Response To North Korean Nuclear Attack

[Elrohir]

Actually, any response would be a PR response. Simular to Bush in Sept/Oct 2001. Any action taken would have, in the background at least, a PR level that most if not all politians would be quite aware of.

So now you have to figure out, do you go with a nuclear strike since that's what happened to us and show power, or do you show mercy by doing a conventional strike and limit your strike to military targets, where mostly the military is affected and the collateral damage is minimal.

And how many more American cities go up in nuclear fire while we're invading NK with grunts and tanks? Even one more in this situation would be unnacceptable.

 

[Turner]

And how many more American cities go up in nuclear fire while we're invading NK with grunts and tanks? Even one more in this situation would be unnacceptable.

None, because you take out the other missiles before you send in the tanks and troops.

Remember, I did say a conventional strike with our bombers. More effective to bomb them and take them out and then send in the ground troops.

 

[nc-1701]

I think that we can all agree on atleast one thing, the remaining nuclear sites in the NK would/should be destroyed by low-yield weapons just as soon as our supersonic B-1Bs get their, the real question is once they can't hurt us any more how much retaliation/revenge do we exact upon them?

Might I also point out a 10kiloton nuke in downtown Seattle wouldn't kill more maybe 100,000 people. Hiroshima didn't kill many more than that even though it was higher yield. Also we could easily evacuate people or atleast do a far better job than Japan was able to do.

 

[Turner]

If a 10 kiloton nuke hit downtown Seattle during business hours, it could take out a lot more than 100k people. San Francisco only has a population of about 750k, but downtown during business hours it can be more than double that. I'm sure Seattle is somewhat simular.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Actually, any response would be a PR response. Simular to Bush in Sept/Oct 2001. Any action taken would have, in the background at least, a PR level that most if not all politians would be quite aware of.

So now you have to figure out, do you go with a nuclear strike since that's what happened to us and show power, or do you show mercy by doing a conventional strike and limit your strike to military targets, where mostly the military is affected and the collateral damage is minimal.

As Ive been trying to get across to NC, that approach assumes that we have complete and absolute knowledge of the battlefield. We would need to know exactly where every single NK nuclear missile installation is located. That clearly isnt possible. That being the case, the President would be derelict in his duty if he didnt blow to kingdom come every single dot on a map that could conceivably contain a nuke installation, because failure to do so would put millions of additional Americans in danger of being nuked. My logic is inescapable Captain

Point of information: We warned the Japanese, it wasn't a surprise attack. They didn't believe us. :

If at the height of the Battle of The Bulge, the Nazi regime had communicated to the US that if we didnt halt immediately, something terrible was going to happen to the US, would we have taken them seriously? A point that Id like to add is that whether we sufficiently warned them or not, they were a defeated foe. Nuking their civilians was completely optional on our part, and we did it only to show the 'rest of the troop' who the new Alpha male in the jungle was. Oh no, there goes my blood pressure. There must be another Hiroshima and Nagasaki debate coming

That said...

I would not melt North Korea, though I would use tactical nukes wherever necessary on military targets (without much regard for the civilian populace) and decimate anything approaching infrastructure (civilian or military). In other words, bomb them back to the Bronze Age, while asking China, Japan, Mongolia, and Russia for assistance. In the forthcoming speech about it, I'd note that the US reserves the right to glass a country that attacks us with nuclear weapons, but we are not compelled to do so and have not done so in this case out of deference to Japan downwind and in recognition of the oppression of the people of North Korea.

I think that would pretty much amount to the sort of annihilation of NK that I would go with. You dressed it up a little nicer, but it would amount to the same body count, Im pretty sure.

 

[Turner]

As Ive been trying to get across to NC, that approach assumes that we have complete and absolute knowledge of the battlefield. We would need to know exactly where every single NK nuclear missile installation is located. That clearly isnt possible. That being the case, the President would be derelict in his duty if he didnt blow to kingdom come every single dot on a map that could conceivably contain a nuke installation, because failure to do so would put millions of additional Americans in danger of being nuked. My logic is inescapable Captain

If it was any other place than NK, I would agree with you. But NK is so small, and there's a limited number of places they could put the silos, that we would know, or be able to infer with a great deal of probability, where the missiles where.

 

[nc-1701]

As Ive been trying to get across to NC, that approach assumes that we have complete and absolute knowledge of the battlefield. We would need to know exactly where every single NK nuclear missile installation is located. That clearly isnt possible. That being the case, the President would be derelict in his duty if he didnt blow to kingdom come every single dot on a map that could conceivably contain a nuke installation, because failure to do so would put millions of additional Americans in danger of being nuked. My logic is inescapable Captain

To put it bluntly have you ever used Google Earth? The military has satelites just like that, but with far better resolution they can see individual license plates on a car. Belive me when I say we would know exactly where any ICBM was these things aren't easy to hide. The chance of missing one with the level of survielance we have is zero.

