North Korea goes full retard

I'm not sure Russia or China would appreciate a retaliatory nuclear strike on Korea if Korea somehow did manage to launch a nuke at us.

I'd bet they would support the US going in and fucking shit up though.

Dabamf_sl said:

Whatever tards were saying the only deterrent to using nuclear weapons was to use nuclear weapons in response.

Click to expand...

It's not the only deterrent, but that's exactly what the US keeps it's nuclear arsenal for: to deter nuclear attacks on the US or its allies. As far as I know the following (from 2010) is still true:

"I want to take the bulk of my time before I turn it over to General Cartwright, and that's to talk about U.S. declaratory policy.

You can think about two different categories of states. The first is non-nuclear weapon states that are compliant with their nonproliferation obligations. This comprises the vast majority of countries in the world.

And what we look to do in the declaratory policy here is to strengthen the U.S. negative security assurance that's associated with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it is as stated -- [snip] if any of these states that are compliant with the NPT use chemical or biological weapons, we state very clearly that they face the prospect of a devastatingconventionalmilitary response if they use CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States or our partners or allies.

And as the secretary of Defense noted, we explicitly reserve the right to adjust this assurance in the future if the biological weapons threat grows significantly and if our capability to cope with it doesn't grow correspondingly.

This combination of policies is intended to both give incentives to states to join and adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but also to take steps to reduce the threat and not increase the threat associated with biological weapons.

For nuclear weapon states and states that are not compliant with their nonproliferation obligations, a different rule set. We still say that the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons -- I'm sorry (!) -- would use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or our allies and partners, and we specify that for these states, there does remain a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may play a role in deterring conventional or CBW attack.

And then, as was discussed by the secretary of Defense and secretary of State,as long as nuclear weapons exist, we see the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons to be to deter nuclear attack on ourselvesor our forces or allies and partners.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...0406-dod04.htm

There's some other interesting stuff in there about ocean targeting (as in, where they default aim a nuke if they ever "inadvertently" launch one). It's also made clear that the Russians and the Chinese understand the US position, just as the US understands theirs. The sensible players know where the boundaries are, it's the nutcases that have everyone nervous.

Tuco_sl said:

From that reading it seems like a nuclear response to a nuclear attack by NK would be unlikely and limited to if NK were to gain the same kind of nuclear arsenal and delivery ability that only the US, Russia (and maybe hte UK, China and France?) have.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind, the best these primitive fucks have demonstrated is 1/3 the capacity of our first nuclear test, which happened in the 19 fucking 40s. Also, their device wasn't a weapon, it was a science project the size of a school bus. It's embarrassing, really. We made devices like that... when we were pioneering thermonuclear devices that were 10s of megatons. In the 1950s. Before calculators or computers were available.

These fucks are lucky the global economy is interconnected as tightly as it is and that China hasn't given the green light, otherwise everything of minor value in their shitty country would be a sea of fused glass.

Big Phoenix_sl said:

Yeah they best they could do with a nuke is place it into a sub or shipping container and detonate in a harbor.

Click to expand...

OMG Conspiring with the North Koreans! Just look at his avatar!

Germans are taking NK seriously it seems

You don't need nuclear deterrent to deter someone that can only launch one strike at best. We can maintain a deterrent by making it clear that if you ever use a weapon, your entire government will be removed, you will be out of power, your kids will be out of power and no one within 6 degrees of separation of you will ever hold power again.

We can do all that without resorting to a nuclear strike or carpet bombing of cities.

khalid_sl said:

You don't need nuclear deterrent to deter someone that can only launch one strike at best. We can maintain a deterrent by making it clear that if you ever use a weapon, your entire government will be removed, you will be out of power, your kids will be out of power and no one within 6 degrees of separation of you will ever hold power again.

We can do all that without resorting to a nuclear strike or carpet bombing of cities.

Click to expand...

The North Koreans are already cut off to a large extent and have maintained power through a martial state. So removing their leaders from power will require dismantling their military. That is probably the most unappealing and downright shitty assignments I could possibly think of. North Korea might be insane, it might be starving but it has been locked in a siege mentality for 60 years. I am sure the mountains along their borders are some of the most heavily fortified and bunkerred positions on the planet right now. Nothing fancy, just thousands of miles of tunnels and concrete (minus the reinforcing steel).

Going in and taking North Korea in a ground war is going to make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a fight at recess. The North Koreans are weak in terms of supplies, but not bodies or resolve. They will be able to bring more men to the fight than we can right now. Sending in US troops to North Korea would be the all time dumbest mother fucking move anyone could ever make ever right now.

