StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Yes, this is all about economic blackmail...

The US won't use ballistic weapons. The Russian early warning system is in awful shape, and China's system isn't very good. There would be too much confusion and risk of triggering something bigger.

The US would use cruise missiles, and giving the poor quality of Northern air defenses, gravity bomb attacks. Those weapons are also more effective against hardened targets, which would be the main objectives of a counter or preemptive strike.

Maybe the US should just fly an empty ICBM over NK, just to scare them a little. Just a thought.

Sea Skimmer, What about Sub-Launched? If we have Boomer handly of the NK Coast(And we probably do) I don't think Russia or China would have a chance to react before it hits or if we just hop on the phone and tell them
"NK is about to cease to exist, Let you know how it goes in eight minutes and nine seconds, eight seconds, seven seconds" it might work better

Mr Bean wrote:Sea Skimmer, What about Sub-Launched? If we have Boomer handly of the NK Coast(And we probably do) I don't think Russia or China would have a chance to react before it hits or if we just hop on the phone and tell them
"NK is about to cease to exist, Let you know how it goes in eight minutes and nine seconds, eight seconds, seven seconds" it might work better

That would still trip off infrared sat systems. And without good radars to tells Russia and China where those warheads are going to land there going to be very paranoid.

I doubt the USN would want to give away the location of an SSBN anyway, bombers provide greater flexibility and land based ICBM's are by all accounts still more accurate. That makes them better choices.

When one is reducing a Country to Ash, How accurate must one be?

And your contradicted yourself, Giving away the position of a SSBN at the same time talking about Flexibility

After all, unlike Land-Based
Sea based can move rather quickly

Mr Bean, Sea Skimmer any thoughts about a SEAL silo busting team being inserted ahead of time. Only with proper intel of course..

Mr Bean wrote:When one is reducing a Country to Ash, How accurate must one be?

And your contradicted yourself, Giving away the position of a SSBN at the same time talking about Flexibility

After all, unlike Land-Based
Sea based can move rather quickly

An SLBM cannot be recalled. A B-2 with a B-83 payload can break off right up until bomb release. It can also get target updates and new intell constantly. That is what I'm talking about.

Accuracy is important. The US wont be going to in nuke worthless cities, we'd go for things of value. But everything in the north of value is buried under 50 feet of steel and cement.

Hell there a target in the north that could likely take a nuke hit on an airshaft and not be killed. However with a bomber you can circle for an hour, then come back and drop another bomb into the crater of the first.

Thats a big reason why the US held onto bombers with gravity weapons thoughout the cold war.

If an American city is nuked by NK and then some missiles are detected heading towards Asia, China and Russia would have to be total idiots to not realize that the target is NK.

Seggybop wrote:If an American city is nuked by NK and then some missiles are detected heading towards Asia, China and Russia would have to be total idiots to not realize that the target is NK.

When you're dealing with nuclear weapons, you don't take that risk.

theski wrote:Mr Bean, Sea Skimmer any thoughts about a SEAL silo busting team being inserted ahead of time. Only with proper intel of course..

Too risky and the chance of extraction is very low.

phongn wrote:

Seggybop wrote:If an American city is nuked by NK and then some missiles are detected heading towards Asia, China and Russia would have to be total idiots to not realize that the target is NK.

When you're dealing with nuclear weapons, you don't take that risk.

Truely Russia and china would be idiots if they don't know. That the target is Nk. What reason would the US have to nuke them? when it was Nk that attacked first.

Mr Bean, Sea Skimmer any thoughts about a SEAL silo busting team being inserted ahead of time. Only with proper intel of course..

They might get the missle, But they won't get out

theski wrote:Mr Bean, Sea Skimmer any thoughts about a SEAL silo busting team being inserted ahead of time. Only with proper intel of course..

If we have proper Intel with hit it with a bunker buster bomb, then drop another into the disrupted area to be sure. A Special Forces team might get in, with air support. But losses would be heavy, and in any case you'd need something more on the lines of 75th ranger regiment rather then eight Seal's to overwhelm the defenses the North Koreans would put up. And don’t forget a few dozen heavy bombers's to knock up the vast swarms of AAA in the area and to flatten the local airbases and barracks.