 

[IglooDame]

As Ive been trying to get across to NC, that approach assumes that we have complete and absolute knowledge of the battlefield. We would need to know exactly where every single NK nuclear missile installation is located. That clearly isnt possible. That being the case, the President would be derelict in his duty if he didnt blow to kingdom come every single dot on a map that could conceivably contain a nuke installation, because failure to do so would put millions of additional Americans in danger of being nuked. My logic is inescapable Captain

Good logic. But isn't "we need to attack them to make sure they can't hit us again" a familiar refrain that is now widely disparaged in the US?

If at the height of the Battle of The Bulge, the Nazi regime had communicated to the US that if we didnt halt immediately, something terrible was going to happen to the US, would we have taken them seriously? A point that Id like to add is that whether we sufficiently warned them or not, they were a defeated foe. Nuking their civilians was completely optional on our part, and we did it only to show the 'rest of the troop' who the new Alpha male in the jungle was. Oh no, there goes my blood pressure. There must be another Hiroshima and Nagasaki debate coming

Okay, we'll leave it at "you think the bombing of H/N was a surprise attack, I don't". Now go take a hit from your medicinal marijuana.

I think that would pretty much amount to the sort of annihilation of NK that I would go with. You dressed it up a little nicer, but it would amount to the same body count, Im pretty sure.

Funny, I'd thought I was agreeing more with ncc-1701. Though, we're probably just talking about wrecking the country retail vs wholesale.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If it was any other place than NK, I would agree with you. But NK is so small, and there's a limited number of places they could put the silos, that we would know, or be able to infer with a great deal of probability, where the missiles where.

To put it bluntly have you ever used Google Earth? The military has satelites just like that, but with far better resolution they can see individual license plates on a car. Belive me when I say we would know exactly where any ICBM was these things aren't easy to hide. The chance of missing one with the level of survielance we have is zero.

Turner and NC, Iraq to us is like the surface of Mars. For years, decades, every inch of the Iraqi moonscape has been spread open under our military satelites. Yet our intelligence services were completely wrong about their WMD program. NK has jungles. Why would we possibly assume that we have better information about NK than we had about Iraq?

 

[IglooDame]

Turner and NC, Iraq to us is like the surface of Mars. For years, decades, every inch of the Iraqi moonscape has been spread open under our military satelites. Yet our intelligence services were completely wrong about their WMD program. NK has jungles. Why would we possibly assume that we have better information about NK than we had about Iraq?

Because "WMD program" has a vastly different (and magnitudes tougher to spot) aerial recon signature than "ICBM silo"?

 

[Turner]

North Korea - 46,528 sq mi
Iraq - 169,234 sq mi

North Korea is several times smaller than Iraq. I'm also pretty sure that we'd be able to detect the radiation from the payload in the silos. Not to mention deep scanning radar. Remember those pics the US took of the Nile River bottom? It wasn't to show how cool the Nile River was, but to show the USSR that we could and would find their sunken silos.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Good logic. But isn't "we need to attack them to make sure they can't hit us again" a familiar refrain that is now widely disparaged in the US?

I dont think so, whats being disparaged is "lets hit them today, because they might possibly hit us tommorow". What Im talking about here is "lets hit them back, because they already hit us".

Okay, we'll leave it at "you think the bombing of H/N was a surprise attack, I don't".

No I concede that we sent them some sort of warning, all Im saying is that they didnt take it seriously, any more than we would have.

Now go take a hit from your medicinal marijuana.

No need to tell me twice! [/flips open the Zippo]

Funny, I'd thought I was agreeing more with ncc-1701. Though, we're probably just talking about wrecking the country retail vs wholesale.

I dont mean leaving NK a lake of radioactive lava, just uh...leaving no stone on top of another stone, and spreading salt so nothing can grow there. What can I say, Im a traditionalist.

 

[IglooDame]

North Korea - 46,528 sq mi
Iraq - 169,234 sq mi

North Korea is several times smaller than Iraq. I'm also pretty sure that we'd be able to detect the radiation from the payload in the silos. Not to mention deep scanning radar. Remember those pics the US took of the Nile River bottom? It wasn't to show how cool the Nile River was, but to show the USSR that we could and would find their sunken silos.

Not to mention that Chinese intelligence would likely be more than happy to tell us everything they know about the launch sites (I'm assuming their spies get data our satellites miss, and vice versa), enabling us to use smaller bombs in those cases, which they'll be very happy about, given the proximity of their border.

