a surprise first strike we could make.

Do you think perhaps we have the ability to alter their guidance systems?

Unlikely. But even if we did, artillery isn't known for accuracy in the first place. It just needs to hit the general area.

Are you sure China has no assets in place and we can strike a deal for an anexing after the destruction of the regime.

It's possible, but why would China want North Korea? They want a buffer state. Additionally, they don't want to take on the economic drain the region would require. Even South Korea doesn't want North Korea in it's current state. I think that if we were to beat North Korea, we would see China forced to take over governing the region, but I also don't think they would be doing it for free. The US would be the one paying for it, as we're the ones who caused the mess in the first place.

I mean you could very much be right but I don't think without being a military commander with access to the strategy and assets you could possibly say.

I'm not going to be 100% correct but I can still make some informed speculation on the subject.

a reply to: gps777

All that. Evangelicals believe they will be raptured before destruction of the planet. They are not afraid of global nuclear war. Trump is surrounded with evangelicals.

a reply to: MOMof3

So its your opinion then.

a reply to: Aazadan

Fortified artillery from what small nukes and particle weapons?

I don't think so. Not to mention what type of defense shield is really available.

IF nuke war is unavoidable you may see China willing to obsorb NK for some new ports and to avoid serious trade problems. LIke say Tibet which had no economic reason but was a way to get close to Indian borders.

I think you can't be informed here. This is a subject purposely kept secret.

There is no way the US military has broadcast our real capability here. It ain't Vietnam anymore. We have unmanned ability and energy weapons. If we want a ground war yes, we are going to be bogged down.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Aazadan

Fortified artillery from what small nukes and particle weapons?

I don't think so. Not to mentice what type of defense shield is really available.

IF nuke war is unavoidable you may see China willing to obsorb NK for some new ports and to avoid serious trade problems. LIke say Tibet which had no economic reason but was a way to get close to Indian borders.

I think you can't be informed here. This is a subject purposely kept secret.

There is no way the US military has broadcast our real capability here. It ain't Vietnam anymore. We have unmanned ability and energy weapons. If we want a ground war yes, we are going to be bogged down.

Yes, their artillery is fortified against nukes (not that we would go nuclear in the first place). Particle weapons are science fiction.

And a ground war would be a requirement. There's no other way to occupy and control the territory.