North Korea - how serious should we take them?
Discussion
Likes Fast Cars said:
p1stonhead said:
ETA
It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
The article says it is "nuclear powered' an refers to Tomahawk missiles which are conventional as far as I'm aware. There are indeed nuclear-armed submarines which have more lethal payloads.It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
Likes Fast Cars said:
headline and first paragraph for you (which I'm allowed to cut & paste):
Devastating 100,000 death toll the reason behind US exploring diplomatic options before military action
ABOUT 100,000 people would be dead within just 48 hours if North Korea unleashed its arsenal of rockets and artillery, a chilling intelligence assessment has warned.
Nothing new there, no amount of conventional weapons will degrade their ability to level Seoul Devastating 100,000 death toll the reason behind US exploring diplomatic options before military action
ABOUT 100,000 people would be dead within just 48 hours if North Korea unleashed its arsenal of rockets and artillery, a chilling intelligence assessment has warned.
p1stonhead said:
Likes Fast Cars said:
p1stonhead said:
ETA
It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
The article says it is "nuclear powered' an refers to Tomahawk missiles which are conventional as far as I'm aware. There are indeed nuclear-armed submarines which have more lethal payloads.It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
Sylvaforever said:
Likes Fast Cars said:
headline and first paragraph for you (which I'm allowed to cut & paste):
Devastating 100,000 death toll the reason behind US exploring diplomatic options before military action
ABOUT 100,000 people would be dead within just 48 hours if North Korea unleashed its arsenal of rockets and artillery, a chilling intelligence assessment has warned.
Nothing new there, no amount of conventional weapons will degrade their ability to level Seoul Devastating 100,000 death toll the reason behind US exploring diplomatic options before military action
ABOUT 100,000 people would be dead within just 48 hours if North Korea unleashed its arsenal of rockets and artillery, a chilling intelligence assessment has warned.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-korea-ar...
+ chem/bio and nuclear weapons ( and S-300 air defence systems and god knows what else ) and not forgetting all those huge missiles .
Seeing how the US can't beat men armed with AK's after some billions $$ , it won't be over quickly .
The place is a fortress and best left alone.
A single volley from the North Korean artillery, the report said, “could deliver more than 350 metric tons of explosives across the South Korean capital, roughly the same amount of ordnance dropped by 11 B-52 bombers.” - thats just the rusty old guns!.
+ chem/bio and nuclear weapons ( and S-300 air defence systems and god knows what else ) and not forgetting all those huge missiles .
Seeing how the US can't beat men armed with AK's after some billions $$ , it won't be over quickly .
The place is a fortress and best left alone.
A single volley from the North Korean artillery, the report said, “could deliver more than 350 metric tons of explosives across the South Korean capital, roughly the same amount of ordnance dropped by 11 B-52 bombers.” - thats just the rusty old guns!.
Edited by superkartracer on Tuesday 25th April 11:05
Likes Fast Cars said:
p1stonhead said:
Likes Fast Cars said:
p1stonhead said:
ETA
It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
The article says it is "nuclear powered' an refers to Tomahawk missiles which are conventional as far as I'm aware. There are indeed nuclear-armed submarines which have more lethal payloads.It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
bristolracer said:
I think you can take it as read that the U.S will have a nuclear armed sub sat off the coast of Korea right now,and have probably moved a satellite into orbit as well. Even the Americans wouldn't be stupid enough to tell the press they have taken these "precautions". There will be lots of military big shots pouring over photos,dossiers etc, the Pentagon and Langley will be buzzing right now.
Definitely.I don't believe the USA would use nukes on a pre-emptive strike against NK. full stop. I think the fall out would be too costly politically for a first strike using any type of strategic nuke or tac nuke.
If NK were to amass and then attack then I think the USA may well use a tac nukes to control the flow and cut off NK but not on SK soil. I cant see a strategic nuke being used at all in NK it just wouldn't be needed.
I would hope a tac nuke or other attack at the head would be enough to halt and force a change as well as localised to the areas in NK of their artillery.
If NK were to amass and then attack then I think the USA may well use a tac nukes to control the flow and cut off NK but not on SK soil. I cant see a strategic nuke being used at all in NK it just wouldn't be needed.
