US student Otto Warmbier was returned by North Korea blind, deaf and howling

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

X11 wrote:

Could they actually want to suicide themselves???

They do this s~~~ to secure their standing within their own political hierarchy, not because they actually believe they could take the U.S.

PistolPete wrote:

Then it is time to re-educate them regarding nuclear physics.

It will be a short sharp lesson that will last them the rest of their lives.

OldBill wrote:

The DPRK won’t see it coming, but Russia and China will and for a few minutes they won’t know where those Trident missiles and their MIRV buses are actually headed.

Which is why we warn China ahead of time and give them 30 days to figure this s~~~ out on their own. And Russia will be able to tell immediately where they’re going because a launch against them would not be coming from the East China Sea. And they would initially suspect China, not the U.S. anyways.

The point is we let China etc. know what’s coming so they know they have to come to an agreement, but there’s no good reason to include the North Koreans themselves in that conversation (and several good reasons to keep them out).

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

PistolPete wrote:

thus they don’t enter the equation.

China enters into the equation because we really would much rather they and South Korea fix this s~~~ instead of us.

We’ve done more than enough “nation building” already.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Forgive me Sidecar I overstated the point. I meant they don’t figure directly into the logistics of a nuclear strike on NKorea. They will do nothing—but change their opinion of us. I would much rather they fear us because they believe we are nuclear armed and nuts–than we are an old paper tiger/toothless and in decline.

[ghostParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

Which is why we warn China ahead of time and give them 30 days to figure this s~~~ out on their own. And Russia will be able to tell immediately where they’re going because a launch against them would not be coming from the East China Sea. And they would initially suspect China, not the U.S. anyways.

The point is we let China etc. know what’s coming so they know they have to come to an agreement, but there’s no good reason to include the North Koreans themselves in that conversation (and several good reasons to keep them out).

sidecar wrote:

China enters into the equation because we really would much rather they and South Korea fix this s~~~ instead of us.

We’ve done more than enough “nation building” already.

+1

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

OldBill wrote:

Ranger One wrote:

Tactical nukes against NK troops and artillery. Stealth bombers dropping nukes on Pyongyang and other sites.

Do you believe tactical nuclear warheads in the quantity necessary are already present in South Korea? If you have to fly the bombs or bombers from the US, you’re giving the Norks plenty of killing time.

Once again, I’ll ask the question none of you chickenhawks want to answer:

If the DPRK doesn’t go nuclear in it’s attack on the ROK, US forces station, and/or Japan, can the US go nuclear in response?

YES.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[OldBillParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

And Russia will be able to tell immediately where they’re going because a launch against them would not be coming from the East China Sea

SSBNs aren’t going to launch from the East China Sea for several reasons. First, they don’t patrol there because the waters are shallow and PRC patrols are frequent. The US isn’t going to parade their Ohio-class boats past whatever SOSUS network the Chinese have laid there.

Second, the range of the Trident missiles SSBNs carry means they don’t have to be “next door” or even in the same f~~~ing hemisphere as their target.

Any potential boomer launch would come from deep in the Pacific, most likely south of Hawaii. While such a launch would be aimed at the DPRK, I’ll suggest all the chickenhawks here look at a f~~~ing map and locate Manchuria and Kamchatka in relation to the Korean peninsular. The former is one of the PRC’s industrial heartlands and the latter hosts a huge number of Russian military installations.

The US could very well inform the Chinese and Russians in advance that the MIRVs are meant for the DPRK. The nature of the missiles and their warhead buses means, however, that China and Russia won’t know for certain that the as many as 288 warheads a single Ohio-class boomer can throw are truly targeted at the DPRK until the final 30 seconds or so of flight.

Warnings or not, once the ICBMs fly tensions are going to redline.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

And so it begins—FINALLY

North Korea moves warplanes into US bombers’ flight path after warning Trump they’ll shoot down any American jet they see

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

When having a nuke and a delivery system makes a country immune from regime change we have to accept a nuclear North Korea or sacrifice Soul. IMO which is worth nothing as I know nothing about war.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Well I’d like to respond to Oldbill’s points and the inaccuracies present but he directed his comments to chicken-hawks and since I am not one I will refrain from responding.

