[BartSimpson]

The USAF has deployed nuclear capable B-1 bombers from South Dakota to Guam.

http://www.pacaf.af.mil/News/Article-Di ... from-guam/

[Coach85]

martin14 martin14:

Coach85 Coach85:

martin14 martin14:

Now the Norks have threatened US territory directly.

Again, as they did 3 years ago.

Got a source for that, as well as NK's military capabilities at the time?

It's one thing to say imagonnadothis, its another to have the tech to back it up.

international-politics-f2/north-korea-threatens-to-nuke-the-usa-t104411.html?hilit=north

You didn't seem too concerned. Bart was concerned.

[Winnipegger]

I doubt very much that North Korea would attack the US. They feel the need for a nuclear deterrent. They saw how quickly US troops rolled over Iraq, and Iraq had the fourth largest land army in the world before Operation Desert Storm. The US respects countries with nuclear weapons, so they feel they need nuclear weapons. North Korea demands respect, as all dictators do. Every time you threaten North Korea, that just convinces them all the more of the need for nuclear weapons.

Attempting to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons by threatening them is like trying to get rid of a hole by digging it out with a shovel. How is that going to work?

They should know damn well that if they drop a nuclear bomb anywhere on the US, the response would turn North Korea into a radioactive hole in the ground. Saturation bombing with strategic thermal nuclear bombs.

If the US invades North Korea, they will respond with an ICBM with a nuclear warhead to the continental US. That's the intent: deterrent. That's all.

The US overflew North Korea with B-1B bombers. Their response is to threaten Guam. It's all propaganda and sabre-rattling. They won't. They won't attack first. The danger is Trump will attack first. If he does, North Korea will respond.

[martin14]

Coach85 Coach85:

You didn't seem too concerned. Bart was concerned.

Fair enough.
The conventional wisdom at the time said that the Norks didn't have the
ability to hit US territory with any missile, never mind a nuke tipped one.
The conventional wisdom seems to have changed, at least for the missiles.
I am still not convinced the Norks have a nuked tip.


I said before, talking bout South Korea is one thing.
Talking bout Japan is another thing.
Talking bout the US is a whole new game.

Can you answer my question, at what point will you consider the missiles
as an attack on the US ?

How many kilometers will it take ?

[martin14]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

They should know damn well that if they drop a nuclear bomb anywhere on the US, the response would turn North Korea into a radioactive hole in the ground. Saturation bombing with strategic thermal nuclear bombs.

If the US invades North Korea, they will respond with an ICBM with a nuclear warhead to the continental US. That's the intent: deterrent. That's all.

The US overflew North Korea with B-1B bombers. Their response is to threaten Guam. It's all propaganda and sabre-rattling. They won't. They won't attack first. The danger is Trump will attack first. If he does, North Korea will respond.

you put a lot of faith in the Norks not shooting first.

What are you prepared to sacrifice to test your theory ?

Guam ?
Seattle ?
Chicago ?

[BartSimpson]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

The US overflew North Korea with B-1B bombers.

No, we did not. We'd already be at war if that had happened.

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

They should know damn well that if they drop a nuclear bomb anywhere on the US, the response would turn North Korea into a radioactive hole in the ground. Saturation bombing with strategic thermal nuclear bombs.

If the US invades North Korea, they will respond with an ICBM with a nuclear warhead to the continental US. That's the intent: deterrent. That's all.

The US overflew North Korea with B-1B bombers. Their response is to threaten Guam. It's all propaganda and sabre-rattling. They won't. They won't attack first. The danger is Trump will attack first. If he does, North Korea will respond.

you put a lot of faith in the Norks not shooting first.

What are you prepared to sacrifice to test your theory ?

Guam ?
Seattle ?
Chicago ?

What about Vancouver?

[Coach85]

martin14 martin14:

Can you answer my question, at what point will you consider the missiles
as an attack on the US ?

How many kilometers will it take ?

Anything aimed in the direction of Guam.

[martin14]

Coach85 Coach85:

martin14 martin14:

Can you answer my question, at what point will you consider the missiles
as an attack on the US ?

How many kilometers will it take ?

Anything aimed in the direction of Guam.

for a straight answer

Better than me, I was going for less than 200km,
then destroy the launch sites.

[Winnipegger]

America now has a ballistic missile defence system. I thought it was a waste of money in 2006, but necessary now. Tests showed it only worked 1/3 of the time. But with 20 defence missiles in Alaska and 20 in California, if the first misses then another will get it. And do they have a targeting system capable of hitting Guam?