The regime needs to fall first. Then we can think about moving in.

But how so? We need to bash in their skulls before that would happen right? Nope, They want a fight. They have wanted a fight for six decades. If they get a ground war, the complete rivers of bull shit propaganda thy have been spewing forh will suddenly be legitimized. Every good NKer will rush off to save their country and no one will want to miss possibly the only opportunity to become a real war hero. The kind that have been idolized since before most of them were born. Fighting North Korea will solidify the regime's hold on that country until the last man, woman and child has given up their lives for honor.

So no, threatening them with war is not the deterrent you might think it is. Nuking them, even if they nuke us, will still get them a lot of sympathy and something to show in their recruitment videos for the next 100 years. We would have to utterly destroy every spec of their military command, and even then it would turn into another asymmetrical war after that.

If anyone was serious about dismantling North Korea 1.) It would have happened already and 2.) It wouldn't require a single bullet being fired. In a country that is so desperate for resources, corruption is king. Bribes on top of bribes on top of favors is the ONLY way anything happens there. The political infighting and shuffling is tremendous among the rabble. So this is where you take advantage of the situation. You start buying people, on a massive scale. You undermine the machine by compromising everyone. And then just start exposing them by giving information to their rivals. This is not easy and requires that you use North Koreans for everything. But the purpose is to just cause panic and pandemonium within their ranks.

If every major and minor official has been bribed in some way, you can let the North Koreans dismantle themselves as one controversy after another hits. If you infiltrate their news agencies you could even air some dirty laundry in front of the public. Doubt it would do much good as they have been a self censoring society for ages, but it would complicate things for them as people wouldn't know what the party line was anymore. The military structure needs to be gutted, soldiers need to be sent home or wrongfully accused and discharged or executed. It would take a while, and probably wouldn't completely topple them, but it would be 1000 times more preferable to a frontal assault; and make sure they had far from a unified front if we did.

End of the day I would set up some puppets that kept calling for reconciliation with the south. That is the only way this insanity will end, is if the country is unified.

But that is not what anyone wants. Either they want a new conflict to sink their teeth into, or they don't want reconciliation. Whatever the motive is, everyone involved has been taking all of the proper steps to escalate the situation. I think with Iraq and Afghanistan essentially out of long picture for conflicts, we need a new playground. So if we get nuked, that's all the justification in the world to spend another 20 trillion fighting terrorism for the next 15 years.

Haast_sl said:

It's too bad we retired that747 that lasered rockets out of the air. Nothing says Fuck You like blasting someone's rocket out of the sky with a giant laser plane.

EDIT: added link to the YAL-1 wiki page.

Click to expand...

It got 'retired' because it didn't work, like 99% of the rest of the "Star Wars" missile shield bollocks.

khalid_sl said:

You don't need nuclear deterrent to deter someone that can only launch one strike at best. We can maintain a deterrent by making it clear that if you ever use a weapon, your entire government will be removed, you will be out of power, your kids will be out of power and no one within 6 degrees of separation of you will ever hold power again.

We can do all that without resorting to a nuclear strike or carpet bombing of cities.

Click to expand...

While my first statement would be, no using a nuke in return would be overkill, and not remotely desirable.
The fallout effects on SK, the pacific, Alaska, Canada, and US would not be worth it.
Nuclear weapons are devastating. conventional weapons really are just as effective these days. ESPECIALLY with a coastal country that we could shell with our navy.

That said. Politically it might be required. What will Iran think, if NK launches, and we dont? Will they say, fuck it, USA isn't willing to launch, and is busy in NK. now is our chance? It is very possible it would be required to keep up the threat.

I'm sure if Iran ever launches a nuke Israel would be perfectly willing to launch one in return.

Not a huge issue there for the US imo.

Flunklesnarkin_sl said:

I'm sure if Iran ever launches a nuke Israel would be perfectly willing to launchfiftyin return.

Not a huge issue there for the US imo.

Click to expand...

There we go.

Wasn't there chatter than NK was testing some of Irans nukes also. Not sure how reliable that was though.

Iran probably wouldn't want it to be public knowledge that they are testing nukes if they have reached that stage of development.

Itzena_sl said:

It got 'retired' because it didn't work, like 99% of the rest of the "Star Wars" missile shield bollocks.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, it worked fine. It lasered rockets out of their air in testing.

The problem is that it was very expensive to maintain and impractical for real-world situations (it was a huge, slow, unarmed target and had to be close to the launch sites). So it was (correctly) deemed not ready for prime-time and sent to the scrapyard.