Bombing isn't a sure thing, since we can't confirm we hit the right thing. Special forces would lead to a blood bath that would likely fail. That's why nothing is going to happen; the only safe course of military attack would be a massive preemptive nuclear attack combine with conventional strike.

Realistically if they nuked us we'd nuke their missile silos and airbases, etc. We wouldn't hit population centers.

Tragic wrote:

phongn wrote:

Seggybop wrote:If an American city is nuked by NK and then some missiles are detected heading towards Asia, China and Russia would have to be total idiots to not realize that the target is NK.

When you're dealing with nuclear weapons, you don't take that risk.

Truely Russia and china would be idiots if they don't know. That the target is Nk. What reason would the US have to nuke them? when it was Nk that attacked first.

And if in all the confusion Russia or China think the NK's are striking out at them? No need to add to an already confusing picture.

if I could find a souvenier, just to prove, the world was here

here it is a red balloon, i think of you, and let it go....

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/e ... index.html

"Victory in a nuclear conflict will be ours and the red flag of army-first politics will flutter ever more vigorously."

Lol! this is great comedy. With NK you have to wonder if they are beleiving their own propaganda{ I suspect they are}. NK cannot feed itself, letalone win a nuclear war

Shadow WarChief wrote:Like hell.

If an american city gets nuked, the American public will be satisifed with nothing less than that complete glassing of Pyongyang.

And I bet other nations will be real happy with the fallout
And when you have finished turning NK into airborne particles I am sure the rest of the world will be happy to have Bush up for the genocide of how many innocent civvies?.

Shinova wrote:Or the anti-war nuts go "NOOO!!! NOO WAARRR!!!!" while millions are toasted to nuclear ash (Seattle).

so, NK toasts a US city, so then its ok for the US to do the same to NK?

Yes, because the US shouldn't be limited in its own defense by the preferences of other nations. If NK decides to kill a few million people then they need to be erased permanently, I see you're from New Zealand. How would you feel if they decided that Auckland had to be punished for some reason?

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Shadow WarChief wrote:Like hell.

If an american city gets nuked, the American public will be satisifed with nothing less than that complete glassing of Pyongyang.

And I bet other nations will be real happy with the fallout
And when you have finished turning NK into airborne particles I am sure the rest of the world will be happy to have Bush up for the genocide of how many innocent civvies?.

You destroy a city with an airburst. Airbursts give almost no fallout, as fallout is created by ground material being sucked into the fireball and attached to unused bomb material. With a city busting airburst that doesnt happen because the fireball doesnt touch the ground. And a modern bomb its self doesnt leave much material unused.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Yes, because the US shouldn't be limited in its own defense by the preferences of other nations. If NK decides to kill a few million people then they need to be erased permanently, I see you're from New Zealand. How would you feel if they decided that Auckland had to be punished for some reason?

I you can bet money that this nation would not tolerate genocide. Thats the difference, most people here have this funny idea that two wrongs dont make a right. but then its only Auckland, so who gives a toss?
Also I am not talking about the US limiting its defence, I am talking about the US using its brain.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Shadow WarChief wrote:Like hell.

If an american city gets nuked, the American public will be satisifed with nothing less than that complete glassing of Pyongyang.

And I bet other nations will be real happy with the fallout
And when you have finished turning NK into airborne particles I am sure the rest of the world will be happy to have Bush up for the genocide of how many innocent civvies?.

You destroy a city with an airburst. Airbursts give almost no fallout, as fallout is created by ground material being sucked into the fireball and attached to unused bomb material. With a city busting airburst that doesnt happen because the fireball doesnt touch the ground. And a modern bomb its self doesnt leave much material unused.

Ahh, I see.
However that does not negate the fact that in doing so that the US government would have committed mass murder. I do hope that you can see what is wrong with mass murder.

HemlockGrey wrote:Yeah, if Seattle is ashed NK will be glassed.

Though if he misses and hits Redmond instead, there may be some celebration after North Korea is bombed back into the Stone Ages...

Kidding . . . kidding . . .