[Winnipegger]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

The US overflew North Korea with B-1B bombers.

No, we did not. We'd already be at war if that had happened.

U.S. flies bombers over Korean peninsula after North Korea missile test

Reuters Reuters:

July 29, 2017

The United States flew two supersonic B-1B bombers over the Korean peninsula in a show of force on Sunday and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said China, Japan and South Korea needed to do more after Pyongyang's latest missile tests.

[Freakinoldguy]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

America now has a ballistic missile defence system. I thought it was a waste of money in 2006, but necessary now. Tests showed it only worked 1/3 of the time. But with 20 defence missiles in Alaska and 20 in California, if the first misses then another will get it. And do they have a targeting system capable of hitting Guam?

I was casually listening to the news the other day and someone said the chances of the Norks hitting Guam were about a million to one. So if they do anything they'll lob a missile and hope it lands close to Guam or at least in an area they consider appropriate to send a message, like say anywhere west of the international date line.

As for them needing a nuke to keep the US from attacking them well allow me to point out that both their sponsors have enough nukes to turn the world into a heaping pile of smoldering radioactive ash so, my guess is that the real reason they want that nuke is to keep their "sponsors" from offing the fat little fuck in a regime change because if anyone has a reason to stop the bullshit it's the Chinese who's economic well being tied to the US.

[xerxes]

How to Deal With North Korea
MARK BOWDEN

$1:

Thirty minutes. That’s about how long it would take a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launched from North Korea to reach Los Angeles. With the powers in Pyongyang working doggedly toward making this possible—building an ICBM and shrinking a nuke to fit on it—analysts now predict that Kim Jong Un will have the capability before Donald Trump completes one four-year term.

About which the president has tweeted, simply, “It won’t happen!”

Though given to reckless oaths, Trump is not in this case saying anything that departs significantly from the past half century of futile American policy toward North Korea. Preventing the Kim dynasty from having a nuclear device was an American priority long before Pyongyang exploded its first nuke, in 2006, during the administration of George W. Bush. The Kim regime detonated four more while Barack Obama was in the White House. In the more than four decades since Richard Nixon held office, the U.S. has tried to control North Korea by issuing threats, conducting military exercises, ratcheting up diplomatic sanctions, leaning on China, and most recently, it seems likely, committing cybersabotage.

For his part, Trump has also tweeted that North Korea is “looking for trouble” and that he intends to “solve the problem.” His administration has leaked plans for a “decapitation strike” that would target Kim, which seems like the very last thing a country ought to announce in advance.

None of which, we should all pray, will amount to much. Ignorant of the long history of the problem, Trump at least brings fresh eyes to it. But he is going to collide with the same harsh truth that has stymied all his recent predecessors: There are no good options for dealing with North Korea. Meanwhile, he is enthusiastically if unwittingly playing the role assigned to him by the comic-book-style foundation myth of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

What to do about North Korea has been an intractable problem for decades. Although shooting stopped in 1953, Pyongyang insists that the Korean War never ended. It maintains as an official policy goal the reunification of the Korean peninsula under the Kim dynasty.....

As tensions flared in recent months, fanned by bluster from both Washington and Pyongyang, I talked with a number of national-security experts and military officers who have wrestled with the problem for years, and who have held responsibility to plan and prepare for real conflict. Among those I spoke with were former officials from the White House, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon; military officers who have commanded forces in the region; and academic experts.

From these conversations, I learned that the U.S. has four broad strategic options for dealing with North Korea and its burgeoning nuclear program.

1. Prevention: A crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang’s arsenals of mass destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would end North Korea’s standoff with the United States and South Korea, as well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all.

2. Turning the screws: A limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea’s capability—but small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.

3. Decapitation: Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open North Korea to the rest of the world.

4. Acceptance: The hardest pill to swallow—acquiescing to Kim’s developing the weapons he wants, while continuing efforts to contain his ambition.

Let’s consider each option. All of them are bad....

Rest of the article here. It's admittedly a long read but worth it nonetheless.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

[martin14]

1. Iraq

2. Afghanistan

3. Libya

4. Iran
Eygpt
Saudia Arabia
and other Islamic whackjob countries having nukes.

[Strutz]

xerxes xerxes:

How to Deal With North Korea
MARK BOWDEN

Rest of the article here. It's admittedly a long read but worth it nonetheless.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

A good article xerxes. Thanks for sharing it.