|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
04-18-2017, 05:10 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,554
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCricket
If we used, say 50, of those MOAB's, and hit his nuclear development and testing, his major military bases, and any place he resides or may be it might. If this bombing hit all of those places within a 30 minute window it might actually kill him. If we could kill him and most of his upper level cabinet as well as disarm his military, the people of NK might just step up. .
|
Or they might dig in.
__________________
It occurs to me that republicans seem to view black, Mexican, LGBT, Muslims and poor people in the same light as Nazi Germans once viewed Jewish people. We must be vigilant that it goes no further.
|
04-18-2017, 05:11 PM
|
|
Ready
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,122
|
|
Actually MOABs aren't the thing for heavy concrete bunkers, we have another giant bomb for that. But that's not important.
Main problems with the plan are large elements of uncertainty. We don't know that we'd locate all the high personnel and atomic capability targets. We don't know if all the attacks on intended targets would succeed--unlike ISIS in Afghanistan, North Korea has very effective air defense capability, and the aircraft that drop those monster bombs are vulnerable. So success would depend on our ability to first attack and neutralize their air defense, which both adds uncertainty and gives warning, while increasing the time required to execute the attack. Assuming the bombs are successfully dropped and hit their targets, we would not know for sure how much destruction was achieved--facilities in deep rock tunnels, for example, might successfully resist our bombs. Due the preceding uncertainties, we can't know who would be in charge after the attempted decapitation/disarmament attack, or what retaliation capability they would still have. And we can't know what they would choose to do.
Lots of uncertainty is very bad stuff when fighting an enemy with nuclear weapons.
Rather than undertaking a plan with so much uncertainty and high risk, I suggest we continue to rely on the deterrence value of the threat of massive retaliation. Deterrence has a good record of working.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
|
04-18-2017, 06:45 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: colorado
Posts: 1,595
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPots
So we spend out nations largess nation building instead of SS and medicare. The repug plan.
|
I don't understand this. As to my proposed plan, it is not one of choice, rather I think it is a matter of time. Like it or not, NK will eventually have to be dealt with.
__________________
Instead of a debate, how about a discussion? I want to learn, I don't care about winning.
|
04-18-2017, 06:48 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: colorado
Posts: 1,595
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
Actually MOABs aren't the thing for heavy concrete bunkers, we have another giant bomb for that. But that's not important.
Main problems with the plan are large elements of uncertainty. We don't know that we'd locate all the high personnel and atomic capability targets. We don't know if all the attacks on intended targets would succeed--unlike ISIS in Afghanistan, North Korea has very effective air defense capability, and the aircraft that drop those monster bombs are vulnerable. So success would depend on our ability to first attack and neutralize their air defense, which both adds uncertainty and gives warning, while increasing the time required to execute the attack. Assuming the bombs are successfully dropped and hit their targets, we would not know for sure how much destruction was achieved--facilities in deep rock tunnels, for example, might successfully resist our bombs. Due the preceding uncertainties, we can't know who would be in charge after the attempted decapitation/disarmament attack, or what retaliation capability they would still have. And we can't know what they would choose to do.
Lots of uncertainty is very bad stuff when fighting an enemy with nuclear weapons.
Rather than undertaking a plan with so much uncertainty and high risk, I suggest we continue to rely on the deterrence value of the threat of massive retaliation. Deterrence has a good record of working.
|
Where are captain Kirk, the Enterprise and photon torpedoes when you need them?
Seriously, you are correct. I still think that massive retaliation for deterrence is only going to for so long. Eventually that nut case is going to try something. This begs the question, is it better to do something now, or wait until he has the capability to actually launch neuclear ICBM's
__________________
Instead of a debate, how about a discussion? I want to learn, I don't care about winning.
Last edited by JCricket; 04-18-2017 at 06:51 PM.
|
04-21-2017, 08:33 AM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 13,286
|
|
__________________
"In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -
George Orwell
|
04-21-2017, 09:38 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: colorado
Posts: 1,595
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicks
|
So what is he really saying?
__________________
Instead of a debate, how about a discussion? I want to learn, I don't care about winning.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 PM.
|