[ghostParticipant]

OldBill wrote:

The US could very inform the Chinese and Russians in advance that the MIRVs are meant for the DPRK. The nature of the missiles and their warhead buses means, however, that China and Russia won’t know for certain that the as many as 288 warheads a single Ohio-class boomer can throw are truly targeted at the DPRK until the final 30 seconds or so of flight.

Warnings or not, once the ICBMs fly tensions are going to redline.

We have no reason to attack China or Russia. I do not see why they would worry about our missiles hitting them.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Puffin Stuff wrote:

IMO which is worth nothing as I know nothing about war.

May I suggest James F. Dunnigan’s book: “How to Make War–A Comprehensive Guide TO Modern Warfare”, and excellent read.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

PistolPete wrote:

And so it begins—FINALLY

North Korea moves warplanes into US bombers’ flight path after warning Trump they’ll shoot down any American jet they see

<iframe class=”wp-embedded-content” sandbox=”allow-scripts” security=”restricted” style=”position: absolute; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);” src=”https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4543242/white-house-blast-north-korea-us-war-declared-shoot-down-planes/embed/#?secret=mUu5F3hKRe” data-secret=”mUu5F3hKRe” width=”500″ height=”282″ title=”“North Korea moves warplanes into US bombers’ flight path after warning Trump they’ll shoot down any American jet they see” — The Sun” frameborder=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ scrolling=”no”></iframe>

You guys are f~~~ed, look who’s flying the planes

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

I should like to point out that I’m not discounting OldBills’ point that there are unforeseen consequences and dangers–After all the first casualty in any war is the battle plan. I think this boils down to a robust debate about the level of risk involved. Clearly I give it less scope than OldBill–doesn’t mean I’m right and he’s wrong it just means my cost/benefit analysis is different.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

You guys are f~~~ed, look who’s flying the planes

How did they shoe-horn him into it? And I like the pillow for his fat head—nice touch.

[ghostParticipant]

PistolPete wrote:

I should like to point out that I’m not discounting OldBills’ point that there are unforeseen consequences and dangers–After all the first casualty in any war is the battle plan. I think this boils down to a robust debate about the level of risk involved. Clearly I give it less scope than OldBill–doesn’t mean I’m right and he’s wrong it just means my cost/benefit analysis is different.

Excellent point. I still think sidecar’s approach is best. After the 30 days are over though, I do not know which way we go. You are both more knowledgeable than me on the subject.

I would like to hear how sidecar would answer OldBill’s question after the 30 days expire without a resolution.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Giving them a deadline only allows them to prepare AND launch a first strike. They would be placed in a position of using their nukes or losing them. That is what I don’t like about the 30 day “line in the sand”.
I still think a huge, overwhelming surprise attack is the answer and will save the most lives in south Korea.

[ghostParticipant]

PistolPete wrote:

I still think a huge, overwhelming surprise attack is the answer and will save the most lives in south Korea.

High risk, high reward option. Would you get the OK from South Korea first?

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Also One note about the nuclear fallout. Air bursts such as would be necessary against targets on the border ie artillery generate fallout only in the area of the blast as a general rule. Ground bursts such as would be necessary to take out missile silos DO generate fallout and this would impact some areas in China and the Russian city of Sevastopol. I note two weeks ago the Russian began quietly evacuating that city. Thus they are preparing and it could be we are waiting until this task is accomplished.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

ghost wrote:

High risk, high reward option. Would you get the OK from South Korea first?

NO I would inform them just prior to the attack so their folks could take shelter in bunkers. Seoul has an extensive and first rate civil defense structure. All they need is about a 30 minute forewarning.

[ghostParticipant]

Regardless of which option we end up going with, I think we can all agree that we should have solved this problem a lot sooner. This should be a lesson to our leaders that we should not let things get to this point.

[Author]

Posts