I would hope a tac nuke or other attack at the head would be enough to halt and force a change as well as localised to the areas in NK of their artillery.
I know all the NK population, forces, generals etc are supposed to love PieMan but I wonder what, in practice, would actually happen if the US simply arranged for him to be 'eliminated'. Are the NK sufficiently brainwashed to do what they think he would have wanted - or are they just brainwashed to love/idolise him.
Robertj21a said:
I know all the NK population, forces, generals etc are supposed to love PieMan but I wonder what, in practice, would actually happen if the US simply arranged for him to be 'eliminated'. Are the NK sufficiently brainwashed to do what they think he would have wanted - or are they just brainwashed to love/idolise him.
That's the $64Billion nuclear question, isn't it?p1stonhead said:
Likes Fast Cars said:
p1stonhead said:
ETA
It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
The article says it is "nuclear powered' an refers to Tomahawk missiles which are conventional as far as I'm aware. There are indeed nuclear-armed submarines which have more lethal payloads.It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
From what I've read the Korean population are absolutely brainwashed to the point I read an account of a girl throwing herself in a lake because she did badly in a class and thought the leader could see her.
There is also the 3 generation punishment which leaves most Koreans terrified to even breathe
Nukes are always trotted out but they were only ever used as an experimentation in WWII, now the world is wise to them there is a cat in hells chance they will ever actually be used in any other way than self defence from invasion, China for instance would go bat s
t crazy if a nuke was used right next door so I believe we can rule out any use of them
There is also the 3 generation punishment which leaves most Koreans terrified to even breathe
Nukes are always trotted out but they were only ever used as an experimentation in WWII, now the world is wise to them there is a cat in hells chance they will ever actually be used in any other way than self defence from invasion, China for instance would go bat s
t crazy if a nuke was used right next door so I believe we can rule out any use of themLikes Fast Cars said:
Robertj21a said:
I know all the NK population, forces, generals etc are supposed to love PieMan but I wonder what, in practice, would actually happen if the US simply arranged for him to be 'eliminated'. Are the NK sufficiently brainwashed to do what they think he would have wanted - or are they just brainwashed to love/idolise him.
That's the $64Billion nuclear question, isn't it?Efbe said:
Likes Fast Cars said:
Robertj21a said:
I know all the NK population, forces, generals etc are supposed to love PieMan but I wonder what, in practice, would actually happen if the US simply arranged for him to be 'eliminated'. Are the NK sufficiently brainwashed to do what they think he would have wanted - or are they just brainwashed to love/idolise him.
That's the $64Billion nuclear question, isn't it?I watched The Propaganda Game on Netflix at the weekend.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4206218/
Its very interesting, both reinforcing some 'myths', and dispelling others, that the Western World 'knows' about North Korea.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4206218/
Its very interesting, both reinforcing some 'myths', and dispelling others, that the Western World 'knows' about North Korea.
gruffalo said:
p1stonhead said:
Likes Fast Cars said:
p1stonhead said:
ETA
It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
The article says it is "nuclear powered' an refers to Tomahawk missiles which are conventional as far as I'm aware. There are indeed nuclear-armed submarines which have more lethal payloads.It doesnt mention if it has Nukes on board.
Albeit there are probably US nuclear subs everywhere, they just arent ever seen or known.
The BBC has just said that China has warned the US not to act without UN approval.
Well seeing as China is a permanent member of the UNSC - forget it. China has vetoed far less important resolutions on very iffy grounds before, many times, so they're hardly going to agree to a good hiding for their long term buddies in the North.
Well seeing as China is a permanent member of the UNSC - forget it. China has vetoed far less important resolutions on very iffy grounds before, many times, so they're hardly going to agree to a good hiding for their long term buddies in the North.
Cobnapint said:
The BBC has just said that China has warned the US not to act without UN approval.
Well seeing as China is a permanent member of the UNSC - forget it. China has vetoed far less important resolutions on very iffy grounds before, many times, so they're hardly going to agree to a good hiding for their long term buddies in the North.
Never trust the Chinese, bullsWell seeing as China is a permanent member of the UNSC - forget it. China has vetoed far less important resolutions on very iffy grounds before, many times, so they're hardly going to agree to a good hiding for their long term buddies in the North.
tters.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff