North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

ubersonic · 29 Mar 2013 at 22:54

I was about to ask how he has an iMac when NK is on the US list of country's that its a federal offence to ship american tech to, then I realised its Chinese tech ^^

Firestar_3x said:
Nuclear weapons come in many sizes

America using one smaller than a fuel air bomb would be beyond pointless.

Orionaut · 29 Mar 2013 at 22:55

Housey said:
Nothing is out of the question if you attack the US not least if you use a nuclear weapon I assure you. They would not hesitate using nuclear or even chemical if they were attacked first, they have made that clear on several occasions.

Modern battles are all about tech, it only gets challenging when it becomes Guerilla and a big attack would see NK lose big. You can what if until you're blue in the face, I don't think it would happen personally.

The point is NK IS doing "What if" it is their entire strategy!

Were the PRNK to EMP LA (And cause only economic but no civilian damage) and the USA respond by killing millions of supposadly "Oppressed people" by way of response their position in the world would be utterly destroyed!

As it would have been had they invaded Japan in WW2! THAT is why the Nuking of Hiroshima and "XX" had to happen. (No thinking now, How many of you cannot name the second city without having to think about it (or even worse, look it up!??) Be honest here!

)

I suspect that Japan could never have been defeated on the ground in WW2! The Allies/US might eventually have "Won" but the "victory" would have destroyed us!

Any future war with NK will be much the same but much worse!

Housey · 29 Mar 2013 at 22:59

I suggest you read the US policy on when and against who it would use nuclear weapons. Obama reviewed and changed the policy in 2010 but North Korea was outside their policy as was Iran.

To add I am suggesting it would only be considered after a first strike by NK but battlefield weapons are part of their consideration for a major border incursion.

Duff-Man · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:01

Burnsy2023 said:
The political fallout would be just as bad as the environmental. I don't think the US would use any sized nuclear weapons unless in retaliation.

100% agreed.

The most obvious use for tactical nuclear weapons is in a "bunker busting" capability. A small tactical nuke (<1kt yield) is perfectly suited for destroying hardened underground facilities, and would result in minimal radioactive fallout. But they would still not be used unless there was no other alternative. Whatever the application, the political fallout would be devastating: "US deploys nukes" is not a headline the US ever wants to see in foreign newspapers. A mass of conventional explosives would just be used instead.

Castiel · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:02

Ilikeitblackplease · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:03

Burnsy2023 said:
The political fallout would be just as bad as the environmental. I don't think the US would use any sized nuclear weapons unless in retaliation.

The US has contained tactical nuclear warheads, so fall out would be limited to small areas.

Burnsy2023 · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:06

matdom said:
The US has contained tactical nuclear warheads, so fall out would be limited to small areas.

You're missing my point. The political and diplomatic issues make any type of nuclear weapons out of the question unless the other side escalate the situation to nuclear weapons first.

Duff-Man · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:07

matdom said:
The US has contained tactical nuclear warheads, so fall out would be limited to small areas.

Physical fallout, yes.

The "political fallout" would be devastating no matter the yield of the bomb employed. It would just hand a massive propaganda coup to every ideological US enemy.

Even if North Korea attempted to use nuclear weapons against the US or its allies, I can't see the US retaliating in kind. Against North Korea it's very hard to imagine a scenario where using a nuclear response was the only option, and while there are conventional alternatives the US will take them.

Domo · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:20

NK will do nothing. Although prolonged this rhetoric is BAU.
A mate summed it up earlier. I sent a text simply stating 'NK - thoughts?', and he replied with 'Benny Hill music'.

(nice one PW in case you read this!).

This will be forgotten about in 2 weeks. Does make for a great thread though

genan · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:22

Duff-Man · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:27

Domo said:
This will be forgotten about in 2 weeks. Does make for a great thread though

Hardly...

This is North Korea's current strategy for engaging the West. If you think that it will be 'over' or 'forgotten' in a matter of weeks then you don't understand the situation or the history in the region at all. That's not to say this will necessarily result in conflict, but it won't be "going away" any time soon.

Firestar_3x · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:31

The uk political representative towards NK from 2006-2009 iirc was on BBC news 24 around 9, he was talking about all the posturing comming out of NK, he said that unless such threats are followed up by some sort of physical action from NK, then the leadership could be under threat from those within.

Interestng if true, NK are basically talking themselves into a corner, in which they are forced to act and do something stupid.

robgmun · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:37

I think the US/SK should basically call there bluff.

Hawk Tuah · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:42

robgmun said:
I think the US/SK should basically call there bluff.

Going ahead with the military drills pretty much is.

Nate--IRL-- · 29 Mar 2013 at 23:59

Reuters "Breaking News: North Korea says to enter "state of war" against South Korea: KCNA"

No more info yet....

http://www.reuters.com/news

Nate

benjo · 30 Mar 2013 at 00:11

Haven't they always been at war?

Domo · 30 Mar 2013 at 00:12

Yeah BBC News now saying North and South in a 'state of war'. Wouldn't that have been the case the moment NK withdrew from the armistice?

Duff-Man - I may have spoken too soon

Johnnytoxic · 30 Mar 2013 at 00:14

What's Kim Wrong Un doing. It's going to be hard for him to back out of the whole charade.

Firestar_3x · 30 Mar 2013 at 00:15

benjo said:
Haven't they always been at war?

That's my understanding, so nowt new, unless this is 'the warning' before an attack.

Nate--IRL-- · 30 Mar 2013 at 00:23

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/30/us-korea-north-war-idUSBRE92T00020130330

"From this time on, the North-South relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between the North and the South will be handled accordingly,"

"The long-standing situation of the Korean peninsula being neither at peace nor at war is finally over," said the statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Latest I can find.

Nate

North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Wise Guy