 

[IglooDame]

I dont think so, whats being disparaged is "lets hit them today, because they might possibly hit us tommorow". What Im talking about here is "lets hit them back, because they already hit us".

Saddam=Al Qaeda, 9/11 was the 'they already hit us' part.

I'm not saying I agree with that logic, but its track record over the last few years is... spotty.

I dont mean leaving NK a lake of radioactive lava, just uh...leaving no stone on top of another stone, and spreading salt so nothing can grow there. What can I say, Im a traditionalist.

Raining fire and brimstone is even more traditional.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Nevermind, didn't see the next page...

 

[nc-1701]

Turner and NC, Iraq to us is like the surface of Mars. For years, decades, every inch of the Iraqi moonscape has been spread open under our military satelites. Yet our intelligence services were completely wrong about their WMD program. NK has jungles. Why would we possibly assume that we have better information about NK than we had about Iraq?

I'm sorry, but ICBMs are freaking huge. You can't hide them, if I remember correctly we even know where Russia and Chinas ICBMs are located and those nations are way larger. Hiding a bio-weapons lab is easy. Hiding a fifty foot hight ICBM on a launch pad isn't...


@Turner I based my low casualty estimate on a report I read estimating the casualties from 12kiloton bombs landing on the 50 most populated US cities at a total of only 9,500,000 people.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Because "WMD program" has a vastly different (and magnitudes tougher to spot) aerial recon signature than "ICBM silo"?

North Korea - 46,528 sq mi
Iraq - 169,234 sq mi

North Korea is several times smaller than Iraq. I'm also pretty sure that we'd be able to detect the radiation from the payload in the silos. Not to mention deep scanning radar. Remember those pics the US took of the Nile River bottom? It wasn't to show how cool the Nile River was, but to show the USSR that we could and would find their sunken silos.

Not to mention that Chinese intelligence would likely be more than happy to tell us everything they know about the launch sites (I'm assuming their spies get data our satellites miss, and vice versa), enabling us to use smaller bombs in those cases, which they'll be very happy about, given the proximity of their border.

Forget about all the examples of incomplete and faulty intelligence in military history that led to enormous blunders by one side. Looking at whats still happening today, with Iraq, you would still have no problem as President of the US being completely confident in our ability to have absolute knowledge of the enemy terrain? Because in NCs scenario, youd be gambling with the lives of millions of Americans. In a nuclear confrontation speed is of the essence. You dont have the luxury of getting a conventional attack started. A nuclear retaliation would need to be immediate and complete. Missing just one of their hidden nuclear sites in a limited nuclear retaliation could mean the lives of millions of Americans.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Saddam=Al Qaeda, 9/11 was the 'they already hit us' part.

Oh yeah of course, but that was Neocon smoke and mirrors they used in order to get the US to invade Iraq. NCs scenario is not at all like that. Its very clear and unambigous: NK launches a surprise nuclear attack on Seattle.

Raining fire and brimstone is even more traditional.

We'll turn them into pillars of salt

 

[nc-1701]

Forget about all the examples of incomplete and faulty intelligence in military history that led to enormous blunders by one side. Looking at whats still happening today, with Iraq, you would still have no problem as President of the US being completely confident in our ability to have absolute knowledge of the enemy terrain? Because in NCs scenario, youd be gambling with the lives of millions of Americans. In a nuclear confrontation speed is of the essence. You dont have the luxury of getting a conventional attack started. A nuclear retaliation would need to be immediate and complete. Missing just one of their hidden nuclear sites in a limited nuclear retaliation could mean the lives of millions of Americans.

Might I also add that a hardened nuclear silo cannot be destroyed by anything other a direct or very near hit? Nk is to large to blanket it all with enougfh to make every possible nuclear silo is destroyed. We just don't that many nukes...

 

[Turner]

Just because there's failures in Iraq, and failures in the past, doesn't mean there will be a failure in the future. The Intelligence community is not without it successes as well.

In all likelyhood, the Chinese would come to our aid with intelligence as well. Certainly we wouldn't strike within minutes of the bombs falling, but I bet the planes would be in the air shortly thereafter. There would be enough time to get the planes in the air and towards the target while Intelligence confirmed the locations of the missiles. They are, after all, pretty big and hard to hide.

I'm against a nuclear strike simply because of the NK citizens. They didn't ask for the war, and the probably didn't want to launch a nuke at Seattle. They're the victims, as much as those killed in Seattle. A hard, strong, conventional strike would be more merciful towards those civilians who simply had the bad luck of being there. While a conventional strike would not guarantee zero civilian deaths, it would guarantee less than an all out nuclear strike.